Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
FAKESTER FRIENDSTER PROTEST AND PARTY
Friendster
Fakesters
Protest
CEOs
Counter Demonstrators
First Official Fakester Party
Artificial Identities
Masks
Culture Jamming
Art
Agitation
Exhibitionists
Fakesters
Protest
CEOs
Counter Demonstrators
First Official Fakester Party
Artificial Identities
Masks
Culture Jamming
Art
Agitation
Exhibitionists
Maybe I didn't make myself clear the first time:
I NEED SF BAY AREA REVOLUTIONARIES TO PROTEST A PUBLIC APPEARANCE BY JON ABRAMS.
Not only will this be an excuse to make fools out of Jon, ourselves, and anyone with 100 yards of us, but there will be COUNTER-DEMONSTRATORS present (they e-mailed me, TAUNTING US, today).
Possibly also counter-counter demonstrators. And certainly press. This can be a glorious zoo of sound and color, with enough of us there.
In any case, we need YOU there. NO EXCUSES. Put your money where your mouth is. We will party like the deviant delinquents we are afterwards. So if you don't show, we're just going to have fun
without you, and will NOT save you any of the booze.
I have some confirmations, but WE NEED MORE OF YOU. We need to look like a FORCE OF FUCKING NATURE out there. This means NUMBERS.
The slightly revised invitation is below.
So let's get BUSY. E-mail me NOW with your RSVP.
-Roy
P.S.: Did all of those caps make me sound enough like Pure Evil there?
* * *
You may have heard about the Fakester Revolution through the recent SF Weekly article. (If not, you can look at our website and its "news" links to read tons of press coverage about us:
http://fakesters.netfirms.com)
All culture jammers, freedom of expression activists, Cacophonists, and exhibitionists -- your help is needed for a Mass Fakester Manifestation in meatspace!
This will be an art action and protest (hooray!) against Friendster at a public appearance by notoriously humorless Friendster CEO Jon Abrams (hissss!) in San Francisco on the eve of Thurs., Sept. 4th between 6pm and 7pm at the Commonwealth Club at 595 Market St., to agitate for our rights to use artificial identities on their site. It will a street party of noise, color, masks and silly hats -- and
of course our righteous Fakester ire. We need your help! Not only for your physical presence, but to make or bring items such as banners, signs, confetti, drums or other instruments, party favors, bunny ears, clown noses, face paint, water balloons filled with pig's blood (wait -- scratch that, PETA flashback), or whatever else you might have to add to the fun. We'll be blasting yuppies (not to mention Jon and his dot-cronies!) with our frightening wit as they enter the event. Let us join forces to make the gray masses laugh and think!
In addition to the typical sloganeering and banner waving found at any protest, there will be special Bonus Actions announced later! Some outrageous, jacked-up lunacy will be going down, we can tell
you.
The press will be alerted through an official press release, so we want lots of warm bodies for the cameras. Are you ready for your close-up?
Here is the event which we plan to protest:
http://www.commonwealthclub.org/featured.html#urbansingles
(Scroll down to the "Urban Singles" event on this page if the link does not take you directly to the correct spot.)
Although the protest will only last an hour, a bout of raucous socializing and drinking will follow at a local watering hole -- that means that this is also the FIRST OFFICIAL FAKESTER PARTY!
We need to hear from interested parties by e-mail ASAP in order to pass along further details.
Contact: mechanic_boy [at] yahoo.com
Join the Party!
I NEED SF BAY AREA REVOLUTIONARIES TO PROTEST A PUBLIC APPEARANCE BY JON ABRAMS.
Not only will this be an excuse to make fools out of Jon, ourselves, and anyone with 100 yards of us, but there will be COUNTER-DEMONSTRATORS present (they e-mailed me, TAUNTING US, today).
Possibly also counter-counter demonstrators. And certainly press. This can be a glorious zoo of sound and color, with enough of us there.
In any case, we need YOU there. NO EXCUSES. Put your money where your mouth is. We will party like the deviant delinquents we are afterwards. So if you don't show, we're just going to have fun
without you, and will NOT save you any of the booze.
I have some confirmations, but WE NEED MORE OF YOU. We need to look like a FORCE OF FUCKING NATURE out there. This means NUMBERS.
The slightly revised invitation is below.
So let's get BUSY. E-mail me NOW with your RSVP.
-Roy
P.S.: Did all of those caps make me sound enough like Pure Evil there?
* * *
You may have heard about the Fakester Revolution through the recent SF Weekly article. (If not, you can look at our website and its "news" links to read tons of press coverage about us:
http://fakesters.netfirms.com)
All culture jammers, freedom of expression activists, Cacophonists, and exhibitionists -- your help is needed for a Mass Fakester Manifestation in meatspace!
This will be an art action and protest (hooray!) against Friendster at a public appearance by notoriously humorless Friendster CEO Jon Abrams (hissss!) in San Francisco on the eve of Thurs., Sept. 4th between 6pm and 7pm at the Commonwealth Club at 595 Market St., to agitate for our rights to use artificial identities on their site. It will a street party of noise, color, masks and silly hats -- and
of course our righteous Fakester ire. We need your help! Not only for your physical presence, but to make or bring items such as banners, signs, confetti, drums or other instruments, party favors, bunny ears, clown noses, face paint, water balloons filled with pig's blood (wait -- scratch that, PETA flashback), or whatever else you might have to add to the fun. We'll be blasting yuppies (not to mention Jon and his dot-cronies!) with our frightening wit as they enter the event. Let us join forces to make the gray masses laugh and think!
In addition to the typical sloganeering and banner waving found at any protest, there will be special Bonus Actions announced later! Some outrageous, jacked-up lunacy will be going down, we can tell
you.
The press will be alerted through an official press release, so we want lots of warm bodies for the cameras. Are you ready for your close-up?
Here is the event which we plan to protest:
http://www.commonwealthclub.org/featured.html#urbansingles
(Scroll down to the "Urban Singles" event on this page if the link does not take you directly to the correct spot.)
Although the protest will only last an hour, a bout of raucous socializing and drinking will follow at a local watering hole -- that means that this is also the FIRST OFFICIAL FAKESTER PARTY!
We need to hear from interested parties by e-mail ASAP in order to pass along further details.
Contact: mechanic_boy [at] yahoo.com
Join the Party!
For more information:
http://fakesters.netfirms.com
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Someone once sent me an inviation to Friendster. That person was someone who loves to be a consumer but can't be bothered to protest or call congress or event go to political events when *really* bad stuff is happening. His attitude - "Don't even try, nothing you can do about it."
So I ignored the friendster call. Why bother?
So I ignored the friendster call. Why bother?
It seems the time and energy you are expending on this waste-of-time website, might be put to better use in any of the plethora of effective organizations and causes. Pastimes such as this are a means of distracting and occupying the American people away from what is being done to our forests, deserts, rivers and civil liberties, just to name a few. If you want to meet people, pick an issue close to your heart and dig in. Helpful suggestions: Police Brutality, Subjugation of Women, Devestation of our National Forests, Anti-Globalization ...
so... i'm not a huge friendster freak, though i'm on there cuz it's kind of fun. i, too, feel a wee bit critical of the protest - uh, aren't there more important things to be working on? on the other hand, what the hell - it's good to get people out in the street together, in community. (get off the computers and into the streets!) and you can actually meet other activists/anarchos, etc. on friendster - for a while (before it got shut down by the CEO - boo! hiss!) there was an Anarchist Friendster Federation, and you could link up to this and meet fellow anarchos in the bay area and around the country.
mind you, i don't think the revolution is going to be made on friendster. but what's wrong w/ a little fun and fakestering?
mind you, i don't think the revolution is going to be made on friendster. but what's wrong w/ a little fun and fakestering?
Oh I understand everybody who wants to be serious all the time, but when do you have a good time if you are totally absorbed in struggle? I love the idea of protesting with alcohol, when was the last time any group embraced the bottle. It is important to get pissed and have a laugh, it is a quality of life thing. Everybody should let it go, every once and awhile.
The sad thing is that, the bay area does great in the joke and creativity protest area, but without alot of integration into the more serious stuff. But I don't think that Action for local global justice really wants a bunch of drunk santa clauses touching themselves at the chevron action. Maybe someone can clarify and prove me wrong. I missed the booze shout out on the site, but maybe my perception is weak due to too much friendster.
I like friendster, cause it lets people do something creative when they are working crappy jobs and hopefully find more people that think. Not that most peeps of friendster are thinkers or revolutionaries or uber political, but I was totally amazed with the number of peeps into revolution. bling bling.
The sad thing is that, the bay area does great in the joke and creativity protest area, but without alot of integration into the more serious stuff. But I don't think that Action for local global justice really wants a bunch of drunk santa clauses touching themselves at the chevron action. Maybe someone can clarify and prove me wrong. I missed the booze shout out on the site, but maybe my perception is weak due to too much friendster.
I like friendster, cause it lets people do something creative when they are working crappy jobs and hopefully find more people that think. Not that most peeps of friendster are thinkers or revolutionaries or uber political, but I was totally amazed with the number of peeps into revolution. bling bling.
" I love the idea of protesting with alcohol, when was the last time any group embraced the bottle."
the battle or the bottle? i say both! actually, i don't drink, so never mind the bottle for me.
and Nessie is speciesist, though i don't think he directly tortures animals. i heard this site got hacked this morning - funny! what can i say - i think Nessie's out of hand on here - always has to have an answer for everything... and be obnoxious about it.
the battle or the bottle? i say both! actually, i don't drink, so never mind the bottle for me.
and Nessie is speciesist, though i don't think he directly tortures animals. i heard this site got hacked this morning - funny! what can i say - i think Nessie's out of hand on here - always has to have an answer for everything... and be obnoxious about it.
"the battle or the bottle? i say both!"
It might become the battle for the bottle.
It might become the battle for the bottle.
Nessie is now a troll, trying to inflame some weird view of his on other threads. What a trip.
Maybe if Nessie just kicked back and had a few drinks with the critter-nazis (who are probably his friends since the connections between Bay Area anarchists and Earth First seem pretty strong) all of these problems would go away. Maybe thats a good use for Friendster?
Don't drink germ piss. Smoke herb. Germ piss makes you stupid. Herb makes you smart.
Freehold, Iowa ? Over the last year, several isolated sexual incidents involving the popular liquid methamphetamine drink, "Red Bull," were reported to church security. The lewd nature of each case led Pastor to request that Landover Baptist's esteemed Creation Science Laboratory open up a privately funded investigation.
...
"We knew kids were getting high off this legal crack in a can," said Dr. Edwards. "We also knew that since the product was released here in Iowa, the rate of teenage pregnancies skyrocketed. And many pediatricians have reported seeing seriously calloused penises - a sign that some local men were masturbating at dangerously high speeds. The drug community calls it speed jacking," said Dr. Edwards. "The tests we performed just confirmed our assumptions that this so-called energy drink is nothing more than liquid sin in a fancy tin. They can't call it crank, because that is illegal, so they slyly call it Red Bull and no one thinks anything of it."
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0903/redbull.html
...
"We knew kids were getting high off this legal crack in a can," said Dr. Edwards. "We also knew that since the product was released here in Iowa, the rate of teenage pregnancies skyrocketed. And many pediatricians have reported seeing seriously calloused penises - a sign that some local men were masturbating at dangerously high speeds. The drug community calls it speed jacking," said Dr. Edwards. "The tests we performed just confirmed our assumptions that this so-called energy drink is nothing more than liquid sin in a fancy tin. They can't call it crank, because that is illegal, so they slyly call it Red Bull and no one thinks anything of it."
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0903/redbull.html
I know most of the world didn't make it, or maybe
I didn't see you all becuase there were literally
thousands of angery protestors (4 really). The
air was on fire, with rage, not alcohol. There
was no free alcohol, but there were some petrol
cocktails. But I did not get any cock or tail.
There were 7 media people there, which
outnumbered protestors by 66%. A high definition
video camera was there. There were 2 visible
police officers on the street and probably 2 at
the event, I noticed there squad cars parked
discreetly away from the protest zone. I did not
vandalize their cars though they were left
ungaurded, within easy reach of the throngs of
insane protestors.
A note on speciesism, it is part of a competative idealogy that has to nothing to do with how other species relate. Challenge the dominator in your mind. Species are inter-related not competative.
I didn't see you all becuase there were literally
thousands of angery protestors (4 really). The
air was on fire, with rage, not alcohol. There
was no free alcohol, but there were some petrol
cocktails. But I did not get any cock or tail.
There were 7 media people there, which
outnumbered protestors by 66%. A high definition
video camera was there. There were 2 visible
police officers on the street and probably 2 at
the event, I noticed there squad cars parked
discreetly away from the protest zone. I did not
vandalize their cars though they were left
ungaurded, within easy reach of the throngs of
insane protestors.
A note on speciesism, it is part of a competative idealogy that has to nothing to do with how other species relate. Challenge the dominator in your mind. Species are inter-related not competative.
so i put the comment up about speciesism and nessie because there was an earlier comment in this thread (major spam, i'm assuming) about nessie and speciesism, which seems to have been removed. (of course, nessie's comment will stay up, and it will look as if i brought all this up out of nowhere, but whatever.)
but anyway, as for species caring more about their own species - uh, that seems like a bit of anthropomorphizing here. seriously. my cat couldn't give a shit about other cats - actually, she'd prefer they all leave her alone and go far away - and prefers the company of humans, especially if they fawn over her. many species, esp. many felines, are loners and view others of their species as competition. i don't know about hamsters, though.
i don't really like the term "speciesist", but i suppose to me it means thinking humans are the only species that are important and all other life forms are here for our use. kind of fucked up and outdated and rather un-ecological. i agree w/ tkat, we can look at life on earth in a more mutual aid and cooperative manner, interdependence and all of that. we are anarchists, yes?
i do have a species preference though. i prefer cats above all other animals, including humans. humans can be so, well, annoying. so can cats, but they're furry and they purr and don't make bombs and stuff.
but anyway, as for species caring more about their own species - uh, that seems like a bit of anthropomorphizing here. seriously. my cat couldn't give a shit about other cats - actually, she'd prefer they all leave her alone and go far away - and prefers the company of humans, especially if they fawn over her. many species, esp. many felines, are loners and view others of their species as competition. i don't know about hamsters, though.
i don't really like the term "speciesist", but i suppose to me it means thinking humans are the only species that are important and all other life forms are here for our use. kind of fucked up and outdated and rather un-ecological. i agree w/ tkat, we can look at life on earth in a more mutual aid and cooperative manner, interdependence and all of that. we are anarchists, yes?
i do have a species preference though. i prefer cats above all other animals, including humans. humans can be so, well, annoying. so can cats, but they're furry and they purr and don't make bombs and stuff.
"Unlike some people around here, when I don't have an answer, I shut up."
Or repeat the same tired point over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again on every thread until the people you are arguing with have to go to work and you can get your last word in.
Or repeat the same tired point over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again on every thread until the people you are arguing with have to go to work and you can get your last word in.
" It has nothing to do with some mythical rights. It?s about self preservation"
Hmm a morality like that would justify nasty things like murder, slavery etc.. Would you support people killing the mentally retarded for food in another part of the world? It wouldnt hurt you but Im guessing you do hold human life sacred in a way that cant be described in a way thats not to some extent spiritual. Afterall you dont hold other life sacred so it cant be that you think that it has something to do with pain and suffering alone (and of course thats a religious type belief too).
Republicans and the right usually arent saying they support shitting in their own back yards either but they do have a view of nature that holds no value outside of its possible use by the present generation. Do you hold the lives of humans in the future to be valuable?
If you ask around I think you would be surprised that your views on the value of nature and nonhuman life is in a very small minority. Most Americans may eat meat but they do hold some value in the life of other animals (especially the more intelligent ones like other primates and dolphins) Most people also cultural treasures valuable outside of use or looking at them; even if few people may visit the pyramids in Egypt or S Mexico, how many people would support their being bulldozed for a new sports stadium? There is also a widespread belief in the value of preserving nature in the abstract; wilderness areas, and nonrenewable things like Old Growth have value to many people outside of personal use.
In recent years there has been a shift toward meanness in American culture. People who care about things like nature are demeaned and people are told that for moral or political reasosns all that should matter are jobs and money. Its a scary trend and I think you would find that people who only care about money and survival tend not to be very happy. There are stereotypes about working class culture that Ive seen among the a few lefties who have start to spout antinature rhetoric and they are flat out that, stereotypes. For most people (no matter their culture of socioeconomic background) there is value in nature and beauty and those values extend beyond immediate enjoyment.
Hmm a morality like that would justify nasty things like murder, slavery etc.. Would you support people killing the mentally retarded for food in another part of the world? It wouldnt hurt you but Im guessing you do hold human life sacred in a way that cant be described in a way thats not to some extent spiritual. Afterall you dont hold other life sacred so it cant be that you think that it has something to do with pain and suffering alone (and of course thats a religious type belief too).
Republicans and the right usually arent saying they support shitting in their own back yards either but they do have a view of nature that holds no value outside of its possible use by the present generation. Do you hold the lives of humans in the future to be valuable?
If you ask around I think you would be surprised that your views on the value of nature and nonhuman life is in a very small minority. Most Americans may eat meat but they do hold some value in the life of other animals (especially the more intelligent ones like other primates and dolphins) Most people also cultural treasures valuable outside of use or looking at them; even if few people may visit the pyramids in Egypt or S Mexico, how many people would support their being bulldozed for a new sports stadium? There is also a widespread belief in the value of preserving nature in the abstract; wilderness areas, and nonrenewable things like Old Growth have value to many people outside of personal use.
In recent years there has been a shift toward meanness in American culture. People who care about things like nature are demeaned and people are told that for moral or political reasosns all that should matter are jobs and money. Its a scary trend and I think you would find that people who only care about money and survival tend not to be very happy. There are stereotypes about working class culture that Ive seen among the a few lefties who have start to spout antinature rhetoric and they are flat out that, stereotypes. For most people (no matter their culture of socioeconomic background) there is value in nature and beauty and those values extend beyond immediate enjoyment.
">So Science tells you that your part of nature so your proNature. What does that even mean?
It means I?m smarter than people who just take some hippie?s word for it. I actually studied the facts before i made my decision"
Science can never lead to a moral system, so this makes no sense. You cant have a SMARTER morality, a more internally consistent one but not a SMARTER one. This isnt an antiscience belief, you can go talk to any scientist and they will tell you the same. Even such weird attempts to develop a moral phillosophy as Kant are based off a set of moral principles. "Do onto other..." is not a logical decision. Game theory ("the prisoners dillema") would predict that people will choose to not cooperate and its only to ones benefit to look like one is helping out (and then stab people in the back) when you allow for a lack of perfect information.
Moral system like "only the life of an American counts" or "only the life of my friends count" or "only the life of humans count" or "only the life of primates count" are all just as valid scientifically since science really doesnt relate to morality. Morality really is a form of sentimentality (now thats something a psychologist could perhaps "prove" with science). Get rid of sentimentality and you have no morality.
Its worrysome when people like you start attacking hippie dippe sentimentality. There is nothing less sentimental about caring about the life of a human in Iraq than there is about caring about old growth. It might be "cool" to be all cold an uncaring and claim that ones morality is based off something higher than feelings but that just leads down a long road towards valuing nothing. The coldness and lack of feeling by most American men is one of the main reasons the US is so fucked up; making money has become more important than taking care of ones children, jobs are more important than lives lost in foreign wars, and animals, trees, mountains and things of beauty are just natural resources that can be plundered for profit.
It means I?m smarter than people who just take some hippie?s word for it. I actually studied the facts before i made my decision"
Science can never lead to a moral system, so this makes no sense. You cant have a SMARTER morality, a more internally consistent one but not a SMARTER one. This isnt an antiscience belief, you can go talk to any scientist and they will tell you the same. Even such weird attempts to develop a moral phillosophy as Kant are based off a set of moral principles. "Do onto other..." is not a logical decision. Game theory ("the prisoners dillema") would predict that people will choose to not cooperate and its only to ones benefit to look like one is helping out (and then stab people in the back) when you allow for a lack of perfect information.
Moral system like "only the life of an American counts" or "only the life of my friends count" or "only the life of humans count" or "only the life of primates count" are all just as valid scientifically since science really doesnt relate to morality. Morality really is a form of sentimentality (now thats something a psychologist could perhaps "prove" with science). Get rid of sentimentality and you have no morality.
Its worrysome when people like you start attacking hippie dippe sentimentality. There is nothing less sentimental about caring about the life of a human in Iraq than there is about caring about old growth. It might be "cool" to be all cold an uncaring and claim that ones morality is based off something higher than feelings but that just leads down a long road towards valuing nothing. The coldness and lack of feeling by most American men is one of the main reasons the US is so fucked up; making money has become more important than taking care of ones children, jobs are more important than lives lost in foreign wars, and animals, trees, mountains and things of beauty are just natural resources that can be plundered for profit.
What are you trying to say here, that morality is illogical?
"Yeah it is, because they are going to do back. "
"Do onto others" is a moral not logical rule. Unless you believe in karma or something like that there are only certain situations where it is logical.
Sentimentality and feelings may be scary for some people but they are at the root of humanism as well as most religions.
"Do onto others" is a moral not logical rule. Unless you believe in karma or something like that there are only certain situations where it is logical.
Sentimentality and feelings may be scary for some people but they are at the root of humanism as well as most religions.
"is that to frame saving the forests in terms of morality, or even esthetics, is a mistake."
So what are you using? Logic cant lead you to make moral decisions. Cutting old growth wont result in human deaths in the short or long term. Wolves going extinct wont either. Caring about the greenhouse effect is illogical if you only care about your own life since severe effects will likely be long after you are dead and any change in existing CO2 production will only have an effect in the dstant future too.
You dont quite seem to grasp that science is not a religion. Science can tell you theories about how the world works but it cant tell you what to do.
The closest logic can lead to a statement on morality is Goedel's incompleteness theorem:
"any consistent axiomatic system includes propositions whose truth is undecidable within that system and its consistency is, hence, not provable within that system"
Its used a lot in logic and math but as a logical proof it extends to a system of moral beliefs too.
So "science" "proves" that if someone values not cutting down trees, that belief is based off of some moral belief that can not be proven through logic. That belief could be self preservation (although thats tenuous since the current clearcuts wont effect most living peoples health), it could be a desire to protect the lives of people in the future (also tenuous although a little less so, it could be a desire to have the forests around to visit (perhaps a logical concern but it would be satisfied by a small park) or it could be a desire to protect "nature" in an abstract spiritual sense.
Moral values dont come from science, logic, or anything else that isnt "touchy feely". The only people one will ever meet who think otherwise are people who subscribe to dogmatic beliefs that others developed based originally off of "touchy feely" concepts. Christian fundamentalists may try to appear like their values are not based off sentiment but they are following a set of moral beliefs that a group of really touchy feely hippie types developed. Anyone who claims THEIR belief system is based off TRUTH rather than faith is almost by definition a fundamentalist; every belief system requires some unprovable foundation and to claim that ones personal foundation is TRUTH rather than spirituality is really just being a moral bully.
So what are you using? Logic cant lead you to make moral decisions. Cutting old growth wont result in human deaths in the short or long term. Wolves going extinct wont either. Caring about the greenhouse effect is illogical if you only care about your own life since severe effects will likely be long after you are dead and any change in existing CO2 production will only have an effect in the dstant future too.
You dont quite seem to grasp that science is not a religion. Science can tell you theories about how the world works but it cant tell you what to do.
The closest logic can lead to a statement on morality is Goedel's incompleteness theorem:
"any consistent axiomatic system includes propositions whose truth is undecidable within that system and its consistency is, hence, not provable within that system"
Its used a lot in logic and math but as a logical proof it extends to a system of moral beliefs too.
So "science" "proves" that if someone values not cutting down trees, that belief is based off of some moral belief that can not be proven through logic. That belief could be self preservation (although thats tenuous since the current clearcuts wont effect most living peoples health), it could be a desire to protect the lives of people in the future (also tenuous although a little less so, it could be a desire to have the forests around to visit (perhaps a logical concern but it would be satisfied by a small park) or it could be a desire to protect "nature" in an abstract spiritual sense.
Moral values dont come from science, logic, or anything else that isnt "touchy feely". The only people one will ever meet who think otherwise are people who subscribe to dogmatic beliefs that others developed based originally off of "touchy feely" concepts. Christian fundamentalists may try to appear like their values are not based off sentiment but they are following a set of moral beliefs that a group of really touchy feely hippie types developed. Anyone who claims THEIR belief system is based off TRUTH rather than faith is almost by definition a fundamentalist; every belief system requires some unprovable foundation and to claim that ones personal foundation is TRUTH rather than spirituality is really just being a moral bully.
"any sufficiently strong consistent system cannot prove its own consistency "
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goedel's_incompleteness_theorem
Yep, not only can you not prove a system of axioms (moral or otherwise) from those axioms themselves, you cant even prove it doesnt contain internal contradictions.
This is the real power of Gödel's incompleteness theorem. If it merely stated that one needs axioms it wouldnt have caused such panic among logicians and mathmaticians. The scary part is that if a set of axioms contains a logical contradiction anything can be proven making use of that contradiction. So if one cant prove that a set of axioms are consistent, one cant ever know if all the work one put into building things up from those axioms was in vain. Mathmaticians care less about this now since the set of axioms developed for most of math in the early 1900s havnt proven to be contradictory so far ( a contradiction would really mainly effect basic math not applied math).
Applying Goedel's thoerem to morality and ethics doesnt really result in any surprises for most people. Most perople these days recognize that their choice of morals is somewhat arbitrary. It does provide a foil to extremists who like to go around saying "Im right and your wrong" on moral issues, but only to the extent that one should interpret that as the person saying "Im right and your wrong" according to my system of morals. It doesnt justify moral relativism since there is no reason that one system of morals cant contain axioms that call other systems of morals immoral.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goedel's_incompleteness_theorem
Yep, not only can you not prove a system of axioms (moral or otherwise) from those axioms themselves, you cant even prove it doesnt contain internal contradictions.
This is the real power of Gödel's incompleteness theorem. If it merely stated that one needs axioms it wouldnt have caused such panic among logicians and mathmaticians. The scary part is that if a set of axioms contains a logical contradiction anything can be proven making use of that contradiction. So if one cant prove that a set of axioms are consistent, one cant ever know if all the work one put into building things up from those axioms was in vain. Mathmaticians care less about this now since the set of axioms developed for most of math in the early 1900s havnt proven to be contradictory so far ( a contradiction would really mainly effect basic math not applied math).
Applying Goedel's thoerem to morality and ethics doesnt really result in any surprises for most people. Most perople these days recognize that their choice of morals is somewhat arbitrary. It does provide a foil to extremists who like to go around saying "Im right and your wrong" on moral issues, but only to the extent that one should interpret that as the person saying "Im right and your wrong" according to my system of morals. It doesnt justify moral relativism since there is no reason that one system of morals cant contain axioms that call other systems of morals immoral.
"Science, and science alone, can show us the truth"
"Science" whatever that means can tell you things about the physical world. But it can tell you nothing about morality. Thats a fact that all "scientists" acknowledge. I have never met a "scientist" who sees "science" as a religion. There are athiest "scientists" with humanist beliefs, agnostic "scientists" with belief in the value of all life (animal and human), Hindu "scientists"... Most "scientists" are materialists since otherwise "science" would lose some meaning but materialism is just one axiom not a system of axioms...
You can try to say you believe in nothing that cannot be disproved. But a lot of things cannot be disproved that everyone belives in. Materialism cannot be disproven. Humanism cannot be disproven. Seing "science" as something that can tell you about morality is itself a superstition. Assuming you value human life and dont want people to suffer, you are following nonscientific beliefs and it makes no sense to even discuss them in the context of science.
"Science" whatever that means can tell you things about the physical world. But it can tell you nothing about morality. Thats a fact that all "scientists" acknowledge. I have never met a "scientist" who sees "science" as a religion. There are athiest "scientists" with humanist beliefs, agnostic "scientists" with belief in the value of all life (animal and human), Hindu "scientists"... Most "scientists" are materialists since otherwise "science" would lose some meaning but materialism is just one axiom not a system of axioms...
You can try to say you believe in nothing that cannot be disproved. But a lot of things cannot be disproved that everyone belives in. Materialism cannot be disproven. Humanism cannot be disproven. Seing "science" as something that can tell you about morality is itself a superstition. Assuming you value human life and dont want people to suffer, you are following nonscientific beliefs and it makes no sense to even discuss them in the context of science.
"Science, and science alone, can show us the truth"
Amen brother. Tell it like it is. Only through Science can we be saved and become immortals. Science tells us that only the strong survive. Might makes right and anyone who says otherwise is some hippie dippy touchy feely sentimental wimp. Trees shmees we need tanks, nuclear power plants, and plenty of fire power. What is a primitivist going to do when confronted by the armies of Capitalism, throw a stick at them? Can a bunch of wimps win a Super Bowl? No! Anarchism is a like a football game. You have to work together to crush the competition or they will crush you, thats what mutual aid is all about. It's US versus THEM and to feel sympathy for your enemy makes you worthless to the cause. You are either with us or your with the terrorists. They stand for all that is evil and WE stand for all that is good. So go out there and kick some ass for the Nessmeister. Lets Roll.
Amen brother. Tell it like it is. Only through Science can we be saved and become immortals. Science tells us that only the strong survive. Might makes right and anyone who says otherwise is some hippie dippy touchy feely sentimental wimp. Trees shmees we need tanks, nuclear power plants, and plenty of fire power. What is a primitivist going to do when confronted by the armies of Capitalism, throw a stick at them? Can a bunch of wimps win a Super Bowl? No! Anarchism is a like a football game. You have to work together to crush the competition or they will crush you, thats what mutual aid is all about. It's US versus THEM and to feel sympathy for your enemy makes you worthless to the cause. You are either with us or your with the terrorists. They stand for all that is evil and WE stand for all that is good. So go out there and kick some ass for the Nessmeister. Lets Roll.
"OK, you tell me. Where do we get our sense of right and wrong? Is it something that his handed down from some supreme being who has consciousness, a personality and cares how we behave? Or is something that we are taught by others and who knows where they got it? Or is it intrinsic to the nature of reality"
Being an athiest I would say none of the above.
Moralities are pretty much arbitrary. They usually are taught to people by society. Some moral rules evolved with different societies.Empathy is a part of most large animals and probably developed to help animals predict the actions of other animals and work together as a group.
You cant really turn the science of how moral systems developed into a morality since logic and science cant tell you things like that. There are many different moral systems that have developed in different societies and "science" being the logical study of things cant tell you why you should or should not adopt the views of any given society. Perhaps a certain value system will help you "do better" but the concept of "doing better" is a moral judgement in its own right. If "doing better" means living longer and healther that might mean joining the dominant religion in ones society to join in the spoils of the ruling class. Most people develop a moral system at a young age and take it for granted. There are the written rules one lives by (religions and social philosophies) and more basic feelings of right and wrong (emotions, or hippy dippie bullshit as you like to call it).
To assume there is a moral system "intrinsic to the nature of reality" is definitely not a scientific view. That is a view held by Christians and other religions. Science has nothing to say about what moral beliefs you should hold.
Being an athiest I would say none of the above.
Moralities are pretty much arbitrary. They usually are taught to people by society. Some moral rules evolved with different societies.Empathy is a part of most large animals and probably developed to help animals predict the actions of other animals and work together as a group.
You cant really turn the science of how moral systems developed into a morality since logic and science cant tell you things like that. There are many different moral systems that have developed in different societies and "science" being the logical study of things cant tell you why you should or should not adopt the views of any given society. Perhaps a certain value system will help you "do better" but the concept of "doing better" is a moral judgement in its own right. If "doing better" means living longer and healther that might mean joining the dominant religion in ones society to join in the spoils of the ruling class. Most people develop a moral system at a young age and take it for granted. There are the written rules one lives by (religions and social philosophies) and more basic feelings of right and wrong (emotions, or hippy dippie bullshit as you like to call it).
To assume there is a moral system "intrinsic to the nature of reality" is definitely not a scientific view. That is a view held by Christians and other religions. Science has nothing to say about what moral beliefs you should hold.
The Philosopher's song:
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away
Half a crate of whiskey every day.
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am"
Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed!
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away
Half a crate of whiskey every day.
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am"
Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed!
"I never said any such thing. I said logic makes right. Sentiment’s fun in the bedroom, the nursery and the studio. It has no place in an active campaign against a ruthless, amoral foe, who surrounds and out numbers us, and is even now reading over our shoulder. "
Basically your saying morality has no place in the anarchist struggle which creates a quandry about who these amoral foes really are. Of course you will go in circles trying to argue that some fundamental morality outside of empathy. But how is it that everyone disagrees on basic moral principles when you and you alone know the TRUTH.
And what exactly is this TRUTH. You only value the life of the humans on your side (whatever that means), so your obviously not a humanist. You dont value nature for its own sake but only value it for the benefits it can bring you. Its a very utilitarian moral system that seems like a stereotype of what many Leftists assume is the moral system of CEOs.
I see Capitalism as a problem too, but Im confused who these enemies of yours are. You think corporations can be ok at times (for example ones that test on animals are on your side and the antianimal testing people are your foes). You think the NFL is ok and think anarchists should watch football to get them more in touch with average Americans. But are these average Americans your allies or your foes? How can you go from describing some war with capitalism that requires anarchists to arm to telling people how great the NFL is in the same half hour. How can you go from telling people they should have no sympathy for their "enemies" to telling people that property damage at an animal testing facility is terrorism and as bad as rape.
From how you have been describing yourself in recent days, it seems like you dont value humans, beauty, feelings (outside of bed as you describe it), animals, Old Growth, or really much else but then you say you support many people who devote their lives fighting for these struggles (except for animal rights actvists who you see as Nazis). Its a little confusing.
Most activists, Anarchists, Communists ... are driven out of feelings of compasion and really care about helping people and the world. Its a wonder you get along with any of them.
Basically your saying morality has no place in the anarchist struggle which creates a quandry about who these amoral foes really are. Of course you will go in circles trying to argue that some fundamental morality outside of empathy. But how is it that everyone disagrees on basic moral principles when you and you alone know the TRUTH.
And what exactly is this TRUTH. You only value the life of the humans on your side (whatever that means), so your obviously not a humanist. You dont value nature for its own sake but only value it for the benefits it can bring you. Its a very utilitarian moral system that seems like a stereotype of what many Leftists assume is the moral system of CEOs.
I see Capitalism as a problem too, but Im confused who these enemies of yours are. You think corporations can be ok at times (for example ones that test on animals are on your side and the antianimal testing people are your foes). You think the NFL is ok and think anarchists should watch football to get them more in touch with average Americans. But are these average Americans your allies or your foes? How can you go from describing some war with capitalism that requires anarchists to arm to telling people how great the NFL is in the same half hour. How can you go from telling people they should have no sympathy for their "enemies" to telling people that property damage at an animal testing facility is terrorism and as bad as rape.
From how you have been describing yourself in recent days, it seems like you dont value humans, beauty, feelings (outside of bed as you describe it), animals, Old Growth, or really much else but then you say you support many people who devote their lives fighting for these struggles (except for animal rights actvists who you see as Nazis). Its a little confusing.
Most activists, Anarchists, Communists ... are driven out of feelings of compasion and really care about helping people and the world. Its a wonder you get along with any of them.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network