User talk:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases
Questions
Clarity
Your politics section remains quite unclear. Are you in favour of the "right to bear arms"? Are you a "tree-hugger"? Do you like Populists? Berlusconi? Tony Blair? Why do you write Independant with an a? Get-back-world-respect 21:54, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I favor the right to bear arms, and I hug tree's (generally when climbing them in order to build a tree stand to shoot from ;). More than supporting any one populist, I am a Populist. And the last was a spelling error :). Sam [Spade] 23:01, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Death
You state that you are "pro-death." What does this mean? Nat 18:12, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Firstly it is in regards to the abortion debate. Secondly it is in regards to the death penalty. Thirdly it is in regards to "the sanctity of human life". Finially, it is ment to embrace the wheel of life, and all of its componenets. Killing is in my eyes morally equal to reproduction, for example. Both require context. Killing a bad person is good, just as a bad person reproducing is bad. Sam [Spade] 18:21, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Equality?
So you don't support equality? By inference doesn't that make you a bigot? StoptheBus18 19:23, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Not according to this. I'm very open minded and like almost everybody. I am against satanists and polluters and greed and the wicked conspiracy they told me about on http://infowars.com/ ;) For me equality is a misconception, a false concept. What two things are ever truely equal? I have friends who are twins, and they are certainly not equal. One is good at one thing, has one personality, and the other is completely different. I prefer meritocracy, where we all have incentive to compete to be the best at what we do. Its all about the quality, both of out output and our input. We should learn to be good to each other. Why else be here? ;) Sam [Spade] 04:30, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, three guesses which link I followed to get here? Right!
Well hmm, to add to the debate: While not all people are exactly equal (We need both doctors and plumbers, or society will come to a screeching halt), this doesn't mean we can treat them differently. I think you'd agree that it'd be mean to look down on the plumber just because he's a plumber, or conversely to look down on a doctor just because he's a doctor. (In differing times and places, plumbers have been more highly regarded than doctors :-) ). Basically all citizens of a nation should have equal rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, right?
Well that's what's usually meant when people talk about Equality. I don't think anyone seriously thinks all humans are clones of each other, eh? ;-)
Kim Bruning 08:38, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I agree 1000% w kim, have you seen the link to meritocracy? Its not the best article, but I agree strongly w all things meritocratic. A good plumber is better than a bad politician anyday! ;) Sam [Spade] 21:46, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
When I say I oppose equality, I mean I oppose equality of outcome (comunism). I support Hierarchy, the rewarding of good service. Sam [Spade] 21:55, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Corporatism
If not capitalism, how are people to be rewarded for good service? Vacuum 03:09, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
- I don't oppose capitalism, rather I oppose corporations. I agree with Adam Smith that corporate involvement is the downfall of honest government. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 17:38, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "corporation"? A corporation is a simply a legally recognized entity responsible for conducting business and managing its related affairs. Adraeus 00:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- "a legal entity (distinct from a natural person) that often has similar rights in law to those of a natural person."
I don't accept that they deserve such rights. I also disapprove of most definitions of Corporatism. I similarly dislike representative democracy, for much of the same reasons (tendency towards stagnant, corrupt anti-meritocratic, inefficient oligarchy). Additionally I despise trusts. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 00:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I don't like treating groups as individuals in macro or micro circumstances. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Of God and Logic
would you care to explain how you reconcile these two?--Thor Andersen 08:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'd love to, that’s a large part of what I'm here for. My two primary goals are
- To learn
- To love
For me God is best understood in terms of logic and laws of nature. Clearly if (for me it's obvious, you may take it simply as postulated) there is a singular monist all-encompassing imminent immanent absolute infinite sentient personal God, than the laws of nature, logic, and everyday common sense would surely be his doing.
I personally began my spiritual saga assuming I was an atheist. I remained in such a state of nascence until I was perhaps 11 or 12 yrs of age, and gained an understanding of the animist nature of reality from my studies. I came to be aware, and felt that others were also aware. I felt that there were conscious entities other than myself, that all objects great and small were alive. From the quark to the cell to the planet and universe, it is clear to me that emergence exists throughout.
Religious texts can be of value, or not, depending on the circumstances. Sometimes they may be the word of God, if he chooses to speak to you that way. More often God speaks to me in my heart. Scriptures can also be confusing or unpleasant, particularly if manipulated by the arts of the wicked (the bible itself warns against those who speak the word, yet bear ill fruits). Jesus had a lot of useful information to share, and one of the most beneficial keys is:
Matthew 7:15-20
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
No matter what anyone says, we ought judge them by their fruits, what they give forth to others. Jesus also said:
Matthew 22:34-40 34
When the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they came together in the same place. 35 And one of them, an expert in the law, asked a question to test Him: 36 "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" 37 He said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the greatest and most important commandment. 39 The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commandments."
These are logical and efficient methods. Love God (God=All) before any other, love your neighbor as yourself, and judge others by their fruits. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:21, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- God and Logic are mutually exclusive; god is an unsupported (and by definition unproveable) conjecture.
I understand that is the premise of some, I would suggest that it has no basis in fact or logic, and is an inefficient assumption based entirely on faith. Sam Spade 16:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thoughts and questions
This page is cool. I wish more people could state their beliefs as succinctly as you do.
A few thoughts and questions....
- I find it interesting that you are pro-meritocracy, but also pro-hierarchy. I am very pro-meritocracy, but I think hierarchy is inefficient. However, I do support the notion that "Those who are most qualified should be in charge." I just think that the number of levels of management and such should be kept as small as possible.
- I like how you are pro-efficiency. That is a fundamental factor in decision making, on so many levels, that is often overlooked.
- The page says you are anti-"choice". By "choice" do you mean abortion? Or do you mean a broader sense of the term?
- It seems you are anti-corporatism. What does that mean exactly? Are you also anti-plutocracy? (And do you consider corporatism and plutocracy synonyms?) What measures do you propose/support to combat corporatism? Lots of people don't like corporate power, but I wonder... what can be done to reduce their effect on politics and life... especially considering that large corporations tend to provide efficiency. (Or so some people claim.)
- Pioneer-12 16:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
- I just think that the number of levels of management and such should be kept as small as possible.
- Sure, why not?
- By "choice" do you mean abortion? Or do you mean a broader sense of the term?
- Broader sense, but i did intend to onvoke the abortion issue. i think abortion should be a medical (doctors) decision, not the mothers. No mother should be deciding to murder her baby. Reminds me of the news headlines from Oklahoma... *shudder*
- It seems you are anti-corporatism.
- As usual, I was making a multi-entendre. For one thing, I was refering to that particular facist economic method. I was also objecting to enourmous mega-corporations, as well as the concept of corporations being given all the rights of an individual, but none of the responsibilities. I believe in promoting small business and networking, which I would argue is far more efficient, and provides better service (and more jobs), in the long run.
I love the opportunity for dialogue such as this! Cheers,