Most of the things Republicans say about liberals in general, or the President specifically is true ... for the most leftist members of the Democrats, but not at all true about the President nor the party in general.
Similarly, most of the things Democrats say about the Republicans are true .... the most rightist members of the GOP.
But the real problem is the Democrats don't give power to the most leftist members. That's part of what being a Big Tent party is about - we have crazy extremists, but most of us are moderates.
There ARE Democrats that want to take away all your guns. But not
the President, not any Senator, and probably not any Congressman. We
don't really know because no Congressman would dare to say it, even if
he believed it. There ARE liberals that want socialism - they joined
the Socialist party because Democrats don't put up with that crap.
(Bernie Sanders is a great example,)
The Republicans on the other hand DO give power to their most extreme members. They hold up Limbaugh and Beck and Fox people as their spokesmen. They elect people like Sarah Palin, Todd Akins,and Christine O'Donnell.
Laura Bush said some GOP candidates frightened women, but that they were the exception to the norm (Source) Guess what, there are Democrats that also frighten women. But none of them hold office or are even candidates. Do you want to know why? Because we yell at them and kick them OUT of the party, rather than embrace them.
There ARE Republicans that hold office and want to (or at least are willing to) take away the voting rights of Hispanics - they rule the Texan State Assembly. Which is why both the Department of Justice and the Federal Courts told them their redistricting plan was illegal. Their ARE Republican office holders (past and present) that blame women for getting raped. Tod Akins, Phil Gingrey, Clayton Williams, Chuck Winder, Rick Snatorum are just a few of them.
That is the major difference between the parties.
It is also the main reason why I am a Democrat. Honestly, the Republicans have some good ideas. The problem is they let the lunatics run their party as opposed to the sane people. If they kicked them out, the party would have a chance of getting my vote. As it is now? Never.
You need to laugh at and throw the lunatic extremists out, not throw the moderates out for being 'Republicans in Name Only'.
Embrace the main stream, the moderate, and you get the main stream voters. Embrace the lunatics and the mainstream voters run away from your bat-shit crazy people.
Monday, April 15, 2013
Friday, April 12, 2013
How to Handle North Korea
North Korea has been spouting insane things recently. They are most probably attempting to use an old technique to unite their country against an outside threat. We are the obvious target, not South Korea, because 1) we have a history of restraint (Cold War) - as opposed to attacking China 2) No one will expect them to carry through on the threat - as opposed to attacking South Korea.
But it is a dangerous game. While the US remembers the first Korean War, as well as Vietname and Iraq, we also remember World War II. During World War II we ignored a psychotic dictator talking about invading and we paid the price.
We won't do it again.
So, what should the US do to solve the problem of North Korea?
In my opinion we need to do the following:
Given that North Korea touches China's southern border I don't think China wants US weapons being used there. It is in their best interest to handle the problem themselves, particularly as they helped create it. I am pretty sure that China would end up invading North Korea.
But it is a dangerous game. While the US remembers the first Korean War, as well as Vietname and Iraq, we also remember World War II. During World War II we ignored a psychotic dictator talking about invading and we paid the price.
We won't do it again.
So, what should the US do to solve the problem of North Korea?
In my opinion we need to do the following:
- Don't speak to North Korea. They are acting like a child and we don't want to encourage their bad behavior.
- Privately assure our allies - particularly South Korea and Japan that we will stand by them, even if it comes to nuclear war.
- Talk to our other ally China. Explain that there are three possible futures for North Korea:
- North Korea grows up and stop acting like a child - perhaps after China yells at them repeatedly and/or bribes them.
- China itself invades North Korea, killing the warmongers and publicly showing Kim Jong-un's dead body. They can replace the government with anything they want - or just give it to South Korea.
- The United States takes military action inside North Korea, most likely resulting in South Korea taking over the North.
Given that North Korea touches China's southern border I don't think China wants US weapons being used there. It is in their best interest to handle the problem themselves, particularly as they helped create it. I am pretty sure that China would end up invading North Korea.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
War: win vs lose, good vs bad.
I recently read a conservative article which demonstrated how the GOP misses the point.
It basically stated that we won the Iraq war, and therefore it must be a good thing.
This is a very unethical but practical viewpoint. If you use it then the Nazi's were bad not because they murdered 12 million innocent civilians (6 million jews, plus another six million homosexuals, communists, gypsies, and other undesireables), but because they lost. If they had won, the writer implies than the Nazis would be the good guys and we would be the bad guys.
That may be how some ignorant people would have portrayed the war, but it would not be true.
The ethicalness of either side in a war has nothing to do with who won the war. It is perfectly possible for the good guys to lose a war and the bad guys to win a war. It tends to be less likely, because the good guys generally have certain advantages that the bad guys don't (namely social structures better able to handle stress), but by no means is that a law.
Victory does not determine ethical values.
Let's take a look at some of America's 5 major 20th century wars: WWI, WW II, Korea, Vietnam, first Iraq war.
Note that of those wars, we clearly lost 1 (Vietnam), had a stand off for 1 (Korea), two undecisive victires that set the stage for a later war (WWI and first Iraq War), and had one clear decisive victory (World War II).
From history's perspective, we were on the clearly good side of World War II (pure win), Korea (stand off) , and the first Iraq war (indecisive Victory). The Nazis are pretty much our go-to definition of evil, North Korea has continued to make it clear they are incompetent at feeding their own people and imperialistic belligerent, and Saddam Hussein simply attacked another country for it's oil wealth.
But in World War One the morality was less clear. The Allies committed about as many atrocities as the Central Powers. (Ottoman Genocide of the Armenians, Russian Pogroms against Jews, France kept some Central power POW's as slaves for 2 years after the war ended, Russia did it for 6, both sides used poison gas). There was no clear philosophical difference, the wars were mainly caused by stupidity and imperialism on both sides The Central Powers were slightly more imperialistic, but then again, they didn't keep our POW's as slaves after the end of the war.
Similarly, we intervened in Vietnam mainly to prevent the spread of Communism - we were scared it would become another Easter Europe, under the control of the China as opposed to Russia. But history has proven that fear unfounded. Vietnam stands in stark contrast with Korea as a stable, independent country thriving in a post-cold war landscape. North Korea on the other hand, well, they continued to be ruled by someone without the ethics or intelligence to run a 7-11.
My point is that the of the five wars, we were on the right side of 3 the wrong side of one, and there really was no good or bad side of the last. The one we outright lost (Vietnam) was mainly lost because we gave up - in part because we saw the morality was not clear-cut. The one's we tied, could have been a loss if we didn't see how bat-shit crazy the rulers of North Korea were.
So while there is a relationship between good guys and winning, it is not as clear cut as the GOP likes to see.
The Second Iraq War. The mere fact that we won does not make it a 'good war'. It was done for poor reasons, the victory cost way too much, the gain we got is minimal, and we won't know for years if our victory will be Pyrrhic. It could very well end up costing us far more than we gained.
8,000+ American lives and almost $2 trillion, plus political capital (post 9/11 the US was the clear good guys to everyone.)
Yes, we 'won' the war in the sense that we determined the political future of Iraq. But that doesn't tell us if it was worth it (our national debt stands at $16 trillion), or if we were the good guys, or merely one of two opposing sides.
The presumption that because we won, it must be 'OK' or a good thing is ridiculous. It proves that the writer of the article has poor judgements.
Finally, there are some wars we should fight even if we lose them. If someone attacks Israel, Japan, Britain or similar allies, we should fight to the last drop and be proud, even if we lose the war.
Why? Because it's the right thing to do. Sometimes you have to fight because it's right, even if you can't win.
It basically stated that we won the Iraq war, and therefore it must be a good thing.
This is a very unethical but practical viewpoint. If you use it then the Nazi's were bad not because they murdered 12 million innocent civilians (6 million jews, plus another six million homosexuals, communists, gypsies, and other undesireables), but because they lost. If they had won, the writer implies than the Nazis would be the good guys and we would be the bad guys.
That may be how some ignorant people would have portrayed the war, but it would not be true.
The ethicalness of either side in a war has nothing to do with who won the war. It is perfectly possible for the good guys to lose a war and the bad guys to win a war. It tends to be less likely, because the good guys generally have certain advantages that the bad guys don't (namely social structures better able to handle stress), but by no means is that a law.
Victory does not determine ethical values.
Let's take a look at some of America's 5 major 20th century wars: WWI, WW II, Korea, Vietnam, first Iraq war.
Note that of those wars, we clearly lost 1 (Vietnam), had a stand off for 1 (Korea), two undecisive victires that set the stage for a later war (WWI and first Iraq War), and had one clear decisive victory (World War II).
From history's perspective, we were on the clearly good side of World War II (pure win), Korea (stand off) , and the first Iraq war (indecisive Victory). The Nazis are pretty much our go-to definition of evil, North Korea has continued to make it clear they are incompetent at feeding their own people and imperialistic belligerent, and Saddam Hussein simply attacked another country for it's oil wealth.
But in World War One the morality was less clear. The Allies committed about as many atrocities as the Central Powers. (Ottoman Genocide of the Armenians, Russian Pogroms against Jews, France kept some Central power POW's as slaves for 2 years after the war ended, Russia did it for 6, both sides used poison gas). There was no clear philosophical difference, the wars were mainly caused by stupidity and imperialism on both sides The Central Powers were slightly more imperialistic, but then again, they didn't keep our POW's as slaves after the end of the war.
Similarly, we intervened in Vietnam mainly to prevent the spread of Communism - we were scared it would become another Easter Europe, under the control of the China as opposed to Russia. But history has proven that fear unfounded. Vietnam stands in stark contrast with Korea as a stable, independent country thriving in a post-cold war landscape. North Korea on the other hand, well, they continued to be ruled by someone without the ethics or intelligence to run a 7-11.
My point is that the of the five wars, we were on the right side of 3 the wrong side of one, and there really was no good or bad side of the last. The one we outright lost (Vietnam) was mainly lost because we gave up - in part because we saw the morality was not clear-cut. The one's we tied, could have been a loss if we didn't see how bat-shit crazy the rulers of North Korea were.
So while there is a relationship between good guys and winning, it is not as clear cut as the GOP likes to see.
The Second Iraq War. The mere fact that we won does not make it a 'good war'. It was done for poor reasons, the victory cost way too much, the gain we got is minimal, and we won't know for years if our victory will be Pyrrhic. It could very well end up costing us far more than we gained.
8,000+ American lives and almost $2 trillion, plus political capital (post 9/11 the US was the clear good guys to everyone.)
Yes, we 'won' the war in the sense that we determined the political future of Iraq. But that doesn't tell us if it was worth it (our national debt stands at $16 trillion), or if we were the good guys, or merely one of two opposing sides.
The presumption that because we won, it must be 'OK' or a good thing is ridiculous. It proves that the writer of the article has poor judgements.
Finally, there are some wars we should fight even if we lose them. If someone attacks Israel, Japan, Britain or similar allies, we should fight to the last drop and be proud, even if we lose the war.
Why? Because it's the right thing to do. Sometimes you have to fight because it's right, even if you can't win.
Monday, April 8, 2013
Saving Face: East vs. West
One of the major differences between Eastern Culture and Western Culture is 'face'. Call it dignity, prestige, reputation or honor. It is all about what others think about you.
Most eastern cultures consider saving face to be extremely important. What other's think of you - or more importantly, what they publicly say about your/what you can fool yourself into believing they think about you, is far more important in eastern cultures than in western cultures.
It's heavy in Japan, China, India and even as far west as the Middle East. It's part of the reason why 'honor' killings still exist, as well as why suicide attacks are socially accepted. It is all to retain or regain your 'face'.
The heart of saving face is not admitting that you did anything wrong - or publiclly stating that others did wrong.
As a result, telling someone that they have done wrong is in fact a huge insult - and sometimes considered a worse crime than actually doing the wrong.
When someone commits a social faux pas, and you point it out, you are the one shamed for pointing it out, not them for doing it.
Please note in all modern cultures I have found face is a thing for adults. Childrens are not allowed face. More about that later.
The thing is the west used to have that same attitude. There are still remannts in our culture - which is why we understand the concept of face. You can see it mostly in those with easy wealth - the celebrity saying "Do you know who I am???" to the cop. But it also shows up in judges - Anthony Scalia is famous for his arrogance and insistence on face.
But mostly we have abandoned it. We did so for a very simple reason - "face" kills progress.
Sometimes face can even kill literally (read the book "Outliers" to hear how saving face caused airplane crashes - the eastern copilot wouldn't correct his boss the pilot, and neither would stand up to an air traffic comptroller).
If you don't admit you are wrong, you can never fix your mistakes. When you prevent other people from telling you that you are wrong, you prevent them from teaching you. In a culture where face is big, you can only learn from people that are clearly your superior.
That is why even eastern cultures don't give face to children. They have to learn, so they are not allowed face. Children must respect their elders and give face, rather than receive it. Otherwise they could not learn.
But western cultures realized that it is quite possible to learn from people that are supposed to be your inferiors. Yes, you may be 50 and your trainer may only be 20, but they can teach you how to exercise better. One of the key advantages of the west is the constant attempt to learn - to better oneself.
And it's not just in specific relationships - it can be anyway. Good teachers will learn from their students. Bosses can learn from employees. Parents can learn from their kids (especially how to use the newest electronic gadgets). And yes, political leaders can learn from their constituency - even criminals. Specifically we can learn that hey, smoking pot isn't so bad. Or that they really shouldn't be kicking people out of their home to build a new mall (especially when an economic downturn lets that home be torn down, but does not let the mall get built).
Because we live without face, we come up with new ideas faster, improve our businesses faster, we catch corrupt officials faster, we fix malfunctioning government programs faster, we do progress faster.
If we are so fast, why is the east doing so well? It's called shoulder surfing. They looked at what we learned the hard way and are copying our answers. But once they catch up, they will inevitablly fall behind again. Because their is a big difference between modernizing an ancient system and inventing a better one.
Yes, it is hard to live without face. To always be told we are wrong - by our inferiors? It makes us look like we are lower than them. But we can take it. We are strong.
But it makes life far BETTER when we do.
The west abandoned face on purpose. We choose to live without it because it makes our lives easier and better.
It is our greatest secret weapon against the east. Without abandoning face, the east will NEVER forge the bleeding edge. Because guess what westerns are doing while the eastern inferiors politely and carefully repeatedly explain the problems they are having to their superiors?
That's right - we are building the future - and the east will always be running to catch up with us.
Of course, they won't believe this. Because to admit your culture of saving face is holding you back would mean ... losing face.
Most eastern cultures consider saving face to be extremely important. What other's think of you - or more importantly, what they publicly say about your/what you can fool yourself into believing they think about you, is far more important in eastern cultures than in western cultures.
It's heavy in Japan, China, India and even as far west as the Middle East. It's part of the reason why 'honor' killings still exist, as well as why suicide attacks are socially accepted. It is all to retain or regain your 'face'.
The heart of saving face is not admitting that you did anything wrong - or publiclly stating that others did wrong.
As a result, telling someone that they have done wrong is in fact a huge insult - and sometimes considered a worse crime than actually doing the wrong.
When someone commits a social faux pas, and you point it out, you are the one shamed for pointing it out, not them for doing it.
Please note in all modern cultures I have found face is a thing for adults. Childrens are not allowed face. More about that later.
The thing is the west used to have that same attitude. There are still remannts in our culture - which is why we understand the concept of face. You can see it mostly in those with easy wealth - the celebrity saying "Do you know who I am???" to the cop. But it also shows up in judges - Anthony Scalia is famous for his arrogance and insistence on face.
But mostly we have abandoned it. We did so for a very simple reason - "face" kills progress.
Sometimes face can even kill literally (read the book "Outliers" to hear how saving face caused airplane crashes - the eastern copilot wouldn't correct his boss the pilot, and neither would stand up to an air traffic comptroller).
If you don't admit you are wrong, you can never fix your mistakes. When you prevent other people from telling you that you are wrong, you prevent them from teaching you. In a culture where face is big, you can only learn from people that are clearly your superior.
That is why even eastern cultures don't give face to children. They have to learn, so they are not allowed face. Children must respect their elders and give face, rather than receive it. Otherwise they could not learn.
But western cultures realized that it is quite possible to learn from people that are supposed to be your inferiors. Yes, you may be 50 and your trainer may only be 20, but they can teach you how to exercise better. One of the key advantages of the west is the constant attempt to learn - to better oneself.
And it's not just in specific relationships - it can be anyway. Good teachers will learn from their students. Bosses can learn from employees. Parents can learn from their kids (especially how to use the newest electronic gadgets). And yes, political leaders can learn from their constituency - even criminals. Specifically we can learn that hey, smoking pot isn't so bad. Or that they really shouldn't be kicking people out of their home to build a new mall (especially when an economic downturn lets that home be torn down, but does not let the mall get built).
Because we live without face, we come up with new ideas faster, improve our businesses faster, we catch corrupt officials faster, we fix malfunctioning government programs faster, we do progress faster.
If we are so fast, why is the east doing so well? It's called shoulder surfing. They looked at what we learned the hard way and are copying our answers. But once they catch up, they will inevitablly fall behind again. Because their is a big difference between modernizing an ancient system and inventing a better one.
Yes, it is hard to live without face. To always be told we are wrong - by our inferiors? It makes us look like we are lower than them. But we can take it. We are strong.
But it makes life far BETTER when we do.
The west abandoned face on purpose. We choose to live without it because it makes our lives easier and better.
It is our greatest secret weapon against the east. Without abandoning face, the east will NEVER forge the bleeding edge. Because guess what westerns are doing while the eastern inferiors politely and carefully repeatedly explain the problems they are having to their superiors?
That's right - we are building the future - and the east will always be running to catch up with us.
Of course, they won't believe this. Because to admit your culture of saving face is holding you back would mean ... losing face.
Friday, April 5, 2013
North Carliona's short attempt at a State Religion.
The GOP continues to push the fantasy that the United States are currently composed of 50 soverign states with a loose federal government above it.
As a result, North Carolina had a short lived attempt to create a state religion. While this clearly violates the First Amendment of the the Constitution of the United States:
They claimed that the law clearly only applied to Congress. They would be right pre-civil war. But the 14th Amendment was passed in in 1868 (shortly after and because of the civil war) whose Section 1 states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that this amendment means the states must also it applies to all states as well as the Federal government:
1947 Emerson v. Board of Education
1994 affirmment Board of Education v. Grumet
Luckily, not all North Carolina Republicans are uneducated fools that want to start a new Civil War. The right honorable and intelligent House Speaker Thom Tillis, Republican of Charlotte killed the bill.
Of course, that does not kill the 'we don't have to obey you' spirit of the GOP's states. They continue to try and nullify federal laws - whether they be gun laws, healthcare laws, etc. Or North Carolina's newest bit of stupidity the attempt to arrest federal agents enforcing national gun laws.
Once and forever - you already tried that bullshit in 1860. It didn't work out so well for you then and won't do any better now. Only this time, it won't be General Sherman burning Southern cities, it will be federal tanks rolling down your streets.
The federal government is ABOVE you - in large part because you are both less competent and far more corrupt than the federal government. Mainly because the federal government has a larger pool of job applicants for the job and economies of scale mean fewer people are needed to do the same job. This results in a far higher quality of federal employees than state employees - and this applies to appointed, hired and elected positions.
But that is beside the point. Democracies exist so that idiots that are outnumbered don't start a civil war by attempting to force a majority of the people to obey their dictatorial laws. In America, the liberals and Democrats outnumber the conservatives and Republicans. The only reasons why the liberals don't take up arms and kill the conservatives is the rule of law. If you break it, we will do the obvious. (Yes, I know the conservatives think they have all the guns and the skills. So did the South in the Civil War - they swore they could shoot better than the North and had better generals.)
So why do they make these pointless and futile attempts? For the same reason North Korea is currently making pointless threats. Local, partisan political reasons. To liven up their base - despite the fact that it pisses off their opponent's base even more than it livens up their own. But unlike North Korea, the US is a democracy. Which means the GOP's saber rattling is counterproductive, doomed to failure.
And it's one of the reasons why the Democrats continue to keep on winning the national elections while the GOP sits back wondering what they are doing wrong.
As a result, North Carolina had a short lived attempt to create a state religion. While this clearly violates the First Amendment of the the Constitution of the United States:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
They claimed that the law clearly only applied to Congress. They would be right pre-civil war. But the 14th Amendment was passed in in 1868 (shortly after and because of the civil war) whose Section 1 states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that this amendment means the states must also it applies to all states as well as the Federal government:
1947 Emerson v. Board of Education
1994 affirmment Board of Education v. Grumet
Luckily, not all North Carolina Republicans are uneducated fools that want to start a new Civil War. The right honorable and intelligent House Speaker Thom Tillis, Republican of Charlotte killed the bill.
Of course, that does not kill the 'we don't have to obey you' spirit of the GOP's states. They continue to try and nullify federal laws - whether they be gun laws, healthcare laws, etc. Or North Carolina's newest bit of stupidity the attempt to arrest federal agents enforcing national gun laws.
Once and forever - you already tried that bullshit in 1860. It didn't work out so well for you then and won't do any better now. Only this time, it won't be General Sherman burning Southern cities, it will be federal tanks rolling down your streets.
The federal government is ABOVE you - in large part because you are both less competent and far more corrupt than the federal government. Mainly because the federal government has a larger pool of job applicants for the job and economies of scale mean fewer people are needed to do the same job. This results in a far higher quality of federal employees than state employees - and this applies to appointed, hired and elected positions.
But that is beside the point. Democracies exist so that idiots that are outnumbered don't start a civil war by attempting to force a majority of the people to obey their dictatorial laws. In America, the liberals and Democrats outnumber the conservatives and Republicans. The only reasons why the liberals don't take up arms and kill the conservatives is the rule of law. If you break it, we will do the obvious. (Yes, I know the conservatives think they have all the guns and the skills. So did the South in the Civil War - they swore they could shoot better than the North and had better generals.)
So why do they make these pointless and futile attempts? For the same reason North Korea is currently making pointless threats. Local, partisan political reasons. To liven up their base - despite the fact that it pisses off their opponent's base even more than it livens up their own. But unlike North Korea, the US is a democracy. Which means the GOP's saber rattling is counterproductive, doomed to failure.
And it's one of the reasons why the Democrats continue to keep on winning the national elections while the GOP sits back wondering what they are doing wrong.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Free Will
There is a common deterministic view of the human mind as being just a bunch of tiny, hard to see gears. It claims that if you had omnipotence, then you could predict every action done by a human being. By that belief no one is responsible for their behavior/actions because it was all per-determined at the big bang. They think you have no free will, you are just a robot.
It came about from a 19th century view of physics as a deterministic nature.
Now adays most people recognize quantum mechanics mean that no matter how much knowledge you have, you can not predict the human brain, because at at very small level, it is not deterministic.
The deterministic then respond that this just means everyone is random. They claim that again, you have no free will, you are just a robot with a random number generator.
This again is lacking in understanding. First, it misunderstands a lot of quantum mechanism. It is NOT just a random number generator for Einstein's proverbial God's Dice game. Instead, quantum mechanics is far more complicated and many claim that no one understands it. Among other things, there is an 'observer' portion of quantum mechanics that is NOT random. That is, when you observe things, it changes the outcome (see Schrodinger's Cat).
But lets ignore the physics and get back down to philosophy, as that is the core of the model and a far more important question.
Here are some given assumptions.
Assume for example God exists (God is not neccessary for this argument, but positing his existence makes the discussion easier, as God acts as an Omniscient creator who could predict your actions). God choose to create people as works of art, rather than either engineering projects (robots) or random number generators (robots whose programming was choosen at random).
Can God create something so he could not understand it? The answer here is yes (Not sure if he could create a stone to heavy for him to lift, that's a different question). He creates it in an artistic fashion instead of a planned one. He looks at the over-all forest, not the trees as he creates us. He lets the micro stuff fall randomly, but makes sure that the total creation follows a specific pattern.
If we were talking about painting, think of God as randomly throwing balls of paint at a wall that has a specific stencil design protecting it. Yes, the paint is random, but it will still spell out the letters "FREE WILL" because of the stencils.
Such a design is not random OR determined. There is a third choice of patterned. Patterned does not fall in between those two extremes. Instead it is something VERY different from either of them. You see, it is not a black/white choice of determined or random. Nor is it a choice of 'gray'. Instead it is a choice of the color purple (one of my favorites). It is neither determined nor random, but something different.
Now, patterns are the key to life - on both all scales. On the large scale, life has a set pattern of symmetry. On a small scale, life is a complex pattern of cells, on a micro level, DNA is just a pattern.
Life is about patterns, and human minds are the ultimate expression of that pattern. We are not robots, nor random number generators. We are patterns. And our patterns have free will.
It came about from a 19th century view of physics as a deterministic nature.
Now adays most people recognize quantum mechanics mean that no matter how much knowledge you have, you can not predict the human brain, because at at very small level, it is not deterministic.
The deterministic then respond that this just means everyone is random. They claim that again, you have no free will, you are just a robot with a random number generator.
This again is lacking in understanding. First, it misunderstands a lot of quantum mechanism. It is NOT just a random number generator for Einstein's proverbial God's Dice game. Instead, quantum mechanics is far more complicated and many claim that no one understands it. Among other things, there is an 'observer' portion of quantum mechanics that is NOT random. That is, when you observe things, it changes the outcome (see Schrodinger's Cat).
But lets ignore the physics and get back down to philosophy, as that is the core of the model and a far more important question.
Here are some given assumptions.
- If everything is 100% accurately predictable, you have no free will, because your actions are predetermined.
- If your actions are random, or 100% accurately predictable except for a random factor, then again you have no free will, you are just a random number generator's output.
- For true free will to exist there must be some inherent core personality that is neither random, nor entirely predictable, but instead is internally consistent, not entirely determined by birth, (and therefore at least partially learned), and that determination is not random, but PATTERNED.
Assume for example God exists (God is not neccessary for this argument, but positing his existence makes the discussion easier, as God acts as an Omniscient creator who could predict your actions). God choose to create people as works of art, rather than either engineering projects (robots) or random number generators (robots whose programming was choosen at random).
Can God create something so he could not understand it? The answer here is yes (Not sure if he could create a stone to heavy for him to lift, that's a different question). He creates it in an artistic fashion instead of a planned one. He looks at the over-all forest, not the trees as he creates us. He lets the micro stuff fall randomly, but makes sure that the total creation follows a specific pattern.
If we were talking about painting, think of God as randomly throwing balls of paint at a wall that has a specific stencil design protecting it. Yes, the paint is random, but it will still spell out the letters "FREE WILL" because of the stencils.
Such a design is not random OR determined. There is a third choice of patterned. Patterned does not fall in between those two extremes. Instead it is something VERY different from either of them. You see, it is not a black/white choice of determined or random. Nor is it a choice of 'gray'. Instead it is a choice of the color purple (one of my favorites). It is neither determined nor random, but something different.
Now, patterns are the key to life - on both all scales. On the large scale, life has a set pattern of symmetry. On a small scale, life is a complex pattern of cells, on a micro level, DNA is just a pattern.
Life is about patterns, and human minds are the ultimate expression of that pattern. We are not robots, nor random number generators. We are patterns. And our patterns have free will.
Monday, April 1, 2013
Crime Comparison
The four major crime types are: Violence, Sex Crimes, Drug Crimes, Theft and Financial crimes.
We treat them very differently when it comes to punishment.
Violence is generally offered relatively low punishments, unless done repeatedly. Even murder can get you out in as little as 6 years for a first offense. But repeated crimes of violence often get stacked up.
Sex crimes committed by men tend to be heavily punished. Sex crimes committed by women tend to be overlooked (Oh, the teacher has sex with a student? Send him to JAIL FOR LIFE. Wait, it was a female teacher? Let her off with a warning. A STERN warning.) Mainly because sex crimes get a bad rap. We think a sex criminal is a violent kidnapping rapist, when they are more likely to be some poor shmuck that got drunk and peed on a school bus. Mainly because the violent kidnapping rapists are so rare as to be newsworthy when they are caught, while people get drunk and pee all the time. It's just bad luck if you get caught and the prosecutor decides to over-punish you.
Everyone knows that drug crimes tend to be punished with huge penalties. Users get far worse than most think is appropriate, and don't even talk about dealers. Of course a good lawyer can make it go away.
Theft crimes tend to be punished like Violence - light for first time offenders, heavy for repeat offenders.
Financial Crimes, either get you off with nothing or they throw the book at you.
Why is this?
Most violent crimes are done in a heat of passion and are unintended. That is most people that hurt or kill someone did not mean to let it get that bad, but things got out of hand. This knowledge is built into our legal system.
Well, Drug crimes and Sex crimes are generally considered 'habitual'. That is, if you do it once, people think you are a 'criminal type' that will always do it. As in "he's addicted to drugs, of course he's not going to stop'. People falsely believe the same thing about sex crimes and it also offends our sensibility a lot more. (Despite the fact that sex criminals are less likely to re-commit ANY crime, than other criminals and FAR less likely to to commit another sex crime.)
Theft tends to be planned, but it rarely pays - the amount of money/goods someone can still by theft/mugging/burglary, when divided by the relatively light criminal punishment offered means it becomes a rather poor paying job.
When it comes to financial crimes, lots of people do minor misdeeds. 21% of people think it's OK to cheat on their taxes (Source). Also, many financial criminals work hard at making their activities very complex and hard to understand. Then they claim it was not illegal or, worse case, that they didn't know that it was illegal. What, you mean it isn't legal to create an international charity that owns my office if and pays no taxes if I also live in the office? Sorry, didn't know that.
When you do simple financial crimes - getting caught embezzling money - you go to jail for a VERY long time. Worse than murder, because people know why you did it, and you can't claim it was in the heat of the moment and you regret doing it. But when you do the complex ones, you get away with it.
Worse, we have mandatory minimums that were put into law based on the 'usual circumstances'. This takes away judges discretion, but does it poorly.
So that's why our laws work the way. It has to do with excuses, motivation, reasonableness and difficulty of proving intent.
We treat them very differently when it comes to punishment.
Violence is generally offered relatively low punishments, unless done repeatedly. Even murder can get you out in as little as 6 years for a first offense. But repeated crimes of violence often get stacked up.
Sex crimes committed by men tend to be heavily punished. Sex crimes committed by women tend to be overlooked (Oh, the teacher has sex with a student? Send him to JAIL FOR LIFE. Wait, it was a female teacher? Let her off with a warning. A STERN warning.) Mainly because sex crimes get a bad rap. We think a sex criminal is a violent kidnapping rapist, when they are more likely to be some poor shmuck that got drunk and peed on a school bus. Mainly because the violent kidnapping rapists are so rare as to be newsworthy when they are caught, while people get drunk and pee all the time. It's just bad luck if you get caught and the prosecutor decides to over-punish you.
Everyone knows that drug crimes tend to be punished with huge penalties. Users get far worse than most think is appropriate, and don't even talk about dealers. Of course a good lawyer can make it go away.
Theft crimes tend to be punished like Violence - light for first time offenders, heavy for repeat offenders.
Financial Crimes, either get you off with nothing or they throw the book at you.
Why is this?
Most violent crimes are done in a heat of passion and are unintended. That is most people that hurt or kill someone did not mean to let it get that bad, but things got out of hand. This knowledge is built into our legal system.
Well, Drug crimes and Sex crimes are generally considered 'habitual'. That is, if you do it once, people think you are a 'criminal type' that will always do it. As in "he's addicted to drugs, of course he's not going to stop'. People falsely believe the same thing about sex crimes and it also offends our sensibility a lot more. (Despite the fact that sex criminals are less likely to re-commit ANY crime, than other criminals and FAR less likely to to commit another sex crime.)
Theft tends to be planned, but it rarely pays - the amount of money/goods someone can still by theft/mugging/burglary, when divided by the relatively light criminal punishment offered means it becomes a rather poor paying job.
When it comes to financial crimes, lots of people do minor misdeeds. 21% of people think it's OK to cheat on their taxes (Source). Also, many financial criminals work hard at making their activities very complex and hard to understand. Then they claim it was not illegal or, worse case, that they didn't know that it was illegal. What, you mean it isn't legal to create an international charity that owns my office if and pays no taxes if I also live in the office? Sorry, didn't know that.
When you do simple financial crimes - getting caught embezzling money - you go to jail for a VERY long time. Worse than murder, because people know why you did it, and you can't claim it was in the heat of the moment and you regret doing it. But when you do the complex ones, you get away with it.
Worse, we have mandatory minimums that were put into law based on the 'usual circumstances'. This takes away judges discretion, but does it poorly.
So that's why our laws work the way. It has to do with excuses, motivation, reasonableness and difficulty of proving intent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)