[Skoal]

I hate technology because of the new 50 cent and Justin Timberlake song.

[Akashimo]

So Mhurron is the devil?

Meh, its just people don't want responsiblity, media takes advantage of that fact and shepards them into thinking this and that. Humans are lazy, irresponisible and hypocritical. Not all, but the general sheep mentalities I'd pigeon hole there. Lets not forget the drama about Doom mods after shootings and other "video game blamed" ones. No one wants a burden and taking responisbility for their lack of actions and having to face the consequences are the result of these problems imho.

[Taskmage]

Originally Posted by Sabaron

It's all the same in that it keeps you in line instead of on the streets complaining about how much your life sucks. Basically the idea is was attempting to project is that:
Anything that you do that does more to keep you idle than increase your perception and participation of the actions of those who seek to use you for their own ends is a "circus".
The people that don't play games are the ones you need to watch out for.

Keep your eye on that one. He was a lean and hungry look about him.

Sure, but is it a bad thing to create less "people to watch out for?"

Hypothetical scenario: Two men own dogs. The first man builds his dog a shelter, keeps it well fed, gives it things to gnaw on and generally gives it the means to satisfy its biological and psychological imperitives. His dog is loyal and complacent. The second man underfeeds his dog, leaving it to scavenge rats in the barn or what have you to stay alive. Otherwise the man is entirely neglectful of the dogs needs and secures obediance from it when necessary by force. It is substantially less loyal but arguably more "free" because it isn't bound by dependencies on its master to survive.

I know you haven't said the word evil yet, but I'm going to. Which of the masters is evil? The first for pampering his dog to the point that it willfully waives its freedom? The second for neglecting an animal that is ostensibly under his care? Both for securing power over another creature?

[Akashimo]

I'd say both in your anology Taskmage. o_O And if you haven't already, you should write books on senerios like that.

[Karinya]

One problem with your analogy Taskmage: We are not dogs. Many people believe that the human citizens of a political entity should not be kept as possessions by the elites.

It's precisely the tendency to analogize the common people as animals (or children, the other common aristocratic metaphor) that modern democracy supposedly rejects.

If you're discussing dogs *as dogs*, I'd say the first dog owner is not evil but the second is. Dogs aren't capable of fully taking care of themselves in a technological world; taking care of them is morally fine as long as you do it well. But the analogy doesn't extend well to humans and governments, because the differences between dogs and humans are important.

[Taskmage]

True but the important parts of the analogy hold, imo. In either case there is an exchange between comfort and freedom, and the political establishment has power over and responsibility for the welfare of the citizenry. Discarding the artificial concept of ownership in the scenario, the relationships are the same.

[Feba]

So Mhurron is the devil?

No, but it does explain why Mhurron is an evil bastard.

[Karinya]

Originally Posted by Taskmage

True but the important parts of the analogy hold, imo. In either case there is an exchange between comfort and freedom, and the political establishment has power over and responsibility for the welfare of the citizenry. Discarding the artificial concept of ownership in the scenario, the relationships are the same.

The difference is that while the dog owner is (we hope) smarter than the dog, the government is not smarter than its citizens. The government and the citizen belong to the same species with the same intellectual abilities (yes, you do too belong to the same species as George W. Bush, even if you don't want to admit it).

That's why while it's reasonable for the dog to trust in the superior ability of its owner, it's not reasonable for the citizens to trust in the "superior" ability of their rulers - they aren't actually superior at all.

It would be absurd for the dog to check to see whether or not the owner made a mistake (in most cases). It's vitally necessary for the citizens to check to see whether or not the government is making mistakes (and to oppose government attempts to hide their actions).

[Feba]

the government is not smarter than its citizens.

Obviously not true. Stupid as many politicians may seem, they've obviously managed to outwit us.

[IfritnoItazura]

Originally Posted by Karinya

It would be absurd for the dog to check to see whether or not the owner made a mistake (in most cases). It's vitally necessary for the citizens to check to see whether or not the government is making mistakes (and to oppose government attempts to hide their actions).

Some dogs apparently can detect when some humans ("owners") suffering from diabetics is in need of an insulin shot, and would remind the human. Some dogs have been noted to sound alarm at various human failures, like waking parents when child has a seizure, barking when there's a fire in the house, etc.

Those are edge cases, of course, but dogs have been evolving with humans, and we have a certain amount co-dependence with them--for mutual benefits. We guide their development to fit our needs, and in turn mold our society to fit them in.

If you really think about it, why is it that eating dog seems such as cruel and disgusting activity to most of us? It is just an animal, and not exactly the smartest possible pet, either. (Then again, try having a really smart pet, like a monkey... It'll drive you bananas...) Why do our culture demand we honor and treasure dogs to a such an extend?

Why did Lassie have such resonance?

In somewhat similar fashion, a government and its people co-develop through time. We shape our government, and it shapes us. Hopefully, at some point, the government and its people would treasure each other like a boy and his dog.

p.s. I demand that government at any level be smartly run--its decision making ability should be better than the average Joe, given that its power is much greater than him.

[DakAttack]

Just to further off topic this thread:

[Taskmage]

Originally Posted by Karinya

The difference is that while the dog owner is (we hope) smarter than the dog, the government is not smarter than its citizens. The government and the citizen belong to the same species with the same intellectual abilities (yes, you do too belong to the same species as George W. Bush, even if you don't want to admit it).
That's why while it's reasonable for the dog to trust in the superior ability of its owner, it's not reasonable for the citizens to trust in the "superior" ability of their rulers - they aren't actually superior at all.
It would be absurd for the dog to check to see whether or not the owner made a mistake (in most cases). It's vitally necessary for the citizens to check to see whether or not the government is making mistakes (and to oppose government attempts to hide their actions).

True only in an "equal in the eyes of God" sense. All men are not equal in intelligence or ability. The elected are smarter or wiser and more fit to be charged with the welfare of their constituents, or have at least convinced the vocal minority of their constituency that they are, or they would not have been elected. But this is off topic.

As it applies to our bread and circuses discussion, the important point you raise is that there could and should be a channel of feedback and communication between the ruled and their rulers, but these channels are woefully underutilized. In general the populace is more concerned with Britney's and her baby than what their senators are doing. But to fall back to the question my analogy was originally intended to present, does it matter that people are politically apathetic so long as they're fed, entertained and happy?

[Yellow Mage]

Originally Posted by Taskmage

As it applies to our bread and circuses discussion, the important point you raise is that there could and should be a channel of feedback and communication between the ruled and their rulers, but these channels are woefully underutilized. In general the populace is more concerned with Britney's and her baby than what their senators are doing. But to fall back to the question my analogy was originally intended to present, does it matter that people are politically apathetic so long as they're fed, entertained and happy?

This entire paragraph is quoted for truth.

Personally, I think things could and should be more egalitarian, but that's probably because I'm a bit of an altruist.

[Feba]

general the populace is more concerned with Britney's and her bab

What the hell, someone bred with her?