you remind me of that woody allen character who said he hated reality, but it was the only place where he could get a good steak. now i don't know what your steak is, but i'm sure you want something out of life, don't you?

i think you are suffering from delusions brought on by idealism. you want a perfect world. there is no such thing. those who learn to deal with the world as it is are neither conformists nor sellouts-- they are just people who have learned that reality and ideals are universes apart, and that's the truth about the world.

in a way, the idealist, taking refuge in the cocoon of his dreams, is the true pussy, unable to face reality for what it is. now, i'm not saying let's give up on ideals-- ideals are great. but no matter how hard you try to implement them they are going to have flaws and failures, because that is the nature of the universe-- it does not correspond to our dreams of crystallized perfection.

you see, im a materialist, i believe that matter comes first and ideas are born of matter, and energy, inside our brains; so i don't think that ideals have any real existence outside our brains. metaphysics is nothing but a collection of our dreams. ideals are abstractions-- guides at most, but they never have had an exact correlate in the world. find me a perfect circle in the non-mental world and i will give up on my argument.

when you throw your hands up in the air in disillusion and do nothing about reality simply because it does not conform to your ideals, you are missing the chance to do something about that reality. reality can be improved if we work at it, and we should all work at improving it, but shirking that work with the excuse that there will always be imperfections is the actual reason why we are the way we are. it's easy to sit aside and throw rocks at what other people do, it's much harder to actually try to do something and fail and try again and maybe get a couple of things right before you die.

Interesting points here, for sure. To get back to the specific topic in hand, does anyone here agree with this boycott stance, and if so, why?

i think it's wrong in principle, but i don't know the specifics. perhaps they are only boycotting areas of military research, but somehow i suspect that those doing that work do not much care for boycotts. maybe the intention is to goad israeli intelectuals into action, but from what i can tell, israeli intellectuals are already invoved in all sorts of political activism. so i don't know who this punishes and who it rewards.

if they said "we're going to boycott their bus drivers because they vote for likud", i'd understand better. but i really have no clue who these people are, what they want, nor how they mean to achieve it.

what i'm most concerned about is the ineffectiveness of the labor party. it seems that, like with begin, only the right wing is capable of making peace when it becomes practical. people were willing to get behind rabin because he was hawkish, and the porker sharon was after all the one who evacuated gaza... but if netanyahu gets to power, jeezus, that man is a weasel and a demagogue fuck.

^^^^ - By effectively tarring all Israeli academics with the same brush, regardless of their political and moral views, this boycott treats them as one lumpen mass. It's ridiculous to suggest (as this boycott does) that, because lecturers are employed by the state, they must agree with the state. By that reasoning, all UK lecturers must agree with the UK government's position in Iraq.

I can't help but suspect a least a tinge of anti-Semitism too - the boycott giving a message of "We won't deal with Jews, no matter who they are". Now I'm sure people will disagree on this specific point - this is simply my subjective view.

Finally, shouldn't the union be doing things like, you know, representing it's members interests in the UK, instead of pissing around with motions that make self-righteous smug gits feel so much better about themselves?

if it's like you say, yes, it's really a stupid move on the part of this union. about antisemitism i don't know, but arabs are semitic people as well-- just to clarify--. so you mean jew haters? strange people like that still exist. and it only fuels the siege mentality of israel, i'm afraid.

now about the activitis of unions, yes-- i once dropped out of a budding union because some brilliant idealist had the genius to use the union as a platform to start condemning u.s. foreign policy in iraq (before the war) as well as other fuzzy uncertain causes nobody could agree on, rather than focusing on issues of employment, fair wages, etc.

some people however see this as a "universal struggle for justice" and go on to pursue all kinds of causes because they feel to be on the right in every case. my feeling is that this undermines the original cause they are supposed to embrace.

but then again there is this standing criticism that since the fall of communism (sue me porky for using this term that's how it's known, "communism") or maybe even since earlier, the western left has splintered into a myriad of issue groups and it lacks any great overarching ideology, which weakens it... then again maybe this is an offshoot of postmodernism & lack of faith in big narratives... but yeah there are always people who prefer to fight large unwinnable fuzzy battles rather than pick away at small tactical winnable fronts. a matter of strategy i suppose. in this case it seems to me the strategy is flawed.

Hey Moshe, is this true:
"...all Israeli's get free health care for life..."????

i dont claim to speak for moshe but 10 years ago this was totally true, i don't see how it would change. it's a little bit bureaucratic, but your ass is taken care of.

we do have a mandatory health insurance but everyone must pay for it a fixed percentage of their income.

you just clicked on "quote & reply" and read it over your head didn't you?

i NEVER said i was for communism and against money, ambition and possessions.

i also stated several times that it's WISHFUL THINKING what i'm posting.

you asked me what was i doing about it (about democracy and new ways of government) i answered you bluntly, that's what i do, rather than resort to a "close enough mentality"

i'm by NO means an activist and i do enjoy life a lot, actually, i can't complain much, but things are not right in this world, maybe they'll never be but, if we just stand there and say "ohh we're screwed" then we would have been extinted a long time ago.

i'm also not an existentialist who thinks life is death interrupted or whatever.

but one thing i can say that i can't stand is mediocrity, thinking things are "close enough" or "almost good", i hate it, i live around it every day of my life and can't fathom people actually living like that, if i'm not doing the best that i can, then why bother? i would rather kill myself. and that goes for my life and the life of those i care about, if they don't have the best life they can, then what do you have to live for? there's always an option, just as there's always something in this universe to be discovered and as there's always something to be said.

i live my life and actually do what i want of it and i'm not afraid to go for it.

if being a conformist is your boat, go on and have a good one, i actually would like to see things better and for that you have to have a good grasp at reality, rather than sit back and get bored by the passing second.

There definitely is a nagging anti-semitism amongst the UKs liberal-left chattering classes.

but of course not, you are not taking me for a retard, are you? because that's not going to fly. evidently i read your post and answered, but if you are not happy with my answer i'm sorry.


i never said you were. where did i say that?


that's my point, you seem to be stuck in the wishful part. you complain about the imperfection of democracy, you blank your vote, and you decry the evils of the system-- yet you do nothing to change or improve the system and you don't propose one either, hoping that some social scientist is going to conjure some sort of magical solution.

i'm just pointing out that i consider this attitude misguided and wrong. and i pointed out what i saw as the epistemological roots of your error-- not moral roots, mind you, i am not issuing a moral condemnation, or if i did, that was not the primary objective. my objective was to point out what i see as an error in your understanding of the world, i.e., hoping for impossible and unformulated ideals while withdrawing from the dirty work of reality. im talking here about political choices, nothing else.


you answered that you vote blank as to express your discontent. how is that better than a "close enough" mentality i don't know. it's actually worse.


right, but you have said that you just do nothing constructive. at least when it come to politics i mean. you said you just express your discontent. "i support nothing because nothing is good enough". how is that better than supporting, say, the least harmful choice, or participating in the creation of an alternative? please explain.


neither am i, i don't get the point of your allusion. did any of us say that?


yeah i can't stand mediocrity either, but that doesn't mean giving up on things though. how does your blank vote prevent or combat mediocrity? how does your blank vote promote a better democracy, or an alternative to it? it's like you have 1/2 of the problem figured out but then don't know what to do.


yes yes, forgive my generalization, i meant this discussion to be about your political involvement or lack of it.

the reason i argued with you is that you seem to think that democracies are evil and corrupt and beyond repair. but having experienced dictatorships and their consequences, i can tell you again (because i said this before) that democracies, while not perfect, and 100 times better than tyrannies. and this is a significant thing. because we have to live SOMEWHERE and democracies are worth fighting for. and if you have a democracy and are doing nothing to maintain it or improve it, it's like you're shitting in your own drinking water, and you don't know or can't value the treasure you have.

now, i have to say, mexican democracy is not exactly a democracy, so i can understand your disappointment and paralysis, but you made generalizations about a system of government in a thread about international politics... so while i could agree with "mexican democracy is a sham", i cannot agree with your condemnation of democracy in general. no way.


no sir, no, in the case of politics you are more of a conformist than i am, because you express your discontent but do nothing about it, hence allowing the status quo to remain untouched. i am not a conformist, i DO things to improve, i don't just mutely register my discontent and wish idly for something better; i do put words, money and effort behind the things i support--conformists don't do that.

that's terrible.

i think this article sums up my feeling on the matter...
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/S...?itemNo=865499

strange, and i don't mean to boast, but that's pretty much what i've been saying since the start of this thread, of course without such clarity and knowledge of the facts, but yes, i couldn't agree more with it, and now i'm fully convinced, the british lecturers fucked up big time.

i stated from the beggining of the thread that you are completely right:cool:
and he uses such a great title for his article...
haaretz is known in israel as the intelectual left wing paper. rightists have even been known to call it an "arab paper," and he always writes brilliant editorials on everybody. so if he thinks that its moral masturbation, it must really be true...

I agree with everything in that article but, as a UK lecturer myself, I have to say that absolutely no mention of any such boycott seems to be taking place within universities themselves. I'm guessing/hoping that it's just a crackpot spokesperson for the Student Union getting their fifteen minutes of fame. It happens a lot.

If Mahmoud has his way, there ain't much left to boycott:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...680464,00.html

jeezus johnson, that moron is a disgrace. fuck the ayatollahs. what a bunch of yahoos.

soon, we'll have the same in the u.s.-- christian ayatollahs. with nukes. what a fucking disaster.

about the "blank" vote: it's not a blank vote, it's a cancelled one. rather that than voting for the least of evils, it's not a shampoo choice.

"mexican" democracy is no different than any democracy, do you remember the u.s. presidential elections of 2000?

again, i didn't say dictatorship is better, that's hell and i really hope i or anyone have to experience it. you seem to just be relieved that you're not under one anymore and will likely accept the "least worse" alternative. i respect that but still, we can talk all day and all night about governments and how bad they are and how their policies are wrong, it boils down to political systems being badly designed from the start.

so just because i don't post a new way of living for all humanity in a message board of a dumb rock band it means i'm a conformist? it's not an easy answer, and it might not come from one man's head (or maybe it will) but just because of that we can't just discard a possibility.

the choices that exist have not convinced me, so why put words and money and effort to something that either doesn't exist (yet) or i don't believe in.

ps: i refuse to judge or come to conclusions about your person and ideas, as i said above, i respect you.

same here man, i respect you, and i disagree with you, that's why i go to such lenggths to argue with you.

i thought you called me a conformist for putting up with the limitations of democracy & for prefering to protect & defend it over other forms of government... show me something better and i'll convert, but in the meantime this is what i fight for you see, because we have nothing better, but could be much much worse.

i suppose mexican democracy has changed recently after the zapatistas & 70 years of PRI rule, and that prehaps because some people thought they could do a little better. i know it's fashionable to shit on the outgoing president, but if you don't believe me there's been progress in your country, go read that book by whats the name of this guy... jose agustin... his first book, hm... DE PERFIL. and think also about the massacres that came after that book was written. not sure that has happened, has it? but anyway, there are a lot of people in your country fighting to bring true democracy... which is still an incomplete project.

i don't know in how many ways to explain this, but i think that you are wrong on giving up on an incomplete project rather than helping to complete it. im not judging you from a moral stance, but i do criticize your... how can i say this.. your epistemological toolkit? or should i say simply, i think you've arrived to the wrong conclusion due to some faulty premises.

i'd like to discuss thos premises alone if we can. you know, no calling people this or that, just looking at the... way of knowing, so to speak.boil it down to essentials. i think if we narrow the issue sufficiently it will be easy to understand each other.

let's give it a try?

---

so:
let me see if i summarize your points correctly. you seem to be saying:

a) democracy is a flawed system of government
b) because it's flawed, it is not worth supporting it

am i correct?

let me know if i read you right before i continue.

yes, sorry i called you a conformist, i meant that your position was (or seems) to be that.

again, yes, democracy is the least worse of government forms, i agree and us people in democratic countries are better of than others with other political fronts in power.

and, i didn't want to go to specifications but if we must; i hate it when people here are all "the president sucks, blah blah!" (although that's a worldwide phenomenon, innit?), i think calderon is a great president and a really smart one, and much better than the other guy (lopez obrador) who was an extremist totalitarian. yes progress was made, and things are better; contrary to popular belief, the pri rule wasn't all bad, and we're in a much better position than most countries. the zapatistas have done nothing except take over lands.

my whole point is that we can aim higher, and that things are not started being full fledged, they start somewhere, even if the ideas are not exactly clear to begin with, they can form something else.

and to say it:

1) yes
2) yes

although, as there are no new ways of government yet, one has to live in this world and what's happening in it, so you can't completely ignore what's happening around you (i think that's something that wasn't clear before) but that doesn't mean that's an end to the problem.

cool, thanks for participating in this experiment

so you say:

a) democracy is flawed
b) because it's flawed, it's not worth supporting

---

very well. now i ask you for a moment (and think of this carefully), is there something on this planet that is not intrinsically "flawed"? i'm asking because i want to understand what you considered flawed & flawless. this is not a bait. well it could be, depends, because i'm going to utilize your answer to construct my reply, but i'm not trying to set a trap or anything.

so, what is it that you consider flawless? i'm not talking about governments here-- im talking about flawless anything.

not flawless, just least flawed; it was flawed by design and, after centuries of use, it's starting to get to the breaking point.

the thing is, while other areas of human existance have evolved, researched and improved, government systems have come to a halt, there hasn't been any theorisists or thinkers in a long ass time and most of the "new" types have been recombinations of failed ones.

the ones in power are the ones keeping this, not letting something else develope because thing's are too good for them but not as good for anyone else.

just look at the "leaders" of the world and ask yourself why are they in power, it's coming to a point where the system will fail permanently, it's grim but it's happening.

in a utopian way, yes, a form of government of equality and reason would be best but that's something that's not going to happen.

i'm not asking for perfect, i'm asking for the best that can be, keeping errors to a minimum.

ok, but we're going too fast here & we're going to miss the logical sequence of the ideas. you haven't answered yet about what you consider flawless.... on this planet. not just governments... anything.

we'll get to your point soon enough, just humor me for a moment so i can try to be socratic rather than preachy & polemical.

--

ps i got a couple of things to do & will be back later but please answer if you can, i'll reply as soon as possible.

Democracy. It's like multiple-choice...on acid.

me too, i'll get back to it later.

but before i go; no, there's nothing flawless in the universe but that's not the point, it's going for the less flawless, going for "best" not "perfect".

demonrail: repped!

ok, so you say that nothing is flawless in the universe. agreed.

there aren't flawless appleas and we eat them, there is no flawless music and we listen to it, there aren't flawless guitars and we play them, there aren't flawless houses and we live in them, there aren't flawless people and we still have relationships with them.

so, what singles out democratic governments in particular that makes you reject them like you do? i'm thinking it's not the flawed characteristics that are the problem, i'm thinking it has to do more with governments in general and they way they bug you... am i guessing right?

let me know.

you ignored my post.

i said that it's NOT about a flawless form of government, is about a less flawed one. best NOT perfect.

besides, i'm not singling out democracy over other present government forms, as i said above, dictatorship and comunism are much worse. the fact is that i disagree with democracy and think it's obsolete and if i started talking about this is because everyone thinks democracy is the best way of government and perfect, when in reality it's far from it, and that we should aim for something better.

yes, we listen to flawed music but do we keep only listening to whatever is popular because if everyone likes it, then it can't be bad? we play flawed guitars but didn't we strived for better designs and better materials? we live in flawed house, but haven't we found better ways of constructing them, or do we still live in "good enough" wooden shacks? we have relationships with flawed people but do we stay in them, even if they could hurt us or hurt themselves and would make us feel miserable? or do we strive to find someone we can be happy with the most?

it's flawed by design because, even though ethymologically it means the people choose their leaders, in reality it was started for the upper classes to vote for their leaders while denying this to the "ruled" classes.

furthermore, democracy as a system is really easy to manipulate to the will of the richest and most powerful, instead of the more qualified people, as proved by the 2000 u.s. presidential election. also, the "leaders" of today most likely seek their own well being above that of the people. lastly, in a best case scenario, if the majority vote for someone, then that someone wins, no matter how incompetent, dumb or bad this person can be (whether for minorities or the majority); the masses are not qualified to take such an important decision since a low common denominator mentality reigns among them (example: you hate mcdonald's, let's say that an election for the only food available for sale happens, do you think something tasty and nutritious would win or would people vote for mcdonald's?), and here, i'm talking about a best case scenario, where recalls, corruption and frauds don't happen (the only upside of democracy is that at least the leaders don't enforce their decisions to the citizens).

i'm not talking about "smashing the system" or any of that fashionable "rebel!!! hate the status quo because it's cool!" sentiments.

so you guessed wrong.

besides, your stereotyping is staring to bug me.

no no-- i wanted to keep this simple-- SIMPLE. i wanted to keep this simple to avoid the kind of silliness this has become.

you make A LOT of assumptions about what i mean and what i say, so that at the end you end up dialoguing with yourself and your imagination of what i may be saying.

i never said you were any of those things you speculate about in your post. i simply asked you the question-- what sets apart government from other flawed entities.

the reason i ignored your post is because i requested that we keep things to the basic minimum-- every time one of us goes off into a long rant, confusion ensues. so i didn't really ignore it-- i postponed the discussion of the many issues until we solved the basic question i was inquiring about.

now it seems to me you are reluctant to communicate, and prefer to hide behind a haze of unfocused anger rather than have your beliefs confronted? i don't know why it's so hard to stick to a simple discussion instead of making drama.

and about the stereotyping you mention, please discuss it with your mirror because i have nothing to do with it.

(i guess i got cranky and this last line above is a put down? but really, stop ascribing to me the circles of you own mind. stop making assumptions, they are totally off the mark.)

i do have better things to do with my time than fight over the internet. if you're not up to having a discussion, let me know, and i'll drop the matter.

i'm not assuming, you said that if i thought anything in the universe is not flawed, i answer that i didn't thought that but at the same time i wasn't talking about something flawless, i was talking about the best that can be. you wanted me to answer you with "black" or "white" and i said "neither, it's grey"

by ignoring this answer, you bypassed it and kept typing about how we still used things even though they were flawed, i answered that not because they are flawed we just stood there and made nothing about them, that we actually went and tried to do things better.

then you asked if it had anything to do with my disgust with authority (more specifically, government in general), i said no and explained why i've seen democracy being designed and worn out into an obsolete state. the reason my posts have been large are because i think i need to explain myself more in order to get a better understanding of what i'm trying to say.

and, by asking if it was because governments in general bug me, like you did on previous posts like me not being content with my country, is what made me think you're stereotyping me into a something. it irks me because i assume i'm talking to an individual and it seems you keep trying to label me into a generalization.

maybe you trying to stereotype or label me is something you didn't realize, did it unconciously.

pardon me, but you agreed that democracy was flawed and that's why you didn't support it. i asked you a couple of questions, namely, if there was something flawless in the universe (you said no) and i asked you what set government apart from other flawed things. but i did not take my reasoning any further, did i?. did i make a point you could reply to? no-- so you're replying to something that only happened in your mind. you were arguing with the mirror.


no, i didn't bypass it, i mentioned we'd pick it up later but let's stick to the basic now. to answer those points would have meant to side with the assumptions you had made about where i was going with this. which were totally wrong. you had no clue where i was going with my questions.


well, i think the long posts add more to the confusion because they answer the assumptions you're making about what i'm going to say rather than answer the simple questions i was asking


maybe you trying to stereotype or label me is something you didn't realize, did it unconciously.[/quote]

again, that's in your own head-- i wasn't thinking of your country. in fact, i was thinking about libertarians who believe that every government is essentially evil. so i was trying to ascertain if this was were you were coming from philosophically, and if not then i would pursue a different line of questions to clarify things.

maybe you're the one who unconsciously feels stereotyped?

as i said before, you're not arguing with me but with the projections of your own mind. i normally enjoy conversing with you, but please, this is past the point of absurd. you argue with things i might say, practicing bad telepathy. it gets really annoying, and it's a waste of time to attempt dialogue with someone who ultimately is only talking to himself. please, i give up on this discussion, we've wasted enough time on this already. yes?

i'm cool with you as far as other subjects go, but please, this one must die.

again, that's in your own head-- i wasn't thinking of your country. in fact, i was thinking about libertarians who believe that every government is essentially evil. so i was trying to ascertain if this was were you were coming from philosophically, and if not then i would pursue a different line of questions to clarify things.

maybe you're the one who unconsciously feels stereotyped?

as i said before, you're not arguing with me but with the projections of your own mind. i normally enjoy conversing with you, but please, this is past the point of absurd. you argue with things i might say, practicing bad telepathy. it gets really annoying, and it's a waste of time to attempt dialogue with someone who ultimately is only talking to himself. please, i give up on this discussion, we've wasted enough time on this already. yes?

i'm cool with you as far as other subjects go, but please, this one must die.[/quote]


ok, i agree this is getting past the point of confort, one of the reasons i don't like talking politics (i rather talk about turds, really). but i have one last thing to say.

i know that line of questions, what you were trying to do, prove me wrong by responding to the questions in stark answers, objectifying something fairly subjective (for the reason of this being a discussion), and by breaking the objectively nature of the sequence of questions, i kinda threw you off.

again, and this is becoming a slogan, but my point is to have a form of government that's best, not perfect.

you wanted to me to answer you that i didn't support democracy because it's flawed, and that i agreed that nothing is flawless yet we live and use those things and that i was just angry at any form of government, therefore, my plea for something new politically was a dumb one and i was just angry at something else and projected it to the government. but that was not the point.

the point is: democracy is flawed that's why i don't believe in it, nothing is flawless in the world YET we try to improve upon things instead of leaving them the way they are, even if they remain competent. i believe there should be a government and that democracy is a "good enough" for now form of government, i don't think government is evil and should not be.

and about the stereotyping, you said it: "in fact, i was thinking about libertarians who believe that every government is essentially evil. so i was trying to ascertain if this was were you were coming from philosophically, and if not then i would pursue a different line of questions to clarify things.", you can stereotype people for anything, especially for the way they think, perhaps more so than for race, culture or country of origin. that's what irked me, you tried to classify me and my thoughts and i didn't do that to you.

dude you get too defensive and it becomes impossible to communicate. you continue guessing shit and guessing wrong. WRONG. just fucking drop it.

fine.

just for the record, i never got angry at any moment, i just felt bad that i was treating you like an individual and you tried to stick me with a label the whole time.

you were not treating me like an individual. you were dialoguing with your own imagination and you continued to do that. it's true that we bring our own projections and assumptions to every exchange, but in this case you have been arguing with your echo. thanks for listening.

that's only because you were not willing to listen, man.

seriously, as someone who likes you and likes talking to you, it's really annoying to try to group people by how they act or what they say.

i don't even care about this discussion anymore.

thanks for keeping assuming things.

now i have to leave and go watch myself in the mirror.

Has nobody mentioned proportional representation yet? The idea that instead oif having a single vote you have, for example, three, and select three candidates in order of preference. This effectively eliminates a simple two-horse system but can also lead to the election of a party that everyone decided was second best.

that's a pretty good idea. i've also read theories that propose expanding the jury system to allow for citizen participation at all kinds of level of decision, rather than delegating total authority to elected officials.