|
Post by ligerman30 on Apr 1, 2010 20:28:26 GMT -5
We, the Pogotribe need an ideological consensus on the ideas of Liberty, Morality, Economy, Religion(or lack there of), and to decide which Form of Government generates the most "awesome". In order to know we are using our awesome for good. We need to know what political and philisophical ideals are "awesome". In this thread I would like to discuss our general consesus on at least those ideals stated previosly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2010 13:21:41 GMT -5
Isn't that a bit early? I think first you need to have a decent view on what the tribe is before you start expanding it to such formal institutions.. Also, the fact that there are people from all around the world, I think it's kind of hard to discuss government in general...
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on Apr 2, 2010 15:24:55 GMT -5
We need to know what political and philisophical ideals are "awesome". In this thread I would like to discuss our general consesus on at least those ideals stated previosly. If we were to do this, we would completely eliminate freedom of speech and thought. We can't tell people what to think. All we can say in regards to this is that certain thoughts are NOT awesome, such as racism and homophobia.
|
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on Apr 3, 2010 8:32:57 GMT -5
"Hate" is not awesome.
|
|
Gesh
Planet
Mishap Molly Cordell
Posts: 453
|
Post by Gesh on Apr 3, 2010 9:22:26 GMT -5
Yeah, I actually agree with what Cortney said. Everyone has their own opinions, so obviously everyone is going to think some form of government or philosophical ideas are awesome while others are not, and those thoughts are going to be different from other people. So we probably shouldn't come to a consensus as to what ideas are "awesome," because then how will that make people feel who disagree? Just my two cents. Still, this was a good effort, I think, to contribute to the tribe and try to make it better! That's always good.
|
|
|
Post by IMAGINARYphilosophy on Apr 3, 2010 12:54:44 GMT -5
To this value I would pose the following question:
If performing an act of conscious and deliberate evil was certain to result in a good outcome, is that act of evil an acceptable use of the pogotribe's "awesome"?
To elaborate: Being aware that human society has an observable tendency to trend toward complacency, it is not unreasonable to assert that it is easier to drive people toward goodness than to politely urge them. Ergo, is it acceptable to commit an evil act in order to inspire good behavior?
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on Apr 3, 2010 13:16:46 GMT -5
To this value I would pose the following question: If performing an act of conscious and deliberate evil was certain to result in a good outcome, is that act of evil an acceptable use of the pogotribe's "awesome"? To elaborate: Being aware that human society has an observable tendency to trend toward complacency, it is not unreasonable to assert that it is easier to drive people toward goodness than to politely urge them. Ergo, is it acceptable to commit an evil act in order to inspire good behavior? If the act results in a good outcome or inspires good behavior, I wouldn't consider it evil.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2010 13:21:00 GMT -5
To this value I would pose the following question: If performing an act of conscious and deliberate evil was certain to result in a good outcome, is that act of evil an acceptable use of the pogotribe's "awesome"? To elaborate: Being aware that human society has an observable tendency to trend toward complacency, it is not unreasonable to assert that it is easier to drive people toward goodness than to politely urge them. Ergo, is it acceptable to commit an evil act in order to inspire good behavior? If the act results in a good outcome or inspires good behavior, I wouldn't consider it evil. If you could go back in time and kill baby Hitler, would you do it? And if you would, would that not be an evil thing, to kill an (at that point) innocent baby?
|
|
Gesh
Planet
Mishap Molly Cordell
Posts: 453
|
Post by Gesh on Apr 3, 2010 13:38:15 GMT -5
I personally think that no "bad" acts should be done, regardless of the outcome.
|
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on Apr 3, 2010 14:33:44 GMT -5
If the act results in a good outcome or inspires good behavior, I wouldn't consider it evil. If you could go back in time and kill baby Hitler, would you do it? And if you would, would that not be an evil thing, to kill an (at that point) innocent baby? The youtube community already solved that hypothetical dilemma with a hypothetical evil baby orphanage. Gesh is right, absolutely no "bad" acts whatsoever. Belief in the existence of "Justifiable evils" is what allowed the holocaust to happen in the first place. This is not a system of government we have started, this is just a group of people who want to do good, grow their understanding of the world and each other, help people, be awesome. Leave actual politics to the politicians. We can talk about it, but we shouldn't be marching under a single banner for a single goal like that. That's autocracy. BAD. Everyone here can believe something completely different.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2010 14:48:11 GMT -5
If you could go back in time and kill baby Hitler, would you do it? And if you would, would that not be an evil thing, to kill an (at that point) innocent baby? The youtube community already solved that hypothetical dilemma with a hypothetical evil baby orphanage. But that's not an evil deed is it? I'm talking about doing evil to prevent evil, which is wrong imo.
|
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on Apr 3, 2010 15:08:31 GMT -5
The youtube community already solved that hypothetical dilemma with a hypothetical evil baby orphanage. But that's not an evil deed is it? I'm talking about doing evil to prevent evil, which is wrong imo. Aye, I don't know if it would even be morally right to kill evil grown up Hitler. Actually certainly not right morally, but would I want to do it given the opportunity? I don't know. Things are never so black and white anyway, you don't find out about just how bad people were till long after they're dead. And even then, history is written by the victors as they say, while I'm certain he was evil, there are probably a bunch of historical figures we think of as good who were actually pretty evil as well. So who are we to make decisions like that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2010 15:11:37 GMT -5
he was pretty evil, but not 100%, can't forget that
|
|
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on Apr 3, 2010 15:34:02 GMT -5
It bugs me when people say things like that. If he couldn't do anything good no one would have voted for him. The good stuff was just a way towards the bad stuff. His views on everything were just fundamentally wrong. He couldn't even handle the idea that someone might paint a blue field instead of a green one, that was an abomination to him. There was no acceptance, everything had to follow his narrow view of perfection. Which is why we should never create a narrow view of "awesome".
Like a lot of people read stuff Charles Manson wrote, if he couldn't write things that seemed clever he wouldn't have been able to convince a bunch of people to murder complete strangers. His intelligence is irrelevant because it was all a manipulation. I have no doubt that both he and Hitler are smarter than me, that doesn't mean I should follow them off a cliff or admire one single solitary thing about them. And incidentally Mussolini never made the trains run on time.
|
|
Gesh
Planet
Mishap Molly Cordell
Posts: 453
|
Post by Gesh on Apr 3, 2010 15:36:24 GMT -5
Hey, I was just pointing something out, that doesn't mean I like Hitler. Anyhow, why are we even talking about Hitler? We sort of got off topic.
|
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on Apr 3, 2010 15:43:48 GMT -5
Hey, I was just pointing something out, that doesn't mean I like Hitler. Anyhow, why are we even talking about Hitler? We sort of got off topic. True!
|
|
Felix
Meteor
I think I lost my headache.
Posts: 85
|
Post by Felix on Apr 3, 2010 16:32:48 GMT -5
topic: I don't think that's a very good idea, everyone should be able to say what they want and in that process we will automatically see what is "awesome" for us and what isn't.
the hitler-thing: seriously, you wouldn't kill baby-hitler if you could? well i know i would, you have to decide what the bigger threat is, cause if you kill him, sure you'd be a murderer but if you wouldn't WW2 would come over earth and millions would be slaughtered so that'd make you an even bigger murderer in my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2010 16:34:06 GMT -5
topic: I don't think that's a very good idea, everyone should be able to say what they want and in that process we will automatically see what is "awesome" for us and what isn't. the hitler-thing: seriously, you wouldn't kill baby-hitler if you could? well i know i would, you have to decide what the bigger thread is, cause if you kill him, sure you'd be a murderer but if you wouldn't WW2 would come over earth and millions would be slaughtered so that'd make you an even bigger murderer in my opinion. so murdering him would be the only option?
|
|
Gesh
Planet
Mishap Molly Cordell
Posts: 453
|
Post by Gesh on Apr 3, 2010 16:34:48 GMT -5
No, I wouldn't kill him.
|
|