04 Jun 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI don't necessarily have a problem with genetically improving the human race, but I have a big problem with Big Brother telling me that I can't run for office or that I can't vote because I don't meet their "standard" of reasonableness and compassion.
What a curious idea! -the idea if ‘superhumans’ in the far future being genetically engineered into existence to have extra ‘reasonableness’ to increase their voting power. Perhaps, in the far future, everybody could be genetically engineered (either before birth or after birth by being genetically modified) to be both ‘superrational’ and ‘superkind’ ...[text shortened]... me becoming a politician is about the same as the probability of me stepping onto the moon.
🙂
04 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonLook, just because you've read The Republic it doesn't mean you can repackage Plato's ideas on how a society should function.
Below is my personal account (consisting of about 3000 words -I hope this is not unacceptably large!) of my personal political philosophy that I have been developing in the last few years and which I call ‘redemism’. I would like to find out what generally people think of my philosophy.
Redemism:
What is Redemism:
Redemism (pronounced re ...[text shortened]... limsy evidence or no evidence. This is an important part of the redem test because if you for...
At least give credit where it is due.
But I must say that I haven't heard someone use Star Wars to show the virtues of Kant's philosphy. Well done.
05 Jun 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonOK, given that, what's to stop a dictator from buying off the test administrators [and the ones who monitor them] to skew the results in his favor?
My best guess here (and this is just a guess) is that that the people who would administers the 'redem' tests would probably be the same people that normally administer A-level exams and other types of academic exams but with at least some guidance from psychologists and neurologists. And, the people that make sure that the test administrators are actually giving reasonable tests would be mainly the same psychologists and neurologists.🙂
06 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitI could ask the simular question: "what's to stop a dictator from buying off the administrators of a fully democratic election [and the ones who monitor it] to skew the results in his favour?" I suppose the answer to both questions is simply that it is generally rather difficult to cover-up election fraud when an election is so very public. 🙂
OK, given that, what's to stop a dictator from buying off the test administrators [and the ones who monitor them] to skew the results in his favor?
06 Jun 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonA dictator 'buying off' and a dictator holding an election, simply don't compute. Dictators dictate, its what they do.
I could ask the simular question: "what's to stop a dictator from buying off the administrators of a fully democratic election [and the ones who monitor it] to skew the results in his favour?" I suppose the answer to both questions is simply that it is generally rather difficult to cover-up election fraud when an election is so very public. 🙂
As for election fraud, it is common in Africa, and often does get covered up successfully, and even in the many cases where it is not covered up, it still doesn't get corrected. Many electoral systems have a major flaw in that they allow the winner of the election into power before the results can be properly contested. In some cases, the court case contesting the results can take longer than the term of office of the contested candidate. Also the Judge is usually hand picked by the defendant (ie the fraudulent winner of the election).
06 Jun 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWell, that's really my point. At best, your system is not substantially more immune from corruption than the others. At worst, the 'rational' criteria will be used to disenfranchise all political opposition.
I could ask the simular question: "what's to stop a dictator from buying off the administrators of a fully democratic election [and the ones who monitor it] to skew the results in his favour?" I suppose the answer to both questions is simply that it is generally rather difficult to cover-up election fraud when an election is so very public. 🙂
07 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadLet me rephrase that: I could ask the similar question: "what's to stop somebody planning to be a dictator from buying off the administrators of a fully democratic election [and the ones who monitor it] to skew the results in his favour?"
A dictator 'buying off' and a dictator holding an election, simply don't compute. Dictators dictate, its what they do....
15 Jun 08
6 edits
I have now changed my mind 😲 : I have changed my political philosophy a bit. I now think it would be better if just the political candidates did the mental tests but not the voters. I also have made various smaller changes to my political philosophy. I have renamed my modified philosophy ‘polfitism’ (because the test tests for ‘political fitness&rsquo😉 and have posted it as a new thread called:
'Polfitism; my personal political philosophy'
at the political forum website: http://www.politic.co.uk/general/
This time I have avoided the mistake of the excessive use of the horribly vague words ‘rational’ and ‘reasonable’ and I dropped all historical references since I have now been informed from a reliable source that Ronald Reagan never referred to his program as ‘star wars’ and Hitler had great empathy and sympathy towards animals and children! (I assume providing they where non-black and non-Jewish). I also have tried to avoid alienating theists else, unfortunately, I fear that American politicians are unlikely to even consider the philosophy.
🙂
15 Jun 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou must be relying on wiki again. The PATRIOT missile defense system project (then called the SAM-D) was started in the mid-sixties. Production was authorized under Carter and missiles delivered long before Reagan even announced his daffy "Star Wars" idea.
Well, this got me interested in the early missile defense research. There's no way that much money was spent without significant research being done.
EDIT - Dude - they didn't rely on lasers only. Reagan-era SDI is what led to the Patriot defensive missiles!
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/systems/PATRIOT.html
15 Jun 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou should ask Grampy Bobby what he thinks of this.
I have now changed my mind 😲 : I have changed my political philosophy a bit. I now think it would be better if just the political candidates did the mental tests but not the voters. I also have made various smaller changes to my political philosophy. I have renamed my modified philosophy ‘polfitism’ (because the test tests for ‘political fitness&rsquo😉 a ...[text shortened]... tunately, I fear that American politicians are unlikely to even consider the philosophy.
🙂
16 Jun 08
9 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonArgueably one of the most intelligent, rational, and kind presidents the US has ever had was Carter, however, most people I have talked to would equate his presidency as an abject failure except when discussing the peace treaty initiated by him between Israel and Egypt.
Below is my personal account (consisting of about 3000 words -I hope this is not unacceptably large!) of my personal political philosophy that I have been developing in the last few years and which I call ‘redemism’. I would like to find out what generally people think of my philosophy.
Redemism:
What is Redemism:
Redemism (pronounced re ...[text shortened]... limsy evidence or no evidence. This is an important part of the redem test because if you for...
Also, you assume the star wars initiative was believed by Reagan to be viable in its entirety. You fail to consider that it was mostly used to scare the doo-doo out of the Soviets, which in large part I think it did. If it was done to scare them, do you think it was a bad thing to do?
I will take a guess here and say that you are left leaning on the political spectrum and abhor presidents in the past such as Reagan and Bush. It has often struck me that the left try to portray Republican Presidents as dumb and dim witted individuals who are morally bankrupt. The current Repulican candidate McCain I think will try to be shown as slightly senile and a moral carbon copy of Bush. You know, they will try and say that he is just like Bush in that he is bought off by the oil companies and will more than willingly do anything to please them even if it means destroying his own country. However, I think it would be hard to paint him as stupid because of his distinguished political career. Also, another trouble spot is his military service to his country as he was captured and almost gave his life for his country. How then would he then try to destroy it for his own personal gain? Perhaps he has had a change of heart, or even better, it is all part of his senility?
16 Jun 08
2 edits
Originally posted by gaychessplayerIt would be just another "test" by the powers that be to see if you measure up to their standards. It's not enough, I guess, to sell your soul to either political party for them to endorse you. Now you have to pass psycological exams to prove you even have a soul to sell. LOL.
I don't necessarily have a problem with genetically improving the human race, but I have a big problem with Big Brother telling me that I can't run for office or that I can't vote because I don't meet their "standard" of reasonableness and compassion.
16 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyIf it was done to scare them, then, yes, I thing it was a bad thing to do for the following reasons:
...
Also, you assume the star wars initiative was believed by Reagan to be viable in its entirety. You fail to consider that it was mostly used to scare the doo-doo out of the Soviets, which in large part I think it did. If it was done to scare them, do you think it was a bad thing to do?
...
I do not know if this occurred to you at the time because it certainly occurred to me at the time but there was two possible outcomes of this attempt to ‘scare‘ them if indeed that was what it really was;
Either, they would fail to be convinced that star wars was really a ’threat’ (I wouldn’t have been convinced that ‘star wars’ was a ’threat’ but I am not them) in which case star wars would have completely failed in its objective.
Or, regardless of rationally or irrationally, they would be convinced that star wars was really a ’threat’ in which case there was a real possibility (and this is what really scared me at the time) that they would be motivated to perform a pre-emptive nuclear strike before star wars could be fully implemented and that, of course, would have killed virtually all of us. Was it worth that risk?
16 Jun 08
Originally posted by whodeyIn UK politics I would be regarded as being slightly left of centre.
...
I will take a guess here and say that you are left leaning on the political spectrum and abhor presidents in the past such as Reagan and Bush. It has often struck me that the left try to portray Republican Presidents as dumb and dim witted individuals who are morally bankrupt. The current Repulican candidate McCain I think will try to be shown as sli ...[text shortened]... nal gain? Perhaps he has had a change of heart, or even better, it is all part of his senility?
But, now your are putting a large number of words into my mouth.
For a start, I never ‘portray Republican Presidents as dumb and dim witted individuals who are morally bankrupt’ although it is a fact that Reagan had Alzheimer’s disease; a fact that was hidden from the voters at the time and this goes against my political philosophy because I think that all the voters should be informed of all the mental attributes of the political candidates so that they at least have the opportunity to make a better informed choice.
I also don’t believe there is such thing as ‘morally bankrupt’. That is because I do not think there is such think as ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’! Depending on exactly what you mean by ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’, they are either superstitious concepts or meaningless concepts.
And, again, depending on exactly what you mean by ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’, all moral propositions are either literally meaningless or simple wrong. No ‘moral’ proposition or concept can be based on observation nor evidence nor logic nor any kind of non-arbitrary criteria unless that non-arbitrary criteria is based on arbitrary criteria.
16 Jun 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonActually, the Soviets simply could not keep up with the US technologically and economically in the arms race. I think this is one of the items that made them realize this fact. They spent far to much of the resources trying to keep up with the US until one day they woke up and realized the game was over then down came the walls!!!
[Either, they would fail to be convinced that star wars was really a ’threat’ (I wouldn’t have been convinced that ‘star wars’ was a ’threat’ but I am not them) in which case star wars would have completely failed in its objective.
Or, regardless of rationally or irrationally, they would be convinced that star wars was really a ’threat’ in which case ...[text shortened]... implemented and that, of course, would have killed virtually all of us. Was it worth that risk?[/b]