The state of owning people

**kedaman** · Mar 26th, 2002, 05:26 AM

Should people be controlled?

**Wally Pipp** · Mar 26th, 2002, 05:28 AM

Give me back my personal SNMP remote control

**simonm** · Mar 26th, 2002, 05:36 AM

Do you truly mean "controlled" or are you refering to "constrained".

There is a difference as "constrained" means freedom within certain limits and "controlled" means no freedom whatsoever.

I would opt for "constrained" as being nesessary but the restrictions should be minimal.

**kedaman** · Mar 26th, 2002, 05:41 AM

I don't like your definitions because theyre useless, you'd have to assume that you either have free will or not.
Cannot the word "control" be used in a relative sense?

**simonm** · Mar 26th, 2002, 05:58 AM

I don't like your definitions because theyre useless, you'd have to assume that you either have free will or not.

Why would you have to assume that? Can you not be free within certain bounds?

According to your logic, you might as well be locked up in a padded cell with a straight jacket. What's the benefit of being able to walk about on the street if you don't have "complete" free will?

**beachbum** · Mar 26th, 2002, 06:16 AM

arrrrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

breathe breathe... whoo whoooooo

arrrrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

arrrrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

arrrrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I think I'm getting it under control now...

arrrrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

hmmm not quite

Jethro · Mar 26th, 2002, 06:22 AM

ROFLMAO

@ BB...clicked on the wrong thread.......

Christ....do these guys spend friday nights down the toy solider and war gaming club or what

**simonm** · Mar 26th, 2002, 06:29 AM

[QUOTE]Christ....do these guys spend friday nights down the toy solider and war gaming club or what [/QUOTE
And what's wrong with that????

**kedaman** · Mar 26th, 2002, 07:07 AM

Simon

Originally posted by simonm

Why would you have to assume that? Can you not be free within certain bounds?

According to your logic, you might as well be locked up in a padded cell with a straight jacket. What's the benefit of being able to walk about on the street if you don't have "complete" free will?

I was refering to consciousness being an active decisionmaker, not a passive observer (that observs the brain doing the job, thinking it is itself doing it)

Anyways this off topic, here we have to assume that every conscious being is also a fundamental decisionmaking entity.

But if it makes you feel more confortable, lets call it "constrained"

1. Why do you think constrainment is nessesary?
2. How should they be constrained?
3. Who should constrain them?

Behemoth · Mar 26th, 2002, 07:40 AM

I own you

**sail3005** · Mar 26th, 2002, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by kedaman
1. Why do you think constrainment is nessesary?
2. How should they be constrained?
3. Who should constrain them?

1. There must be limits to ones actions. What group of people are we talking about here? Some people can think rationally, and do not need to be constrained. Others, if not constrained, could be prone to hurt others, or infringe on rights of others.

2. It depends on the group, and who defines what is right or wrong (is anyone truly qualified to decide that?). If whomever decides what is right or wrong says that it is wrong to kill, then they will put a restriction on murder. A utilitarian might have different views on this.

3. Preferably NOT government, as with any form of government, corruption is involved, and people get power hungry. I don't know who or what else could do it though.

**JungleMan** · Mar 26th, 2002, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by kedaman
Should people be controlled?

Yes. If you're talking about what I think you're talking about, the ******s, newbies, lamers, and companies named Intel should be controlled by me. I own them.

DerFarm · Mar 26th, 2002, 05:22 PM

JP -- your slip is showing.

Use of the term ****** indicates a slipshod, flippant, and totally
repugnant point of view.

**JungleMan** · Mar 26th, 2002, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by DerFarm
JP -- your slip is showing.

Use of the term ****** indicates a slipshod, flippant, and totally
repugnant point of view.

Hehehe...take it easy dude...just chill...i'm making but a joke

BG · Mar 26th, 2002, 06:53 PM

Looking to add some new functionality into your brain probe Ked?

**kedaman** · Mar 27th, 2002, 03:07 AM

Originally posted by BG
Looking to add some new functionality into your brain probe Ked?

Mr. Andersen, we won't be seeing any of you in the revisioned matrix

1. There must be limits to ones actions. What group of people are we talking about here? Some people can think rationally, and do not need to be constrained. Others, if not constrained, could be prone to hurt others, or infringe on rights of others.
A "group" of people is already constrained, I'm talking about individuals. What is rationality? Isn't it some kind of rules and normals?
2. It depends on the group, and who defines what is right or wrong (is anyone truly qualified to decide that?). If whomever decides what is right or wrong says that it is wrong to kill, then they will put a restriction on murder. A utilitarian might have different views on this.
The individuals depending on the group would have to conform to the group. Look at the modern society, how much rules do we encounter just daily? I'm not only talking about the law, I'm talking about ethical rules, rules involved in all kinds of relationships with your closest people, rules that constrains you from something when you participate in any activitity
3. Preferably NOT government, as with any form of government, corruption is involved, and people get power hungry. I don't know who or what else could do it though.
Don't you find this pattern anywhere else? Wherever authority is needed, power hungry people appear, whats the point in democracy if those power hungry people get to do as they want.

**beachbum** · Mar 27th, 2002, 03:21 AM

Glad to see u using the rules on the Lets Debate thread!!

Jethro · Mar 27th, 2002, 05:05 AM

Originally posted by beachbum
Glad to see u using the rules on the Lets Debate thread!!

Total bollocks as well.......rules of debate...Pfft here in Oz..."OK smart arse out side now!"

I usually concede the point at this stage

**Nucleus** · Mar 27th, 2002, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by Jethro

Total bollocks as well.......rules of debate...Pfft here in Oz..."OK smart arse out side now!"

I usually concede the point at this stage

You're hearing needs fixing Jello, it is usually: "Ok lard arse outside now!" The reason you conceed is you just can't be bothered moving it off the two chairs you are sitting on. I've heard DF uses a cattle prod to get you out of bed in the mornings, and you have replaced the stairs with an oversized adult version of a slippery dip.

Jethro · Mar 27th, 2002, 11:55 AM

Hey those photos weren't meant for public consumption

Thread: The state of owning people

Thread Tools

Display

The state of owning people

Re: The state of owning people

Posting Permissions