Stupid ASCII loader prompt
jerrymc at clunix.cl.msu.edu
Fri Mar 18 06:47:06 PST 2005
Re all that stuff about Iraq and oil, etc that I nuked, many times
in world history, self serving campaigners have made suckers of
the unwashed masses and been able to claim them in a majority.
That is not the same as the minority seizing power because of the
way our system is constructed. It is an (often) unfortunate
artifact of the human condition.
> they were far more common than anyone would believe.
> > Sure, each 'ultra' group contains the seeds/tools of its own
> > destruction.
> No, not true. The Amish for example are definitely an off-the-bend
> group, but they have a consistent internal philosophy, and the way they
> apply their philosophy is non hypocritical, thus they survive. The
> the super-Mormons, even the survivalists, there are many of these
> groups that are non-hypocritical in the application end. As a result
> don't carry the seeds of their own destruction. Rather, there are other
> reasons that they can never grow beyond a small minority.
There are other seeds of self destruction beside hypocrisy.
The Amish and some similar groups just gradually die off, for
example. By the way, there is plenty of hypocrisy in the
Amish community. It may look different from what we are all
used to seeing but it is there.
Survivalists/militia groups feed on people's personal pathology
and must constantly be resupplied by fresh self-loathing recruits.
They are somewhat a product of the failure of mainstream society and
maybe some of that hypocrisy you seem interested in.
> There's plenty of stuff that you can fault the ultraliberals for,
> no common sense) but hypocrisy is not one of them. That particular
> problem is a speciality of the ultraconservatives.
Well, it seems so, but even the ultra liberals abuse weaker persons
within their groups. That, for example, has been one of the complaints
of women for the last hundred years or more (my memory doesn't go back
much farther than that). And they usually show none of their liberal
consideration toward their opponents, even though their doctrine would
call for it.
> > So, lets leave this topic at that. Either the
> > ultra-anti-beastie or ultra-pro-beastie movements will destroy
> > themselves.
> The ultra-pro-beastie movement is defined as the status quo, so it's
> impossible for it to destroy itself (except perhaps by apathy)
The status quo is that not many people care.
The ultra-pro-beastie movement can destroy itself just like the other
side by being so strident that they offend the status quo and majority
and incite a dump-it movement just to show they won't be abused by
either religious fringe - since the ultra-pro-beastie group seems to
be the loudest and most narrowly beamed one at the moment.
More information about the freebsd-questions