Proposal for a new social contract
|
|
|
26-03-2013, 06:58 AM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: Proposal for a new social contract
You know you're the biggest ignorant fuck since birdman right?
|
||||
26-03-2013, 07:18 AM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: Proposal for a new social contract
Intelligent, scholarly reply.
Pretty well what I expected from earmuff. Now, if he took those earmuffs off once in a while and started listening -- that would be an improvement! ![]() |
||||
26-03-2013, 07:20 AM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: Proposal for a new social contract
Fucking earmuffs...
![]() |
||||
26-03-2013, 07:26 AM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: Proposal for a new social contract
(26-03-2013 07:18 AM)Zat Wrote: Intelligent, scholarly reply.It's earmuffs btw. Or Mr Muffs to you actually, we're not on first name bases. |
||||
26-03-2013, 09:26 AM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: Proposal for a new social contract
OK, I'll just wait to see if anyone else has anything interesting to say.
Till then... |
||||
29-03-2013, 02:11 AM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: Proposal for a new social contract
A new social contract?
I never remember signing the old one. Just because you call something a "social contract" doesn't make it binding. People have to be in agreement to have a contract. |
||||
29-03-2013, 02:44 AM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: Proposal for a new social contract
(27-01-2013 11:26 AM)Zat Wrote: Our lives are shaped more by convention, social pressure, inertia and accidents than by intelligent planning. I was going to formulate a reply, but it would of been just saying this in a way filled with much more pointless rambling. I agree the idea ought to be moving to push societies in thinking of adjusting these ways... just any on how to is absent from me. Heywood... was gonna say more, yet it's such a troll attempt; People are in agreement of the "social construct" idea.. simply going with the flow and mainly obeying conventions and rules is doing so. It's a matter of the organic social system something that changes over time through evolution. You shouldn't have a problem understanding that, literally. "Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson |
||||
29-03-2013, 01:04 PM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: Proposal for a new social contract
I don't think I've responded to this thread, so I might as well. I've read through some of the thread, previously, but I'm not going through all of it, or looking through again. I'll just respond to the OP.
You should have called the thread 'proposal', maybe for a social and/or political economic model. Nothing is uniquely 'new'. It also, has absolutely nothing to do with 'social contract', that just makes in misleading, if not nonsensical. (24-08-2011 10:44 AM)Zatamon Wrote: We are a species of contradictions: That is just overstating the case. People experience the world subjectively, by default, yet also rely on things part of what they perceive as reality, that includes other human beings making up society. However that society, culture, reality that shapes them is environmental. Freedom, power, generosity, greed, loyalty, enmity might be a part of a particular mold, to separate or different extents, but not definite or contradictory. Quote:The different social systems in our history were built on different assumptions of human nature. Social systems are manifestations of human nature, for the most part. The rest are made up and/or applied subsequently. Capitalism, as far as I can tell, if any thing, only ever assumed scarcity. Beyond that, if that is even the case, it's simply a system that fell in line with certain people's beliefs at a particular time in history and/or along with what they viewed would be an ideal, or workable or acceptable, system for economics. Communism was, again, as far as I know, a part of Marxist theory, as a final stage of development, economically, socially, politically. If any thing, communism only assumes that things, at a particular time in the future, would be working, in such a way, that traditional social systems and concepts that made up organizational structure, an others that would be worked against to be reduced and abolished, would simply become obsolete. Mixed economies, are the result of movement, away from the right-wing (what you are seemingly, in an attempt, labeling as compromise). Socialism is just fixing a lot of the problems with capitalism, a way of moving away from the right, what above I called 'traditional social systems and concepts.... that would be worked against to be reduced and abolished', mainly private ownership, specifically of things people in society need to live, prosper and progress, and profits, or it describes a full system prior to communism, which would be prior dropping off what I above called 'traditional social systems and concepts that made up organizational structure', mainly money, states and classes. Quote:So far without much success, because the compromises were arbitrary, piecemeal, without a clearly defined principle. That assumes compromises: both as actually having been made between two parties and as a cause for lack of success. Do you live in the West? Or East/other? The East/other consists of people who never truly went through the prerequisite stages, who were backwards politically, socially and economically, and really weren't a correct model for the implementation or ideas (if you could even call them ideas previously), that they were attempting to build, thus becoming backwards x2, and for the most part today are periphery/semi nations. In the West, especially the US, we reacted to the backwardness x2 of the East/others, politically, in what was a period called the Cold War (1947 to 1991 by Wiki), prior to that was a Civil War, a Reconstruction, Industrial Revolution, Depression and World War, and during/after that there was a Civil Rights movement, a Women's rights movement, cultural/societal shifts in general, and advancements in modern science and technology, previously unavailable, possibly, to a lot, unimaginable. Damn, we had a lot of time to "compromise" and figure things out. Quote:Can we find a compromise acceptable to most people? Prior to the things I mentioned, from a US perspective the Declaration of Independence is like 1776; Constitution is like 1787; the Enlightenment, modern Western thought, in general, I'll start with Meditations on First Philosophy, René Descartes 1641, and An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, John Locke like 1690, and for science, On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres, Nicolaus Copernicus like 1543. If your argument is that we have basically had maybe 100-200 years to get shit together, maybe 500 at the most, I'd agree that we haven't. 500 years is basically 5 old fucks, back to back, maybe double that if you are a pessimist. This shit has worked; Enlightenment has worked. Do you seriously think you are the only idiot in town with a gun? Do you seriously think you are the first to propose a silver bullet? That, in essence, is a perpetually, yet self developed catch 22. You are proposing a position that we would be in simply by being in a certain position, yet not being in that position, requires actually being in that position, that is being aspired to be achieved. You are also ignoring the fact that we are aspiring and working to be in that position, already, right now, and have been for some time now, successfully. You are simply proposing an end to a means, like somehow it's a good idea, new or unique, when people have been aspiring toward that position, if not something very similar, for some time now; however, not ignoring the means, altogether. If you propose the means, that would be nice, though I can only assume it isn't a new, unique or innovative, means, but until then, I can't really take any thing you are saying very seriously, other than realizing that you seem like a pretty smart, aware guy. I understand that you can propose or agree to ends, and I like your ideas, for the most part. Now, lead us to the promise land Mr. Moses. Or would that require Q-like, powers? If you already provided the proposals needed as a means, and I didn't read them, simply link me to the location. The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men: “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell |
||||
29-03-2013, 02:06 PM
(This post was last modified: 29-03-2013 02:10 PM by TrainWreck.)
|
||||
|
||||
RE: Proposal for a new social contract
Like you, this is the first time I have noticed this discussion, and social contracts is my specialty being the author of the Secular Library Knowledge Classification and the Secular Library Charter System.
The discussion leader has left the discussion ungaurded for a long time, now, and I have found that he has campaigned his idea in a couple of other forums: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=15199 http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/v...f=5&t=7667 Since you like to analize social contracts, check out my renditions, and we can continue this discussion in earnest. http://www.secularlibrary.com CAUTION: If you had any ambition of authoring a constitution, don't read my stuff, because you will be forever indebted to the format that I devised - there is no more efficient organizational format than the one I put together. If you want to debate me on that theory alone - fine, read it. I will win the debate, and I will rub your nose in it, just as I do to every other atheist idiot. Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefully ![]() |
||||
29-03-2013, 03:01 PM
(This post was last modified: 31-03-2013 06:55 AM by Zat.)
|
||||
|
||||
RE: Proposal for a new social contract
(29-03-2013 01:04 PM)TrulyX Wrote: I don't think I've responded to this thread, so I might as well. I've read through some of the thread, previously, but I'm not going through all of it, or looking through again. I'll just respond to the OP.... I f you bother to read through the whole thread, you will be surprised how many intelligent responses I got to this thread almost 2 years ago. Who would have thought that in less than two years the English language could lose all meaning? It certainly supports my theory on the Bell Curve. ![]() |
||||
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)