Educators

[Conservationist]

There has always been a tension on this board, going back to its earliest days: between the "leadership" types and the "educators."

The leadership types see a problem, and want to use power for the solution. They are opposed by neocons and liberals, who talk about personal importance, validity, rights, etc.

The most vocal of those neocons and liberals are the "educators." These people acknowledge the problems out there, but are afraid to use power, so suggest that instead we "educate" people so they will avoid the disasters.

They are unable to point to any successes.

[lost_wanderer]

The ideal would be education because a strong nation is useless  in the end if everyone is dumb exept the leaders. It's a head without a body. It cannot stay long in this world before it degenerate and disapear. But in theworld as we live in, it's impossible to have only education because people are often too egoistical, too dumb or too corrupted moraly to be properly educated. And now with multiculturalism, it's even harder because people have not the same values, cultures, background anymore.
In a world like this, we need leadership. But, if the leaders have to use too much coersion to lead the way, it often result in a civil war. And with insuffisiant education, the army you will have to defend your government will have a majority of soldiers who will only defend it if you give them money or privileges. Or they will be driven by fear like the communists were during WW2.

It's best to have a balance between both.
Educate when you can and use leadership (power) when needed.

The way of an healthy nation is the way of the heart.
The other way will only result in rigidity and death if given to much power.

A nation is like a human body.
The majority is water. the rest is bones and the rigid part.
The life part, the heart's part is water. The soft part. It most go as freely as possible. You can extend it to the soul.
But we also need bones and the rest of the rigid part or the water will stagnate and will dissipate. It's the structural parts. We need it to survive. To have a form.
But if the muscles, the heart become too rigid, the body cease to fonction properly and die. Or it become a robot witout a soul.
The rigid part is the gardian of the soft part. It should not be his jailor.

[JewishPhysics]

The ideal would be education because a strong nation is useless in the end if everyone is dumb except the leaders.

This would seem to only be true for a democracy. Otherwise, people need only listen to the educated.

if the leaders have to use too much coercion to lead the way, it often result in a civil war. And with insufficient education, the army you will have to defend your government will have a majority of soldiers who will only defend it if you give them money or privileges. Or they will be driven by fear like the communists were during WW2.

This is why leadership requires virtue. The virtuous leader understands when and how coercion is to be applied. It is the corrupt who use coercion in excessive or unreasonable ways. Thus, the problem is moral and not practical.

There is also the question of to what degree power corrupts, which I think is legitimate and not just a liberal cop out.

[BillHopkins]

There has always been a tension on this board, going back to its earliest days: between the "leadership" types and the "educators."

The leadership types see a problem, and want to use power for the solution. They are opposed by neocons and liberals, who talk about personal importance, validity, rights, etc.

There needs to be a lot more of a new, third type: the "pragmatic leadership" type.

The pragmatic leader sees a problem, wants to use power for the solution, but his solutions are such that they will have more than zero chance of infiltrating any modern society.

[Dylar]

I see the more central conflict as being between "fantasists," who want to solve problems by applying imaginary power that they do not and never will possess in a manner whose practical consequences they haven't thought through and/or simply refuse to acknowledge, and "realists," who see many of the same problems, but are interested in actual solutions that can actually be implemented with the actual means available to us.

[Nimbostratus]

The most vocal of those neocons and liberals are the "educators." These people acknowledge the problems out there, but are afraid to use power, so suggest that instead we "educate" people so they will avoid the disasters.

Thinks Tard Holocaust is a bad idea -> liberal / neocon.

I see the more central conflict as being between "fantasists," who want to solve problems by applying imaginary power that they do not and never will possess in a manner whose practical consequences they haven't thought through and/or simply refuse to acknowledge, and "realists," who see many of the same problems, but are interested in actual solutions that can actually be implemented with the actual means available to us.

Agree. Some members of this board have clearly grown-up. The  "leadership" types are stuck in Nihililand.

[Somnambulist]

Some members of this board have clearly grown-up.

I take exception to that, sir!

The other day, I was driving in my car on a Sunday afternoon and I couldn't believe what I heard on the radio:  a real commercial talking about OVERPOPULATION that was advertising for some website about overpopulation!  The rubber is beginning to hit the road, and one could say we are beginning to condition ourselves to accept this.  It's not inconceivable that the future could see incredible violence and grand wars.  The fantasists, by nature of their warped persona, are sometimes able to "peer into the future" and see things where the more realistic would never imagine.

Power comes in many forms and everything is will-to-power.  We can either apply power discriminately or we can "mind our own business" and things will inevitably erupt indiscriminately.

[scourge]

There is also the question of to what degree power corrupts, which I think is legitimate and not just a liberal cop out.

Accountability is affected by relational proximity to the accountable and the scale in population and area. Too many people removed between command and function is a bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is required for the scalability.

[Conservationist]

I see the more central conflict as being between "fantasists," who want to solve problems by applying imaginary power that they do not and never will possess in a manner whose practical consequences they haven't thought through and/or simply refuse to acknowledge, and "realists," who see many of the same problems, but are interested in actual solutions that can actually be implemented with the actual means available to us.

No. Solutions become available as people change their minds, so it's better not to censor yourself in advance if what you're saying is logically correct.

The "fantasists" are the ones who think repeating a failing behavior pattern will lead to something else. Generally, egomania and burnout have intervened. I would rather pay attention to the ones who speak to pure logic.

Such as: would society be better off, or worse off, if all under-120s "disappeared" tomorrow?

The more people think about this, the more the idea grows acceptable to them. Then that removes some inhibitions. Finally, it becomes positive advocacy. This is how all change happens; it never happens to those who censor themselves out of some mistaken maturity.

The ideal would be education because a strong nation is useless  in the end if everyone is dumb exept the leaders.

No. Education does not change intelligence.

The virtuous leader understands when and how coercion is to be applied. It is the corrupt who use coercion in excessive or unreasonable ways. Thus, the problem is moral and not practical.

The quality of leader determines the use of power. The idea that our solutions are found in dogma and institutions is bunk. It is found in the moral strength of individuals, working together with culture.

I can't agree with you on power corrupting. Power corrupts those who are unfit to wield it, but they were corrupt before the power, just got revealed by it when they had the chance to act out their inner disorganization.

The other day, I was driving in my car on a Sunday afternoon and I couldn't believe what I heard on the radio:  a real commercial talking about OVERPOPULATION that was advertising for some website about overpopulation!  The rubber is beginning to hit the road, and one could say we are beginning to condition ourselves to accept this.  It's not inconceivable that the future could see incredible violence and grand wars.  The fantasists, by nature of their warped persona, are sometimes able to "peer into the future" and see things where the more realistic would never imagine.

Power comes in many forms and everything is will-to-power.  We can either apply power discriminately or we can "mind our own business" and things will inevitably erupt indiscriminately.

Exactly. Ten years ago that would be unthinkable. The amount of dialogue we have on race and class would have been unthinkable then also. In ten years, the tard-o-caust will be a common topic.

[analrapist]

"Education" and "science" have become excuses, for state propaganda.

[Nimbostratus]

No. Solutions become available as people change their minds, so it's better not to censor yourself in advance if what you're saying is logically correct.

The "fantasists" are the ones who think repeating a failing behavior pattern will lead to something else. Generally, egomania and burnout have intervened. I would rather pay attention to the ones who speak to pure logic.

Such as: would society be better off, or worse off, if all under-120s "disappeared" tomorrow?

The more people think about this, the more the idea grows acceptable to them. Then that removes some inhibitions. Finally, it becomes positive advocacy. This is how all change happens; it never happens to those who censor themselves out of some mistaken maturity.

No. It's not logically correct, the question (which you keep changing from "woodchipper" to "disappeared") is logically defective. Tard Holocaust, it's not pragmatic either. You can't even convince most of the users who have the anonymity of a nickname in the ANUS forum, and then, how are you talking about censuring ourselves?

It's a real shame to see smart people defending that nonsense.

[lost_wanderer]

The ideal would be education because a strong nation is useless  in the end if everyone is dumb exept the leaders.

No. Education does not change intelligence.

Maybe not, but an intelligent person is useless if it doesn't know useful knowledge, for exemple, if he doesn't know that putting toxic wastes in rivers affect environnement. Edcucation come in handy in order for that person to learn that, because sometimes, one cannot learn everything by himself because the world is vast and time is short. That's what I meant by education. A usefull guide. I should had that it would be best given by wisemen like druids. Unfortunately, we seldom have people like that anymore, but sometimes there's a blaze in the sky, so to speak.
And I said that was in the ideal and that sometimes (a lot of time in this current world) we need coersion because some people aren't enough intelligent, or not noble enough.
 To be noble is better than to be intelligent, but intelligence can be useful in the process.

[Conservationist]

No. It's not logically correct, the question (which you keep changing from "woodchipper" to "disappeared") is logically defective.

No, it's not.

Ask yourself:

If all the under-120s disappeared tomorrow, would life be better?

Then rephrase it so you can see what it is descended from:

If all the pedophiles disappeared tomorrow, would life be better?

Woodchipper, exile, or other forms of removal/disappearance: doesn't matter.

Tard Holocaust, it's not pragmatic either. You can't even convince most of the users who have the anonymity of a nickname in the ANUS forum, and then, how are you talking about censuring ourselves?

Trends change.

[Nimbostratus]

No, it's not.

Ask yourself:

If all the under-120s disappeared tomorrow, would life be better?

Then rephrase it so you can see what it is descended from:

If all the pedophiles disappeared tomorrow, would life be better?

Woodchipper, exile, or other forms of removal/disappearance: doesn't matter.

YES. So what? It's a false dilemma, you can have an answer to a false dilemma, and it stills being a false dilemma. The method, the time (tomorrow or 100 years) give much more possibilities.

Ok, just answer this please. Let's suppose: YES, you are right, we would be better if all the <120 IQ disappeared tomorrow. What would come next then? Would we sit there in self-congratulatory despise for most humankind, or, would we discuss the methods and their different outcomes? "Disappear" and "Wood-Chipper" and any other method would reveal their big differences.

Trends change.

Or don't.

[Time Curator 23]

Diet of Grapes



Once upon a time, in the days of long ago, there was a wise and powerful prince, who lived within a walled estate. His palace was surrounded by orchards and gardens, and he was generally thought, because he did not explain his actions, to be uncaring of the people's interests, and neglectful of his duty to strive to improve himself. Those people who were considered wise were unable to understand him, and spoke against him. Those who knew little about him thought that he was bereft of qualities. Those who wished to curry favour praised him; but since such people are generally superficialists, this did not extend his repute far.

Now the territory in which this prince lived was, as is the way of life, attacked by barbarians, who successively reduced the neighbouring principalities until they were fast approaching his own. Time and again the prince sent messages to the other rulers, asking them to ally themselves with him against the invaders, but such was their arrogance, their ignorance of him, or their other tendencies that they took no heed.

This behaviour on the part of his neighbours did not seem to distress the prince. All he said was, 'The burden of wisdom is almost too much to bear. I have, as a truthful man, been forced to tell them that I have to be their leader if the war is to be won in co-operation with them. Naturally they will not accept such a condition. Therefore the only option is to wait until the Second Stage.'

The barbarians continued to advance, until those who had been opposing them, in ever-increasing numbers, fell back upon the domain of our prince to make a last stand. They were the remnants of the knights and soldiers of every one of the vanquished princes.

Thus it was that one day when the prince was resting, his minister approached him and said: 'We have been unable to prevent the remnants of the defending armies from climbing the walls of the Domain, in their flight. They are now huddled in the vineyards, covered in mud and blood, in the last stages of exhaustion.'

The prince raised his head. 'And what else?' he asked.

'And,' continued the minister, 'they are too exhausted even to eat or to attend to their wounds. They are now lying fast asleep, like dead men, while the enemy masses without.'

'Very well,' said the prince, 'now you have made your report, you may withdraw. Return to me the day after tomorrow, to describe conditions then.'

The minister, though knowing that his master was possessed of wisdom, wondered why the prince did not take some action to defend the domain, but, like a good servant, made his salutation and withdrew.

Two days later he again approached the prince and said: 'Lord of Princeliness I have come as instructed.'

'Give me your report,' answered the prince.

 'The exhausted warriors,' said the minister, 'have now slept for two days.'
     
'And what are they doing?' the prince asked.
     
'They are now so famished that they are devouring grass, leaves and raw grapes.'
     
'Very good,' said the prince. 'Return in a further day and give me an account of conditions.'
     
The next day the minister announced: 'High Presence! The lords, warriors and ordinary people who fled to our domain are now eating the ripe grapes, having restored themselves somewhat.'
     
'Continue your report tomorrow, at midday,' said his master.
     
The day after, the minister said, 'The refugees are now selecting the best grapes and eating them'.
     
'Excellent,' said the prince. 'Now call them to me, and I shall prepare them for the victory against the barbarians, for they are ready. Before this, they were in no condition to struggle, and had to get what nutrition they could from us. If we leave it any later, they will be so sated that they will start to argue among themselves, and will not listen to us. Prepare for victory!'

And that is the tale of the wise prince whose actions nobody understood. When the final battle came, and the barbarians were slaughtered, the victorious army fell out with one another. Returning to their own lands, their historians wrote conflicting accounts of what had passed.

All accounts had this in common: they misunderstood the prince.



Reposted from hermes-press.com