|
|
Post by Jake on Apr 28, 2010 13:24:31 GMT -5
So in the original Noble Cause thread, a lot of people were debating about whether our noble cause should be to eliminate World Suck or not. So this is a poll to decide how many people think the noble cause should or should not be and perhaps give an opinion on why.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2010 13:51:22 GMT -5
If we choose "End world suck" as our noble cause then we have to define some things:
What is "world suck"?
It is very easy to say "We want to end world suck!", but if we don't have a clear definition of world suck, then we wont be able to move along. Is it poverty? is it racism? Is it inequality? Is it injustice? Is it the mash-up of everything we don't like? If we want to end world suck we need to know what is world suck.
What makes something "world suck"?
If we, for example, decided racism was world suck, how could we justify it is world suck? How could we argument with a racist person to tell them that racism is or promotes world suck? If we decided poverty was world suck, how could we defend it is such thing? We need to have reasons to say x, y or z is world suck.
Is it really what we want to do?
Do we really want to end world suck? I know most people want to end world suck, but is it really that what drives (or will drive) us? From the hints I see about the secret project, we could say Dan's main purpose is to create a new kind of political scheme, which is fair, balanced, and usable, better than our representative democracies (I may be wrong). Wouldn't it be better to simply port the secret project's "noble cause" to this tribe?
Have in mind that when I place all these objections it doesn't really mean I don't like the idea of "End world suck" as a noble cause. I am just saying we can't simply trow that in and call it done. I was just posting some questions I still didn't find answer for, so people can think of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Breepop on Apr 28, 2010 14:06:56 GMT -5
No way. Not specific enough. What is considered "world suck" could vary from person to person.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ricky on Apr 28, 2010 14:15:07 GMT -5
How about we'll cease to exist when everyone is happy?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Apr 28, 2010 14:29:06 GMT -5
How about we'll cease to exist when everyone is happy? I actually really like this idea, now that I think about it. Because we could have a whole load of problems in the world - but if everyone is happy then at least...well, at least we'd be happy.  |
|
|
|
Post by click3tyclick on Apr 28, 2010 14:33:41 GMT -5
That will never happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Apr 28, 2010 14:37:36 GMT -5
What will never happen? Ending World Suck or Everyone Being Happy? Because Dan's example of a baseball team winning every game is pretty near impossible - but it's still worth trying. Right now, we aren't aiming for possible. Dan never said we should make something we need to accomplish - just something that if it were accomplished then we could stop as a tribe. We could at least give something impossible a go to make a difference. |
|
|
|
Post by click3tyclick on Apr 28, 2010 14:46:30 GMT -5
Everyone being happy is impossible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Apr 28, 2010 14:55:32 GMT -5
Everyone being happy is impossible. Perhaps. But if we aim for that, then at least we can make a lot more people happy. As I said before, we don't necessarily have to set a goal that is realistically possible. Or we could start with an "impossible" goal and then work backwards from there. |
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on Apr 28, 2010 16:12:18 GMT -5
No way. Not specific enough. What is considered "world suck" could vary from person to person. ^ What I think and why I said no. I appreciate your initiative to make this thread, but we need a more specific and less subjective goal. |
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Apr 28, 2010 16:44:12 GMT -5
Okay, I guess that makes a lot of sense. So I created another poll (http://pogotribe.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=tribes&action=display&thread=1871) so you can vote for which of the other ideas you like best.
|
|
|
|
Post by newschooled on May 2, 2010 23:30:01 GMT -5
Okay, I guess that makes a lot of sense. So I created another poll (http://pogotribe.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=tribes&action=display&thread=1871) so you can vote for which of the other ideas you like best. "Dream impossibly big" That in mind, I whole heartedly support "End world suck". |
|
|
|
Post by Jake on May 3, 2010 5:11:38 GMT -5
Okay, I guess that makes a lot of sense. So I created another poll (http://pogotribe.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=tribes&action=display&thread=1871) so you can vote for which of the other ideas you like best. "Dream impossibly big" That in mind, I whole heartedly support "End world suck". What do you prefer, End World Suck or Universal Happiness? I guess they are both similar and one leads to another, but I'm torn between the two... |
|
|
|
Post by Johncoyne on May 3, 2010 9:29:53 GMT -5
Universal Happiness is impossible. Some people get happiness from killing others. The bane of the happiness of others is stealing.
Those things cause unhappiness towards others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jake on May 3, 2010 13:43:02 GMT -5
Universal Happiness is impossible. Some people get happiness from killing others. The bane of the happiness of others is stealing. Those things cause unhappiness towards others. The answer to that is incredibly easy - rehabilitate them so that they change the way they find happiness. There, problem solved. |
|
|
|
Post by zAkAtAk on May 3, 2010 21:39:21 GMT -5
no.
|
|
|
|
Post by ifyouwantblood on May 4, 2010 10:00:28 GMT -5
You cant make everyone happy, neither can you end world suck. And besides you cant end something you cant define, we need to find a reachable goal, yes a HARD TO REACH goal but reachable atleast. A triads project to End world suck would not be accepted, because its impossible and because its not definable... Yes i just repeated myself but yeah  And also can you please explain your opinions instead of acting like you know everything and just post "No"? |
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on May 8, 2010 2:54:52 GMT -5
yes yes Depends on what you mean by inequality. yes no! I think it's anything that causes harm to another human being, spreads ignorance, spreads negativity, spreads sadness, separates people, interferes with anyone's basic human rights, hurts democracy, spreads hate, spreads prejudice, hurts the planet, halts the spreading of knowledge.. or generally makes the world a less nice place to be in. I believe that as it stands we'll be able to figure out on a case by case basis what worldsuck is and build a definition out of that. If it is not true that we as a community can not decide what we feel is worth working towards/against then what the heck is the point in having a community at all? If for example we come across something like a project "to end animal testing for medical purposes" or "To legalize abortion in X" and a lot of people don't want this to have anything to do with SPOTM, then all the people who want to work on this can just organise themselves, make their own message board or blog, join PETA etc. they don't have to leave the pogotribe, they just do this in their own time and don't represent SPOTM. So far we've never had a problem like this. |
|
|
|
Post by Trey on May 18, 2010 22:18:27 GMT -5
The pursuit of happiness is a personal journey. Everyone must go through stages of misery during their life. Experience is the greatest teacher.
|
|
