In reply to this comment by marinara:
i enjoyed the star trek II video. such a sad ending i think i almost cried, its a revelation to see the corny little choices that created it

while i truly enjoyed abrams star trek,khan will always be my fave.who didnt get a bit weepy with spocks death scene?
"i have been and always shall be...your friend"

@NetRunner

I am a little confuzled about calling @Skeeve and my conversation both true and a non sequitur. I guess because I am addressing a more theoretical, man kind building question and you a more practical one. Your talking about the more practical, of making things work now, I am talking more about how I want things to work, for always. A the difference between the tangible and the ideal I guess.

The examples you pose are actually the exact ones I was thinking of when I think of the brutality of democratic things, at times. I have been considering the statement "the needs of the many..." for the course of a few weeks now. Forgive me, about to go on a tangent, but I want a trial by fire to so speak if you have the time. This will be a wall of text for the uninterested.

When I was first exposed to this phrase/idea, it was from Spock. And from then on, I always took it as the rational position one has to take to help the whole at the cost of the one. It was a profound idea in my youth. It had such a charity to it. It seemed to speak to the core of what is good. Everything that is good about man was contained in that one simple phrase. The devil is in the details, though, so I decided recently to examine my long held Vulcan heritage.

Over the past couple of years, since my fall from Grace, I have been increasingly interested in the role of evolution in the social development of our species. We have a lot in common with our animal kin, especially the social nature of mammalia. The role of emotions and intuitive social orders with post rationalized rule set changes are the order of our creed. For an animal that has a very long gestation period, few offspring per litter, and long maturation periods, certain social orders HAD to be developed or we wouldn't survive. Many of our longest held evolutionary advances aren't because they are "good" morally, but are good for survival when being chased by tigers. In that, I think the democratic pricible is actually as old as social creatures, and even more basic, as force.

I think the reason Spock's words stung so true in my heart of hearts is it spoke to millions of years of culture beyond my ability to fully comprehend. It spoke past my reason to the core of my being. Now, when I examine the phrase "the needs of the many..." and take into light the core being, I find a much different sentence. Let me tell you what I found that I didn't expect.

I find that the statement of "the needs of the many..." very closely relates to the Democratic position. When your tribe is 20 people, and the fate of your people all hang in the balance of routine decisions, evolutionary speaking, to survive, it is easier to remove the rational component of this choice. The rational implications of every choice you make determining the fate of your entire race is a burden that doesn't aid in decision making. It is much "better" to program in an emotional response and have that being post-rationalize later, intelligence is actually more of a burden than a tool in this area. This way, we remove the impotence one might face in the light of such a larger than life issue, and set in that mind a continuing sequence of emotional ties to the event through post-rationalizations.

I think the reason Democracy works so well, given this situation, is it very closely mimics the "rules of the jungle." By that, I mean force. Democracy is an interesting formalization of the rules of the jungle. Instead of the force being a stick or a knife, it is a vote. We might not consider our vote a weapon, but essentially, when you boil it down it is our most trusted language. So much so, that every animal we face understands it. We have subjugated nearly every animal on this planet via force, and now try our hands at the very planet itself. All the while, we never asked ourselves the question, is using force right?

When being chased by a tiger, you can't ask that question. Even more so, it is the application of force that seems to drive the evolution on this planet forward. However, it only advances the flags in the due course of force. Any being that comes after HAS to play by these rules or be defeated before it can flourish. But is this the way it HAS to be? Does humanity find itself on the precipice of being able to change the entire course of evolution on the planet? Perhaps so. Slowly, we have taken the cunning, and brutal wolfs of the winter lands to being the noblest of companions. And cats, wait, never mind, fuck cats.

Humans might soon, within perhaps our children's, children's lifetime, find themselves in the unique position to change the rules of the game, for good. Weather or not we want to will be the only question. So the question is, why? What is so wrong with Democracy and the underlying shreds of managed force something to be concerned about? Let me bring on my final point.

The course of discovery seems to be without end for man. It seems inevitable, that in time, each human will have access to such a level of technology that any one person could end all life on the planet with little to no effort. Our only current solutions for it are that of liberty, which would only take one crazy person to end it all, or regulations, of which would have to be of the most extreme kind to protect against knowledge that is easy to acquire and use. It seems that the current rules that bind this planet along with mans advancement in technology have set us on a collision course with a cruel destiny. While not a certainty, I do believe it is certain that the tools of Democratic force will not save us from our own self imposed destruction.

While I have still not made all my points, like why I also think the democratic position is actually bad (perhaps even morally bad); in spite of that, I do suppose that it is insufficient to manage our path. It isn't that I want it to be wrong, it is that we truly need something else if we intend to survive past an infant species. If we lose the game, the cycle of force will most likely continue on without us, spawning forth new entities of force. But if we win, we will rewrite the rules for all existence on the planet. No longer bound to rules that keep up from being eaten by tigers, but by rules that extend us to the furthest reaches of our dreams.

I think it will all start by eating all the cats, because anything that will bite you in your sleep isn't fit in this new world. And I yield my time back to an audience that is most likely not interested in my thought processes that go to solving less than practical problems. I will only continue on request as to not come off as pedantic, well, more so.


edit, grammar

*promote the Spock Lebowski

that chick isn't bad at all...chances are she's not giving "Spock" the "Vulcan Death Grip" though.

Thanks for the promote!

In reply to this comment by geo321:
It is a bit of a liberal fantasy isn't it. my cynical ears shot up like spock, that would never happen at the minimum wage amendment. *promote >> ^kymbos:

I love little West Wing clips like these, but it was such a liberal fantasy wasn't it?
Politics just doesn't work like that, sadly. People standing on genuinely high principle at the expense of their own political gain...

It is a bit of a liberal fantasy isn't it. my cynical ears shot up like spock, that would never happen at the minimum wage amendment. *promote >> ^kymbos:

I love little West Wing clips like these, but it was such a liberal fantasy wasn't it?
Politics just doesn't work like that, sadly. People standing on genuinely high principle at the expense of their own political gain...

You have so many, many fans in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area....

(sigh)
"I know, I know"

Haha, awesome. I love how she talks about "finding" Spock in the next film.

Star Trek III - The Search For Spock

>> ^MaxWilder:

The best part is that nobody talks!
And Spock's reaction to his dirty laundry...


Agreed!

Look, as amusing as this is, shouldn't Spock be working? I mean seriously... check your Facebook on your own time dude.

The best part is that nobody talks!

And Spock's reaction to his dirty laundry...

>> kceaton1:

Seriously, QM, I hate to make a personal hit, but in this case (as your taking a shot at a lot of us) maybe you should get checked out for a mental illness or brain tumor.

>>> Are you joking? The left specializes in ad hominem attacks! You're HOME!
And no, I didn't say anything against anyone at this sift, but I do see now that the association of the word 'dunces' was too far away from 'media outlet' and so could be misinterpreted.

>>> To reiterate, the aforementioned "dunces" in question are the libmedia networks.


I'm actually very serious. If you don't have a medical issue and you're not trolling (I usually think you're trolling) you might want to consider, for one month, using only pure logic and facts that can be attained only directly or through scientific study (look at who does the study--if the world uses them as a source you're OK to use them--if it comes from a Christian College, I would go ahead and not use that) see if your viewpoint changes at all.

>>> I knew I was dealing with no one but supremely logical, liberal Mr. Spocks when someone mentioned hating the woman based on the spelling of her name (fortunately still legal according to Big Brother Hate Crime Law Series J11013).

>>> The tragedy is that YOU might be serious. A troll, much like the libmedia, hits and runs long before the ambulance of facts and logic arrives. I'm more than ready to defend my POVs, but since I am not paid by VS I do so at my leisure.

>>> Do you really think insulting the world's 2 billion Christians (I am not one, but there's worse associations out there than Jesus) adds gravitas to your arguments?

If you REALLY want to make sure you're not getting brainwashed throw yourself into the opposite stream of traffic mentally for about the same time; again using what you consider logically the best choice. If you change you're mind AT ALL (as in, "I have doubts on this subject that was a core belief") you should seriously consider that you're looking out at the world, with a window that's orange and has a screen in front of it.

>>> Not only am I huge fan of facts and logic, I'm really big on RESULTS. Does this current rash of leftist "leadership" (2006 - 2010 Congress, 2008 to present White House) have any positive results to share? If so, they were not communicated properly before November of last year.

>>> Show me a nation--any nation throughout history--that's taxed itself into prosperity, especially by the tactics of a centralized government courting a planned economy, pitting one class against another and cannibalizing the productive members of society to get votes from the other kind. Show me a Euro-Union that isn't going bankrupt country by country.

>>> I notice that no one at the sift ever disses, say, MS-DNC over CNN, and the reason for this is both are parroting each other and the taxocrat party line. Don't let something as little as perceived rudeness on M. Kelly's part lead you to believe otherwise.

>>> Do you really want to argue about which side is spoiled and drowning in media groupthink? Assuming "The Right" has Fox (which I don't watch anyway) here's a partial list of the left-leaning propaganda machine, which did the world a favor by 'coming out' in 2008 and openly joining Obama's election (and now reelection) campaign.

THE (partial) LIST

* Media Matters (feeds most of these "credible" media their talking points)
* The old Big 3 networks: ABC, MS-DNC, CBS
* CNN
* Comedy central (talk about nightly propaganda!)
* Air America radio (bankrupt)
* NPR - (MY tax dollars pushing your agenda---at least Glenn Beck does his thing on his OWN dime)
* Most newspapers besides the WSJ
* Magazine fluff like TIME and Newsweak
* HuffPo
* Hollywood's "product"
* Most of the crap on tv
* Most "rebellious" musical acts and assorted "artists"

Of course, I could be imagining things. It's not like a singer slipped in a message to OBAMA during the Superbowl half-time show.

--------------------------------

The left values equality more than truth, and views life as rich versus poor instead of right versus wrong. This is why leftist policies fail to create jobs, wealth, security, confidence and yes, SUCCESS.

The truth (aka "what works") is more important than our self-esteem and feelings.

On the "Renaissance Fair" scale:

Song: modern
Instruments: modern
Clothing: pure fantasy - "Lord Of The Rings prostitute" meets "Jack Sparrow"

Rating: perfect fit for a renaissance fair.

I think I have to wear a Mr. Spock costume for that.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Spock, Star Trek, Facinating' to 'Spock, Star Trek, Fascinating' - edited by Fusionaut

*geek *history *talks

Wait, that wasn't Spock in 1:03!

Hear, hear!

Great quote, kymbos!

>> ^kymbos:

"Lone, mentally-ill vermin". With deference to @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/bareboards2" title="member since July 3rd, 2009" class="profilelink"><strong style="color: rgb(0, 136, 0);">bareboards2, I'll quote Stephen Budianski:
"For as long as I can remember, I have heard conservatives blaming everything that is wrong in the universe, from violent crime to declining test scores to teen pregnancy to rude children to declining patriotism to probably athlete's foot... upon Dr. Spock, Hollywood liberals, the abolition of prayer in school, Bill Clinton, the "liberal 1960s," the teaching of evolution — in other words, upon symbols, rhetoric, cultural norms, and the values expressed by political and media leaders. Yet from the moment when someone gets a gun in their hands, apparently, society ceases to have any influence whatsoever on the outcome and individual responsibility takes hold 100%. Something is driving the tripling of death threats against congressmen (and the concomitant rise in threats against Federal judges and other villains of the right, from Forest Service rangers to climate scientists) and it isn't the sunspot cycle."
http://budiansky.blogspot.com/2011/01/not-us-cont.html