Standards

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Blake wrote:

So, you might ask, how would I convince someone who thinks they "should"
increase suffering that they are wrong? But that's the wrong question.
How they define "should" is only a question of definition. The real
question is how can someone who is trying to increase suffering be
convinced to stop, independent of how they choose to define such terms
as "right" or "should". Presumably, one would appeal to their
compassion and their reason.

I reply:

A timely topic. Of course many people don't have any compassion to
appeal to, and make their political choice based more on party
loyalty or bloodlust, etc, which makes them difficult to reason with.
I know people who are like that. Those who like to increase suffering
aren't showing any signs of slowing down or stopping, and Bush
is still extraordinarily popular--so do you really think that the
public tend to prefer what's best?

I find that some people I talk to actually enjoy the carnage that
they support so enthusiastically, though they make a transparent
effort to otherwise justify their bloodlust. But you can tell that
they enjoy it.

Anyway, I recently read some interviews of highschool students, and
I was amazed by how much wiser their social understanding is,
compared to the stupidity that we always hear from the stuffed-shirts
who pass as experts on PBS and other mass media. Voting system reform
can bring policy improvement if a sizable segment of the population
are better than their leaders in govt & media, and the interviews
suggested that's so. I don't know if the interviewees were chosen
selectively, or whether people tend to get stupider when they
get out of highschool.

Mike Ossipoff





Someone like that can't possibly
be reached, but maybe those like that aren't the majority, though
they're obviously quite numerous.

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com