Nothing in the world

...spare us the emotastic egodrenched bullshit. It's like it's
suddenly become cool or something. Goth was not for this!

People want to share their pain because they want to show they're not
sheltered. It's just another way that EVERYTHING has become about
"cred".

We notion money convenience-wise, like human rights. Useful like,
but not to be taken too seriously.

Surely you've done enough in your life not to view human rights as "not
to be taken too seriously"?? Is there something I'm not getting here??

I am in the peculiar position of still attracting girls half my age
but scarcely knowing what to do about it.

Right problem to have, IYAM. I wish I had it.

...you know that thing, when you're young, the world is full of pretty
girls, you fall into their arms, you fall into their beds,

No, I don't know that thing, and I never will. That's because My Life
Is Fucked. This is a natural outgrowth of the particular kind of
individual I am--not freaky enough, not square enough, not nerdy enough,
not gay enough, not rawkin' enough, not even Goth enough to fit in
anywhere on a regular basis--and WAY TOO STUBBORN. I even push away
encouragement because it comes from people who don't seem to understand,
and who I can't make understand because I can't share with them what's
in my head and can't get out. It's largely my fault, but if you were in
my position, you'd be whining, too. I know that what I've got is really
good (if you discount the lyrics, anyway), but I expect nothing but a
barrage of NOT WHAT THE KIDS REALLY WANNA HEAR if I ever present it to
the biz, because that's what I get from my *friends*.

Because my love is a
bright light in whose aura they fade and flake away...

OK, now this makes sense. :-)

Perhaps Graham Greene was right.

?? I read *The Power And The Glory* on school assignment years ago, but
I can remember hardly anything of it. That's the only GG I know of
(except for a few short stories and all those spy novels).

Bright lights flare and then we can't see the world anymore,
and before we know it we have lost our sight. Like the wine and the
wasabi; I couldn't taste rose petals now. Perhaps that's why I persist
in listening to music of dubious virtue.
That way I retain something of myself.

I nub noo, Jennie, but I do not get this. Life is too short to partake
of anything a second time if you don't love it (or at least really like
it, or it's the best thing available). I guess there's a place for
(what for lack of a better word we call) nostalgia, though. Or
connection. Is this what you mean??

"The revolution will not be televised," says Gil Scott-Heron. No,
dude, it's on Twitter, and it's already making corporate profits. Screw
that.

I'm not sure what "the revolution" is anymore. I'm not sure what it's
for anymore, either. I guess we've all got our own ideas--I know I do.

--p (emotastisches ego-durchnaesste Stierscheissmeister)

--
"He who wishes to go beyond it must die."
--Arnold Schoenberg, on Gustav Mahler's Ninth Symphony

FWIW: www.myspace.com/PanurgeATL

Peter H. Coffin

2009-06-29 11:34:41 UTC

...spare us the emotastic egodrenched bullshit. It's like it's
suddenly become cool or something. Goth was not for this!

People want to share their pain because they want to show they're not
sheltered. It's just another way that EVERYTHING has become about
"cred".

We notion money convenience-wise, like human rights. Useful like,
but not to be taken too seriously.

Surely you've done enough in your life not to view human rights as "not
to be taken too seriously"?? Is there something I'm not getting here??

The human rights for oneself are vitally important. The human rights for
ones friends and compatriots are important. The human rights for someone
far away that you'll never meet are someplace down below whether one's
dry-cleaning is ready on the day promised or the day after.

[..]

"The revolution will not be televised," says Gil Scott-Heron. No,
dude, it's on Twitter, and it's already making corporate profits. Screw
that.

I'm not sure what "the revolution" is anymore. I'm not sure what it's
for anymore, either. I guess we've all got our own ideas--I know I do.

I'm surprised Twitter's making a profit.

--
You can lead an idiot to knowledge but you cannot make him think. You can,
however, rectally insert the information, printed on stone tablets, using a
sharpened poker.
-- Nicolai

Panurge

2009-06-30 03:09:02 UTC

Post by Peter H. Coffin
The human rights for oneself are vitally important. The human rights for
ones friends and compatriots are important. The human rights for someone
far away that you'll never meet are someplace down below whether one's
dry-cleaning is ready on the day promised or the day after.

Well, it depends (supposing your tongue's not in your cheek, which I
suspect it is). If that person far away that I'll never meet has an
idea that will improve my life, then, yes, it's vitally important.
Besides, a vital part of any social contract worth the name is that we
mutually acknowledge what's important to each other. If I want to be
free, I have to let you be free, too. (Then comes the hard part.)

--
"He who wishes to go beyond it must die."
--Arnold Schoenberg, on Gustav Mahler's Ninth Symphony

FWIW: www.myspace.com/PanurgeATL

whisky-dave

2009-06-30 12:01:46 UTC

It's all very well being free, but some of us are cheaper than others. :)

Peter H. Coffin

2009-06-30 13:47:43 UTC

Well, it depends (supposing your tongue's not in your cheek, which I
suspect it is).

Well, yes... Insofar that I don't actually believe that literally, but I
do feel that large numbers of people live as those they do. Why that's
not enraging is below.

Post by Panurge
If that person far away that I'll never meet has an idea that will
improve my life, then, yes, it's vitally important.

Someone might.

Post by Panurge
Besides, a vital part of any social contract worth the name is that we
mutually acknowledge what's important to each other. If I want to be
free, I have to let you be free, too. (Then comes the hard part.)

What's the hard part about *letting* someone be free? That's a pretty
passive thing.

--
57. Before employing any captured artifacts or machinery, I will carefully
read the owner's manual.
--Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord

Peter H. Coffin

2009-06-30 17:36:00 UTC

Post by Peter H. Coffin
The human rights for oneself are vitally important. The human rights
for ones friends and compatriots are important. The human rights for
someone far away that you'll never meet are someplace down below
whether one's dry-cleaning is ready on the day promised or the day
after.

Well, it depends (supposing your tongue's not in your cheek, which I
suspect it is).

Well, yes... Insofar that I don't actually believe that literally,
but I do feel that large numbers of people live as those they do. Why
that's not enraging is below.

Post by Panurge
If that person far away that I'll never meet has an idea that will
improve my life, then, yes, it's vitally important.

Someone might.

Post by Panurge
Besides, a vital part of any social contract worth the name is that
we mutually acknowledge what's important to each other. If I want to
be free, I have to let you be free, too. (Then comes the hard part.)

What's the hard part about *letting* someone be free? That's a pretty
passive thing.

Missed the "why not enraging" bit...

Essentially, it comes down to the problem that the idea of human rights
absolutely must come from within. It cannot be levied from outside,
without rendering moot the very rights than one might be trying to
establish. One cannot "give freedom" without having the power to take it
away as well. The only way to be actually free is to *take it* by force
if necessary and be oneself responsible for maintaining it. The *only*
thing outside force can do to help is *stay out of the way*, within the
bounds of their own freedoms.

Tangentially, here's an AFP article about the Honduran situation
published *before* the weekend's spincasting.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/zelaya-continues-push-for-controversial-honduras-vote-20090627-d0fl.html

That sure sounds like rule of law, since El Presidente Mel was ejected
for defying both the legislature AND the high court, and being put on a
plane to Costa Rica seems a pretty mild reaction in a part of the world
where would-be dictators that fail tend to be given a comfy blindfold
and a sunny spot with a wall to lean on for a little while.

--
95. My dungeon will have its own qualified medical staff complete with
bodyguards. That way if a prisoner becomes sick and his cellmate tells the
guard it's an emergency, the guard will fetch a trauma team instead of
opening up the cell for a look. --Peter Anspach's Evil Overlord List

Panurge

2009-07-09 22:31:59 UTC

Post by Peter H. Coffin
What's the hard part about *letting* someone be free?

Well, you'd *think* it'd be easy. But that would mean sharing the world
with people you loathe or who repel you for whatever reason. Some
people might eventually decide they just can't put forth the effort to
be passive, and, well, there you go--approximately half the story of the
human race.

--
"He who wishes to go beyond it must die."
--Arnold Schoenberg, on Gustav Mahler's Ninth Symphony

FWIW: www.myspace.com/PanurgeATL

Endymion

2009-07-10 18:45:57 UTC

Post by Peter H. Coffin
What's the hard part about *letting* someone be free?

Agreeing on what "free" does and does not entail, for the most part.

Well, you'd *think* it'd be easy. But that would mean sharing the world
with people you loathe or who repel you for whatever reason.

Is not wishing to do so always a bad thing? Suppose you loathe them
because they sprinkle their conversations liberally with highly
offensive racist epithets directed at persons not present, or they're
repulsive because they paper their office walls with porn and openly
leer at and drool over (but do not otherwise harass) co-workers whom
they find attractive?

- Endymion

Peter H. Coffin

2009-07-10 20:09:17 UTC

Post by Peter H. Coffin
What's the hard part about *letting* someone be free?

Agreeing on what "free" does and does not entail, for the most part.

Actually that *could* be pretty easy, presuming that people could agree
that all rights applied to you, me, him, and her, for ANY value of those
pronouns. The hard part more seems to be that there always seems to be
some gorup that some other group doesn't want included. Maybe THAT is
what "*letting* someone be free" is all about and why it's hard.

--
52. I will hire a team of board-certified architects and surveyors to
examine my castle and inform me of any secret passages and abandoned
tunnels that I might not know about.
--Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord

Endymion

2009-07-13 18:19:39 UTC

Post by Peter H. Coffin
What's the hard part about *letting* someone be free?

Agreeing on what "free" does and does not entail, for the most part.

Actually that *could* be pretty easy, presuming that people could agree
that all rights applied to you, me, him, and her, for ANY value of those
pronouns.

I don't think so. Pro-lifers don't want to ban abortion only for
*other* people, nor do most gun control proponents wish to be
exceptions to the laws they support. The divide isn't *who*, it's
*what* - what does "freedom" include and not include?

Post by Peter H. Coffin
The hard part more seems to be that there always seems to be
some gorup that some other group doesn't want included. Maybe THAT is
what "*letting* someone be free" is all about and why it's hard.

I don't see that at all. The problem is in deciding which activities
are and aren't equivalent to each other. Is pot like tobacco, or is it
like booze? I think you're looking at it as the group of pot smokers
vs. the group of drunks, and the question as whether the members of
the one group ought to be able to indulge in their drug of choice if
the members of the other are allowed to do so, but most people
interested in the debate are more likely to see it as a question of
similar groups but a different activity that may or may not be
equivalent.

Of course on some questions the two sides don't even agree on whether
your formulation or mine is the appropriate one - usually supporters
of the putative right or freedom are the ones to cast it as an issue
of groups. We've seen that here with the issue of same-sex marriage
rights: those who support them tend to frame it as groups - should gay
people be allowed to do what straight people do? - while opponents
(like John Everett) and some who are more ambivalent (me) argue that
you're talking about two different activities, not the same activity
extended across group lines. Likewise, most supporters of drug
prohibition would say that a junkie shooting up heroin is *not* doing
essentially the same thing as a guy drinking a beer, that the
difference is one of activity, not identity. And pro-choicers will say
they only want women to have the same freedom to control their bodies
as men have, while pro-lifers will say the activity in question is
unlike anything men are permitted to do with their bodies.

The same goes for many of the more traditional political freedoms. Do
white supremacists, or in the 50s, communists, have the same rights of
free speech and free association as Democrats and flat taxers, or is
what they are/were doing categorically different - conspiring to
violate the civil rights of others or to subvert the government as
opposed to expressing an idea? Is it discrimination against a group to
permit the NAACP but persecute the Aryan Nation?

The only way to reach the result you're proposing is to beg the
question on each issue, basing your formulation of the issue -
different groups doing similar things, or people doing different
things - on the outcome you seek to support.

- Endymion

Peter H. Coffin

2009-07-27 15:28:21 UTC

Post by Peter H. Coffin
What's the hard part about *letting* someone be free?

Agreeing on what "free" does and does not entail, for the most part.

Actually that *could* be pretty easy, presuming that people could agree
that all rights applied to you, me, him, and her, for ANY value of those
pronouns.

I'm not sure those are really great cases, because they're hotly
deviced only about very thin manifestations of much broader rights.
The first example is the freedom from not having the government meddle
in what it doesn't need to meddle in, and the second is a right of
individuals to defend themselves rather than only the government being
allowed to defend individuals. Banning abortion isn't as much about the
abortions (for the pro-life group in aggregate; there's many individual
exceptions) as it is about sex being being sacred and taboo: they're
generally not just down on the abortions themselves, but also on Plan
B pills, easy and common availability of and education about birth
control, lubes and sex toys. Similarly, those that want to prevent
people from owning firearms aren't only concerned with firearms, they're
also willing to ban public carrying of knives with points, nunchucks and
gardening implments.

Think a little broader.

Even that debate isn't about what it says it's about. At the time that
the marijuana was banned, the public impression was that white folk
didn't use it, so the only thing to protect was white folk getting
corrupted by jazz musicians, and everybody knows what hanging around
with jazz musician could lead to.... (Actually, they didn't, but that
didn't stop God-fearin' white folk from being scared of folks that hung
around jazz musicians.) You can mostly than a certain Willan Randolf
Hearst for that scare-mongering as well. (The man provided a war, after
all. What's a little stirring up resentment about jazz musicians in
comparison to that?) Hootch and tobaccy is stuff that white folks
liked a lot, and a severe lesson was being learned from the crap that
followed the 18th Amendment, enough to roll that back entirely. The
association hasn't shifted over to marijuana yet, though there's clearly
movement in that direction. The hold-outs keeping laws in place are
largely those who still think it's the stuff of jazz musicians and dirty
hippies, not good clean white folks. I bet that changes in another 20
years, though.

Post by Endymion
Of course on some questions the two sides don't even agree on whether
your formulation or mine is the appropriate one - usually supporters
of the putative right or freedom are the ones to cast it as an issue
of groups. We've seen that here with the issue of same-sex marriage
rights: those who support them tend to frame it as groups - should gay
people be allowed to do what straight people do? - while opponents
(like John Everett) and some who are more ambivalent (me) argue that
you're talking about two different activities, not the same activity
extended across group lines. Likewise, most supporters of drug
prohibition would say that a junkie shooting up heroin is *not* doing
essentially the same thing as a guy drinking a beer, that the
difference is one of activity, not identity. And pro-choicers will say
they only want women to have the same freedom to control their bodies
as men have, while pro-lifers will say the activity in question is
unlike anything men are permitted to do with their bodies.

Stopped down a lot from what I'm talking about, but yes. Largely, the
questions aren't about the *rights* as much as the manifestations
or implementations of those rights. The "Surely, this can't mean
blacks/Suni'/women/Turks/AK-47s/gays/marijuana/abortions/whatever?"
question is where the problems kick in. The answer to those *should* be
a resounding "YES!"

Post by Endymion
The same goes for many of the more traditional political freedoms. Do
white supremacists, or in the 50s, communists, have the same rights
of free speech and free association as Democrats and flat taxers, or
is what they are/were doing categorically different - conspiring to
violate the civil rights of others or to subvert the government as
opposed to expressing an idea? Is it discrimination against a group to
permit the NAACP but persecute the Aryan Nation?

Again, a resounding "YES!". Aryan Nation can march all they want if
the Jews and the blacks have guns, and the police are neutral in their
followup.

Post by Endymion
The only way to reach the result you're proposing is to beg the
question on each issue, basing your formulation of the issue -
different groups doing similar things, or people doing different
things - on the outcome you seek to support.

We don't need narrow focus on each issue to resolve the problems. We
need the breadth of sight to apply the broad principles of those rights
without fear.

--
Tomorrow is the first day of the rest of your life in a career where, if you
really suck, 100% of your work fails and if you're really good and really
lucky only 99% of it is a complete waste of time. - Hal Bogerd

Jennie Kermode

2009-07-01 13:13:22 UTC

Hmm. I often put working for such causes ahead of things like
eating. To me, if they're not important for everyone, the whole concept
is invalid. And like I say, it's a useful concept, even if that's all it
is.

Jennie

--
Jennie Kermode
***@innocent.com
www.jenniekermode.com

Jennie Kermode

2009-07-01 13:11:42 UTC

Post by Panurge
Surely you've done enough in your life not to view human rights as "not
to be taken too seriously"?? Is there something I'm not getting here??

Not to be taken to seriously on a conceptual level. This isn't
to say that I don't believe in good and fair treatment for everyone. The
point is that we must always be aware that rights are not a naturally
occurring thing, they are a useful invention.

Post by Panurge
No, I don't know that thing, and I never will. That's because My Life
Is Fucked. This is a natural outgrowth of the particular kind of
individual I am--not freaky enough, not square enough, not nerdy enough,
not gay enough, not rawkin' enough, not even Goth enough to fit in
anywhere on a regular basis--and WAY TOO STUBBORN.

I'm not sure I've ever fitted in anywhere either, except maybe
here (where I'd argue that you do the same). Fitting in isn't the only
way to function socially or sexually. And I'd say that of all the
qualities I have, adaptability has probably been the most useful - that
is to say, it can be better to be able to move between freaky, square,
nerdy or whatever rather than to fit neatly into one or other of them.
It's also vital to the creation of art, which seems to be what's really
important to you.

Post by Panurge
I nub noo, Jennie, but I do not get this. Life is too short to partake
of anything a second time if you don't love it (or at least really like
it, or it's the best thing available).

Life is too short to spend being comfortable. I'm interested
in learning and expanding my potential, which requires experiencing what
I don't love as many times as it takes. I also think that there's a
danger that too many good things can distract from artistic endeavour
(as can too many bad things, but I'm sure that goes without saying).

Jennie

--
Jennie Kermode
***@innocent.com
www.jenniekermode.com

Panurge

2009-07-03 22:17:44 UTC

Post by Panurge
Surely you've done enough in your life not to view human rights as "not
to be taken too seriously"?? Is there something I'm not getting here??

And here we come to our perennial quarrel with the right-libertarians.
If rights are merely "a useful invention", then any right is up for
grabs and no right is safe. Better to derive a set of rights *a priori*
and stick to that, they say. Unfortunately, this tends to be a prelude
to an argument *against* a right. I remember reading an essay by a
conservative writer (can't remember his name) where he essentially
argued that a right is a claim on others, and so if we have *fewer*
rights, there are fewer claims on us in turn; *ergo* we are *freer*.

Post by Panurge
...not freaky enough, not square enough, not nerdy enough,
not gay enough, not rawkin' enough, not even Goth enough to fit in
anywhere on a regular basis--and WAY TOO STUBBORN.

I'm not sure I've ever fitted in anywhere either, except maybe
here (where I'd argue that you do the same).

Thank you. :-)

Post by Jennie Kermode
Fitting in isn't the only way to function socially or sexually.

I guess that's one way of putting it. ;-) Come to think of it, I do
think we put too much emphasis on "fitting in"; after all, what it
really tends to mean is *conforming*.

Post by Jennie Kermode
And I'd say that of all the
qualities I have, adaptability has probably been the most useful - that
is to say, it can be better to be able to move between freaky, square,
nerdy or whatever rather than to fit neatly into one or other of them.

But you *do* "fit in", at least for the moment. Maybe I underestimate
my ability to do so as well, but *belonging* can be another matter. Why
make the effort to adapt if you're still unhappy in the end? Why do
I--why do we--need to make the conscious effort to adapt when others
don't? What will it get us? Why are we doing it? Will those with whom
we're trying to fit in reciprocate? (Silly question, I know...) :-/

Post by Jennie Kermode
It's also vital to the creation of art, which seems to be what's really
important to you.

Well, yes. Ultimately, for me, I guess it's about *creating the best
possible world*. I know that's unfashionable these days, but there it
is.

Post by Panurge
Life is too short to partake
of anything a second time if you don't love it (or at least really like
it, or it's the best thing available).

Life is too short to spend being comfortable.

Well, I'm not exactly talking about being comfortable. After all, much,
even most, of what I like makes even my friends rather
*un*comfortable--I must've been able to extend myself somewhat to get
into it.

All the same, I should take this back, because I'm certainly aware that
plenty of good or great art takes time to get into.

Post by Jennie Kermode
I'm interested
in learning and expanding my potential, which requires experiencing what
I don't love as many times as it takes.

Yes, but you were specifically talking about "music of dubious value",
which suggested to me music you listened to even though you understood
it to be not very good (as opposed to "likable"). I try to do my fair
share of extending myself, too--in fact, apparently I do more of it than
most people I know, because if I didn't I wouldn't be in the position
I'm in, right? But isn't it even worse if we all go so far with that
that the music of high value doesn't get the hearing it deserves?
Certainly "life is too short" to let things get *that* far.

Part of this is just simple taste--some things are just asparagus to me,
and that's that. Trying to "get it" in a situation like that is just
banging my head against the wall. Or else, as the man said, I *do* get
it--I'm just not *buying* it. Like everyone else, I reserve the right
to just not buy something.

Post by Jennie Kermode
I also think that there's a
danger that too many good things can distract from artistic endeavour
(as can too many bad things, but I'm sure that goes without saying).

--
"He who wishes to go beyond it must die."
--Arnold Schoenberg, on Gustav Mahler's Ninth Symphony

FWIW: www.myspace.com/PanurgeATL

whisky-dave

2009-07-06 16:01:13 UTC

Post by Panurge
Surely you've done enough in your life not to view human rights as "not
to be taken too seriously"?? Is there something I'm not getting here??

Well that makes sense, giving one person a right is likely to deny
someone else to do something.

Post by Panurge
...not freaky enough, not square enough, not nerdy enough,
not gay enough, not rawkin' enough, not even Goth enough to fit in
anywhere on a regular basis--and WAY TOO STUBBORN.

I'm not sure I've ever fitted in anywhere either, except maybe
here (where I'd argue that you do the same).

Thank you. :-)

bloody weirdos.

Post by Jennie Kermode
Fitting in isn't the only way to function socially or sexually.

I guess that's one way of putting it. ;-) Come to think of it, I do
think we put too much emphasis on "fitting in"; after all, what it
really tends to mean is *conforming*.

Is it conforming when you think you'd do whatever it was anyway,
or is conforming regarded as something you do to conform.

Is happy enough, is a bit grumpy insufficient, can it be possible to become
happy enough.

Post by Panurge
Why do
I--why do we--need to make the conscious effort to adapt when others
don't? What will it get us? Why are we doing it? Will those with whom
we're trying to fit in reciprocate? (Silly question, I know...) :-/

I thought we did it to alter reality.
A shaman once told me that our viewpoint depends on our perspective.

Post by Jennie Kermode
It's also vital to the creation of art, which seems to be what's really
important to you.

Well, yes. Ultimately, for me, I guess it's about *creating the best
possible world*. I know that's unfashionable these days, but there it
is.

Can you really create a better world for everyone or just a better world for
yourself and like minded people.

Post by Panurge
Life is too short to partake
of anything a second time if you don't love it (or at least really like
it, or it's the best thing available).

Life is too short to spend being comfortable.

if your friends feel *un*comfortable perhaps it's time to put your clothes
back on
and stop being a naughty boy. ;-)

Post by Panurge
All the same, I should take this back, because I'm certainly aware that
plenty of good or great art takes time to get into.

I'm not overly keen on *learning* to like 'art' I'd prefer it to be more of
a nautural thing.

Post by Jennie Kermode
I'm interested
in learning and expanding my potential, which requires experiencing what
I don't love as many times as it takes.

How do work out what a piece of music deserves, I watched a bit of a
program about music and how it's a mathematical function and how beats
effect us. The question of why terrible music is easy to recollect came up,
but I'm not sure I really understood it.

Post by Panurge
Part of this is just simple taste--some things are just asparagus to me,
and that's that. Trying to "get it" in a situation like that is just
banging my head against the wall. Or else, as the man said, I *do* get
it--I'm just not *buying* it. Like everyone else, I reserve the right
to just not buy something.

Download it for free ;-)
whoever gave 'them' digital music RIGHTS DRM.

Post by Jennie Kermode
I also think that there's a
danger that too many good things can distract from artistic endeavour
(as can too many bad things, but I'm sure that goes without saying).

Absinthe had that effect, but some still considered it art.
But I guess if it comes down to soiling ones trousers it's less art and more
of a followed through fart.

Panurge

2009-07-07 01:46:31 UTC

Post by Panurge
I remember reading an essay by a
conservative writer (can't remember his name) where he essentially
argued that a right is a claim on others, and so if we have *fewer*
rights, there are fewer claims on us in turn; *ergo* we are *freer*.

Well that makes sense, giving one person a right is likely to deny
someone else to do something.

Dunno how. Usually if I have a right the only thing you're denied is
the right to take it away from me. If I have the right to stay alive,
all that means to you is that you can't kill me. For example.

Post by whisky-dave
Is it conforming when you think you'd do whatever it was anyway,
or is conforming regarded as something you do to conform.

The latter. There--that wasn't so hard.

Post by Panurge
Why do we need to make the conscious effort to adapt when others
don't?

I thought we did it to alter reality.

I thought we did it to avoid getting hurt.

Post by whisky-dave
A shaman once told me that our viewpoint depends on our perspective.

That's kinda tautological.

Post by Jennie Kermode
It's also vital to the creation of art, which seems to be what's really
important to you.

Well, yes. Ultimately, for me, I guess it's about *creating the best
possible world*. I know that's unfashionable these days, but there it
is.

Can you really create a better world for everyone or just a better world for
yourself and like minded people.

You can try.

Post by whisky-dave
I'm not overly keen on *learning* to like 'art' I'd prefer it to be more of
a nautural thing.

Fair enough (whatever "natural" means). But just think--if you put
forth the effort, you'll wind up having *more* things to like in the end.

Post by whisky-dave
How do you work out what a piece of music deserves?

Good question. But I think I can tell that, say, Cole Porter or
Tchaikovsky is finely crafted enough to deserve to be liked by somebody.

Post by Panurge
Like everyone else, I reserve the right to just not buy something.

Download it for free ;-)
whoever gave 'them' digital music RIGHTS DRM.

Um, not that kind of "buy".

--
"He who wishes to go beyond it must die."
--Arnold Schoenberg, on Gustav Mahler's Ninth Symphony

FWIW: www.myspace.com/PanurgeATL

whisky-dave

2009-07-07 12:05:49 UTC

Well that makes sense, giving one person a right is likely to deny
someone else to do something.

Dunno how. Usually if I have a right the only thing you're denied is
the right to take it away from me.

There you go then, that's it you've denied someone else the right to take
something from you.

Post by Panurge
If I have the right to stay alive,

Says who ?

Post by Panurge
all that means to you is that you can't kill me. For example.

So you've denied me something.
But do I have the right to kill you ?

But no one has the right to stay alive.
You reach the end of your life say naturally or through illness that that's
your lot.
You don't have any rights for an extra 5 mins.

Post by whisky-dave
Is it conforming when you think you'd do whatever it was anyway,
or is conforming regarded as something you do to conform.

The latter. There--that wasn't so hard.

Post by Panurge
Why do we need to make the conscious effort to adapt when others
don't?

I thought we did it to alter reality.

I thought we did it to avoid getting hurt.

Can't see how that fits.

Post by whisky-dave
A shaman once told me that our viewpoint depends on our perspective.

That's kinda tautological.

I thought it was the newcastle brown.

He also said I can shoot the messengers as long as I listen to the message.

Post by Jennie Kermode
It's also vital to the creation of art, which seems to be what's really
important to you.

Well, yes. Ultimately, for me, I guess it's about *creating the best
possible world*. I know that's unfashionable these days, but there it
is.

Can you really create a better world for everyone or just a better world for
yourself and like minded people.

You can try.

Yes, but that may well make the world a worse place for others.
for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction,
it's not rocket science ! :)

Post by whisky-dave
I'm not overly keen on *learning* to like 'art' I'd prefer it to be more of
a nautural thing.

Fair enough (whatever "natural" means). But just think--if you put
forth the effort, you'll wind up having *more* things to like in the end.

I don't think that's true, if I say go to expensive restaurants and start
liking
expensive food I might not be able to stomach my present diet.
If I get a taste for the finest wines I might not be able to drink the local
supermarkets special offers.
There was a program on TV about the number of shoplifters increasing
and the biggest increase was in the 'well off' shop lifter as they are
finding it difficult
to buy cheaper food, they have been stealing extensive items as they can;t
bring themselves to downgrade to cheaper food.

As for art, well there the swan and naked man and women,
(The wings of love by Stephen Pearson) that is one of the most sold
reproduced and sold pieces of art ever. Art critics don't rate it.
So should art critics learn to like it so they'll start liking more things,
or should those million + that have brought prints learn to dislike it so
they can see more artistic merit in say Picasso ?

Post by whisky-dave
How do you work out what a piece of music deserves?

Good question. But I think I can tell that, say, Cole Porter or
Tchaikovsky is finely crafted enough to deserve to be liked by somebody.

Some feel the same about marmite.

Panurge

2009-07-08 23:32:53 UTC

Post by Panurge
If I have the right to stay alive,

Says who ?

Says my little conjecture. You *did* see the word "if" in there, didn't
you?

Post by Panurge
all that means to you is that you can't kill me. For example.

So you've denied me something.

We've denied you the right to deny me something! "There you go then".

Post by whisky-dave
But do I have the right to kill you ?

That's generally not the way social contracts go.

Post by whisky-dave
But no one has the right to stay alive.

Depends on what values of "stay alive". Nature keeps us mortal, so
there's no question of "rights" there. I might as well talk about my
"right" to be seven feet tall or have X-ray vision.

Post by Panurge
Why do we need to make the conscious effort to adapt when others
don't?

I thought we did it to alter reality.

I thought we did it to avoid getting hurt.

Can't see how that fits.

With what?

We adapt so that people won't hate us. People hating us leads to our
getting hurt in various ways.

Post by whisky-dave
He also said I can shoot the messengers as long as I listen to the message.

Bleah. No, you can't shoot the messenger--the messenger isn't to blame.

Post by Panurge
Ultimately, for me, I guess it's about *creating the best
possible world*. I know that's unfashionable these days, but there it
is.

Can you really create a better world for everyone or just a better world
for yourself and like minded people.

You can try.

What I meant here was, "You can try *for everyone*."

Post by whisky-dave
Yes, but that may well make the world a worse place for others.

It *might*, but not necessarily.

Post by whisky-dave
for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction,
it's not rocket science ! :)

Post by whisky-dave
I'm not overly keen on *learning* to like 'art' I'd prefer it to be more
of a natural thing.

Fair enough (whatever "natural" means). But just think--if you put
forth the effort, you'll wind up having *more* things to like in the end.

I don't think that's true, if I say go to expensive restaurants and start
liking expensive food I might not be able to stomach my present diet.

We might as well never have eaten anything but tripe, then. I mean,
*how would we know the difference*?? :-P

All you need is the realization that you don't need everything all the
time. Some people keep indulging because they just *figure* it'll give
them more pleasure. Well, maybe not. Maybe what they need is a change,
or a vacation. Then they can come back a little later and it'll still
be fresh for them. I don't have to have steak all the time or drive a
Porsche all the time or whatever. As long as your everyday experience
is good and you have a ready outlet for your, um, *flagrancies*, things
should be generally OK.

Post by whisky-dave
As for art, well there the swan and naked man and women,
(The wings of love by Stephen Pearson) that is one of the most sold
reproduced and sold pieces of art ever. Art critics don't rate it.
So should art critics learn to like it so they'll start liking more things,
or should those million + that have brought prints learn to dislike it so
they can see more artistic merit in say Picasso ?

It's not about learning to dislike anything.

Post by Panurge
...I think I can tell that, say, Cole Porter or
Tchaikovsky is finely crafted enough to deserve to be liked by somebody.

Some feel the same about marmite.

How about Freddie Mercury? I don't really like his singing style, and I
think he made some bad decisions as a vocalist (which is saying much the
same thing), but I'd never deny that he was a technically accomplished
singer.

--
"He who wishes to go beyond it must die."
--Arnold Schoenberg, on Gustav Mahler's Ninth Symphony

FWIW: www.myspace.com/PanurgeATL

whisky-dave

2009-07-09 12:19:12 UTC

Post by Panurge
If I have the right to stay alive,

Says who ?

Says my little conjecture. You *did* see the word "if" in there, didn't
you?

Post by Panurge
all that means to you is that you can't kill me. For example.

So you've denied me something.

We've denied you the right to deny me something! "There you go then".

Which shows that rights are given by others rather than onesself.
So to have a right there's usually a 'cost' to others.

Post by whisky-dave
But do I have the right to kill you ?

That's generally not the way social contracts go.

True, which shows again rights are given by others or taken by others.
It's interesting in that you need moer than one person for rights to be
considered,
I wonder how God delt with that before day ONE. :)

Post by Panurge
Why do we need to make the conscious effort to adapt when others
don't?

I thought we did it to alter reality.

I thought we did it to avoid getting hurt.

Can't see how that fits.

With what?
We adapt so that people won't hate us.

I'm not sure who the we are here, but mostly we adapt to suit ourselves.

Post by Panurge
People hating us leads to our
getting hurt in various ways.

So when you don;yt have a right provided by someone else you adpat yourself
so you don;t need those rights.

Post by whisky-dave
He also said I can shoot the messengers as long as I listen to the message.

Bleah. No, you can't shoot the messenger--the messenger isn't to blame.

Doesn't matter it'll make me feel better ;-)

Post by Panurge
Ultimately, for me, I guess it's about *creating the best
possible world*. I know that's unfashionable these days, but there it
is.

Can you really create a better world for everyone or just a better world
for yourself and like minded people.

You can try.

What I meant here was, "You can try *for everyone*."

The you'll fail, better to create a better world for those most important to
you.
or perhaps you'd be able to select better elevator/supermarket music for
everyone.
I find most of it really bad, but at least it's easy to ignore unlike the
vast majority
of the few remaining independent record shops.

Post by whisky-dave
I'm not overly keen on *learning* to like 'art' I'd prefer it to be more
of a natural thing.

Fair enough (whatever "natural" means). But just think--if you put
forth the effort, you'll wind up having *more* things to like in the end.

I don't think that's true, if I say go to expensive restaurants and start
liking expensive food I might not be able to stomach my present diet.

We might as well never have eaten anything but tripe, then. I mean,
*how would we know the difference*?? :-P

That's the advantage isn't it.
If you don;t know of something better then you won;t be upset if you don't
get it.

Post by Panurge
All you need is the realization that you don't need everything all the
time. Some people keep indulging because they just *figure* it'll give
them more pleasure. Well, maybe not.

It's difficult to prove that less is sometime better.
I've heard that at the end of WWII while rationing in the UK was still in
effect people were healthier then than they are today mostly due to eating
less and of couse haviong less crap food thrust upon them.
I think meat was rationed until 1954 in the UK.

Post by Panurge
Maybe what they need is a change,
or a vacation. Then they can come back a little later and it'll still
be fresh for them.

Nice idea and it can work, vacations are short lived generally, and most
people
seem to do more rather than less, but as long as those things are different
it might not work.

Post by Panurge
I don't have to have steak all the time or drive a
Porsche all the time or whatever. As long as your everyday experience
is good and you have a ready outlet for your, um, *flagrancies*, things
should be generally OK.

true but I'll keep my flagrancies where they are, with all the CCTV cameras
in
London and the UK I have to keep them covered.

Actually I had to do a wiki to find out what flagrancies actually were,
none the wiser as yet but I never thought I';d see this a wiki's main page.

(London UK time 13:05)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Today's featured article

Gropecunt Lane was a street name found in English towns and cities
during the Middle Ages, believed to be a reference to the prostitution
centred on those areas; it was normal practice for a medieval street name to
reflect the street's function, or the economic activity taking place within
it. Gropecunt, the earliest known use of which is in about 1230, appears to
have been derived as a compound of the words "grope" and "cunt". Streets
with that name were often in the busiest parts of medieval towns and cities,
and at least one appears to have been an important thoroughfare. Variations
include Gropecunte, Gropecountelane, Gropecontelane, Groppecountelane, and
Gropekuntelane. Although the name was once common throughout England,
changes in attitude resulted in it being replaced by more innocuous versions
such as Grape Lane. Gropecunt was last recorded as a street name in 1561.
(more...)

It's not about learning to dislike anything.

I guess it's possible to admire something but not like it and visa versa.

Post by Panurge
...I think I can tell that, say, Cole Porter or
Tchaikovsky is finely crafted enough to deserve to be liked by somebody.

Some feel the same about marmite.

How about Freddie Mercury?

I think he;d leave a nasty taste in my mouth too, but that's just me.
I have got a did like the first 4 albums, but found them/him a bit boring
after
the Night at the Opera album"

Post by Panurge
I don't really like his singing style, and I
think he made some bad decisions as a vocalist (which is saying much the
same thing), but I'd never deny that he was a technically accomplished
singer.

I guess he was, but does that matter, I doubt many brought queens music
because
of his technically accomplishment. I was also under the impressionj he did
more than just sing as in writing/arranging etc....

Queen have done nothing of note since, as far as I know other than try to
emulate the past, so I think he was more than just a technically
accomplished
singer. And he had a very posh English voice.

Panurge

2009-07-13 01:42:52 UTC

Post by Panurge
If I have the right to stay alive,

Says who ?

Says my little conjecture. You *did* see the word "if" in there, didn't
you?

Post by Panurge
all that means to you is that you can't kill me. For example.

So you've denied me something.

We've denied you the right to deny me something! "There you go then".

Which shows that rights are given by others rather than onesself.
So to have a right there's usually a 'cost' to others.

Post by whisky-dave
But do I have the right to kill you ?

That's generally not the way social contracts go.

Post by Panurge
We adapt so that people won't hate us.

I'm not sure who the we are here, but mostly we adapt to suit ourselves.

That makes no sense. OTOH, I tend to view "adaptation" in terms of what
Jennie wrote about what we're forced (if only by circumstance) to do.
Adapting is something I do when I can't have what I want, or when I can
only have some of it.

Post by Panurge
People hating us leads to our getting hurt in various ways.

So when you don;yt have a right provided by someone else you adpat yourself
so you don;t need those rights.

This makes no sense--unless it means "you become a sheep so you're not
concerned with the question any more". Feh!

Post by Panurge
What I meant here was, "You can try *for everyone*."

The you'll fail,

*I* would probably fail. But *we* might succeed. Is there nothing that
could be done that could improve everyone's life??

Post by whisky-dave
If you don;t know of something better
then you won;t be upset if you don't get it.

Well, get to work on that tripe, then.

Post by whisky-dave
It's difficult to prove that less is sometime better.
I've heard that at the end of WWII while rationing in the UK was still in
effect people were healthier then than they are today mostly due to eating
less and of couse haviong less crap food thrust upon them.

Well, that's pretty convincing, isn't it?

Post by whisky-dave
I guess it's possible to admire something but not like it and visa versa.

Pretty much.

Post by Panurge
I don't really like [Freddie Mercury's] singing style, and I
think he made some bad decisions as a vocalist (which is saying much the
same thing), but I'd never deny that he was a technically accomplished
singer.

I guess he was, but does that matter,

Well, yes.

Post by whisky-dave
I doubt many brought queens music
because of his technical accomplishment.

But he wouldn't have been the singer he was without it, which is
something punks don't ever seem to understand. Of course technique
matters; it matters *everywhere else* in life. Why does rock'n'roll get
a pass?

Post by whisky-dave
I was also under the impressionj he did
more than just sing as in writing/arranging etc....

True. He also had some pretty serious music chops, if of a rather
"traditional" sort, as does Brian May.

Post by whisky-dave
Queen have done nothing of note since, as far as I know other than try to
emulate the past, so I think he was more than just a technically
accomplished singer.

Yes, he was. Nobody has ever, to the best of my knowledge, tried to
defend *mere* technical accomplishment--but again, that's something
that's roundly ignored by the punk paradigm.

What people have tried to defend is the idea that a certain level of
technical competence is *essential*, even if it's not *enough*. If you
don't care enough about your music to play it well, why should I listen?

--
"He who wishes to go beyond it must die."
--Arnold Schoenberg, on Gustav Mahler's Ninth Symphony

FWIW: www.myspace.com/PanurgeATL

whisky-dave

2009-07-14 12:53:16 UTC

Post by Panurge
We adapt so that people won't hate us.

I'm not sure who the we are here, but mostly we adapt to suit ourselves.

You have said or was it implied that you adapt so peole won;t hate you.
">> > We adapt so that people won't hate us."

I don;t really care whether or not someone hates me, it's not really my
concern
until it affects me in some way.
If a groupsof football supports hassle me then I'll adapt my journey to
avoid them
or if possible temporarily adapt in order to avoid their issues.
But itis to suit ME not them.
remember adapt does not mean a total change it is a temporary measure.
The adaptation isn't a fixed change

Post by Panurge
People hating us leads to our getting hurt in various ways.

So when you don;yt have a right provided by someone else you adpat yourself
so you don;t need those rights.

This makes no sense--unless it means "you become a sheep so you're not
concerned with the question any more". Feh!

Well there's nothing wrong with pulling the wool over their eyes.
We haev the right to be able to use our mobile phones, adn handle
lareg amounts of cash, and to dress[1] how we want in public.
But Goth girls and boys don't; really like walking around in night-club
wear passing groups of drunken football supporters or the frat type as
you seem to call themm in the US that's doesn't make goths sheep does it.

Post by Panurge
What I meant here was, "You can try *for everyone*."

The you'll fail,

*I* would probably fail. But *we* might succeed. Is there nothing that
could be done that could improve everyone's life??

I don;t believe so.
Or should that be I can;t think of anything.
Even free sex would piss of those making money from it.
Even getting 'nice' weather is debatable as to what 'nice' weather is.

But perhaps eliminating global warming or climate change might,
but at what cost.

Post by whisky-dave
If you don;t know of something better
then you won;t be upset if you don't get it.

Well, get to work on that tripe, then.

When the UK had an empire it was built on tripe,(and other crap food)
apparently it's becoming popular again, that's tripe not the empire.
No one was demanding caviar or smoked salmon, I don't even believe the kebab
had been invented/discovered or pizza (in the UK) .
There was no health service, education, social services.
But there was no massive riots about the above.

Well, that's pretty convincing, isn't it?

Seems so with obesity levels so high and health problems associated
with it on the increase, but I guess it's no problem in the US, but when you
have a NHS that has to operate and support people that just can';t control
their eating habits that diverts resources from other places.

Post by whisky-dave
I guess it's possible to admire something but not like it and visa versa.

Pretty much.

I guess he was, but does that matter,

Well, yes.

Why ?
Are you saying people shouldn't like a persons singing because they're not
technically accomplished.
Where would that leave punk and a lot of Goth and most music.
I don;t think the human brain requires technical accomplishment in order to
like something. Of course we can be told we should like it by those clever
than
ourselves. But does it really come down to intelligent people like classical
music and
ignorant stupid people like punk.

Post by whisky-dave
I doubt many brought queens music
because of his technical accomplishment.

But he wouldn't have been the singer he was without it,

That's not why I brought Killer Queen.

Post by Panurge
which is
something punks don't ever seem to understand. Of course technique
matters; it matters *everywhere else* in life. Why does rock'n'roll get
a pass?

It doesn't but I'm a bit worried by those that like either A or B music
because
it is technically accomplished, surely[1] there's more to music than that.
Sunday I was listening to a singer with an acoustic guitar playing the
'music'
from the song imagine by John Lennon while singing the lyrics to Anarchy in
the UK.

Post by whisky-dave
I was also under the impressionj he did
more than just sing as in writing/arranging etc....

True. He also had some pretty serious music chops, if of a rather
"traditional" sort, as does Brian May.

BM, a Phd in Astronomy and married to an an ex eastenders actress
and that hairstyle from the 70s, there are limits.

Post by whisky-dave
Queen have done nothing of note since, as far as I know other than try to
emulate the past, so I think he was more than just a technically
accomplished singer.

Yes, he was. Nobody has ever, to the best of my knowledge, tried to
defend *mere* technical accomplishment--but again, that's something
that's roundly ignored by the punk paradigm.

Is it ignored, although I'm not sure what what the "punk paradigm" is.
I thought they liked their music for the imontial content the anchary,
the rejection of control.

Post by Panurge
What people have tried to defend is the idea that a certain level of
technical competence is *essential*, even if it's not *enough*. If you
don't care enough about your music to play it well, why should I listen?

Because music isn;t about that, it's art not science.
It's like saying you shouldn't like well done steak, you should appreciate
the raw
taste of flesh rather than burnt meat.
Personally I can't eat meat that looks like a good vet could get it back on
it's feet.

[1] coming from someone[2] that can't play or sing might not be considered
proof
[2] Me

Panurge

2009-07-30 01:32:21 UTC

Post by whisky-dave
The adaptation isn't a fixed change

Maybe not--maybe it is. Certainly in the Darwinian sense it is.

Post by Panurge
Is there nothing that
could be done that could improve everyone's life??

I don;t believe so.
Or should that be I can;t think of anything.

But then...

Post by whisky-dave
There was no health service, education, social services.

Well, there you go.

Post by whisky-dave
I guess it's possible to admire something but not like it and visa versa.

Pretty much.

I guess he was, but does that matter,

Well, yes.

Why ?

Because technical accomplishment is an integral part of what made him
what he was as a singer.

Post by whisky-dave
Are you saying people shouldn't like a persons singing because they're not
technically accomplished.

Not necessarily. But there's a massive caveat there.

Post by whisky-dave
Where would that leave punk and a lot of Goth and most music.

I dunno. You tell me.

Post by whisky-dave
I don;t think the human brain requires technical accomplishment in order to
like something. Of course we can be told we should like it by those clever
than ourselves.

No one ever accused me of being "clever", but I'm not sure I'd tell
anyone they should like something. But I might tell people they should
respect something. Then again, no one (I hope) would insist that people
listen to music that was merely respectable. There's plenty of music
that's worthy of respect that just leaves me cold. Thing is, I know not
to blame the music--or at least its "respectability"--for that.

Post by whisky-dave
But does it really come down to intelligent people like classical
music and ignorant stupid people like punk.

Not necessarily. Intelligent people know that you can't help what you
like or not UNLESS you don't keep seeking things out. Ignorant, stupid
people don't.

Post by whisky-dave
I doubt many bought queens music
because of his technical accomplishment.

But he wouldn't have been the singer he was without it,

That's not why I brought Killer Queen.

That may be. All the same, it wouldn't be what it is without it--and
that goes for all of them. It also goes for the songwriting and the
production.

Post by Panurge
Why does rock'n'roll get a pass?

It doesn't

It doesn't?? Coulda fooled me.

Post by whisky-dave
but I'm a bit worried by those that like either A or B music because
it is technically accomplished, surely[1] there's more to music than that.

Of course there is. I'm not sure anyone likes music merely because of
that; obviously it does something to them emotionally. But they notice
that what it did to them was the result of techincal accomplishment.
It's not everything, but it's not nothing, either. I don't see how
that's so hard to understand.

Post by whisky-dave
BM, a Phd in Astronomy and married to an an ex eastenders actress
and that hairstyle from the 70s, there are limits.

Why do those limits keep extending to things I like and nowhere else?
Why can't I say that "there are limits" when it comes to punk? And
ultimately, why is it punkers and alternaheads that keep talking about
how "there are limits" in a way that classic rockers don't? It's
downright hypocritical.

Post by Panurge
Nobody has ever, to the best of my knowledge, tried to
defend *mere* technical accomplishment--but again, that's something
that's roundly ignored by the punk paradigm.

Is it ignored, although I'm not sure what what the "punk paradigm" is.
I thought they liked their music for the imontial content the anchary,
the rejection of control.

Go listen to *Song X* and then talk to me about anarchy. And that's got
razzin-frazzin *Pat Metheny* on it.

Because music isn;t about that, it's art not science.

MASSIVE cop-out.

No, music isn't science. It is, however, *craft*. Again, if it's art,
you should care enough to apply the best you've got to it. If you
don't, why should I?

Post by whisky-dave
It's like saying you shouldn't like well done steak, you should appreciate
the raw taste of flesh rather than burnt meat.

I'd think that metaphor should be turned around--after all, the
well-done steak has had more craft applied to it than the raw one!

--
"He who wishes to go beyond it must die."
--Arnold Schoenberg, on Gustav Mahler's Ninth Symphony

FWIW: www.myspace.com/PanurgeATL

whisky-dave

2009-07-30 16:07:39 UTC

Post by whisky-dave
The adaptation isn't a fixed change

Maybe not--maybe it is. Certainly in the Darwinian sense it is.

Not sure I wrote that, but it's been a while.

Post by Panurge
Is there nothing that
could be done that could improve everyone's life??

I don;t believe so.
Or should that be I can;t think of anything.

But then...

Post by whisky-dave
There was no health service, education, social services.

Well, there you go.

How,
If the health service helps everyone then why haven';t all countries adopted
it
if it's such a good thing. Seems the USA must have at least one good reason
not to.

I guess he was, but does that matter,

Well, yes.

Why ?

Because technical accomplishment is an integral part of what made him
what he was as a singer.

I tend to like things for other reasons, I think quite a bit of classica
music is of
high technical accomplishment but I don;t own any I have moer sex psitols
which I don;t think is high on technical accomplishments.

I won;t mention SoM in case someone calls me a goth
Doh !

Actually I'm not entirely sure why I like some music and not others.
But I do believe there's some mathematical reason behind it.

Post by whisky-dave
Are you saying people shouldn't like a persons singing because they're not
technically accomplished.

Not necessarily. But there's a massive caveat there.

Post by whisky-dave
Where would that leave punk and a lot of Goth and most music.

I dunno. You tell me.

Not liked because it isn't technical accomplished, that would be sad.

Post by whisky-dave
I don;t think the human brain requires technical accomplishment in order to
like something. Of course we can be told we should like it by those clever
than ourselves.

No one ever accused me of being "clever", but I'm not sure I'd tell
anyone they should like something.

That's what I was confused about.
This technical accomplishment bit, is it Art ;-)

Post by Panurge
But I might tell people they should
respect something. Then again, no one (I hope) would insist that people
listen to music that was merely respectable. There's plenty of music
that's worthy of respect that just leaves me cold. Thing is, I know not
to blame the music--or at least its "respectability"--for that.

That's what worried me about technical accomplishment.
I';ve seen quite a few bands recently but I don;t like or dislike them
because of technical accomplishment, if fact mostly it doesn;t figure
although
I do wish some would sort their equipment out sometimes.

Post by whisky-dave
But does it really come down to intelligent people like classical
music and ignorant stupid people like punk.

Not necessarily. Intelligent people know that you can't help what you
like or not UNLESS you don't keep seeking things out. Ignorant, stupid
people don't.

I do know the odd goth that goes to the proms, not my sort of thing.
Maybe I need to be exposed to such things more, in order to appreciate it.

I do tend to believe that generally the music that's thrust upon you in the
early pre and early teens dictates the sort of music you'll like for life,
maybe something 'etched' into ones neural pathways ;-)

Post by whisky-dave
but I'm a bit worried by those that like either A or B music because
it is technically accomplished, surely[1] there's more to music than that.

Of course there is. I'm not sure anyone likes music merely because of
that; obviously it does something to them emotionally.

But how can that be equated to thing like social stand or even culture.
The vast majority of those that like classical music tend to be the more
well off
financially shall we say You won;t get many Britney spears fans following
goth either
so why is there this divide. You'll certainly get musician that like and
appreciate
other genres of music but rarely the fans themselves.
I doub;t yuo;ll see many that went to Glastonbury at the proms and vica
versa.
I doub't manyy at glastonbury talk aboutb the technical accomplishment of
the bands or musicans but I do think in general that those playing at the
proms are
more technical accomplished.

Post by Panurge
But they notice
that what it did to them was the result of techincal accomplishment.
It's not everything, but it's not nothing, either. I don't see how
that's so hard to understand.

It's not, but the reason behind it is.
Why don;t you hear classical music blurting out from council estates.

Post by whisky-dave
BM, a Phd in Astronomy and married to an an ex eastenders actress
and that hairstyle from the 70s, there are limits.

Why do those limits keep extending to things I like and nowhere else?

Surely they also extend to things you dislike.

Post by Panurge
Why can't I say that "there are limits" when it comes to punk? And
ultimately, why is it punkers and alternaheads that keep talking about
how "there are limits" in a way that classic rockers don't? It's
downright hypocritical.

I wasn;t aware that this happens.

Post by Panurge
Nobody has ever, to the best of my knowledge, tried to
defend *mere* technical accomplishment--but again, that's something
that's roundly ignored by the punk paradigm.

Is it ignored, although I'm not sure what what the "punk paradigm" is.
I thought they liked their music for the imontial content the anchary,
the rejection of control.

Go listen to *Song X* and then talk to me about anarchy. And that's got
razzin-frazzin *Pat Metheny* on it.

Never heard of it.

Because music isn;t about that, it's art not science.

MASSIVE cop-out.

Well I won't complain if you say Rod Strewart can't sing therefore he
can't be liked or be popular . :)

Post by Panurge
No, music isn't science. It is, however, *craft*. Again, if it's art,
you should care enough to apply the best you've got to it. If you
don't, why should I?

Why should best be important. I must admit I always prefered recorded
music on CDs to live performances, but I do go to see more live bands now
than I used to and buy far less music.

Panurge

2009-07-31 23:13:38 UTC

Post by Panurge
Is there nothing that
could be done that could improve everyone's life??

I don;t believe so.
Or should that be I can;t think of anything.

But then...

Post by whisky-dave
There was no health service, education, social services.

Well, there you go.

How,
If the health service helps everyone then why haven';t all countries adopted
it
if it's such a good thing. Seems the USA must have at least one good reason
not to.

Fear of the Temples of Syrinx, essentially. And some people (enough of
those in power to have made the difference all these years, in any
event) think it will somehow corrupt our souls, or else have something
to lose. If we had a Westminster-like system, we would've had it
decades ago.

Post by whisky-dave
I tend to like things for other reasons, I think quite a bit of classica
music is of
high technical accomplishment but I don;t own any I have moer sex psitols
which I don;t think is high on technical accomplishments.

Fair enough. But that doesn't negate my point about Freddie M.

Post by whisky-dave
Are you saying people shouldn't like a persons singing because they're
not technically accomplished.

Not necessarily. But there's a massive caveat there.

Post by whisky-dave
Where would that leave punk and a lot of Goth and most music.

I dunno. You tell me.

Not liked because it isn't technical accomplished, that would be sad.

Well, maybe. Not all good music is technically accomplished, but that
truth can be an awful temptation. The point is to make *all* the good
music, not just the music that's easiest to make.

Post by Panurge
No one ever accused me of being "clever", but I'm not sure I'd tell
anyone they should like something.

That's what I was confused about.
This technical accomplishment bit, is it Art ;-)

No. It's *craft*. Craft is worth something.

Post by whisky-dave
I';ve seen quite a few bands recently but I don;t like or dislike them
because of technical accomplishment, if fact mostly it doesn;t figure
although
I do wish some would sort their equipment out sometimes.

OK.

Post by whisky-dave
I do tend to believe that generally the music that's thrust upon you in the
early pre and early teens dictates the sort of music you'll like for life,
maybe something 'etched' into ones neural pathways ;-)

That's what they say, anyway.

Post by whisky-dave
but I'm a bit worried by those that like either A or B music because
it is technically accomplished, surely[1] there's more to music than that.

Of course there is. I'm not sure anyone likes music merely because of
that; obviously it does something to them emotionally.

But how can that be equated to thing like social stand or even culture.

I'm not sure it should.

Post by whisky-dave
The vast majority of those that like classical music tend to be the more
well off
financially shall we say You won;t get many Britney spears fans following
goth either
so why is there this divide.

It's what we learn from an early age. It's a shame, too. Actually,
lots of the very cheapest CDs are classical--generally really old
releases that still sound good because that's what the record company
was spending their money on at the time. Early Beatles records probably
could've sounded much better than they did, but EMI just wasn't thinking
it'd be worth the investment.

Post by Panurge
Why can't I say that "there are limits" when it comes to punk?

You didn't--you said "there are limits" when it comes to stuff that's
*not* punk. But I guess that's understandable--punk is all about
limits, anyway. Can't do this, can't do that--it *all* has to be THIS
WAY and EVERYTHING ELSE is "bullshit". Fuck that.

Post by Panurge
ultimately, why is it punkers and alternaheads that keep talking about
how "there are limits" in a way that classic rockers don't? It's
downright hypocritical.

I wasn;t aware that this happens.

It's happened for as long as there's been punk--it's a fundamental theme
in the rock press. You think you're the first person ever to snark
about Brian May's hairstyle?

Post by Panurge
Go listen to *Song X* and then talk to me about anarchy. And that's got
razzin-frazzin *Pat Metheny* on it.

Never heard of it.

Well, there you go--another learning opportunity. ;-)

It's really an Ornette Coleman record with PM. PM's name is listed
first, but it's clearly an OC record.

Post by Panurge
Again, if it's art,
you should care enough to apply the best you've got to it. If you
don't, why should I?

Why should best be important.

*Your best effort* is important. *Caring* is important. Now, if you
got done what you wanted to do with *sufficient* effort, that's OK. I'm
just saying that if nobody's best effort is never needed, somehing may
be up.

--
"He who wishes to go beyond it must die."
--Arnold Schoenberg, on Gustav Mahler's Ninth Symphony

FWIW: www.myspace.com/PanurgeATL

Dag

2009-08-03 21:46:45 UTC

Post by Panurge
No one ever accused me of being "clever", but I'm not sure I'd tell
anyone they should like something.

That's what I was confused about.
This technical accomplishment bit, is it Art ;-)

No. It's *craft*. Craft is worth something.

The problem as I see it (I think we talked about this at Whitby) is that
Music isn't *a* craft, but a collection interconnected crafts. My
problem with much of the 'prog' scene is that many of the bands and
people involved are infinitely better technical musicians and producers
than they are composers. Being able to play lots and lots of chords
really fast is totally wasted if you cannot put them into a pleasing
order. This gap in competence is what really strikes a note of discord
with me.

By lowering ones technical ambitions to match ones (lack of) skill as a
composer one will end up with better music. Music is not simply a sum
of its parts, having too big a gap in the quality of the parts will drag
everything down even below the level of the single weakest part.

Dag

Panurge

2009-08-04 00:09:11 UTC

Post by Dag
Being able to play lots and lots of chords
really fast is totally wasted if you cannot put them into a pleasing
order. This gap in competence is what really strikes a note of discord
with me.

Hmmm...

In the prog-rock scene they talk about "prog-rock vocals"--fairly-good
regular-guy vocalizing, either in a rather matter-of-fact mode or
unusually overwrought, by someone who is producing the notes but not
really *singing*, IYKWIM, or else trying to Really Sing but failing.
Conventional wisdom in the prog-rock scene is that its bane is
*songcraft*, in the sense of writing lyrics and shaping interesting
melodies, as opposed to *composing* in the sense of harmonic structures
and underlying architectures.

Post by Dag
By lowering ones technical ambitions to match ones (lack of) skill as a
composer one will end up with better music.

I suppose, but wouldn't heightening one's composing skills be the better
solution in the end?

Post by Dag
Music is not simply a sum
of its parts, having too big a gap in the quality of the parts will drag
everything down even below the level of the single weakest part.

If so (and though I couldn't endorse it completely I can see your
point), I guess the question, then, is "How big a gap is too big?"

--
"He who wishes to go beyond it must die."
--Arnold Schoenberg, on Gustav Mahler's Ninth Symphony

FWIW: www.myspace.com/PanurgeATL

whisky-dave

2009-08-04 12:15:57 UTC

Fair enough. But that doesn't negate my point about Freddie M.

I'm not sure what that point is but I'm pretty sure I don't decide on what I
like
or dislike depending on technical accomplishments, I might be able to
appriaciate the technical accomplishments like I do with some Jazz
but I really don't like most Jazz. I'm not really keen on most pop either,
I don;t thuink it's because it's not technical accomplished.
What worriesd me are those that use technical accomplishments of music to
justify likeing it. I'ev heard somkething about music being tested on
apes'/chimps
in an effort to find out why we 'like' some music and not others.

Post by whisky-dave
Are you saying people shouldn't like a persons singing because they're
not technically accomplished.

Not necessarily. But there's a massive caveat there.

Post by whisky-dave
Where would that leave punk and a lot of Goth and most music.

I dunno. You tell me.

Not liked because it isn't technical accomplished, that would be sad.

Well, maybe. Not all good music is technically accomplished, but that
truth can be an awful temptation. The point is to make *all* the good
music, not just the music that's easiest to make.

Perhaps were' in danger of losing what we like in favour of what we think we
should like. I'm sure this has been done with 'Art'

Post by Panurge
No one ever accused me of being "clever", but I'm not sure I'd tell
anyone they should like something.

That's what I was confused about.
This technical accomplishment bit, is it Art ;-)

No. It's *craft*. Craft is worth something.

And art sells for much more.
I do know people in art and craft,
www.craftguerrilla.com
http://www.munano.co.uk/

even been to a couple of the events.
I prefer my tech though, I've tried to convince then to include LEDs
and sounds in their projects, but they prefer 'original' materials
whatever that is :)

That's what they say, anyway.

maybe the monkey test will show something.

Post by whisky-dave
but I'm a bit worried by those that like either A or B music because
it is technically accomplished, surely[1] there's more to music than that.

Of course there is. I'm not sure anyone likes music merely because of
that; obviously it does something to them emotionally.

But how can that be equated to thing like social stand or even culture.

I'm not sure it should.

But it does seem to that certain music has specific audience profiles.

I thought it was something due to copyright status.

Post by Panurge
Early Beatles records probably
could've sounded much better than they did, but EMI just wasn't thinking
it'd be worth the investment.

I've heard vinyl is on it's way back, not for the general public but more
vinyl sold last year than the year before, or so I've been told.

Post by Panurge
ultimately, why is it punkers and alternaheads that keep talking about
how "there are limits" in a way that classic rockers don't? It's
downright hypocritical.

I wasn;t aware that this happens.

It's happened for as long as there's been punk--it's a fundamental theme
in the rock press. You think you're the first person ever to snark
about Brian May's hairstyle?

Post by Panurge
Go listen to *Song X* and then talk to me about anarchy. And that's got
razzin-frazzin *Pat Metheny* on it.

Never heard of it.

Well, there you go--another learning opportunity. ;-)

my brain hurts :)

Post by Panurge
It's really an Ornette Coleman record with PM. PM's name is listed
first, but it's clearly an OC record.

Post by Panurge
Again, if it's art,
you should care enough to apply the best you've got to it. If you
don't, why should I?

Why should best be important.

Trouble is it';s very variable, from the lengh of time to produce an album
say.
Some bands can do 1 or 2 a year some take 4 to 5 years.

I was a perfectionist once, and I gave up doing anything that I couldn't do
perfectly ;-)

Panurge

2009-09-18 22:24:48 UTC

...if nobody's best effort is never needed, somehing may be up.

D'oh--! "*Ever* needed"!

--
"He who wishes to go beyond it must die."
--Arnold Schoenberg, on Gustav Mahler's Ninth Symphony

FWIW: www.myspace.com/PanurgeATL

Endymion

2009-07-10 18:34:56 UTC

Well that makes sense, giving one person a right is likely to deny
someone else to do something.

That depends on how you define rights, and I suspect those right-
libertarians are reacting against a definition with which they find
fault. So, for example, if you define the right to life as the right
not to be killed, that only means no one can take your life away, but
if you define it as a right to be given everything necessary for life
that you can't (or can't be bothered to) obtain on your own, that
denies the people who are forced to subsidize you the right to enjoy
the fruits of their own labor, or to cease their labors when they've
provided just enough to support themselves. If you insist on an
absolute right to travel or to buy a house without being subject to
discrimination, that means denying the rights of members of
communities to control their own borders and to associate (or not)
with whomever they wish.

Of course even taking that into account it's too simplistic to say
"more rights = less freedom" because all of those cases involve a
balancing of rights - in utilitarian terms, if action A guarantees
right X to group N at the cost of allowing group O right Y, the total
amount of freedom in the system depends on the number of people in
each group and the relative value of the two rights.

Post by whisky-dave
Download it for free ;-)

You mean *steal* it!

Post by whisky-dave
whoever gave 'them' digital music RIGHTS DRM.

The democratically elected members of our governing bodies did when
they decided to recognize the concept of copyright. Why shouldn't
artists (and their contractees) be able to enjoy the fruits of their
labor like anyone else? How would you like to work all day on
something only to have it shoplifted, or to have your boss tell you
you don't get paid that day because "information wants to be free"?

(I understand that DRM is sometimes abused, but using it to make
people pay for music they appropriate from others for their perpetual
listening pleasure is not such an abuse.)

- Endymion the Content/Intellectual Property Producer

Panurge

2009-07-13 01:30:00 UTC

...if you define the right to life as the right
not to be killed, that only means no one can take your life away, but
if you define it as a right to be given everything necessary for life
that you can't (or can't be bothered to) obtain on your own, that
denies the people who are forced to subsidize you the right to enjoy
the fruits of their own labor, or to cease their labors when they've
provided just enough to support themselves.

Fair enough. But this "everything" is something that keeps being
brought by conservatives when no one is bringing (or has brought)
"everything" up for discussion--at least not on a serious level. I've
heard such talk, but on very rare occasions, and mainly from people
commenting at places like Daily Kos (or what have you). More to the
point, why people keep bringing up this bugaboo when the social good
involved is *health care*--which is plainly not an economic good in the
sense that a T-bone steak or a Porsche Carrera is--strikes me as a bit
paranoid.

OTOH, if it means someone is kept from starving to death...

If you insist on an
absolute right to travel or to buy a house without being subject to
discrimination, that means denying the rights of members of
communities to control their own borders and to associate (or not)
with whomever they wish.

I'm not so sure. I can refuse to associate with someone standing right
next to me. And what are "their own borders"? Should we put barbed
wire around *everything* (ahem)?

Of course even taking that into account it's too simplistic to say
"more rights = less freedom" because all of those cases involve a
balancing of rights - in utilitarian terms, if action A guarantees
right X to group N at the cost of allowing group O right Y, the total
amount of freedom in the system depends on the number of people in
each group and the relative value of the two rights.

Don't forget the other rights you get in trade. Going back to the right
not to get killed, in the social contract I'm essentially giving up the
right to kill in order to get the right not to get killed. I daresay
I'm freer making a "trade" like that.

Post by whisky-dave
Download it for free ;-)

You mean *steal* it!

I tend to agree, but I feel it necessary to bring up two points:

1) If I download it, you still have it.

2) If I would've passed over it if I couldn't have downloaded it, you
haven't actually lost anything if you still have it. Many acts think of
illegal downloads as lost sales when apparently most of them aren't.

How would you like to work all day on
something only to have it shoplifted, or to have your boss tell you
you don't get paid that day because "information wants to be free"?

As in "speech", right?

--
"He who wishes to go beyond it must die."
--Arnold Schoenberg, on Gustav Mahler's Ninth Symphony

FWIW: www.myspace.com/PanurgeATL

Endymion

2009-07-13 19:24:06 UTC

Fair enough. But this "everything" is something that keeps being
brought by conservatives when no one is bringing (or has brought)
"everything" up for discussion--at least not on a serious level.

Air is free, so if you have a right to food, water, shelter, and
health care, isn't that pretty much everything necessary for life?

More to the
point, why people keep bringing up this bugaboo when the social good
involved is *health care*--which is plainly not an economic good in the
sense that a T-bone steak or a Porsche Carrera is--strikes me as a bit
paranoid.

It is *very much* an economic good. Anything that requires resources
that are limited is an economic good.

I think what you mean to say is that it isn't a luxury, but to answer
that it is necessary to define *how much* health care is a need not a
luxury. There really isn't a simple answer. "As much as senators get"
isn't workable; we simply can't afford that, it would take more than
the GNP. Same for "as much as is needed to preserve life" - same deal,
and does that include million dollar treatments that prolong the
suffering from terminal cancer for a few months?

I'm not trying to answer those questions here, just to show that the
subject is much more complicated *even at a purely theoretical level*
than you suggest.

OTOH, if it means someone is kept from starving to death...

If a starving man is told that he will be given food in return for
work, but he chooses not to work but instead to starve, and he
starves, have his rights been violated?

If ten men are told the same thing, and nine choose not to work, is it
not diminishing the freedom of the tenth to tell him that if he wants
to eat he must do the work of all ten? Isn't his freedom less than
theirs, since they have the choice to eat under circumstances in which
he wouldn't be able to?

I'm not so sure. I can refuse to associate with someone standing right
next to me.

I think that's an unreasonably narrow definition of association.

How about this one: are my rights being violated by the sponsors of a
women's music festival that is open to the general public, but women
only? Are their rights being violated if they are forced to admit me?
Is there any way to resolve that situation without someone's freedom
being narrowed?

For that matter, isn't the existence of property an inherent narrowing
of the freedom of everyone but the owner? Is it possible to grant
property rights without diminishing the freedom of the non-owners, or
to deny property rights without diminishing the freedom of former
owners?

And what are "their own borders"? Should we put barbed
wire around *everything* (ahem)?

Why not? Do you wish to restrict my freedom to string barbed wire?

But seriously, borders are borders, wire or no wire. We're not talking
about the physical barrier, we're talking about the limits of
jurisdiction, about communities' right to make laws for themselves.

Post by whisky-dave
Download it for free ;-)

You mean *steal* it!

1) If I download it, you still have it.

No, I don't. What I had before was not just a physical thing, it was a
right to exercise control over my own creation and to enjoy the fruits
of my own labor, and every time someone appropriates that creation and
work product my rights with respect to it are diminished.

2) If I would've passed over it if I couldn't have downloaded it, you
haven't actually lost anything if you still have it. Many acts think of
illegal downloads as lost sales when apparently most of them aren't.

If I shoplift something that I wouldn't have bought, is that not
theft, then? What if it's a carton of milk that's on its last day of
shelf life, and I'm the last customer in the store at closing time?

Is it okay to sneak your friends into the theater through the exit
door if they wouldn't have paid to get in?

If your band plays a club but someone steals all the door money before
it ever gets to you, have you lost anything? You still have your songs
and your equipment, right?

And is it not theft if you stay in a hotel and skip out on the bill?
The hotel still has its room, doesn't it?

What I'm trying to demonstrate is that property rights are (and must
be) more than physical custody of a physical thing. When you say you
own a thing, that means you have the right to control its use, not
just to keep it in your presence.

How would you like to work all day on
something only to have it shoplifted, or to have your boss tell you
you don't get paid that day because "information wants to be free"?

As in "speech", right?

No, I think "free" is a different concept here. "Speech" is an
activity of the speaker. If the government censors you, the right that
has been violated is a property of *you*, not your speech. but if
people bootleg your performance your freedom of speech hasn't been
diminished at all, it's your property rights that are affected. If the
government censors you, and you say what you were going to say anyway
and are jailed for it, but people manage to get bootlegs out, your
speech itself is free but *you* are not.

That made my brain hurt.

- Endymion

Panurge

2009-07-14 05:42:39 UTC

Anything that requires resources that are limited is an economic good.

Is police protection an economic good?

...it is necessary to define *how much* health care is a need not a
luxury.

Fair enough.

I'm not trying to answer those questions here, just to show that the
subject is much more complicated *even at a purely theoretical level*
than you suggest.

I'm well aware, thanks. Point is, conservatives have been treating this
as if this is some completely theoretical discussion with no basis in
already-lived reality about some wacky theory never tried before, when
actually the complete opposite is the case, even if we have to refer to
the realities of Them Damn Furriners to make our point.

If a starving man is told that he will be given food in return for
work, but he chooses not to work but instead to starve, and he
starves, have his rights been violated?

We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. But I suppose not, IF work
that will reasonably feed him and preserve his dignity is IMMEDIATELY
offered to him.

I'd like to question the assumption that to take my money *is* to take
my essential freedom, though.

If ten men are told the same thing, and nine choose not to work, is it
not diminishing the freedom of the tenth to tell him that if he wants
to eat he must do the work of all ten?

I'm not aware of any dispensation under which something this extreme
might take place, so I'm dismissing it as irrelevant.

Isn't his freedom less than
theirs, since they have the choice to eat under circumstances in which
he wouldn't be able to?

If he gets ten million dollars for it, I'd think that would make up for
a helluva lot.

Post by Endymion
If you insist on an
absolute right to travel or to buy a house without being subject to
discrimination, that means denying the rights of members of
communities to control their own borders and to associate (or not)
with whomever they wish.

I'm not so sure. I can refuse to associate with someone standing right
next to me.

I think that's an unreasonably narrow definition of association.

Ehh. Just thought I'd bring it up. But you might as well argue for the
elimination of public space. I mean, it's pretty hard to argue that you
have a right never to have to be around anyone you don't like, which
this seems to boil down to.

How about this one: are my rights being violated by the sponsors of a
women's music festival that is open to the general public, but women
only? Are their rights being violated if they are forced to admit me?
Is there any way to resolve that situation without someone's freedom
being narrowed?

Well, if we're gonna be narrowing someone's freedom anyway... (Where
*does* that end up?)

For that matter, isn't the existence of property an inherent narrowing
of the freedom of everyone but the owner?

Now you're talkin'! ;-)

...we're talking about the limits of
jurisdiction, about communities' right to make laws for themselves.

I guess you're getting here into the question of what makes a community,
and what obligations communities have to each other. I think what
exercises liberals is the prospect of rich people withdrawing from the
rest of society and making their own little preppy Utopia and letting
the rest of us Morlocks fend for ourselves while Big Money (which, as
Unca Neil sez, got no soul) reigns supreme.

<downloading>

When you say you
own a thing, that means you have the right to control its use, not
just to keep it in your presence.

This is the key statement, so I figured I'd just keep this part.

Post by Endymion
How would you like to work all day on
something only to have it shoplifted, or to have your boss tell you
you don't get paid that day because "information wants to be free"?

As in "speech", right?

As in "beer", right?

The saying is "free as in 'speech', not as in 'beer'", so another
phrasing could be "Information wants to *flow freely*". Are you OK with
that?

--
"He who wishes to go beyond it must die."
--Arnold Schoenberg, on Gustav Mahler's Ninth Symphony

FWIW: www.myspace.com/PanurgeATL

Satori

2009-07-14 14:28:37 UTC

Post by Endymion
How would you like to work all day on
something only to have it shoplifted, or to have your boss tell you
you don't get paid that day because "information wants to be free"?

As in "speech", right?

As in "beer", right?
The saying is "free as in 'speech', not as in 'beer'", so another
phrasing could be "Information wants to *flow freely*". Are you OK with
that?

So you're saying art is information, and that information wants to flow
freely. If that's the case, then do you think all artists should work
for free? How do artists get fed?

Panurge

2009-07-14 22:00:37 UTC

Post by Satori

Post by Panurge
The saying is "free as in 'speech', not as in 'beer'", so another
phrasing could be "Information wants to *flow freely*". Are you OK with
that?

So you're saying art is information, and that information wants to flow
freely. If that's the case, then do you think all artists should work
for free? How do artists get fed?

Well, that's where "not as in 'beer'" comes in.

I'm aware that there are more avenues to revenue (sorry) for musicians
these days, at least potentially. OTOH, I tend to take the side of
those who believe downloading must be approved by the artist; one
doesn't negate the other. Still, I'm afraid this'll probably be an
ongoing problem. Stopping illegal downloading might actually be more
doable from a moral standpoint than a technical one... But I'm not
saying anything new here. I'm just saying I'm quite aware of the
question (as a musician myself, if nothing else).

--
"He who wishes to go beyond it must die."
--Arnold Schoenberg, on Gustav Mahler's Ninth Symphony

FWIW: www.myspace.com/PanurgeATL

Nyx

2009-07-14 22:27:33 UTC

Post by Endymion
How would you like to work all day on
something only to have it shoplifted, or to have your boss tell you
you don't get paid that day because "information wants to be free"?

As in "speech", right?

As in "beer", right?
The saying is "free as in 'speech', not as in 'beer'", so another
phrasing could be "Information wants to *flow freely*". Are you OK with
that?

So you're saying art is information, and that information wants to flow
freely. If that's the case, then do you think all artists should work
for free? How do artists get fed?

Advertising.

And tshirts.

Nyx

Endymion

2009-07-14 17:56:14 UTC

Anything that requires resources that are limited is an economic good.

Is police protection an economic good?

Absolutely. Someone has to decide how many police officers we need and
how much to pay them. "Economic good" is a broader category than "good
distributed by private markets". For example, airspace (for flying,
not broadcast) is an economic good - someone has to say who can be
where in the landing pattern at any given time, even though no
private entity owns any of it.

I'm not trying to answer those questions here, just to show that the
subject is much more complicated *even at a purely theoretical level*
than you suggest.

I don't think that's the case. Going back to basics doesn't mean
you're pretending there are no complexities. In this case it serves
two purposes: one, questioning how relevant the furriners' example is
when we may not share some of the basic assumptions they do, and two,
questioning numerical projections that cannot realistically be gauged
by furrin examples. For instance, claims that absorbing health care
into the public sector will result in huge cost savings - you can't
demonstrate that by looking at the Canadian or French example unless
you understand the fundamental assumptions and conditions in those
places before and after socialization and how those assumptions and
conditions may differ radically from ours.

Conservatives keep belaboring that point because liberals keep
pretending that "health care" is like water ina river, a fixed and
existing resource where the only decision is who gets how much of it.
There are a lot of assertions floating around that seem to be in
direct contradiction to the fundamental principles. The main one
involves this: if we assume the current system fails to provide care
for a large segment of the population, and the proposed system will
provide that care, the default result is that we will have to hire
many more doctors, nurses, and technicians and buy much more equipment
in order to provide that extra care. The frequently posed answer to
that is "But #country has public health and spends less per capita
than we do, so we'll also spend less if we adopt public health." But
that is nonsense unless you examine in great detail, and going back to
fundamentals, *WHY* #country spends less. Liberals like to gloss over
this and just assume that it is because nationalized health care is
obviously inherently more efficient, but that assumption is rubbish -
there are a million reasons it could be false.

If a starving man is told that he will be given food in return for
work, but he chooses not to work but instead to starve, and he
starves, have his rights been violated?

We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. But I suppose not, IF work
that will reasonably feed him and preserve his dignity is IMMEDIATELY
offered to him.
I'd like to question the assumption that to take my money *is* to take
my essential freedom, though.

The freedom to act is meaningless if you don't have the freedom to
enjoy the consequences of your actions.

If ten men are told the same thing, and nine choose not to work, is it
not diminishing the freedom of the tenth to tell him that if he wants
to eat he must do the work of all ten?

I'm not aware of any dispensation under which something this extreme
might take place, so I'm dismissing it as irrelevant.

It holds just as true if only one refuses to work, but there are
plenty of examples where 100% of peoples' labor has been appropriated.

Isn't his freedom less than
theirs, since they have the choice to eat under circumstances in which
he wouldn't be able to?

If he gets ten million dollars for it, I'd think that would make up for
a helluva lot.

Doesn't that depend on what he has to do to get the ten million?
Surely you can imagine things you wouldn't do for ten million dollars,
or things you'd do for ten million but not one million.

Post by Panurge
I'm not so sure. I can refuse to associate with someone standing right
next to me.

I think that's an unreasonably narrow definition of association.

I don't think the right to have some space for yourself is remotely
comparable to the right to have every space you might conceivably
occupy for yourself.

Well, if we're gonna be narrowing someone's freedom anyway... (Where
*does* that end up?)

It ends with the axiom that any freedom granted is a narrowing of
someone else's freedom, which is where we came in.

The point is that there are no freebies - *all* questions of rights
and freedoms are questions of *balancing* rights and freedoms. It is
possible to maximize freedom, but "maximized" does not mean "100% of
ever conceivable freedom".

For that matter, isn't the existence of property an inherent narrowing
of the freedom of everyone but the owner?

Now you're talkin'! ;-)

Ah, but see my answer above, and to Dave - there's another side to
that coin!

...we're talking about the limits of
jurisdiction, about communities' right to make laws for themselves.

I prefer to think "Primitives," but then my wife tells me my love of
"Zardoz" is an unnatural and unhealthy thing. (But really, how can
anyone possibly fail to love a film that gives us Sean Connery in
fetish wear shouting a soliloquy beginning with "The gun is good! The
penis is evil!"? We just don't have good drugs anymore like they had
in the early 70s.)

Post by Panurge
fend for ourselves while Big Money (which, as
Unca Neil sez, got no soul) reigns supreme.

That's an understandable concern, but the problem is defining where
"righ" begins and how you balance that with concern about punishing
people for economic productivity. You mention the figure of $10M above
- but apparently the working definition of rich in D.C. these days is
$200k, or in some cases even half that. I see a world of difference
between the two. Is a neurosurgeon who makes $200k being rewarded out
of proportion to the benefits he provides to society or the amount of
hard work and talent necessary to deliver them?

Post by Panurge
<downloading>

When you say you
own a thing, that means you have the right to control its use, not
just to keep it in your presence.

This is the key statement, so I figured I'd just keep this part.

Post by Endymion
How would you like to work all day on
something only to have it shoplifted, or to have your boss tell you
you don't get paid that day because "information wants to be free"?

As in "speech", right?

As in "beer", right?
The saying is "free as in 'speech', not as in 'beer'", so another
phrasing could be "Information wants to *flow freely*". Are you OK with
that?

Yes, but "beer" could fit either definition. ;-)

The problem is the most basic kind of bait-and-switch argument:
someone starts with the "flows freely" description and then tries to
slip in a justification for taking the information "freely" as in not
paying the producer for it. The "wants to be free,"which is a natural
property devoid of ethical meaning, is turned into an insinuation that
since it wants to be free, it is wrong or misguided to restrict that
natural freedom. The folly of such an argument can be seen by applying
it to beer - beer, like any liquid, "wants" to flow freely, but that
means efforts to restrict its desire to flow and keep it in its proper
place are all the more necessary, not wrong!

- Endymion

Peter H. Coffin

2009-07-27 17:48:44 UTC

Anything that requires resources that are limited is an economic good.

Is police protection an economic good?

So long as you think that there's less personal and property crime as a
result of having police, then yes.

...it is necessary to define *how much* health care is a need not a
luxury.

Fair enough.

I'm not trying to answer those questions here, just to show that the
subject is much more complicated *even at a purely theoretical level*
than you suggest.

Ahem. The VA already provides baseline coverage for 25,000,000. It may
suck, but we don't have to look elsewhere for models.

If a starving man is told that he will be given food in return for
work, but he chooses not to work but instead to starve, and he
starves, have his rights been violated?

We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. But I suppose not, IF work
that will reasonably feed him and preserve his dignity is IMMEDIATELY
offered to him.
I'd like to question the assumption that to take my money *is* to take
my essential freedom, though.

If ten men are told the same thing, and nine choose not to work, is it
not diminishing the freedom of the tenth to tell him that if he wants
to eat he must do the work of all ten?

I'm not aware of any dispensation under which something this extreme
might take place, so I'm dismissing it as irrelevant.

Well, there's a bit of a relevency when you look at the scope...
Eventually, you get to the point where so little labor is getting done
that it's needful to look at OTHER MEANS to get the same work done, or
fail the organization and even the 10th guy starves. But I don't think
even Bruce is looking at that scale here.

Isn't his freedom less than
theirs, since they have the choice to eat under circumstances in which
he wouldn't be able to?

If he gets ten million dollars for it, I'd think that would make up for
a helluva lot.

I'm not so sure. I can refuse to associate with someone standing right
next to me.

I think that's an unreasonably narrow definition of association.

Sure you do. You just don't get to do it where other people have a right
to be as well. "right to" != "get handed".

Well, if we're gonna be narrowing someone's freedom anyway... (Where
*does* that end up?)

For that matter, isn't the existence of property an inherent narrowing
of the freedom of everyone but the owner?

Now you're talkin'! ;-)

...we're talking about the limits of
jurisdiction, about communities' right to make laws for themselves.

Eh, kind of. The *problem* comes in when the legimate question of "I'm
not using this, or not using more than any other person. Why should I
pay for it, or pay more for it than others do?" comes up. And the only
real answer is "Because you can." It takes an enlightened soul to accept
that, understand it, and understand why it is good.

When you say you
own a thing, that means you have the right to control its use, not
just to keep it in your presence.

This is the key statement, so I figured I'd just keep this part.

Post by Endymion
How would you like to work all day on
something only to have it shoplifted, or to have your boss tell you
you don't get paid that day because "information wants to be free"?

As in "speech", right?

As in "beer", right?
The saying is "free as in 'speech', not as in 'beer'", so another
phrasing could be "Information wants to *flow freely*". Are you OK with
that?

That's way, way too much simplification for the "information wants to be
free" concept, because both "speech" and "beer" are actually in there,
and in conflict with each other. Further, the phrase is often used as
justification for hurrying the process along, while the actual meaning
is a lot more dispassionate. It's really more like a statement of
thermodynamics than philosophy, like "water runs downhill". "Information
wants to be free" is no more a statement against copyright and official
secrets than "water runs downhill" is a statement about the futility of
pumps and ice-machines.

--
87. My vats of hazardous chemicals will be covered when not in use. Also, I
will not construct walkways above them.
--Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord

Panurge

2009-07-30 01:09:59 UTC

Anything that requires resources that are limited is an economic good.

Is police protection an economic good?

So long as you think that there's less personal and property crime as a
result of having police, then yes.

But it's not the only reason. I wouldn't think of personal safety in
economic terms.

Post by Peter H. Coffin
The VA already provides baseline coverage for 25,000,000. It may
suck, but we don't have to look elsewhere for models.

And, of course, Medicare and S-CHIP.

Post by Peter H. Coffin
"Information
wants to be free" is no more a statement against copyright and official
secrets than "water runs downhill" is a statement about the futility of
pumps and ice-machines.

Well, I was hoping I'd made clear that I understood this. Oh, well.

--
"He who wishes to go beyond it must die."
--Arnold Schoenberg, on Gustav Mahler's Ninth Symphony

FWIW: www.myspace.com/PanurgeATL

Axel

2009-07-28 01:23:50 UTC

Anything that requires resources that are limited is an economic good.

Is police protection an economic good?

'Good' as in '... and service', not as in value judgement.

--
Axel... ...Kallisti

whisky-dave

2009-07-14 13:05:03 UTC

Fair enough. But this "everything" is something that keeps being
brought by conservatives when no one is bringing (or has brought)
"everything" up for discussion--at least not on a serious level.

}Air is free, so if you have a right to food, water, shelter, and
}health care, isn't that pretty much everything necessary for life?

Air is only free because no one has come up with a viable way of charging
you for it.
Hotels and homes with senic views always charge you extra, do yuo not have a
right
to loko at what you want for free ?

}It is *very much* an economic good. Anything that requires resources
}that are limited is an economic good.

No idea what yuo mean by that.

}I think what you mean to say is that it isn't a luxury, but to answer
}that it is necessary to define *how much* health care is a need not a
}luxury.

Yes well that's a very difficult one.

}There really isn't a simple answer. "As much as senators get"
}isn't workable; we simply can't afford that, it would take more than
}the GNP. Same for "as much as is needed to preserve life" - same deal,
}and does that include million dollar treatments that prolong the
}suffering from terminal cancer for a few months?

}I'm not trying to answer those questions here, just to show that the
}subject is much more complicated *even at a purely theoretical level*
}than you suggest.

yes, if resources are limited yuo need some way of limiting there use.

OTOH, if it means someone is kept from starving to death...

}If a starving man is told that he will be given food in return for
}work, but he chooses not to work but instead to starve, and he
}starves, have his rights been violated?

}How about this one: are my rights being violated by the sponsors of a
}women's music festival that is open to the general public, but women
}only? Are their rights being violated if they are forced to admit me?
}Is there any way to resolve that situation without someone's freedom
}being narrowed?

What about my situatiojn last week I went to hyde park with friends
to relax a bit adn tehre was this Rap band playing a concerned which
could be heard all over the park, some paid to get in. But others like
myself didn;t
because we didnt; want to hear it otherwise we';d have brought tickets.
Now we did hear the 'music' so were we stealling it or was our rights
of a peaceful day in the park removed by a band playing.

}For that matter, isn't the existence of property an inherent narrowing
}of the freedom of everyone but the owner?
That's sounds about right to me.

And what are "their own borders"? Should we put barbed
wire around *everything* (ahem)?

}Why not? Do you wish to restrict my freedom to string barbed wire?

}But seriously, borders are borders, wire or no wire. We're not talking
}about the physical barrier, we're talking about the limits of
}jurisdiction, about communities' right to make laws for themselves.

Here we find communities denying each other rights, while probably
allowing those right to it's own members of the community.

Post by whisky-dave
Download it for free ;-)

You mean *steal* it!

1) If I download it, you still have it.

}No, I don't.

Oh yes you do.

}What I had before was not just a physical thing, it was a
}right to exercise control over my own creation and to enjoy the fruits
}of my own labor,
If you had control how come someone else downloaded it.

}and every time someone appropriates that creation and
}work product my rights with respect to it are diminished.
How .

}If I shoplift something that I wouldn't have bought, is that not
}theft, then? What if it's a carton of milk that's on its last day of
}shelf life, and I'm the last customer in the store at closing time?

No because stores usually get a small amount of money back
for things they don't sell, either from the supplier or via insurance.

But what if the staff are offered it for half price.
They haven't stolen half a pint of milk from the store or producers.

}Is it okay to sneak your friends into the theater through the exit
}door if they wouldn't have paid to get in?

I wouldn;t have thought so, but it's a difficult one.

If your band plays a club but someone steals all the door money before
it ever gets to you, have you lost anything?

Usually yes.
The cost to you in time, and anything else needed for the gig.

You still have your songs and your equipment, right?

That's not the issue at a gig though.
The money on the door provided the venues rent and staffing costs.
It shouldn;t matter to the band if the money goes missing unless they get a
cut
of the money that comes through the door which is what happens in some
venues.
i.e The band gets £2 for every punter after the first 20.
So 21 punters £2 for the band but if someone steals the door money then
that's your £2 gone, and the venues money to pay the doorman,
rent and soundman etc.

}And is it not theft if you stay in a hotel and skip out on the bill?
}The hotel still has its room, doesn't it?

No that is theft due to the 'contract/agreement' you sign.

Endymion

2009-07-14 17:15:48 UTC

Post by whisky-dave
}Air is free, so if you have a right to food, water, shelter, and
}health care, isn't that pretty much everything necessary for life?
Air is only free because no one has come up with a viable way of charging
you for it.

Kidding aside, that's not true - it's free because there's so much
that apart from using it as a dump for pollutants there's no
conceivable way we could use any measurable quantity of it up, and
nature delivers it to your door without human labor. No one has to do
anything for you to breathe. Food grows out of the ground, but not by
itself, not in the quantities we need, so it requires labor before you
can eat it.

Post by whisky-dave
}It is *very much* an economic good. Anything that requires resources
}that are limited is an economic good.
No idea what yuo mean by that.

See the above. Food is an economic good because it requires arable
land, water, and labor, all of which are resources of which there is a
limited supply, to produce it and deliver it to the store. All of
those resources are in demand for other uses as well, which means
economic planning of some sort is needed to decide how many resources
need to be devoted to food production - too few and people starve, too
many and you waste resources that could be put to better use.

Likewise for health care.

Post by whisky-dave
What about my situatiojn last week I went to hyde park with friends
to relax a bit adn tehre was this Rap band playing a concerned which
could be heard all over the park, some paid to get in. But others like
myself didn;t
because we didnt; want to hear it otherwise we';d have brought tickets.
Now we did hear the 'music' so were we stealling it

No, if the band chooses to play it in an open public space they're
giving it away. In that case what they're giving away is a poorer
quality sound, what the fans are paying for is better sound and a view
of the band.

Don't get confused by the fact that some things are given away and
others are charged for. If the band chooses to play for free, or to
freely allow people to distribute bootlegs, that's great, but the
point is **it's the band's choice**.

Post by whisky-dave
or was our rights
of a peaceful day in the park removed by a band playing.

Presumably as with most shared common recources there's a political
process to determine the use to which the park is put - they have to
obtain a permit to play, and if you don't like the way the city
government gives out permits you can write and complain or vote for
someone who'll limit permits the way you want.

Post by whisky-dave
}For that matter, isn't the existence of property an inherent narrowing
}of the freedom of everyone but the owner?
That's sounds about right to me.

But then isn't *not* having property diminishing the freedom of the
person who made it? Why make anything if people are just going to
steal it from you? And how are you going to support yourself if people
steal everything you make?

Post by whisky-dave
Download it for free ;-)

You mean *steal* it!

1) If I download it, you still have it.

}No, I don't.
Oh yes you do.

Oh no I don't. You're using the wrong value of "it". What the band
owns is not the same thing as what someone who buys the CD or download
owns.

Post by whisky-dave
}What I had before was not just a physical thing, it was a
}right to exercise control over my own creation and to enjoy the fruits
}of my own labor,
If you had control how come someone else downloaded it.

Because they stole it. The fact that you succeed in stealing something
doesn't mean the owner gave it away. The key word here is the *right*
to control it.

Post by whisky-dave
}and every time someone appropriates that creation and
}work product my rights with respect to it are diminished.
How .

The same way any right is violated. The same way your boss violates
your rights if he doesn't pay you. You don't own your wages until
they're actually delivered to you, what you own is a right to collect
those wages.

Post by whisky-dave
}If I shoplift something that I wouldn't have bought, is that not
}theft, then? What if it's a carton of milk that's on its last day of
}shelf life, and I'm the last customer in the store at closing time?
No because stores usually get a small amount of money back
for things they don't sell, either from the supplier or via insurance.

Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. It depends on the
business.

Post by whisky-dave
But what if the staff are offered it for half price.
They haven't stolen half a pint of milk from the store or producers.

No, because the store gave it to them. It's the store's (or the
producer's) to give or not give.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. Because
someone might choose to give you a discount, it's okay to steal from
them?

If your band plays a club but someone steals all the door money before
it ever gets to you, have you lost anything?

Usually yes.
The cost to you in time, and anything else needed for the gig.

Right. Which is *exactly* what you're out if someone pirates your
music, book, or software.

You still have your songs and your equipment, right?

That's not the issue at a gig though.

Why is it different anywhere else? Studio time ain't free, and neither
is recording and mixing equipment.

Post by whisky-dave
The money on the door provided the venues rent and staffing costs.
It shouldn;t matter to the band if the money goes missing unless they get a
cut
of the money that comes through the door which is what happens in some
venues.

Most venues. The club may or may not get a cut but the money the band
makes is directly proportional to the take at the door. That's what I
was assuming in the example.

Post by whisky-dave
}And is it not theft if you stay in a hotel and skip out on the bill?
}The hotel still has its room, doesn't it?
No that is theft due to the 'contract/agreement' you sign.

Not really. Violating a contract isn't a criminal act, but skipping
out on a hotel or restaurant bill is. The hotel can sue you to get the
money, that's the contract, but it can also have you prosecuted for
theft of services (not sure what they call that in the UK). The same
goes if you tap into the cable TV network or the electricity grid.

- Endymion

whisky-dave

2009-07-15 16:04:40 UTC

Kidding aside, that's not true - it's free because there's so much
that apart from using it as a dump for pollutants there's no
conceivable way we could use any measurable quantity of it up,

Obviously it'd be difficult to use quantity but you use 'space' or the
quality
of that air.
We already have a similar thing regarding TV licences, we aren';t charged
for
what we use but by the fact of it's existance and that unless you can prove
you don;t use it then you pay of it. There will come a time when air
purification
is needed and that will cost although idealy it'd be everyone pays equally
via
some tax system. We'll have green taxes soon rightly or wrongly.
People can get fined for not doing re-cycling. Some are already paying to
keep the air free from smoke, in that smoking is banned in many places.
If you smoke in these places you are fined.

Post by Endymion
and
nature delivers it to your door without human labor.

Actually in Australia people are taxed if tehy collect rain water,
so are we in the UK if you use rain water, you are taxed/charged
because you have a hose. Rain is free isn;t it ?

Post by Endymion
No one has to do
anything for you to breathe. Food grows out of the ground, but not by
itself, not in the quantities we need, so it requires labor before you
can eat it.

So that means food can never be a right to have it.

Post by whisky-dave
}It is *very much* an economic good. Anything that requires resources
}that are limited is an economic good.
No idea what yuo mean by that.

using the word good as the word product rather than good/bad.
That makes more sense then.

Post by Endymion
See the above. Food is an economic good because it requires arable
land, water, and labor, all of which are resources of which there is a
limited supply, to produce it and deliver it to the store. All of
those resources are in demand for other uses as well, which means
economic planning of some sort is needed to decide how many resources
need to be devoted to food production - too few and people starve, too
many and you waste resources that could be put to better use.
Likewise for health care.

Which basically means that none of these can be considered rights because
it takes the efforts of others to provide them. I don;t believe anyone has a
right to
make someone else do labour without some form of 'payment' .
I pay for my water around £80 a year I think.

Poor sods I reckon they were ripped off then, but there's no accounting for
taste.
I wonder if they'd object to me recording it and giving it away.
If I sold it, It'd be different.
Come to think of it I wonder about such things as youtube.
I do get permission before posting bands, but what about cats,
do they have their rights not to be filmed..
good excuse for my lasted video plug. :)

Post by Endymion
Don't get confused by the fact that some things are given away and
others are charged for. If the band chooses to play for free, or to
freely allow people to distribute bootlegs, that's great, but the
point is **it's the band's choice**.

I agree but what I don;t believe it that downloaders are thieves or are
guilty of theft,
because theft as far as I know came from an old Jewish law that requires a
person to
actually loss something in order for theft to be proved.
I do not believe that the woman that downloaded 24 songs was quilty of theft
to the
tune of $1.9M . At most she should have paid a fine equal to that of the
commercial
value of the track a few $ I'd suggest.
If she were an MP it'd be forgiven and she could say I'll give it all back,
just as some of our (UK) polititions have done whebn aquiring a product or
service
under false pretence.
I don;t believe we should use the law of theft for such a 'crime' because
there's no
proof of a significant lose other than the few $ .

Post by whisky-dave
}For that matter, isn't the existence of property an inherent narrowing
}of the freedom of everyone but the owner?
That's sounds about right to me.

That's why the 'workers' must have rights and that those not doing any
labour
or anyone shouldn't automatically be given the right to have what others
have.
And unfortunalty that includes food, shelter, water as they all require a
cost
of some sort, so someone has to pay somewhere.

Post by whisky-dave
Download it for free ;-)

You mean *steal* it!

1) If I download it, you still have it.

}No, I don't.
Oh yes you do.

Oh no I don't. You're using the wrong value of "it". What the band
owns is not the same thing as what someone who buys the CD or download
owns.

If I download the Spice girls last album 'illegally', they loose nothing.
If I was intending to but it, which I can;t do anyway as all I can do is
'buy'
a license to play it then yes perhaps theyv lost the money they'd get from
an album sale. So about £1, not the £9.99 that a store charges,
but whoever else that usally takes a 'cut' from the sale has also lost out,
and that's what scares the record industry not the loss to the artists.

Because they stole it. The fact that you succeed in stealing something
doesn't mean the owner gave it away. The key word here is the *right*
to control it.

Trouble is you sold your right to the record company, that's why they are
the
ones that think such a 'theft' makes them loose $1000s .
I beleive someone shouild only be charge with theft is when they have actual
made a profit from it, or indeed to make a profit from it.

Post by whisky-dave
}and every time someone appropriates that creation and
}work product my rights with respect to it are diminished.
How .

But you can't use that claim with music or even pictures UNLESS you sell
them on or perhaps give them and therefore depriving the owner of whatever
they feel should be their reward.
This is very similar to software piracy, the trouble comes when will
evaluating
how the owner has lost financial reward.

Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. It depends on the
business.

Yes it does, so when you steal out of date milk that the department store
can't sell you aren't stealing from the department store but from the
insurer,
who doesn't want the product anyway.
My father worked for such a store that used to give it's out of date
products
and substandard to the salvation army, then the insurance company refused
to pay up if the products weren't trashed so my father was empting stuff
into skips
and bins. Once there was 50 litres of ice cream because the ingredients were
slightly wrong in that %age of chocolate was slightly lower than stated so
it all
went down the toilet.

Post by whisky-dave
But what if the staff are offered it for half price.
They haven't stolen half a pint of milk from the store or producers.

No, because the store gave it to them. It's the store's (or the
producer's) to give or not give.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. Because
someone might choose to give you a discount, it's okay to steal from
them?

No, it's how you evalute your losses, and are they really a loss anyway.

If your band plays a club but someone steals all the door money before
it ever gets to you, have you lost anything?

Usually yes.
The cost to you in time, and anything else needed for the gig.

Right. Which is *exactly* what you're out if someone pirates your
music, book, or software.

Only if they were willing to purchase it anyway.
it seems strange that the most pirated stuff also sells the most.

You still have your songs and your equipment, right?

That's not the issue at a gig though.

Why is it different anywhere else? Studio time ain't free, and neither
is recording and mixing equipment.

It still doesn't quite come to theft though that's the point.
I find the idea that 24 tracks are worth $1.9M in lost revenue a bit
excessive.
I guess the musicians have to buy new equipment do they or the record
componies
have to do whatever they do all over again.?

Most venues. The club may or may not get a cut but the money the band
makes is directly proportional to the take at the door. That's what I
was assuming in the example.

I also assume it's the venues responsibility to collect such money.
Speaking as someone that was left minding the door and the takings
to a gig on sunday.

Post by whisky-dave
}And is it not theft if you stay in a hotel and skip out on the bill?
}The hotel still has its room, doesn't it?
No that is theft due to the 'contract/agreement' you sign.

Not really. Violating a contract isn't a criminal act, but skipping
out on a hotel or restaurant bill is. The hotel can sue you to get the
money,

What is this money worth ?
The cost of running the hotel for a year ?
What if there's no contract ?

Post by Endymion
that's the contract, but it can also have you prosecuted for
theft of services (not sure what they call that in the UK). The same
goes if you tap into the cable TV network or the electricity grid.

Yes so perhaps it's theft of a service, but would it carry hte same sort
of fine as music. If I illegally watched a star trek episode via tapping
into cable.
Would I'd have to pay the production cost of the episode.

You're charged according to the actual cost + sometimes a
small service or legal charge unlike the music industry in that you download
a $2 track and get fined $200,000, is this because once you've downloaded
it no one else but you can supply it ?

But then again these licensing laws for music should be changed.
I think that when you 'buy' a track you should be able to copy it as many
times as you wish and you can listen to it on any device you wish same with
films.
I don;t believe you should have the right to give it to others without
permission
of the owner, but of course the record industry is the owner in most cases.

Do you happen to know what happens if you have sex with a prostitute
and managed to 'escape' without paying.
I would have thought it'd be theft, but I don't think it is, it's classed as
rape.
sex is a service too isn;t it.

Peter H. Coffin

2009-07-27 16:21:44 UTC

Fair enough. But this "everything" is something that keeps being
brought by conservatives when no one is bringing (or has brought)
"everything" up for discussion--at least not on a serious level.

Air is free, so if you have a right to food, water, shelter, and
health care, isn't that pretty much everything necessary for life?

Misses the whole concept of liberty/self-determination. Slaves get all
that stuff above.

It is *very much* an economic good. Anything that requires resources
that are limited is an economic good.
I think what you mean to say is that it isn't a luxury, but to answer
that it is necessary to define *how much* health care is a need not a
luxury. There really isn't a simple answer. "As much as senators get"
isn't workable; we simply can't afford that, it would take more than
the GNP. Same for "as much as is needed to preserve life" - same deal,
and does that include million dollar treatments that prolong the
suffering from terminal cancer for a few months?

I'd settle for "what veterans get". It may be "not much" and it may be
"too little", but it's more than the bottom 20% got now, and we're
already paying indirectly for the critical (read that as "expensive")
care now. It's just getting paid through the absorbsion of unpaid debt,
small amounts of charity, and different public health programs already
in place. Imagine how much more profitable it would be to be a hospital
if all that indigent care write-off vanished! Why, you could still
increase profits *and* lower bill rates to what the VA pays...

Post by Endymion
I'm not trying to answer those questions here, just to show that the
subject is much more complicated *even at a purely theoretical level*
than you suggest.

It's a complicated choice when it's small, or done incompletely. The
bigger it is, the simpler it actually gets.

OTOH, if it means someone is kept from starving to death...

If a starving man is told that he will be given food in return for
work, but he chooses not to work but instead to starve, and he
starves, have his rights been violated?
If ten men are told the same thing, and nine choose not to work, is it
not diminishing the freedom of the tenth to tell him that if he wants
to eat he must do the work of all ten? Isn't his freedom less than
theirs, since they have the choice to eat under circumstances in which
he wouldn't be able to?

Keep making THAT bigger, and you DO end up with exactly what you're
waving about to ridicule. Macro- vs micro-economics. Have to work with
BOTH in mind.

I'm not so sure. I can refuse to associate with someone standing right
next to me.

I think that's an unreasonably narrow definition of association.

Nah, that's perfectly fine. But that's an *individual* right of
non-association. That's not a population's right of non-association.
Individuals have rights. Groups don't have their own; only the massed
rights of their individual members, which aggregate but do not add.
(That bit will probably need explaining to some, but I'm pretty sure
you'll get it: essentially, this is pretty close to the opposite of
eminent domain. I'm not entirely thrilled with that concept either, but
I recognize that not all individuals are willing to act in the better
interests of society as a whole, or even their own best interests.)

Post by Endymion
How about this one: are my rights being violated by the sponsors of a
women's music festival that is open to the general public, but women
only? Are their rights being violated if they are forced to admit me?
Is there any way to resolve that situation without someone's freedom
being narrowed?

Sure. Given a bit of vision. You become a woman for the duration of the
event in trade for the acceptance of the charade. So long as your
motives are absolutely pure (you want to listen to the music and support
the cause), it should be okay. If you're not playing to that goal, for
example by being a man at a women-only event or to hit on chicks or
otherwise NOT participating, then I've got no problem with them booting
your ass to the curb.

Post by Endymion
For that matter, isn't the existence of property an inherent narrowing
of the freedom of everyone but the owner? Is it possible to grant
property rights without diminishing the freedom of the non-owners, or
to deny property rights without diminishing the freedom of former
owners?

Depends on how the existence of property is defined. Lots of places have
different kinds of property laws. Maybe property includes a whole
differnt scope of what's allowable: maybe property is/should be more
about deprival of use/enjoyment than mere exclusivity and exclusivity is
only a convenient measure of availibility of use. Lots of places in the
UK have provisions in them that there's no legal way for an owner to
prevent someone crossing their land provided they do no appreciable harm
to it. Does a householder have a squatter problem if they come back from
holiday to find their cats fed and freshly-laundered sheets on the bed?
Was you car stolen if the only way you know is that there's 100 miles on
the clock, a full tank of gas and a fresh oil-change sticker on the
windshield?

And what are "their own borders"? Should we put barbed
wire around *everything* (ahem)?

Why not? Do you wish to restrict my freedom to string barbed wire?
But seriously, borders are borders, wire or no wire. We're not talking
about the physical barrier, we're talking about the limits of
jurisdiction, about communities' right to make laws for themselves.

Post by whisky-dave
Download it for free ;-)

You mean *steal* it!

1) If I download it, you still have it.

True. However, you as a creator seldom enjoy exclusive control. If you
contract with someone else to distrubute, you give up control of
distribution. That's why RIAA gets to sue people instead of the
individual artists doing so. When that happens, *YOU* don't have
anything stolen from you. RIAA does. RIAA OWES you for the extra person
having the copy, but that's between you and RIAA, not you and Panurge.

2) If I would've passed over it if I couldn't have downloaded it,
you haven't actually lost anything if you still have it. Many acts
think of illegal downloads as lost sales when apparently most of them
aren't.

If I shoplift something that I wouldn't have bought, is that not
theft, then? What if it's a carton of milk that's on its last day of
shelf life, and I'm the last customer in the store at closing time?
Is it okay to sneak your friends into the theater through the exit
door if they wouldn't have paid to get in?
If your band plays a club but someone steals all the door money before
it ever gets to you, have you lost anything? You still have your songs
and your equipment, right?
And is it not theft if you stay in a hotel and skip out on the bill ?
The hotel still has its room, doesn't it ?
What I'm trying to demonstrate is that property rights are (and must
be) more than physical custody of a physical thing. When you say you
own a thing, that means you have the right to control its use, not
just to keep it in your presence.

That's all true. However, the issue of theft and the issue of damages
resulting from said theft really need to be separated for any of this to
make sense. And people are a lot more law-abiding when the laws have
some close relationship to sense, regardless of the actual necessity of
that relationship.

How would you like to work all day on
something only to have it shoplifted, or to have your boss tell you
you don't get paid that day because "information wants to be free"?

As in "speech", right?

Too bad, because that was exactly the kind of separation of thinking
that needs to happen more often. It's what enables separations of
criminality from damages, rights from responsibilities, individuals from
groups. That kind of rigor makes us strong.

--
The plural of datum is not "facts".
A collection of facts is not "knowledge".

Jennie Kermode

2009-07-08 13:12:46 UTC

Post by whisky-dave
Can you really create a better world for everyone or just a better world for
yourself and like minded people.

I think one can create a world which most people will like
better and which isn't significantly worse for anyone. Let's try listing
some things we might all like about that world. Feel free to add your
suggestions.

* Everyone has enough to eat and enough clean water to drink.
* Everyone has shelter from the elements.
* Nobody is on the receiving end of (non-consensual) violence.
* Where possible, specific diseases are eradicated.
* This standard of living is sustainable (without causing ecological
disaster).

Now, we might often disagree as to how to achieve these aims,
how to prioritise them and what compromises to make along the way, but I
don't think many of us would disagree with the aims themselves. So yes,
I think it's possible to create a better world. It's not easy, but it's
something we can work towards.

Jennie

--
Jennie Kermode
***@innocent.com
www.jenniekermode.com

Peter Constantine

2009-07-08 17:31:05 UTC

Post by Jennie Kermode
I think one can create a world which most people will like
better and which isn't significantly worse for anyone. Let's try listing
some things we might all like about that world. Feel free to add your
suggestions.
* Everyone has enough to eat and enough clean water to drink.
* Everyone has shelter from the elements.
* Nobody is on the receiving end of (non-consensual) violence.
* Where possible, specific diseases are eradicated.
* This standard of living is sustainable (without causing ecological
disaster).

I don't think the third and fifth items on the above list can be
achieved without denying many people the right to practice a religion of
their choosing (cf article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights)...

x

Jennie Kermode

2009-07-09 16:18:54 UTC

Post by Peter Constantine
I don't think the third and fifth items on the above list can be
achieved without denying many people the right to practice a religion of
their choosing (cf article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights)...

Well, yes (and I always thought that was one of the most
problematic inclusions in the Declaration, given how open-ended it is
and what it potentially opens the door to), but I suspect most people
would still see them as laudable aims, even if they had other priorities
which got in the way. Of course, one of the biggest problems we have to
face when it comes to religion and similar cultural trends is how we
define 'people'...

Jennie

--
Jennie Kermode
***@innocent.com
www.jenniekermode.com

whisky-dave

2009-07-09 12:25:27 UTC

Post by whisky-dave
Can you really create a better world for everyone or just a better world for
yourself and like minded people.

Is there a proper word for an un-suggestion.

Post by Jennie Kermode
* Everyone has enough to eat and enough clean water to drink.

Then everyone selling food for profit would make a loss, same with water.
When everyone has what they want why offer it for sale.

Post by Jennie Kermode
* Everyone has shelter from the elements.

Nice idea but how do you decide how elaborate the shelter needs to be.

In the end everything takes resources and they are mostly in limited supply.

Post by Jennie Kermode
* Nobody is on the receiving end of (non-consensual) violence.
* Where possible, specific diseases are eradicated.
* This standard of living is sustainable (without causing ecological
disaster).

It's nice dream, it sounds like the federation (Star trek)

Post by Jennie Kermode
Now, we might often disagree as to how to achieve these aims,
how to prioritise them and what compromises to make along the way, but I
don't think many of us would disagree with the aims themselves. So yes,
I think it's possible to create a better world. It's not easy, but it's
something we can work towards.

yeah which is why I keep mentioning Star Trek :-D .
no poverty,no one actually does a job they don't enjoy doing,
and you don;t have to got ot the toilet or wear seatbelts.

Now if "History is written by the Victor" then who would or should
right/write the future

* free sex & alcohol, not necessarily in that order though.

Jennie Kermode

2009-07-09 16:24:17 UTC

Post by Jennie Kermode
* Everyone has enough to eat and enough clean water to drink.

Then everyone selling food for profit would make a loss, same with water.
When everyone has what they want why offer it for sale.

Why is that a problem? They're not going to starve as a result.
There will still be room for capitalism in a post-scarcity society.
Which products are worth trading in has always been subject to variation.

Post by Jennie Kermode
* Everyone has shelter from the elements.

Nice idea but how do you decide how elaborate the shelter needs to be.

Irrelevant. The _point_ is that you agree it's a nice idea.

Post by whisky-dave
In the end everything takes resources and they are mostly in limited supply.

That's why we're trying to make the world better.

Post by whisky-dave
It's nice dream, it sounds like the federation (Star trek)

If I were only trying to make a better world to match my own
preferences, I might add:-

* Everyone shall be free from beige.

Post by whisky-dave
no poverty,no one actually does a job they don't enjoy doing,

Those are nice aims too. And we may not believe we can achieve
them (certainly not easily), but we can _work_ _towards_ _them_, making
small but definite gains along the way. That's the point.

Post by whisky-dave
* free sex & alcohol, not necessarily in that order though.

If you have enough of the latter, no degree of protection of
your rights can assure you of the former. ;)

Jennie

--
Jennie Kermode
***@innocent.com
www.jenniekermode.com

whisky-dave

2009-07-10 12:19:45 UTC

Post by Jennie Kermode
* Everyone has enough to eat and enough clean water to drink.

Then everyone selling food for profit would make a loss, same with water.
When everyone has what they want why offer it for sale.

Why is that a problem? They're not going to starve as a result.

You ignored the word want rather than need.
But even if it were need it'd still be a problem.
Why would someone pay for a bag of chips when they can get it for free.
Making something free like this means it has low value and what do people
get for producing low value products.

Post by Jennie Kermode
There will still be room for capitalism in a post-scarcity society.

No that's a relief, I was worried that my local chippie would disappear as
everyone was getting them for free fro the government.

Post by Jennie Kermode
Which products are worth trading in has always been subject to variation.

Yes, and things that a free aren;t really worth trading, unless you can con
people a bit.
An example of this is bottled water, would that be free. I've heard that
bottled water
is one of the biggest problems regarding land fill, so if I ruled teh world
I'd ban
the majority of bottled water, it's only use would be in emergencies.

Post by Jennie Kermode
* Everyone has shelter from the elements.

Nice idea but how do you decide how elaborate the shelter needs to be.

Irrelevant. The _point_ is that you agree it's a nice idea.

But it doesnt; make it practical, exaclty what area should each person be
allowed
'free' shelter, and would it include a minibar
Last month I was told that a new roof (as mines isn;t in good condition)
will cost
about £10k, yes sure I'd like that for free please.

Post by whisky-dave
In the end everything takes resources and they are mostly in limited supply.

That's why we're trying to make the world better.

As I said it's a nice idea almost as nice as free sex, but someone has to
supply it,
and there's only a limited number of sheep in London.

Post by whisky-dave
It's nice dream, it sounds like the federation (Star trek)

If I were only trying to make a better world to match my own
preferences, I might add:-

yes that is a problem most peolpe of the wrold tend to believ a better place
would
have to be arranged around what they think is right or correct, and that
others should
also see it the same way. I thin k more wars are fought over POV than even
money,
although thast too could just be a conspiracy.

Post by Jennie Kermode
* Everyone shall be free from beige.

What about those who's favourite colour is beige, not that I mix with
those sorts you understand ;)

Post by whisky-dave
no poverty,no one actually does a job they don't enjoy doing,

Those are nice aims too. And we may not believe we can achieve
them (certainly not easily), but we can _work_ _towards_ _them_, making
small but definite gains along the way. That's the point.

OK how about starting at the top or rather the arse of society politics.
Politicians get the same 'wage' as those that don;t have a job.
If you're in politics you should do it for the love of it not financial
gain.
i.e you'll get dole money and a strictly controlled expense account.
doctors, surgeons, nurses, porterign staff all get the same wage.
In education a professors get the same as the canteen staff.
In fact virtually everyone gets the same pay.
Is there anything wrong with this idea other than it just wouldn't work,
well not with humans anyway.

Dark Phoenix

2009-07-09 17:05:55 UTC

Post by Jennie Kermode
* Everyone has enough to eat and enough clean water to drink.

Then everyone selling food for profit would make a loss, same with water.
When everyone has what they want why offer it for sale.

Enough food to keep one alive and healthy doesn't necessarily mean that the
food is the most delicious, elaborate food around. You can stay healthy on
cheap cuts of meat made into stew, but if you have money you might still
want filet mignon. You can stay healthy eating fruit for desert, but if you
have money might still want a cheesecake. Think of it like your national
health- you can take what's offered by the government, or if you have the
money you can supplement it or skip it.

--
Laurie Brown, Dark Phoenix
***@netw.com
http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/103910/laurie_brown.html
"To destroy the Western tradition of independent thought, it is not
necessary to burn books. All we have to do is leave them unread for a couple
of generations."
--Robert Maynard Hutchens.

whisky-dave

2009-07-10 12:38:16 UTC

Post by Dark Phoenix

Post by Jennie Kermode
* Everyone has enough to eat and enough clean water to drink.

Then everyone selling food for profit would make a loss, same with water.
When everyone has what they want why offer it for sale.

Or you might wish to be healthy by avoiding meat altogether.

Post by Dark Phoenix
You can stay healthy eating fruit for desert, but if you have money might
still want a cheesecake. Think of it like your national health- you can
take what's offered by the government, or if you have the money you can
supplement it or skip it.

But how will the government supply such things unless you remove
those items from those growing, manufacturing or distilling them.

Endymion

2009-07-10 20:01:23 UTC

On Jul 8, 9:12 am, Jennie Kermode <"Jennie

Post by whisky-dave
Can you really create a better world for everyone or just a better world for
yourself and like minded people.

I think you're assuming away the conflicts. Suppose we can give
everyone enough to eat, but only by devoting 100% of our agriculture
to producing soylent yellow. Everyone has water, but we had to stop
printing books and newspapers. Both of those are significantly worse
for lots of people.

Now, we might often disagree as to how to achieve these aims,
how to prioritise them and what compromises to make along the way, but I
don't think many of us would disagree with the aims themselves. So yes,
I think it's possible to create a better world. It's not easy, but it's
something we can work towards.

Again, I think you've assumed away the hard part. Sure, we can agree
on ultimate goals, but that isn't *working* or *making* anything. It's
absurdly easy to say "wouldn't it be nice..." The hard part is saying
"here's how we're going to do that, now everyone pitch in." You have
to be at *least* at the latter stage before I'd say anything is being
worked towards.

- Endymion

Jennie Kermode

2009-07-11 10:41:13 UTC

Post by Endymion
I think you're assuming away the conflicts.

I was explicitly avoiding talking about the conflicts because
my point was that we can have shared goals, not that we'll agree on how
to approach them.

Post by Endymion
Again, I think you've assumed away the hard part. Sure, we can agree
on ultimate goals, but that isn't *working* or *making* anything.

I felt it was necessary as the first stage of explaining
something to Dave. I expected people like yourself to be able to work
out the rest withoyt explicit discussion, and to know perfectly well (if
only from past discussions here) that I can.

Post by Endymion
"here's how we're going to do that, now everyone pitch in." You have
to be at *least* at the latter stage before I'd say anything is being
worked towards.

Well, that was a prelude to explaining something of why I do
the work I do, and as I said, I can only do my best - not everyone will
agree it's the best strategy. Really, I'm working on one of the easiest
ones, essentially trying to get people to be nicer to each other,
because I do get a very positive response simply by educating people in
ways that don't take a lot of resources - by encouraging empathy, as you
were talking about elsewhere in this thread. I didn't intend the
discussion to present solutions to everything (if we take that on here
at all, I'd say it's something of what the whole newsgroup has been
about, rather than just one thread) - I was just trying to clarify a
particular point.

Jennie

--
Jennie Kermode
***@innocent.com
www.jenniekermode.com

whisky-dave

2009-07-14 13:38:17 UTC

Post by Endymion
I think you're assuming away the conflicts.

I was explicitly avoiding talking about the conflicts because
my point was that we can have shared goals, not that we'll agree on how
to approach them.

I don;t think it's really possible for humans across the world to have
shared goals.
Even the simple ones like should we kill animals for food will be in
disagreement.

Post by Jennie Kermode
Again, I think you've assumed away the hard part. Sure, we can agree

Post by Endymion
on ultimate goals, but that isn't *working* or *making* anything.

But it won't work due to individuality and beliefs, surely you've no plans
to restrict peoples POV.

Post by Endymion
"here's how we're going to do that, now everyone pitch in." You have
to be at *least* at the latter stage before I'd say anything is being
worked towards.

Well, that was a prelude to explaining something of why I do
the work I do,

I thought you did reviews of films and books because it's something you like
or at least don;t object to doing and it earns a crust which allows you to
do
other things you like doing. Where as some earn a lot more but do things
they
really don't like doing, but they do it because they see it as beneficial to
themselves.

Post by Jennie Kermode
and as I said, I can only do my best .

Some do better thasn thier best what of all those nice sports personalitites
that give 110% or more, are you not willing to do the same ;-)

Post by Jennie Kermode
- not everyone will
agree it's the best strategy. Really, I'm working on one of the easiest
ones, essentially trying to get people to be nicer to each other,

And that's an easy one !!!!!!!!!!!

Post by Jennie Kermode
because I do get a very positive response simply by educating people in
ways that don't take a lot of resources - by encouraging empathy, as you
were talking about elsewhere in this thread.

Maybe you're lucky in getting mostly like minded people, but perhaps most of
us
have to deal with a different sort of person the person that is only
interested
in their own goals and self gain. Presidetn Umgabi

I'd be interested in seeing how you'd 'educate' President Mugabe
I'd use the threat of death, not sure how you'd go about starting
to solve the prblems in Africa, I think a few executions would be
very educational. :-)

Post by Jennie Kermode
I didn't intend the
discussion to present solutions to everything (if we take that on here
at all, I'd say it's something of what the whole newsgroup has been
about, rather than just one thread) - I was just trying to clarify a
particular point.

Well I sort of understood that, but the basic facts are the the majority
that are doing OK or better than OK for themselves aren't going to
voluntarily take a significanly worse life style in order that those less
fortunate than themselves will have a better life. I think it's part of
human nature
and it's what's made us the dominant species on the planet.
Climbing on the backs of giants to achieve ones aims is far more difficult
than climbing on the backs of midgets to work our way up.

Jennie Kermode

2009-07-31 23:33:03 UTC

Post by whisky-dave
I don;t think it's really possible for humans across the world to have
shared goals.

Is there nothing at all that you think we have in common like
that?
I agree that goals frequently conflict. That's why I think we
need to take the really simple ones and work from there.

Post by whisky-dave
Even the simple ones like should we kill animals for food will be in
disagreement.

I don't think that's simple. There are a lot of different
concepts and issues involved in that.

Post by whisky-dave
But it won't work due to individuality and beliefs, surely you've no plans
to restrict peoples POV.

I don't have this Romantic faith that people are really all
that in individuals. Like the Blues Brothers said, whoever you are,
whatever you do to live, thrive and survive, there are some things that
make us all the same. I'm not trying to ban particular ideas (is that
even possible?); I'm trying to find commonalities.

Post by whisky-dave
I thought you did reviews of films and books because it's something you like
or at least don;t object to doing and it earns a crust which allows you to
do other things you like doing.

I work as an entertainment journalist, but that's not what I
was referring to here (though it can sometimes be a conduit for it). I
do a lot of work in equalities, most of it unpaid but much of it at a
socially and politically significant level.

Post by whisky-dave
Some do better thasn thier best what of all those nice sports personalitites
that give 110% or more, are you not willing to do the same ;-)

With the work I've been doing over the past few days I feel
like I'm using 110% of my resources! Urrrgh. :\

Post by Jennie Kermode
agree it's the best strategy. Really, I'm working on one of the easiest
ones, essentially trying to get people to be nicer to each other,

And that's an easy one !!!!!!!!!!!

Comparatively. ;)

Post by whisky-dave
Maybe you're lucky in getting mostly like minded people

Oh, far from it. I'm specifically obliged to seek out and work
on the difficult cases - they get referred to me. It's hard work but I
think it's good for anyone to have some challenges in life - that's a
selfish benefit, in its way.

Post by whisky-dave
I'd be interested in seeing how you'd 'educate' President Mugabe

It's difficult with somebody who is going senile, as appears
to be the case there. Ideally, I'd have Mugabe placed in appropriate
care and would negotiate with individuals more capable of reason.

Post by whisky-dave
I'd use the threat of death, not sure how you'd go about starting
to solve the prblems in Africa, I think a few executions would be
very educational. :-)

If you ask me, it's that attitude which is part of Africa's
problem.
I work with individuals within specific settings. I don't
claim to be able to solve the whole world's problems that way; I do my
bit. But it's only by way of a lot of individuals doing their bit,
however small each contribution may be, that significant cultural shifts
can be achieved. And there does need to be a cultural shift in Africa
(and elsewhere in the world, so far as the treatment of Africa is
concerned) before there can be any serious dent made in political
corruption.

Post by whisky-dave
Well I sort of understood that, but the basic facts are the the majority
that are doing OK or better than OK for themselves aren't going to
voluntarily take a significanly worse life style in order that those less
fortunate than themselves will have a better life. I think it's part of
human nature

No; I agree. But I think most of them are willing to make
small sacrifices and, taken together, those can have a significant
positive effect. I also find that they are often willing and able to
change their behaviours in ways which improve the quality of life of
others without requiring the sacrifice of anything but bad habits.

Post by whisky-dave
and it's what's made us the dominant species on the planet.

Go tell that to a nematode.

Jennie

--
Jennie Kermode
***@innocent.com
www.jenniekermode.com

whisky-dave

2009-08-03 12:54:37 UTC

Post by whisky-dave
I don;t think it's really possible for humans across the world to have
shared goals.

Is there nothing at all that you think we have in common like
that?

We all want the best for ourselves I guess, and few of us will give up
a significant part of our life style for someone we don't know.

Post by Jennie Kermode
I agree that goals frequently conflict. That's why I think we
need to take the really simple ones and work from there.

It's a nice idea, like eliminating poverty.

Post by whisky-dave
Even the simple ones like should we kill animals for food will be in
disagreement.

I don't think that's simple. There are a lot of different
concepts and issues involved in that.

What I meant is that it';s simple for most people to decide,
whether or not it's OK for themseleves, but what of deciding whether
it's OK for others or not.

Post by whisky-dave
But it won't work due to individuality and beliefs, surely you've no plans
to restrict peoples POV.

That's quite a project to take on, I think the only one I can think of
is survival and that most will do what it takes to survive and that will
include
the destruction of anything that gets in our way. I used to think breeding
was
but some choose not to.

But doesn't that mean opposing what some others believe or have believed.
You can;t have equality without stepping on someones toes for example.

Post by whisky-dave
Some do better thasn thier best what of all those nice sports
personalitites
that give 110% or more, are you not willing to do the same ;-)

With the work I've been doing over the past few days I feel
like I'm using 110% of my resources! Urrrgh. :\

I try to keep well below 100% myself :)

Post by Jennie Kermode
agree it's the best strategy. Really, I'm working on one of the easiest
ones, essentially trying to get people to be nicer to each other,

And that's an easy one !!!!!!!!!!!

Comparatively. ;)

No wonder you're up to 110%

Post by whisky-dave
Maybe you're lucky in getting mostly like minded people

Oh, far from it. I'm specifically obliged to seek out and work
on the difficult cases - they get referred to me.

So that's where hester went :-)

Post by Jennie Kermode
It's hard work but I
think it's good for anyone to have some challenges in life - that's a
selfish benefit, in its way.

Yes the need to educate rather than slap, sometimes it's the same thing.

Post by whisky-dave
I'd be interested in seeing how you'd 'educate' President Mugabe

It's difficult with somebody who is going senile, as appears
to be the case there. Ideally, I'd have Mugabe placed in appropriate
care and would negotiate with individuals more capable of reason.

Post by whisky-dave
I'd use the threat of death, not sure how you'd go about starting
to solve the prblems in Africa, I think a few executions would be
very educational. :-)

If you ask me, it's that attitude which is part of Africa's
problem.

That is their culture and I don;t believe win by going against a culture.

Post by Jennie Kermode
I work with individuals within specific settings. I don't
claim to be able to solve the whole world's problems that way; I do my
bit. But it's only by way of a lot of individuals doing their bit,
however small each contribution may be, that significant cultural shifts
can be achieved. And there does need to be a cultural shift in Africa
(and elsewhere in the world, so far as the treatment of Africa is
concerned) before there can be any serious dent made in political
corruption.

Sometimes you have to eliminate the infectious cancer first then
start the healing process.

It's interesting when humans evolve away from nature.

Post by Jennie Kermode
No; I agree. But I think most of them are willing to make
small sacrifices and, taken together, those can have a significant
positive effect. I also find that they are often willing and able to
change their behaviours in ways which improve the quality of life of
others without requiring the sacrifice of anything but bad habits.

Well it is one possitive way forward, but I can';t help think that
the bad habits are the most powerful driving force.

Post by whisky-dave
and it's what's made us the dominant species on the planet.

Go tell that to a nematode.

But would it argue with me, and can it be deep fried.

Jennie Kermode

2009-07-08 13:00:46 UTC

Post by Panurge
If rights are merely "a useful invention", then any right is up for
grabs and no right is safe. Better to derive a set of rights *a priori*
and stick to that, they say.

That would be fine if it were possible and all, but the
universe doesn't go that way, so let's be practical and make the best of
things. It's time to grow up and stop hiding behind notions of a higher
authority; time to look at what we can do for one another.

Post by Panurge
I remember reading an essay by a conservative writer (can't remember
his name) where he essentially argued that a right is a claim on
others, and so if we have *fewer* rights, there are fewer claims on
us in turn; *ergo* we are *freer*.

Many rights aren't about asking for something from others;
they're about asking others _not_ to do something, where that doesn't
entail depriving those others of anything. It all starts with respect.
That's the foundation of good manners, and without manners civilisation
is a non-starter. For those who want to live without civilisation, fair
enough, so long as they don't come whining to me when they get a toothache.

Post by Panurge
But you *do* "fit in", at least for the moment.

Really? If that's so, I expect it's mostly because many people
are willing to overlook my oddities, or simply don't perceive them. I
don't meet many people whom I perceive as being much like me, though I
can find something to sympathise with in most people (I wouldn't be much
of a writer if I couldn't). But perhaps we're looking at this in
different ways. Is it about who is and isn't aware of the not-fitting?

Post by Panurge
Why make the effort to adapt if you're still unhappy in the end?

Happiness isn't everything - not to everyone, anyway. I have
many other goals in life and I adapt - or, as Butler might have it,
perform - as required for the pursuit of them. Not that I'm very good at
it, or really terribly committed. That is, when I play computer games,
I'm rarely the careful tactician, I'm more the hitting things until they
die or I do type. That's often how I play at life, and thus far I'm
still alive and have won most of those batles of great importance to me.
I, um, prefer to adapt other people.

Post by Panurge
Why do I--why do we--need to make the conscious effort to adapt when others
don't?

Are you so sure that others don't?

Post by Panurge
What will it get us? Why are we doing it? Will those with whom
we're trying to fit in reciprocate? (Silly question, I know...) :-/

My ex, Ian (whom I have maligned here before, poor dear,
though he's probably grown up plenty by now) used to play this song with
lyrics that went "A girl called Johnny: she changed her name when she
saw that it was change or be changed." I found them hilarious, which, at
the time at least, he clearly didn't get. Then last night I was at a
magazine launch where the line was "It is the foremost desire of all
Escapologists to flee the humdrum spreadsheet of prescribed reality into
an exciting world of one's own invention," and I laughed at that, too,
though more discreetly because they were providing the wine. Let me put
it bluntly: freedom is about calling yourself whatever the hell you like
even if it's what other people call you and misunderstand; it's about
living in whatever reality you choose even if it's the same one the bad
guys prescribe. If any of these people were actually free they wouldn't
give a damn about any of that bullshit. The same goes for adapting. We
perform as we do for _our_ reasons, and that's all that matters. If
we're not doing it for our reasons (whether those are sentimental,
mercenary, or whatever), then, well, we're probably not very bright. But
where people get lost is in confusing things they do for sentimental or
mercenary reasons with things they're forced to do.

Post by Panurge
Well, yes. Ultimately, for me, I guess it's about *creating the best
possible world*. I know that's unfashionable these days, but there it is.

Nothing wrong with it.
I'm not sure I'm that ambitious. I'd settle for leaving the
world in a better state than I found it; I'll be pleased if I can
prepare others to carry on that work.

Jennie

--
Jennie Kermode
***@innocent.com
www.jenniekermode.com

whisky-dave

2009-07-09 13:24:22 UTC

Post by Panurge
If rights are merely "a useful invention", then any right is up for
grabs and no right is safe. Better to derive a set of rights *a priori*
and stick to that, they say.

A nice thought, but most peolpe put themselves or lovers/friends/like minded
people
first and second come to think of it.

Post by Panurge
I remember reading an essay by a conservative writer (can't remember
his name) where he essentially argued that a right is a claim on
others, and so if we have *fewer* rights, there are fewer claims on
us in turn; *ergo* we are *freer*.

Many rights aren't about asking for something from others;
they're about asking others _not_ to do something, where that doesn't
entail depriving those others of anything. It all starts with respect.

Which is interesting in itse;f as that word respect has interesting
meanings.

Post by Jennie Kermode
That's the foundation of good manners, and without manners civilisation
is a non-starter. For those who want to live without civilisation, fair
enough, so long as they don't come whining to me when they get a toothache.

I felt like that about the new age travellers and nomads wanting dole money
to buy that nasty petrol stuff that's sold buy our facist capitilist states.
"Push your F'ing caravan then and clear your own rubbish up before you
leave."

Post by Panurge
But you *do* "fit in", at least for the moment.

Really? If that's so, I expect it's mostly because many people
are willing to overlook my oddities, or simply don't perceive them.

I've often wondered if I could 'fate someone with webbed feet and a tail.
oopps sorry that was a star trek POV. :)

Post by Panurge
Why make the effort to adapt if you're still unhappy in the end?

As long as you don't start assimilating .....now there's a wide fine line
;-)

Post by Panurge
What will it get us? Why are we doing it? Will those with whom
we're trying to fit in reciprocate? (Silly question, I know...) :-/

So you adapted yourself for mere alcohol ? How cute .

Post by Jennie Kermode
Let me put
it bluntly: freedom is about calling yourself whatever the hell you like
even if it's what other people call you and misunderstand; it's about
living in whatever reality you choose even if it's the same one the bad
guys prescribe. If any of these people were actually free they wouldn't
give a damn about any of that bullshit.

'free' in what way, is it that they have fewer rights. Although I do think
I know
what you mean and where you're coming from.

Post by Jennie Kermode
The same goes for adapting. We
perform as we do for _our_ reasons, and that's all that matters. If
we're not doing it for our reasons (whether those are sentimental,
mercenary, or whatever), then, well, we're probably not very bright. But
where people get lost is in confusing things they do for sentimental or
mercenary reasons with things they're forced to do.

I guess that can be confusing, and people both judge themselves and others
by what they see or percieve.

Post by Panurge
Well, yes. Ultimately, for me, I guess it's about *creating the best
possible world*. I know that's unfashionable these days, but there it is.

Nothing wrong with it.
I'm not sure I'm that ambitious. I'd settle for leaving the
world in a better state than I found it;

That's a nice thought, but what would you use as your yardstick
or unit of measurement.

Jennie Kermode

2009-07-09 16:29:31 UTC

Post by whisky-dave
A nice thought, but most peolpe put themselves or lovers/friends/like minded
people first and second come to think of it.

Sure they do. That's why I don't sit on my arse and wait for
most people to make themselves useful - I get on with it myself. I can't
do it all by myself, but at least I can contribute something useful.

Post by whisky-dave
So you adapted yourself for mere alcohol ? How cute .

Haven't you? ;)

Post by Jennie Kermode
it bluntly: freedom is about calling yourself whatever the hell you like
even if it's what other people call you and misunderstand; it's about
living in whatever reality you choose even if it's the same one the bad
guys prescribe. If any of these people were actually free they wouldn't
give a damn about any of that bullshit.

'free' in what way, is it that they have fewer rights. Although I do think
I know what you mean and where you're coming from.

It isn't really about rights in that regard, as rights have to
do with other people and this is about the self. Rights can also be a
good thing, but, as has been said many times before, freedom must begin
with freedom of the mind.

Post by Jennie Kermode
I'm not sure I'm that ambitious. I'd settle for leaving the
world in a better state than I found it;

That's a nice thought, but what would you use as your yardstick
or unit of measurement.

I'll admit that it's difficult to measure precisely, so I
don't waste time worrying too much about that; I just try to do my best.

Jennie

--
Jennie Kermode
***@innocent.com
www.jenniekermode.com

whisky-dave

2009-07-10 12:49:31 UTC

Post by whisky-dave
A nice thought, but most peolpe put themselves or lovers/friends/like minded
people first and second come to think of it.

Sure they do. That's why I don't sit on my arse and wait for
most people to make themselves useful - I get on with it myself.

Yes, quite a few other people do that, not everyone and not everyone
makes themselves useful in the same positive direction.

Post by Jennie Kermode
I can't
do it all by myself, but at least I can contribute something useful.

I guess we can all[1] contribute to a certain extent but even the BNP
seem to have their views on contributing.

Post by whisky-dave
So you adapted yourself for mere alcohol ? How cute .

Haven't you? ;)

Well no, cause not, I just use it to make more attractve women to appear.
I'ts amazing as I drink more the unattractive women leave the club/pub
and the attractive ones star to arrive, if it wasn;t for alchol I'd have
never discovered women with four breasts of easy virture :)

'free' in what way, is it that they have fewer rights. Although I do think
I know what you mean and where you're coming from.

And there's a problem what is a free mind, is it one that knows it's place
or one that wanders around getting itself in to trouble.

Post by Jennie Kermode
I'm not sure I'm that ambitious. I'd settle for leaving the
world in a better state than I found it;

That's a nice thought, but what would you use as your yardstick
or unit of measurement.

I'll admit that it's difficult to measure precisely, so I
don't waste time worrying too much about that; I just try to do my best.

But you could do better by creating or adapting a religion.
Some have managed to give some women the idea that they must dress from head
to toe in black although I'm not convinced it was Andrew Eldritch, I think
it's
those Islamic clerics that tell women that thier life will be better if they
hide their bodies
from the general pub-lick, they seem to think women will be better thought
of and
treated with more respect and have better lives/husband/family for
themselves.
Bit silly really when true love starts with how 'hot' a girl looks and
whether or
not you've got a chance. ;-)

[1] I think torchwood[2] came up with some intersting points last night, not
something I was expecting from torchwood.

[2] the new 5 parter ending tonight

Nyx

2009-07-11 01:58:18 UTC

When the Singularity comes, you're going to be the first up against
the wall, Dave.

Nyx

whisky-dave

2009-07-14 13:41:03 UTC

Post by Nyx
When the Singularity comes, you're going to be the first up against
the wall, Dave.

oo err, you cheeky boy.

Jennie Kermode

2009-07-11 16:01:57 UTC

Post by whisky-dave
I guess we can all[1] contribute to a certain extent but even the BNP
seem to have their views on contributing.

They're doing something a little different, aren't they?
They're not trying to make things better for everyone; they're trying to
take a bigger share for themselves right now.
I saw Nick Griffin on TV the other day talking about defending
"the rights of our women" from Islam. A bit fucking rich for him to be
talking about women's rights, for starters, and that phrase "our women"
pretty much sums up what he really thinks.

Post by whisky-dave
I'ts amazing as I drink more the unattractive women leave the club/pub
and the attractive ones star to arrive, if it wasn;t for alchol I'd have
never discovered women with four breasts of easy virture :)

I'd imagine that the drinking probably makes your virtues
easier for them, too. ;)

Post by Jennie Kermode
I'll admit that it's difficult to measure precisely, so I
don't waste time worrying too much about that; I just try to do my best.

But you could do better by creating or adapting a religion.

Why would that be better?

Post by whisky-dave
Some have managed to give some women the idea that they must dress from head
to toe in black although I'm not convinced it was Andrew Eldritch,

No, no, don't blame Mr Eldritch - he's just a rock n' roll
star.

Post by whisky-dave
those Islamic clerics that tell women that thier life will be better if they
hide their bodies from the general pub-lick, they seem to think women
will be better thought of and treated with more respect and have
better lives/husband/family for themselves.

Within a certain limited context, they're probably right. That
is, conforming generally does make people happier and make their lives
easier. But as I said elsewhere in this thread, happiness isn't
everything. The real problem with this attitude is not that there's
anything wrong with deciding to hide one's body, or to conform, but that
the women are the ones who should be making those decisions for
themselves, free from coercion (as far as that's possible in any
society). I find it just as problematic when the likes of Sarcosi
attempt to tell women they shouldn't wear the hijab.

Jennie

--
Jennie Kermode
***@innocent.com
www.jenniekermode.com

whisky-dave

2009-07-14 16:02:08 UTC

Post by whisky-dave
I guess we can all[1] contribute to a certain extent but even the BNP
seem to have their views on contributing.

They're doing something a little different, aren't they?

No they have their policies that they think voters will go for,
those voters being sick and fed up with so called new labour,
or old conservative or the liberal nothingness.

Post by Jennie Kermode
They're not trying to make things better for everyone;

Who does ?

Post by Jennie Kermode
they're trying to
take a bigger share for themselves right now.

And what political party doesn't want that.

Post by Jennie Kermode
I saw Nick Griffin on TV the other day talking about defending
"the rights of our women" from Islam. A bit fucking rich for him to be
talking about women's rights, for starters, and that phrase "our women"
pretty much sums up what he really thinks.

But at least I believe what he says, in that what he thinks, unlike say
Cameron who goes on about cycling but has a car to carry his stuff behind
him.
The other problem which works in N.Griffins favour is the reluctance of the
authorities
to do anything about forced marriages and anything else that might be in
conflict
with say non-white people.

I'd imagine that the drinking probably makes your virtues
easier for them, too. ;)

Re-adapting.

Then perhaps you're right I don;t drink to adapt my own preferencies but I
do
it for the good of others, in that me drinking makes it easier for lets say
the less
physically attractive women to be with me. I never realsied I was doing
such
a noble thing in letting those women feel they they have a chance with me.
Maybe I deserve a Noble prize and presented by feminists for my outstanding
efforts
on behalf of the less attractive woman :-)

Post by Jennie Kermode
I'll admit that it's difficult to measure precisely, so I
don't waste time worrying too much about that; I just try to do my best.

But you could do better by creating or adapting a religion.

Why would that be better?

You'd have more devotees, probably be able to acquire greater funding.
All you have to do is convince the less intelligent that God has contacted
you.
Or even find a cornflake that looks like the Virgin Mary might be enough.

Of course you can just rely on people doing good things because they feel
it's the right thing to do, others use celebrity involvement rather than the
good cause itself.

Post by whisky-dave
Some have managed to give some women the idea that they must dress from head
to toe in black although I'm not convinced it was Andrew Eldritch,

No, no, don't blame Mr Eldritch - he's just a rock n' roll
star.

Oh, not goth then.

Within a certain limited context, they're probably right. That
is, conforming generally does make people happier and make their lives
easier.

Yes I agree, my female Muslim students don;t seem to have the relationship
problems that others have and they seem happier for it.

Post by Jennie Kermode
But as I said elsewhere in this thread, happiness isn't
everything.

No, there's money too ;-)

Post by Jennie Kermode
The real problem with this attitude is not that there's
anything wrong with deciding to hide one's body, or to conform, but that
the women are the ones who should be making those decisions for
themselves, free from coercion (as far as that's possible in any
society).

Yep I agree, but that's always closely connected to the so called
beliefs of others of what is right or wrong .
It is also general found that you don;t look or dress like the majority
your freedom of expression will diminish.

Post by Jennie Kermode
I find it just as problematic when the likes of Sarcosi
attempt to tell women they shouldn't wear the hijab.

I have mixed feeling about that, I mean I doubt you could wear what you
wanted
in an Islamic country not even for 1 days holiday, but it seems that if a
Muslim
decideds they want to live in the western world they can keep all their
beliefs
intact and unchanged in they can't adapt to the country they wish to live
in.
I wouldn't go and live in a country where I wasn;t allowed alcohol, then
decide
it's my right to drink.
Of course this begs the question that why come/go to live a foreign
country anyway if you don't adopt or believe in that countries laws and
customs unless it's to change or dictate them and that is worrying.
There are families in the UK they do still have forced marriages
and force children to live under religious regimes that aren't part of our
'British'
culture and that should remain illegal.

whisky-dave

2009-06-29 12:08:36 UTC

Post by Jennie Kermode
It gets late.
I'm sitting here wrapped up in ladybird fur with wasabi peas
and a nice glass of rose, listening to The Cure and The Slits, wading
through the last of the day's editing. Always so much still to say,

Those female hormons can be a bit annoying.

Post by Jennie Kermode
but
these days I have to think, every time, who will pay me to say it?

I'd like to know that too.

Post by Jennie Kermode
Because money is tight - but everyone knows that of course. Now, finally
- and it's about bloody time. People losing their businesses and whining
about their hunger and pain. What the fuck do they know? They still have
food on the table; they don't have shrapnel boring through their flesh.
I mean, sure, things suck for them, and I'm genuinely sympathetic about
that, but spare us the emotastic egodrenched bullshit. It's like it's
suddenly become cool or something. Goth was not for this!

I blame relativity.

Post by Jennie Kermode
Quiet outside. At this time, even on a Tuesday, the motorway
spill-off used to rain down traffic. I always found it a kind of
soothing sound, like waves lapping on an ancient concrete shore. The
silence could be the end of the world, and what difference does it make
when we all wake up tomorrow and do the same things anyway? Just withot
as much money - money which was only ever an illusion in the first
place. We notion it convenience-wise, like human rights. Useful like,
but not to be taken too seriously.

Money not to be taken seriously yeah right like which planet have you come
from ;-D

Post by Jennie Kermode
I have two films to review tomorrow, more articles to write on
spec, a union rep to meet. Falco sings about Der Kommisar. My fish are
going crazy in their tank, sexed up by the hot weather but confused by
their bodies. Jesus, this stuff is weird enough for those of us equipped
to talk about it. Life shifts around and I am in the peculiar position
of still attracting girls half my age,

Lucky you.

Post by Jennie Kermode
but scarcely knowing what to do about it.
Lack of control over my own spaces. I should start visting
public toilets.

Things must be really bad,

Post by Jennie Kermode
The things is - and it took me a few years to realise -
is you know that thing, when you're young, the world is full of pretty
girls, you fall into their arms, you fall into their beds, and
afterwards... afterwards.

They cook breakfast... .. and I wake up.

Post by Jennie Kermode
Now they all look as if it were afterwards.
Still aesthetically delicious, but somehow hollow. Because my love is a
bright light in whose aura they fade and flake away, even when I cannot
glimpse him, cannot come close the way I want to; even when his beauty
is not only for my eyes only but only for my eyes. It's a disease, this
love.

And I thought it was a some sort of chemical imbalance.

Post by Jennie Kermode
I give myself to it willingly because it's part of what I always
pursued, yet it's nothing I expected. Perhaps Graham Green was right.
Bright lights flare and then we can't see the world anymore,
and before we know it we have lost our sight. Like the wine and the
wasabi; I couldn't taste rose petals now. Perhaps that's why I persist
in listening to music of dubious virtue.

No that's being goth.

Post by Jennie Kermode
That way I retain something of
myself.
"The revolution will not be televised," says Scott Heron. No,
dude, it's on Twitter, and it's already making corporate profits. Screw
that.

yeah, my cat had a Twitter acount but it didn't feed him so what was the
point.

Although I don;t think Twitter is making any profit as yet, but some are
finding ways to
profit from Twitter.

Jennie Kermode

2009-07-01 13:19:55 UTC

Post by Jennie Kermode
I'm sitting here wrapped up in ladybird fur with wasabi peas
and a nice glass of rose, listening to The Cure and The Slits, wading
through the last of the day's editing. Always so much still to say,

Those female hormons can be a bit annoying.

They goddamn well were, and I'm really glad I don't have to
take them anymore (for the meantime, at least).

Post by whisky-dave
I blame relativity.

For the global economic downturn? Hmm - I'm sure we could
rationalise that one somehow. ;) Do I smell I new gothic essay writing
contest?

Post by whisky-dave
Money not to be taken seriously yeah right like which planet have you come
from ;-D

Is it alt.gothic Taking Things Literally Day? I'm talking
about the _concept_ of money, not the ability to obtain goods and
services. <sigh>

They cook breakfast... .. and I wake up.

Then you don't have anything to envy me for. Give us some
dating tips, Dave.

Post by whisky-dave
yeah, my cat had a Twitter acount but it didn't feed him so what was the
point.

A cat can probably make more money out of social networking
set-ups that involve pictures. Have you tried making him a website with
a donations facility?

Jennie

--
Jennie Kermode
***@innocent.com
www.jenniekermode.com

whisky-dave

2009-07-02 12:42:11 UTC

Those female hormons can be a bit annoying.

They goddamn well were, and I'm really glad I don't have to
take them anymore (for the meantime, at least).

Post by whisky-dave
I blame relativity.

For the global economic downturn? Hmm - I'm sure we could
rationalise that one somehow. ;) Do I smell I new gothic essay writing
contest?

Are there enough goth 'writers' about on a.g. to make it viable.

Post by whisky-dave
Money not to be taken seriously yeah right like which planet have you come
from ;-D

Is it alt.gothic Taking Things Literally Day?

yes. :)

Post by Jennie Kermode
I'm talking
about the _concept_ of money, not the ability to obtain goods and
services. <sigh>

And there was I thinking that link couldn't really be broken.

They cook breakfast... .. and I wake up.

Then you don't have anything to envy me for. Give us some
dating tips, Dave.

Almost the on wake up I found it's all been a dream and there's no breakfast
just my cat pawing at my chin for his breakfast.

Post by whisky-dave
yeah, my cat had a Twitter acount but it didn't feed him so what was the
point.

A cat can probably make more money out of social networking
set-ups that involve pictures. Have you tried making him a website with
a donations facility?

Not yet, I guess paypal would be OK, and as long as he didn't; try to claim
he was a charity case. maybe a sponsered sleep.

Peter H. Coffin

2009-07-02 13:17:55 UTC

Those female hormons can be a bit annoying.

They goddamn well were, and I'm really glad I don't have to
take them anymore (for the meantime, at least).

Post by whisky-dave
I blame relativity.

For the global economic downturn? Hmm - I'm sure we could
rationalise that one somehow. ;) Do I smell I new gothic essay writing
contest?

Are there enough goth 'writers' about on a.g. to make it viable.

Probably not enough goth 'writers'. There seem to be enough goths who
can write, though. That's all we really need for this.

Post by whisky-dave
Money not to be taken seriously yeah right like which planet have
you come from ;-D

Is it alt.gothic Taking Things Literally Day?

yes. :)

When isn't it? Especially if the result is amusing.

--
56. My Legions of Terror will be trained in basic marksmanship. Any who
cannot learn to hit a man-sized target at 10 meters will be used for
target practice.
--Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord

Jennie Kermode

2009-07-02 15:15:30 UTC

Post by whisky-dave
Are there enough goth 'writers' about on a.g. to make it viable.

The Gothic Travel essay writing contest worked. <shrug>

Post by Jennie Kermode
Is it alt.gothic Taking Things Literally Day?

yes. :)

Oh, fair enough then. My mistake.

Post by whisky-dave
Almost the on wake up I found it's all been a dream and there's no breakfast
just my cat pawing at my chin for his breakfast.

Maybe we need dating tips from your cat, then.

Jennie

--
Jennie Kermode
***@innocent.com
www.jenniekermode.com

Endymion

2009-07-10 19:50:33 UTC

It's good to keep perspective, but I don't think it's fair to deny
people sympathy because they could have it worse. There's *always*
worse. ("It could be raining.") The point is that they had something
that they valued highly, that they put a lot of effort into
maintaining, and it's been taken from them. I'm sure there are things
you feel the same way about that they would deride you for making a
fuss about.

I get this feeling WRT the gun issue - apart from the substance, a lot
of anti-gunners don't understand why we gun nuts care so much about,
say, assault rifles. Well, there are a lot of people who despite not
starving or having shrapnel ripping through their bodies would be very
upset and feel a deep sense of loss if, say, live theater disappeared
or was banned, or dancing in public, or birdwatching, but it wouldn't
mean much to me personally. I think it's incumbent upon us to
empathize.

Post by Jennie Kermode
The
silence could be the end of the world, and what difference does it make
when we all wake up tomorrow and do the same things anyway? Just withot
as much money

It's not the money itself, it's the way it enabled people to live.
Plenty of people enjoyed the age of cheap credit without abusing it in
the slightest, and of course the collapse of that world has taken a
lot else with it, and not just the toys and excesses. Lots of people
who worked, planned, and saved very hard so they could retire at 55
and do what they'd always wanted are losing that chance. I think
that's very sad.[1]

Post by Jennie Kermode
money which was only ever an illusion in the first place.

It wasn't an illusion, it was a social convention based on shared
expectations and a consensus about certain facts. There's a big
difference.

Post by Jennie Kermode
Jesus, this stuff is weird enough for those of us equipped
to talk about it. Life shifts around and I am in the peculiar position
of still attracting girls half my age but scarcely knowing what to do
about it.

Better by far than having to pretend to be neutered because otherwise
people will think you're disgusting, don't you think?

I must echo Panurge's objection here - no, I have *never* known that
and never will, and the same goes for many of us here - and not just
about sex.[2] My youth was in this regard like Tiny Tim gazing through
the window of the toy store and trying to imagine what it must be like
to be one of the children inside. My adulthood has differed mostly in
that I no longer spend as much time wondering.

I think you have no idea how profoundly that difference shapes your
world, your personality, and your ideas. In this, *you're* the rich
derivatives trader upset at having lost something most people never
had.

(skipping the bit there not because it isn't interesting or important,
but I have nothing to add.)

Post by Jennie Kermode
Bright lights flare and then we can't see the world anymore,
and before we know it we have lost our sight. Like the wine and the
wasabi; I couldn't taste rose petals now.

Not me, not yet, not in the way I think you mean. I still taste the
rose petals as much as ever. My sight has faded physically, but it's
still there, and the beautiful things still move me as much as ever -
there are just fewer of them around me, and I have fewer chances and
excuses to seek them out. I haven't even wandered the trails of my
beloved Blue Ridge in over a year, and that's practically my backyard.
I'm going partly deaf, but I just turn the music up louder and it
moves me more than ever.

Post by Jennie Kermode
Perhaps that's why I persist
in listening to music of dubious virtue.

I'm not sure the Slits and "virtue" are words I'd put in the same
sentence, but do you feel there was once virtue there for you that's
now missing or undetectable?

Post by Jennie Kermode
"The revolution will not be televised," says Scott Heron. No,
dude, it's on Twitter, and it's already making corporate profits. Screw
that.

There was never going to be a revolution. No one wanted it. The
Visigoths never wanted to destroy Rome, they wanted to take over the
racket, or at least get their piece of the action. Britannicus just
wanted his turn as emperor.

[1] I guess the main reason I feel less affected by the latter - my
job's fine for now, but I lost a huge chunk of retirement savings - is
the lack of immediacy, but also that I never really expected the
system to work as claimed and never pinned much on it; I just figured
it would work half-assedly but enough that I'd be measurably better
off with it than without it, and I still think that's the likely
outcome.

[2] Not necessarily meaning no sexual experiences, but ones that in no
way resembled what you describe. For many of us sex was, if not
exactly stolen, hustled, like the hard liquor you got by pooling your
money and paying a wino to buy it for you, or the skeezy and annoying
low-level dealer you had to put up with if you wanted to score. A
payoff you got if you played the angles right.[3] Spending so much
energy hustling and working those angles for *any* reason leaves a lot
of scars, and not attractive ones except perhaps to others likewise
marked.

[3] Hmmm, thinking about it, that's pretty much how S*t*r seems to
think all sex outside marriage is...

- Endymion

Jennie Kermode

2009-07-11 10:35:32 UTC

Post by Endymion
It's good to keep perspective, but I don't think it's fair to deny
people sympathy because they could have it worse. There's *always*
worse. ("It could be raining.")

Maybe I'm instictively harsh with that because I feel the need
to be harsh with myself. That is, pretty much every time I talk to my
mother she goes on at length about how much she pities me, how helpless
she believes I am, etc., and I can't afford to buy into all that because
I'd go out of my mind. By reminding myself that people have (most of) it
much worse, I'm able to keep getting on with things.
I do appreciate that people get upset when they have to deal
with things which are the worst _they've_ encountered, regardless of
what worse there is out there. I think what I was trying to say in (what
I now remember of) this post is that there's a difference between what I
am able to stretch myself to empathise with and what my first, most
honest response is.

Post by Endymion
I get this feeling WRT the gun issue - apart from the substance, a lot
of anti-gunners don't understand why we gun nuts care so much about,
say, assault rifles.

I can understand that one. Incidentally, it doesn't change my
beliefs about gun regulation, though I'm not one of those people who
thinks all guns should be snatched from private ownership immediately -
for one thing, I've no idea how that could be done in a safe and
effective manner; for another, not every gun-owning society experiences
the same level of problems with violence, so that's plainly not the
whole of the issue.

Post by Endymion
Lots of people who worked, planned, and saved very hard so they could
retire at 55 and do what they'd always wanted are losing that chance.
I think that's very sad.

Agreed.

Post by Jennie Kermode
money which was only ever an illusion in the first place.

It wasn't an illusion, it was a social convention based on shared
expectations and a consensus about certain facts. There's a big
difference.

But everyone knew it was a bubble. The suggestion that it was
never going to burst, that was an illusion, one which a lot of people
worked together to cultivate.

Post by Jennie Kermode
to talk about it. Life shifts around and I am in the peculiar position
of still attracting girls half my age but scarcely knowing what to do
about it.

Better by far than having to pretend to be neutered because otherwise
people will think you're disgusting, don't you think?

It's a pretty bitter joke for me, but it's fair enough that
you wouldn't get that because there are some things I don't talk about
so much here - things which, to be honest, are too painful to talk
about, though I'm going to try now. That whole disgust thing... I've
alwas had to deal with the fact that some people may freak out at my
genital differences (it happened a couple of times before I even knew
why), but now, well, now attraction generally stops dead if people see
any of the flesh between my knees and my waist. I think itwas Pliny who
said that lupus leaves marks like the bite of a wolf; I look like I've
been in a fight with a whole pack of them. And whilst we may say that
chicks dig scars we all know there's a limit. At least if I were fat or
bald or suchlike I'd be normal, you know? And if I succeeded in seducing
someone they'd probably go through with it. I'm very visibly a mutant
now, once people see it, and I know that it would make _me_ recoil (even
if I tried to be polite), so I'm loathe to try with strangers. So you
can call me rich, but it's fool's gold - I can't spend it.

Post by Endymion
Not me, not yet, not in the way I think you mean. I still taste the
rose petals as much as ever. My sight has faded physically, but it's
still there, and the beautiful things still move me as much as ever -
there are just fewer of them around me, and I have fewer chances and
excuses to seek them out.

Does this change your relationship with the beautiful things
you do encounter?

Post by Endymion
I'm going partly deaf, but I just turn the music up louder and it
moves me more than ever.

I'm glad you're finding a way. On that physical level I
thought I had lost it when my sight was damaged after my stroke; because
it was distorted by the scarring, not just faded, things which had
looked beautiful to me looked odd, the way Hans must have experienced it
when the chip of glass from the Snow Queen's sleigh hit him in the eye.
I was worried that I had permanently lost visual access to beauty, and
that was probably the hardest thing to deal with in that whole
experience, though I didn't tell anyone at the time because blindness is
a distancing thing, as I imagine deafness must be - it makes one aware
that one is not part of a continuum of experience, rather one is
separate from the world, looking or listening out from within a box. I
did still find beauty in light, though, in shapeless things, and that
sustained me until, forunately, much of my sight returned (though I
shall always be aware I may lose it again).

Post by Endymion
the lack of immediacy, but also that I never really expected the
system to work as claimed and never pinned much on it; I just figured
it would work half-assedly but enough that I'd be measurably better
off with it than without it, and I still think that's the likely outcome.

That's an entirely reasonable attitude. I just feel kind of
angry for the people who weren't aware of that because they were
discouraged from thinking that way.

Jennie

--
Jennie Kermode
***@innocent.com
www.jenniekermode.com

TenshiKurai9

2009-07-12 00:16:07 UTC

Post by Jennie Kermode
to talk about it. Life shifts around and I am in the peculiar position
of still attracting girls half my age but scarcely knowing what to do
about it.

Better by far than having to pretend to be neutered because otherwise
people will think you're disgusting, don't you think?

That reminds me, every once in a while I read one thing or another from
you and temporarily wonder how your body is constructed there.

-TenshiKurai9, and then gets back to whatever.

moonglow minnow

2009-07-12 03:57:21 UTC

Post by TenshiKurai9

Post by Jennie Kermode
to talk about it. Life shifts around and I am in the peculiar position
of still attracting girls half my age but scarcely knowing what to do
about it.

Better by far than having to pretend to be neutered because otherwise
people will think you're disgusting, don't you think?

That reminds me, every once in a while I read one thing or another from
you and temporarily wonder how your body is constructed there.

It simply makes me want to see a Jennie nude, in person, even if the
sentiment likely wouldn't be returned. Some of us *like* mutants, after
all...

Maeve >^..^<

--
http://moonglowminnow.wordpress.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/minnow/

Korin

2009-07-12 15:31:33 UTC

Post by moonglow minnow

Post by TenshiKurai9

Post by Jennie Kermode
It's a pretty bitter joke for me, but it's fair enough that
you wouldn't get that because there are some things I don't talk
about so much here - things which, to be honest, are too painful to
talk about, though I'm going to try now. That whole disgust thing...
I've alwas had to deal with the fact that some people may freak out
at my genital differences (it happened a couple of times before I
even knew why), but now, well, now attraction generally stops dead if
people see any of the flesh between my knees and my waist. I think
itwas Pliny who said that lupus leaves marks like the bite of a wolf;
I look like I've been in a fight with a whole pack of them. And
whilst we may say that chicks dig scars we all know there's a limit.
At least if I were fat or bald or suchlike I'd be normal, you know?
And if I succeeded in seducing someone they'd probably go through
with it. I'm very visibly a mutant now, once people see it, and I
know that it would make _me_ recoil (even if I tried to be polite),
so I'm loathe to try with strangers. So you can call me rich, but
it's fool's gold - I can't spend it.

That reminds me, every once in a while I read one thing or another
from you and temporarily wonder how your body is constructed there.

It simply makes me want to see a Jennie nude, in person, even if the
sentiment likely wouldn't be returned. Some of us *like* mutants, after
all...

Never seen Jennie nude, but I can confirm that she is a most pretty
mutant. :)

Korin
(who has little obviously wrong with his body, but is still not pleased
with it)

Jennie Kermode

2009-07-31 23:13:59 UTC

Post by Korin
Never seen Jennie nude, but I can confirm that she is a most pretty
mutant. :)

Thank you - you're very sweet.

Post by Korin
(who has little obviously wrong with his body, but is still not pleased
with it)

There's just not very _much_ of your body. I always feel I
should be feeding you bread and soup. That shows my age. ;) But soon -
soon we shall go to Tchai Ovna and have big pots of tea, and pugu cake.

Jennie

--
Jennie Kermode
***@innocent.com
www.jenniekermode.com

Korin

2009-08-01 17:12:02 UTC

Post by Korin
(who has little obviously wrong with his body, but is still not pleased
with it)

I could do with eating, yes.. but everything's made better with pots of
Fairy's Blood tea and an increased concentration of goth in one tea shop :)

Korin

TenshiKurai9

2009-08-02 05:38:21 UTC

On 2009-07-31, Jennie Kermode <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
But soon -

Post by Jennie Kermode
soon we shall go to Tchai Ovna and have big pots of tea, and pugu cake.

What's pugu cake?

-TenshiKurai9

`una

2009-07-13 01:45:33 UTC

Post by Jennie Kermode
And whilst we may say that
chicks dig scars we all know there's a limit. At least if I were fat or
bald or suchlike I'd be normal, you know?

If you had stuck with bald, you'd be right about that.

`una - ymmv

Jennie Kermode

2009-07-31 23:18:05 UTC

Post by `una

Post by Jennie Kermode
chicks dig scars we all know there's a limit. At least if I were fat or
bald or suchlike I'd be normal, you know?

If you had stuck with bald, you'd be right about that.

Ach, maybe you're right. But then we're looking at two
different definitions of 'normal', aren't we? I was thinking of 'normal'
in the sense of ordinary, commonplace, not unusual; I accept that this
differs from the notion or 'normal' as 'culturally accepted'. It is
interesting how that concept has developed. Over the centuries, the
notion of 'normal' (like the closeley related 'natural') as either good
or bad has swung around dramatically, sometimes being used both ways at
the same time in relation to slightly different 'moral' issues.

Jennie

--
Jennie Kermode
***@innocent.com
www.jenniekermode.com

Jennie Kermode

2009-07-31 23:36:46 UTC

Post by TenshiKurai9
That reminds me, every once in a while I read one thing or another from
you and temporarily wonder how your body is constructed there.

If you mean my genitals, I'm afraid they're not terribly
exciting externally - that's why I didn't know for so long, though it
turned out that my doctors knew earlier. It is apparent during certain
types of sex, more so to those who know what they're looking for, but
I'm sure you'll understand that I'm hesitant to provide such intimate
demonstrations to assuage the curiosity of others.
The scars are much more dramatic. If you're really curious
I'll show you some of those sometime, though they're more unpleasant
than exciting.

Jennie

--
Jennie Kermode
***@innocent.com
www.jenniekermode.com

TenshiKurai9

2009-08-09 02:56:14 UTC

Post by TenshiKurai9
That reminds me, every once in a while I read one thing or another from
you and temporarily wonder how your body is constructed there.

To be a little more specific, I've wondered when I know I've read a
statement from you somewhere that you've had sex with people and they
didn't know you are an intersex. Then when I read a post (related to
discussions about pain and different kinds of pain) from you in which
you mentioned having had an erection, that became a moment in which I
wondered. The statement that it's apparent during certain types of sex
helps explain enough to me.

Post by Jennie Kermode
The scars are much more dramatic. If you're really curious
I'll show you some of those sometime, though they're more unpleasant
than exciting.

Sure.

-TenshiKurai9, any scars I have aren't physical.

moonglow minnow

2009-08-09 03:41:03 UTC

Post by TenshiKurai9
-TenshiKurai9, any scars I have aren't physical.

I'm not sure if I should call you lucky or not for that. My scars have a
bad habit of turning physical, and then I have a social obligation to
explain them to strangers.

Maeve >^..^< learning how to bind the festering wounds underneath

--
http://moonglowminnow.wordpress.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/minnow/

Jennie Kermode

2009-08-09 17:54:15 UTC

Post by TenshiKurai9
To be a little more specific, I've wondered when I know I've read a
statement from you somewhere that you've had sex with people and they
didn't know you are an intersex.

I'm not terribly interested in being on the receiving end of
most kinds of penetrative sex. It's not that I have anything against it
per se, and it's certainly not a political issue, it just doesn't do
much for me. So although I've slept with a fair number of people, I've
often done other things. Also, well, how can I put this delicately? It
isn't always apparent if I'm not that excited. Which isn't to say that I
have necessarily found sex boring on those occasions, because there's a
lot I enjoy about it besides orgasm. Before orgasm was really an issue
in my life I had experienced the buzz that comes from physical training,
and I still love the endorphin hit that goes with exertion (which is
now, thanks to my disability, far harder for me to get in other ways).

Post by TenshiKurai9
-TenshiKurai9, any scars I have aren't physical.

I suspect I have already seen some of those.

Jennie

--
Jennie Kermode
***@innocent.com
www.jenniekermode.com

Dag

2009-07-25 20:59:03 UTC

Post by Jennie Kermode
money which was only ever an illusion in the first place.

It wasn't an illusion, it was a social convention based on shared
expectations and a consensus about certain facts. There's a big
difference.

But everyone knew it was a bubble.

There where a lot of smart people who made well reasoned arguments that
(parts of) it wasn't a bubble. Talking about 'a' bubble is also really
quite incorrect, there where a number of independent more or less
correlated bubbles that happened to interact at certain points and that
all burst more or less at the same time.

Post by Jennie Kermode
The suggestion that it was
never going to burst, that was an illusion,

I disagree. It was an hypothesis or assumption or in many cases a bet,
but never an illusion. Few people ever talked about "never", they
talked about continued growth over the next X time units. Even the
people who genuinely believed that it was never going to burst talk
about a "new and permanent plateau" not an ever growing bubble.

They weren't seeing illusions they where simply wrong in their assumptions.

Dag

alt.gothic

2009-07-12 23:07:56 UTC

On Jun 23, 3:51 pm, Jennie Kermode <"Jennie
Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
It gets late. I'm sitting here wrapped up in ladybird fur with wasabi
peas
and a nice glass of rose, listening to The Cure and The Slits, wading
through the last of the day's editing. Always so much still to say,
but
these days I have to think, every time, who will pay me to say it?
<snip>

<snip> "The revolution will not be televised," says Scott Heron.
No,
dude, it's on Twitter, and it's already making corporate profits.
Screw that.<snip>

That reminds me: http://thequillandpistol.blogspot.com/

Nyx

2009-07-13 05:18:53 UTC

Post by alt.gothic
It gets late. I'm sitting here wrapped up in ladybird fur with wasabi
peas
and a nice glass of rose, listening to The Cure and The Slits, wading
through the last of the day's editing. Always so much still to say,
but
these days I have to think, every time, who will pay me to say it?

I've discovered I don't have to think about who will pay me. If I just
put an advertisement link after everything I write, it pays for
itself.

Although often not enough.

But I was never good at freelance. I couldn't change my style that
much. Plus, you have to sell your stuff. I'm not good at sales.

Nyx

Jennie Kermode

2009-07-31 23:11:24 UTC