Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort. Lazarus Long, ca 2342
Steve Featherkile said:I hope you are not describing our redoubtable Dave Goodosn as surly, suspicious and lacking in altruism? ;)
Political tags -- such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth -- are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort. Lazarus Long, ca 2342
The ONLY thing that matters in the character of a person is if they are honest or not. Honest people tend to always do the right thing.
TonyWalsham said:Steve Featherkile said:I hope you are not describing our redoubtable Dave Goodosn as surly, suspicious and lacking in altruism? ;)
Political tags -- such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth -- are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort. Lazarus Long, ca 2342The ONLY thing that matters in the character of a person is if they are honest or not. Honest people tend to always do the right thing.
God love you Tony. I think this makes twice in the same year that I agree with you.
TonyWalsham said:Steve Featherkile said:I hope you are not describing our redoubtable Dave Goodosn as surly, suspicious and lacking in altruism? ;)
Political tags -- such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth -- are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort. Lazarus Long, ca 2342The ONLY thing that matters in the character of a person is if they are honest or not. Honest people tend to always do the right thing.
No, Tony. But, Dave chose his moniker for some reason, and, I find him to be a very comfortable neighbor.
Steve Featherkile said:What if you have no desire to be controlled, but are still an idealist? Sorry, two pigeon holes are not enough. Ralph
Political tags -- such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth -- are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort. Lazarus Long, ca 2342
Ralph Berg said:Sorry, Ralph, there are only two categories, those who want to be controlled, and those who have no such desire. Since you have self selected not wanting to be controlled, we now know where you fit in. If you want to be an idealist, have at it, just remember the risks.Steve Featherkile said:What if you have no desire to be controlled, but are still an idealist? Sorry, two pigeon holes are not enough. Ralph
Political tags -- such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth -- are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort. Lazarus Long, ca 2342
If men didn’t want to be controlled then why did they come up with marriage???
-Brian 
Steve Featherkile said:Sorry Steve, I still disagree. Some of us can't be pigeon holed. Maybe that is why I find myself arguing with you, and Mike too. I don't see where my idealism conflicts with my refusal to be controlled. My refusal to be controlled is dominate, but the idealism is still there. RalphRalph Berg said:Sorry, Ralph, there are only two categories, those who want to be controlled, and those who have no such desire. Since you have self selected not wanting to be controlled, we now know where you fit in. If you want to be an idealist, have at it, just remember the risks.Steve Featherkile said:What if you have no desire to be controlled, but are still an idealist? Sorry, two pigeon holes are not enough. Ralph
Political tags -- such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth -- are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort. Lazarus Long, ca 2342
Brian…marriage is an attempt at idealism that may very well conflict with our refusal to be controlled. The fact most of us are playing with trains shows we haven’t given up control.
Ralph,
I didn’t say that you idealism conflicts with your desire not to be controlled.
I too still have some vestiges of idealism that haven’t been worn off.
All I said was that there are two main categories of men, those who want to be controlled, and those who do not.
You and I have decided which we are.
This is a narrow and absurd choice. It has no room for what human life is actually like. For example, at 3 today i have to pick up my daughter at school. Have I chosen to be “controlled?” In my relationship with my daughter, I have all the authority, but she’s still young and I’ll be attending to her all afternoon. You could say I’m being “controlled” by a 4 year old, or you could say I’ve chosen to be controlled by a four year old, or you could say human interpersonal relations are rich and complex and a simple distinction like this is comically inadequate.
How about this. Two people chose to marry each other. Have they BOTH chosen to “be controlled?” If so by who? By “the state,” which legalizes the marriage? That’s pretty vague. Maybe some of you have the kind of marriage which establishes that the man is always the “decider.” Even so, that man is "controlled, if he’s at all responsible, by his sense of duty to his family, and when his buddy’s say “hey let’s go drinking” he’ll say “I have to help my son with his homework.” Has he chosen to be controlled? If so, by who? By his own conscience?
So then your model of a person who chooses “not to be controlled” is a person with no conscience. Such a person is barely human, and will quickly, most likely, end up in jail. When he chose to commit a crime, did choose to be controlled?
You could also argue that a person who chooses “not be be controlled” has shaped his entire identity in opposition to what he sees as “control.” In that sense he’s entirely a product of his opposite in the way a shadow is the product of the thing it shadows. His identity is controlled by the opposition he has to keep constantly maintaining in order to define himself as “not controlled.”
it’s a pretty silly distinction
Of course, Mike, you refuse to see the truth of the comment.
I’ll put you in the “Refuses to be controlled,” column.
Steve Featherkile said:
Of course, Mike, you refuse to see the truth of the comment.I’ll put you in the “Refuses to be controlled,” column.
Steve,
Found anyone who isn’t in the “refuses to be controlled” column?
What about those who try to control others while being controlled themselves? Idealists, or crooks? Can one be both?
Ralph
Ralph,
Most of the folks who battle in these pages are in fact, “surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism.” They make fine neighbors. I do not think that you or Tony, or HJ, or David or even Mike would cause me any sort of problem if all y’all were my neighbor. In fact, we would probably get together and run trains, share adult beverages and continue our conversations in person.
That said, there are folks who do want to be taken care of. They are the sheep.
And there are those who will prey on them. They are the wolves.
That is the point of having an armed citizenry. They are the sheepdogs, to confront the wolf, though I do object to using that noble animal in that image. I can’t think of a better image, though, at the moment.
Deleted
TonyWalsham said:
Everyone who wanted to come to this place and socialise would be welcome to do so. No matter what your politics or religious beliefs were.Except if they were armed. Assuming they were allowed to carry guns anyway.
No guns in this household. Concealed or otherwise.
Therefore you would definitely be “controlled”.
Not controlled, unless you drag me in from the road and disarm me. Not likely.
As your guest, I would voluntarily comply with your wishes.
If you object to foul language, I wouldn’t use it either.
Don’t confuse my respect for others with your ability to control me.
I don’t make a habit of walking around armed today. However, that doesn’t mean I am willing to give up the right.
Ralph
Ralph Berg said:TonyWalsham said:
Everyone who wanted to come to this place and socialise would be welcome to do so. No matter what your politics or religious beliefs were.Except if they were armed. Assuming they were allowed to carry guns anyway.
No guns in this household. Concealed or otherwise.
Therefore you would definitely be “controlled”.
Not controlled, unless you drag me in from the road and disarm me. Not likely.
As your guest, I would voluntarily comply with your wishes.
If you object to foul language, I wouldn’t use it either.
Don’t confuse my respect for others with your ability to control me.
I don’t make a habit of walking around armed today. However, that doesn’t mean I am willing to give up the right.
Ralph
Well said, Ralph. If Tony objects to guns in his house, I will respect that. There are other ways to be “armed.”
Deleted
TonyWalsham said:Wrong. Reread previous post. You control who you extend your hospitality to. I control whether I wish to partake in that hospitality. I respect the beliefs of many different individuals. By respecting their beliefs I do not cede control. I have a bad habit. I smoke. Many nonsmokers offer me to smoke in their homes or cars. Out of respect , I never do. You need to start hanging out with a better crowd. RalphRalph Berg said:If I make a rule that requires an individual to do something in order for them to partake of my hospitality, it is not out of respect they would oblige. It is because they are required to do so. Ergo; that individual would be under my "control".
Not controlled, unless you drag me in from the road and disarm me. Not likely. As your guest, I would voluntarily comply with your wishes. If you object to foul language, I wouldn't use it either. Don't confuse my respect for others with your ability to control me. I don't make a habit of walking around armed today. However, that doesn't mean I am willing to give up the right. Ralph
Deleted
TonyWalsham said:
Wrong again.I extend my hospitality to anyone who wishes to participate on my property.
If you come onto my property you must respect my rules.
Ergo; I control you.The crowd I hang around with are just fine thanks.
You can leave the personal remarks out of this if you don’t mind.
Tony,
You fail to understand the concept.
Knowing how you feel about guns, I would never bring a gun into your home. Whether you have a rule, or not. This is out of respect.
If I went to dinner with someone who didn’t drink alcohol because of religious reasons, I would not order a drink. Out of respect.
I control my actions, and I alone.
I don’t require rules to be respectful. I don’t require laws to control my behavior.
Ralph