Consensus in Politics

[InfiniteNow]

Infinite, since we do not see eye to eye on anything so far, I would suggest you do not communicate with me anymore. You insulted me a few posts ago and you should have been censured if not banned. If you wish to apologize, I will talk to you, otherwise I will not answer anymore of your comments.

 

Okay. I'm sorry you are so incapable of holding an intelligent conversations. I'm sorry you have such a myopic worldview. I'm sorry you ignore people's questions of you when they don't understand what you're saying and they ask you for clarification. I'm sorry you share such hateful ignorance on these boards. I am very sorry about all of those things.

[questor]

Infinite, I will copy this post and anything you write to me from now on will be sent to a moderator.

[InfiniteNow]

Infinite, I will copy this post and anything you write to me from now on will be sent to a moderator.

 

Well, unless I break some rule, there's really nothing they can do.

 

I'm simply making truthful observations. You may not like what I'm saying, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong or breaking any rules.

[nutronjon]

Neutronjon, thanks for posting your views. May I ask a few questions on some topics?

''1. 1. Capitalism, I think we have revaluate the value of capitalism.''

Do you have specific complaints about capitalism? Do you have an example of a better economic system?

''4. Equality of citizens, citizens are not equal. They are equal under the law. The distinction is important. ''

Very true and very important. All you need to do is to observe two people

in their daily activities to see they are not equal.

''5. Political correctness This comes with education for a technological society and is the enemy of democracy.''

Political correctness is the enemy of common sense, human nature, and freedom.

''6. Biblical morality has caused serious social problems, and needs to be replaced with the moral judgment we had when we had liberal education, and up dated with science.''

When I say Biblical morality, I refer mainly to the Ten Commandments. Which of these do you disagree with? With what admonishments or moral values would you replace them?

.'' Hiring and pay raises based solely on merit. This has benefits but also draw backs. It has decreased the importance of relationships and I think this harmful. It has lead to terrible decision making at the bureaucratic level, and this threatens our liberty and freedom. That is easy to say, but not so easy to explain. I became aware of the problem when my grandchildren were made wards of the state, the lack of adequate education for people who make decisions about the lives of children, became a very serous problem in my personal life. Education for technology, has sadly neglected education about being human, and merit based hiring and avancement is part of the problem.''

 

The bottom line question here is, Do you believe merit should be the main reason for hiring, keeping and advancing employees? Should a company or school retain those who do not perform well? Should there be tenure for those who do not perform well? Should we encourage people to be the best they can be and reward them the most?

 

I love your questions, and they are not easy to answer. There is a commune not too far from where I live and I have thought of joining the commune, but I am not a real social person. The systems we have in the US have been good for anti-social people. We don't have to like anyone where we work, to do our jobs and collect our pay checks, and then cover all our needs, in homes where live by ourselves. I don't think we share a language adequate for discussing the concepts floating in my mind. I think as human beings, we are failing pretty badly.

 

I am frustrated where I live, because there is no large dining room and kitchen, so the people in the apartment can not gather for meals and social activity. Several people in this building are over 90 and have trouble hearing and seeing, or for other reasons need some help, but we are organized to meet their needs. When I was raising children, things were even worse, because stay-at-home-mothers in rural areas, are so isolated with their children. I am afraid, my thoughts are completely off topic, compared to the political discussion you had in mind, but I am thinking of life around the world, and our wars with people who do not share our industrial society values. There is politics in my thinking, but I don't think it is what you had in mind.

 

The Ten Commendments come with so much superstition and such a bloody history, I question if they are worth the baggage. I am strongly in favor of the latest scientific discoveries about our human condition, and knowledge of the classics, and some exposure to Eastern philosophy/religion and the concept of enlightenment.

 

As for all those "should" questions, :shrug: what are the values you are expressing? Have you ponder them? Are the goals of all those "should's" the best for humanity? Merit hiring and advancement come out of military bureaucracy, and some good does come out of military need. Military need when the US moblized for the Revolution was a strong force favoring religious freedom and equality under the law. It has played a strong part in ending racial discrimination of discrimination against women. However, there is a social cost, and I do not believe we should praise the good of something, and ignore the cost.

 

By the way, I am Libra, you know the goddess who holds the scales and balances both sides of an argument. Things are not just this and not that. There is good and bad in about everything, and we need to be aware of both sides and weigh things carefully.

[Moontanman]

questor, I would like to ask you a question about the Ten commandments. Which ones do you think should be law?

[questor]

Here are the Ten Commandments:

And God spoke all these words, saying: 'I am the LORD your God…

 

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

 

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

 

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

 

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

 

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

 

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

 

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

 

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

 

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

 

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

 

#6 and # 8 are laws. If you don't believe in God and disregard #1,2,3,4

the rest should be used as a guide for morality. I do not think this list covers all social transgressions, but it is a good start.

[Moontanman]

Here are the Ten Commandments:

And God spoke all these words, saying: 'I am the LORD your God…

 

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

 

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

 

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

 

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

 

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

 

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

 

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

 

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

 

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

 

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

 

#6 and # 8 are laws. If you don't believe in God and disregard #1,2,3,4

the rest should be used as a guide for morality. I do not think this list covers all social transgressions, but it is a good start.

 

I know the ten commandments, I know which ones are laws, i asked which ones you think should be laws. If indeed only two are and should be laws why would you want to post them in government buildings? Especially courthouses?

[nutronjon]

It really depends on the situation. Sometimes, it's about far more than just merit. I have a personal example. I am working on a very large project that crosses many teams and functions. We pulled a woman into our team who was an amazing "individual contributor." She'd proven herself and scored strong on the merit scale. But, you know what? She was corrosive to the groups progress. She was not a team player, she did not "play well with others," and she made things far more complicated than they needed to be. Everyone was frustrated. Nobody wanted to work with her, yet she was in a big position that was very important. Everything fell behind because everyone got so bogged down in fighting with her, and as hard as we all tried to make things better with her... to discuss the issues openly so we could get past it, she never adjusted. She rested on her merit, instead of focussing on the larger picture.

 

You know, she was a great individual contributor, and had a lot of merit. However, she ultimately left the company, and within one week, we were rockin' and rollin'. We've accomplished more in one month without her "individual contributions" than we did during the entire 5 months she was slowing us down. That's just it. If you stop looking at this so myopically, you will realize that in some areas of life it's more about the sum of the parts than the abilities of just one part.

 

So, my point is this. The world is not so black and white, and you are missing reality if you continually try to make it so. It's about more than simple labels, and you'd be wise to realize that simple characteristics never accurately convey the complexity of situations.

 

Just food for thought.

 

 

 

This is separate from the thrust of my post, but I wanted to respond. Isn't school to help people perform better? Again, here you go with the labels that limit our understanding instead of advancing it. At least you're consistent.

 

I used to rail against bad umpires when I played baseball. They'd make bad calls. My dad taught me that it was okay, as long as they were consistent, because then you could adjust your approach, knowing (for example) that they'd always call strike when the ball was low and away. You're like the umpire, at least in terms of consistency.

 

 

 

 

 

One of these days, I sure would like to reward YOU for making an intelligent and well-thought out, supported presentation here. I really would, questor. I'm all about encouragement and reward, but there must be something there to reward. :)

 

 

I don't think the point I wanted to make, about the problem with merit hiring and advancement, could have been made better. I really enjoyed what you had to say, up to the point when you began berating questor. Why do you presist in publicly berating people?

[nutronjon]

I know the ten commandments, I know which ones are laws, i asked which ones you think should be laws. If indeed only two are and should be laws why would you want to post them in government buildings? Especially courthouses?

 

The Ten Commandments are basically the same for at least two other cultures, Buddhist and Aztecs. I think civilized people basically agree about these things, and for sure all civilized people need to have a set of values and principles. That is the glue that holds them together.

[nutronjon]

Well, unless I break some rule, there's really nothing they can do.

 

I'm simply making truthful observations. You may not like what I'm saying, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong or breaking any rules. :)

 

You are breaking the rule and you have ruined this thread with your bagering, and I have also asked the moderators to take action.

 

I hate to say this because I liked your argument that merit isn't everything, but on second thought, perhaps the problem was not the woman who left the job, but the team. If the team does not accept leadership, it doesn't matter how good the leader is, nothing will get done. We have all had the opportunity to witness how you operate and how others join in with you, like dogs attacking the prey, enjoying the thrill of the slaying people. I want to point out this is a group behavior, not solely your own behavior, the business could have lost a good leader, because the guys just wouldn't work with her. If you were qualified to have her position, you would have it, but there you are patting yourself on the back, for driving her away.

[InfiniteNow]

I hate to say this because I liked your argument that merit isn't everything, but on second thought, perhaps the problem was not the woman who left the job, but the team.

Well, considering the team has about 24 people on it, that's less than likely.

 

 

 

I want to point out this is a group behavior, not solely your own behavior, the business could have lost a good leader, because the guys just wouldn't work with her. If you were qualified to have her position, you would have it, but there you are patting yourself on the back, for driving her away.

 

I was actually at a higher level than she was, so let's not pretend like you have all the details. I also followed up with groups who'd worked with her in the past, and they reported the same issues and the same problems. That doesn't bode too well for your theory that it was me or the rest of our group who were incapable. Either way, that was just an example to shed light on the fact that merit isn't always enough to make such decisions successfully, and how the complexity of group interactions and shared responsibility must be considered more deeply.

 

 

 

Also, per the previous discussions, that 10th commandment is going to be a real ***** to try to enforce. :evil:

 

 

Last... If corrective action is taken against me because of complaints from nutronjon and questor, then this site has lost my respect and I won't mind leaving. :)

[nutronjon]

Well, considering the team has about 24 people on it, that's less than likely.

 

 

 

 

 

I was actually at a higher level than she was, so let's not pretend like you have all the details. I also followed up with groups who'd worked with her in the past, and they reported the same issues and the same problems. That doesn't bode too well for your theory that it was me or the rest of our group who were incapable. Either way, that was just an example to shed light on the fact that merit isn't always enough to make such decisions successfully, and how the complexity of group interactions and shared responsibility must be considered more deeply.

 

 

 

Also, per the previous discussions, that 10th commandment is going to be a real ***** to try to enforce. :evil:

 

 

Last... If corrective action is taken against me because of complaints from nutronjon and questor, then this site has lost my respect and I won't mind leaving. :)

 

You made a good defense and this thread so off topic. Do you think you can correct that problem?

[Zythryn]

Nutronjon, Questor has refused to clarify his statements. This is the big reason for much of the criticism him.

He has succesfully deflected yet another attempt to figure out what it is he is saying.

 

I agree with you, there is a great seed of thought here and I will withhold my attempts to get an answer from Questor until he next makes a vague yet inflamitory comment.

 

Now, on to the current direction of the conversation:

 

The ten commandments have a number of principles that are a good foundation of laws for a civilized society. But this is not because they are from the ten commandments, this is because the ten commandments ALSO picked up on some civilized behavior from other sources.

I think the single best foundation for a system of law would be the 'Golden Rule', treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself.

 

Now, trying to get back to the original subject:

 

Consensus does not imply identicle thinking.

Likewise, compromise can be used to reach consensus and does not mean that one side 'rolls over' to the whims of the other side.

It means both sides give a little and take a little.

 

I do believe consensus (with the above clarification) is desireable in politics and good for the society.

[nutronjon]

Here are the Ten Commandments:

And God spoke all these words, saying: 'I am the LORD your God…

 

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

 

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

 

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

 

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

 

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

 

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

 

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

 

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

 

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

 

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

 

#6 and # 8 are laws. If you don't believe in God and disregard #1,2,3,4

the rest should be used as a guide for morality. I do not think this list covers all social transgressions, but it is a good start.

 

You have pointed out something very important. Only highly moral people can have liberty, because these are the people who choose to do the right thing, simply because it is the right thing. Unless such people run our country and industry and corperations, we can not make and enforce laws to prevent the harm caused by greed, corruption and deciet. And this is why morality should be made public and include government buildings, uniting morality with government.

 

There was a time when most communities shut down on the Sabbath, leaving people nothing to do but attend church. So number 4 was very helpful in getting us the 5 day work week. Some hold Sunday is the Sabbath and others insist the Sabbath in on Saturday. Whatever, that gives us five work days, and a day to prepare for the Sabbath when no work, shopping, laundry, housecleaning, chopping wood, weeding the garden, etc. should be done. In our industrial society driven by capitalism and materialism, we are darn lucky religion curbed this drive that turns humans into slave and robots.

 

Five did have more legal backing than it has today. If children ran away from home they were incarcerated, and children were expected to work and to turn their earnings over to their parents. I think children should be protected from abuse, but we have gone way too far in decreasing the power of parental authority, since education for technology radically changed our values, and shifted power from the inidividual to the government. This is what happens when people are immoral.

 

Number 7 meant if a woman or man were caught in adultry, the spouse could get a divorce and retain all the property accumulated in the marriage, protecting the children materially, while getting rid of the immoral parent.

 

One better not lie in court, because that is punishable by law. We have gotten careless with the law that prevented publicly lying about people. In the past we had a very different relationship with truth and privacy and human dignity, than we have today, and this is one of the worst moral decay problems.

[nutronjon]

Nutronjon, Questor has refused to clarify his statements. This is the big reason for much of the criticism him.

He has succesfully deflected yet another attempt to figure out what it is he is saying.

 

I agree with you, there is a great seed of thought here and I will withhold my attempts to get an answer from Questor until he next makes a vague yet inflamitory comment.

 

Now, on to the current direction of the conversation:

 

The ten commandments have a number of principles that are a good foundation of laws for a civilized society. But this is not because they are from the ten commandments, this is because the ten commandments ALSO picked up on some civilized behavior from other sources.

I think the single best foundation for a system of law would be the 'Golden Rule', treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself.

 

Now, trying to get back to the original subject:

 

Consensus does not imply identicle thinking.

Likewise, compromise can be used to reach consensus and does not mean that one side 'rolls over' to the whims of the other side.

It means both sides give a little and take a little.

 

I do believe consensus (with the above clarification) is desireable in politics and good for the society.

 

Can discussion of people be held outside of the thread, so the thread can remain on topic? Please, just try staying on topic and see what an important difference this makes. Stay with the seed of thought and do the best you can with it, and stop making posters the subject of threads. Berating people is not moral, but brings us down to the level of barking dogs.

 

Another term for consensus is majority rules. However, since education for technology, we dropped education for good moral judgment, so the nation is in crisis. We now have to have discussions like this to build a new consensus about what is moral and what is not, and why we should be moral.

 

It was once understood that moral behavior is what protects our liberty, because that was taught in public schools. A problem I have with Christianity is that it presents morality as a superstitious matter, dependent on believing in a God who rewards and punishes people, instead of presenting morality as a matter of cause and effect, and understanding reason, as the controlling force of the universe. Education for democracy, prepared the young to understand secular morality, and when we replaced this with education for technology and left moral training to the church, we really devastates our democratic culture with a republic form of government.

[InfiniteNow]

Can discussion of people be held outside of the thread, so the thread can remain on topic? Please, just try staying on topic and see what an important difference this makes. Stay with the seed of thought and do the best you can with it, and stop making posters the subject of the thread. This is a bad habit that needs to be broken.

I appreciate the motivation for your comment, nutronjon, however, when someone makes a statement within a thread which requires clarification then the thread must follow a temporary tangent to resolve the uncertainty before moving forward.

 

Zythryn has asked repeatedly clarifying questions of questor, in this thread and in others, and has consistently been ignored. I think Zythryn (not to put words in his mouth) genuinely wants this dialog to continue in an intelligent and rational way, but that he sees the consistent lack of clarification as a serious impediment, and he was simply reminding questor of his questions in hopes of moving forward.

 

I caution you to look at the bigger picture before soapboxing Zyth about "making comments about others."

 

Again, I appreciate the spirit of your request, but hopefully you can also appreciate the actual position being shared on "the other side." Maybe we can find a consensus on this, whether it's civil or not matters less. :)

 

 

 

Now, back on topic... I am concerned about your position that the teaching of technology is what caused the decrease in teaching of morality. I quite agree that students should be regularly involved in civics education, but morality is very subjective, dependent on each varying culture, and by no means is education in technology what caused it to diminish.

 

It's not one or the other. There may be a correlation, but it's not a causitive relationship. I fear that this is yet another non-sequitur being shared and not challenged in this thread.

 

And, that's why I'm here. :evil:

[Overdog]

...Now, back on topic... I am concerned about your position that the teaching of technology is what caused the decrease in teaching of morality. I quite agree that students should be regularly involved in civics education, but morality is very subjective, dependent on each varying culture, and by no means is education in technology what caused it to diminish.

 

It's not one or the other. There may be a correlation, but it's not a causitive relationship. I fear that this is yet another non-sequitur being shared and not challenged in this thread.

 

I agree. Litigation against teaching religion in public schools has had more to do with it in my opinion.