Hernando's Hideaway. Another Thread "almost certainly not for you."

a reply to: charles1952

Isn't temporary insanity one of the more charming characteristics of humanity?

I've never experienced the temporary type before. It's been pretty much permanent since a long time ago. Think I experienced my first universal wide existential crisis before I was 16yo and never been the same since.

Ketsuko, I generally never get hangovers but understand your meaning. Think I'm still feeling the effects of some of those bad decisions from years ago.

Well, OK. Is there a guide to the right or enlightened human behavior? There's a bunch of ideas out there.

If it feels good do it.

Biblical standards.

Survival of the fittest, building up the species by ditching the weak.

Confucianism.

Pacifism.

Egalitarianism.

How are we going to get anywhere if we don't even know how we should be acting or what our goals should be? Right now it feels like every man for himself.

a reply to: charles1952

Well, OK. Is there a guide to the right or enlightened human behavior?

Lot's of them all written by humans with particular beliefs and agendas. Guess we're supposed to pay our nickle and make our choices. Except for those with a built in version.

How are we going to get anywhere if we don't even know how we should be acting or what our goals should be?

At the risk of being a downer I believe humans are acting exactly as designed. As a whole we are the apex predator of this planet and we got here by doing what we do as a species. Humans are a short term item on the face of the Earth and will probably be replaced in the short term anyway (geologically speaking.)

I believe most of us already know how to act, it's just that so many don't. In the end I don't really think any of it matters anyway. In the face of infinity and galactic time frames our philosophies, morals and all the other demands we try to push upon existence are as dust. IMO.

a reply to: Bassago

Thanks for the help Bassago, let me buy you one. I don't think that G is tending bar tonight, so I'll just get my tequila and leave an IOU. Yours?

Don't we have to start by believing that there is a right and wrong? With hedonism, for example, what happens when the right action is difficult and painful? It seems to me that's one moral philosophy we can dump.

Can we dump any others, or are they all equal, even if they counsel different action in a particular circumstance?

Aw, heck. I'm talking like I know anything. (Which I don't) I'll sit here and drink my tequila and listen to my betters.

a reply to: charles1952

A giant strawberry daiquiri with about 6 shots of rum and a little cocktail umbrella sounds good to me right now. Maybe a couple of them just to be sure.

The question of is there actually a right or wrong seems pretty subjective to me. I mean hypothetically what if we encounter aliens someday like the Lava monster from the original Star Trek series, would any of our concepts even relate to it? Do any of our concepts even apply to ants? They have some type of consciousness and societal mores but I don't think anything we believe matters to them.

The moral part of me says yes there is right and wrong but the objective part of me thinks that's only due to human physiology and perhaps some mental input from birth (maybe even from the womb.) Oh and we are at Hernando's, there are no betters here.


Edit - Anyway, I'm beat so going to hit the sack. See you later and regards to any who drop in. Good-nite all.

a reply to: Bassago

Dear Bassago,

Are you a "Real Man?" Haven't you read the Guy Code? The six shots of rum is OK, but the only time a "real man" can have a drink with an umbrella is if it's served to him on the beach by a topless model.

Ants, not having any moral problems (no "Right or Wrong" exists) aren't going to be anything I worry about. But I believe that anywhere you go in the universe, Ice planets or Lava planets, you will find a sign that says "Thou shalt not steal." Different cultures can modify that according to circumstances, but I know of no culture that condones stealing among it's members.

If we keep it to dealing with people, I think it's easier to find an objective morality (as opposed to culturally adapted behavior). Every culture has some idea of modest dress, even though they don't agree with what "modest" means. They all have some obligation to the family, and the poor, whatever that obligation might be.

No betters? All right, but I've been feeling like whale defecation for the last 24, so I'll call myself a "worse."

Let's flip for the next round. I'll call Heads. . . . . Blast! You win.

a reply to: charles1952

In the modern age our society pushes youth into more and more conformity building prisons for their minds and molds them using manipulative bombardments in the form of memes, advertisement, hollywood etc. It is now normal to glorify violence, degenerative sex, drug and alcohol addiction all the while condemning free thought and original ideas. The very core of right and wrong seems to be decaying as with all teenagers (all of us in the grander scheme) are naturally going to conform or rebel. Even suddle little things, I once was asked by a girl for my facebook page so she could friend me, upon informing her I do not have one she got a bit hostile and accused me of being a rapist. I went against a social norm and to some it was shocking but that is one example of me being wrong when I feel like not having is right. Couple that with education, they are not encouraging enough critical thinking and instead feeding you a script for indoctrination to work for someone else. I think the foundations of society need to become balanced and then right and wrong can be determined as people will still rebel but at least a society of creative and critical thinkers would allow for deeper and more illuminating dialogue over the issues case by case.

a reply to: Brotherman

Hey there, Brotherman! Your honey badger is looking especially healthy today, must be on an improved diet. But where in the world is everybody? I wonder if it's something I said. It's much too early for Hernando's to start to fade.

You're right, Brotherman, about the terrible forces pushing everybody to conform to somebody else's idea of right and wrong behavior. And where did they get their twisted idea of right and wrong? Are they bringing there teenage values with them into adulthood? "Free Love," "Sex, drugs, and Rock and Roll," "By any means necessary."

It's strange that patriotism, devotion to duty, a religious faith, hard work, and self-reliance are now seen as bizarre, fringe, and extreme values.

I don't have any problem with people conforming to "right" values (and I think they exist), and I don't have any problems with rebels, until they start shooting up schools or other insane things. There were a couple of guys that replaced the American flags at the top of the Brooklyn Bridge with large white flags. Somehow they got through all of the security and made a very difficult climb. That sounds decent to me. Applause.

Now, I admit that I don't see that as penetrating social analysis, but I also see it as a reasonable expression, or rebellion if you will. But I also expect more in the way of original ideas and free thought. What I see in that line on ATS is "Destroy the government and build another," "Destroy Israel," "Destroy the Federal Reserve and all the bankers." Well, you get the idea.

Now if you want creative ideas, go talk to to Serdgiam, if he ever gets his butt back in here. You can send him a note if you'd like. He's got a vision for society and the world which is really worth exploring (and I'm not fooled by many schemes).

I'm glad you stopped back in.

"We'll keep the light on for you."

I could use some help, rally 'round.

We've got the ATS Reality Remix program tonight, and I'm supposed to be doing 20 minutes on what should be done with Ukraine (and what should have been done).

Please give me your thoughts and we'll put them on the broadcast, or call in and express them yourself. I get time zones mixed up, so I'll just say that the program starts in about 6 hours. (9 p.m Central)

I know I can count on you Hernandos.

a reply to: charles1952
We should not forget that Kiev was the original capital of Russia. Ukraine was to Russia what New England was for the United States. If New England hived itself off as a separate country, Americans would still be sensitive about the involvement of other countries there. I can't help thinking that it was a mistake for the West to press so close to the centre of "Russianness".
Even leaving that aside,we need to recognise that Ukraine is a state with slightly artificial boundaries not exactly matching ethnic differences. I've always thought that some sort of negotiated partition was the most optimistic result that could be hoped for. Certainly getting the Russians out of the Crimea was always a non-starter.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Hi, Disraeli. I knew I could count on help and I was hoping that it would be from our scholar in residence. Now all I need is some comments from the others and I'll be set. I'm worried enough about tonight's show that I'm just drinking Diet Pepsi and Coffee (Decaf coffee is part of a government scheme to lower IQs.)

There's something (something? Basically everything) that I don't understand. What are you referring to when you say "a mistake for the West to press so close to the centre of "Russianness." Are we talking about the creation of NATO, the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine's interest in joining the "clubs" of Western Europe, or something else? What do you see as the threat big enough to get Russia to invade and take land.

If Kiev was the original capitol of Russia, can we expect Russia to take Kiev "back?"

I'm not sure I understand your thoughts on artificial boundaries. I'm guessing, but isn't pretty much all of Africa and the Middle East based on artificial boundaries? The US - Canada border was settled on the basis of "Forty- four Forty, or fight!" I'm not even sure why Mexico can't claim the American Southwest as it's territory based on ethnic considerations.

But let's go with the ethnic considerations. Where, then, would Russia stop? Isn't there a lot more of eastern Europe they could claim? Why not just give us the list now and end all the drama and suspense?

Disraeli, you're a great guy and you've given me a lot to think over. I'm grateful to you. Thanks for stopping by.

a reply to: charles1952

"Destroy the Federal Reserve and all the bankers."

Actually I'm OK with that one.

I'm supposed to be doing 20 minutes on what should be done with Ukraine (and what should have been done).

Eek! You get 20 minutes for that mess. My last thread on Ukraine ran for eight hotly debated days with name calling and insults liberally mixed in. Derailing, strawman and other atrocities abounded. I do not envy you.

What should be done? The US/EU/NATO/IMF should admit they destabilized the country, cease hostilities and apologize to all Ukrainians for breaking their country. And Joe Biden's plundering son should be removed from any future carpetbagging of the shale gas he's working so hard to get at in east Ukraine.

That's all I've got. /Rant off

a reply to: charles1952
I was thinking specifically of the more recent EU involvement, which helped to spark off the current troubles.

Yes, there are artificial boundaries in Africa and the Middle East, and they illustrate my point.
Half the trouble of Iraq is that Iraq was an artificial state (the eastern half of the British League of Nations mandate) incorporating more than one ethnic group,such as the Kurds. Result, civil war.
All the African boundaries south of the Sahara and Egypt/Ethiopia were defined by colonial partition. So they incorporate diverse tribes, frequently two major competing tribes, and the result has been endemic civil war.
The official eastern boundary of Ukraine was originally the internal administrative boundary of a larger state, and it obviously incorporates some populations whose sympathies are with Russia. Hence the current civil war.
This doesn't give the Russians an excuse to move further west, because further west doesn't want them

Your Canadian border was artificial, but did not incorporate large populations (apart from the Indians) who did not want to be there.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I might have had too much Diet Pepsi. What do you think then of redistricting the world, like the US does every ten years with it's congressional districts? I know it sounds like I'm plastered, and people would never go for it, but if the alternative is constant border wars, maybe a case could be made.

I haven't any idea how to stop some pushy people from claiming every inch of land the ancestors ever saw, but if the borders are artificially imposed by another nation (or group of nations) now, why not do it again, but more reasonably?

Yep, too much Diet Pepsi, I have to go to the bathroom. Come in after 10 minutes and peel me off the floor if necessary.

a reply to: Bassago

Hey, Bassago, didn't see you over there. I guess I can hold off on the bathroom trip for a minute. I don't understand "your" position well enough, so help me out, before I pass out on your table.

Eek! You get 20 minutes for that mess. My last thread on Ukraine ran for eight hotly debated days with name calling and insults liberally mixed in. Derailing, strawman and other atrocities abounded. I do not envy you.

I have seen them get stretched to 30 minutes, but from that time is subtracted discussion by the panel and anyone who wants to get in touch with the show. CALLERS GET PRIORITY OVER EVERYTHING ELSE.

What should be done? The US/EU/NATO/IMF should admit they destabilized the country, cease hostilities and apologize to all Ukrainians for breaking their country.

You're probably right, but what did those people actually do? We all know about the conquest of Crimea, and the invasion of East Ukraine, but I don't know how the EU or those other people threatened Russia so badly, that they felt they had to move in.

See? I really don't understand.

Bassago, that wasn't a rant. This is Hernando's, say what you've got on your mind. We love you here.

a reply to: charles1952

You're probably right, but what did those people actually do? We all know about the conquest of Crimea, and the invasion of East Ukraine, but I don't know how the EU or those other people threatened Russia so badly, that they felt they had to move in.

It's pretty involved but John Mearsheimer wrote a good article on the why's of it for the Foreign Affairs web site. Might be worthwhile to take a look before the show.


Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault: Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin

a reply to: Bassago

Thank you, thank you. I knew this couldn't be one-sided. I'll go look it up in Hernando's library. Talk to you later.

a reply to: charles1952
It's already an on-going process of periodic readjustment by war.
South America got sorted out in the nineteenth century.
The process of sorting out western Europe was really done by 1945 (though the structure of Belgium remained as an ethnic anomaly which still causes Belgium all kinds of problems).
Eastern Europe has always been more fluid (when the Poles were powerful, they controlled both White Russia and the Ukraine).
I think the policy of the OAU from the beginning has been that boundary change in Africa should be a taboo subject, as the only way to keep a lid on the wars that would result.

a reply to: charles1952

Hi Charles, I can't be much help, Russia was not my Area of Study, America was, My husband was there during the Cold War Years and knew a few KGB types, he's not feeling well and I'm sick too.
So sorry I'm not much help,,,, But my husband said this:
"Under Mr Putin’s dispensation, things look up for the old colonial powers. Portugal gets to reclaim Brazil, Spain most of the rest of Central and South America and France most of west Africa, which would probably be fine by the locals, since many of their current governments are not much Better."

a reply to: Brotherman

You know, it's interesting you point that out. I get laughed at whenever I push this idea forward, but I wonder sometimes.

Today's society is becoming so stifling in the arena of thought. People are less and less tolerant of the a truly divergent opinion all the time everywhere you go. We claim to be a diverse and tolerant society, but to me, it seems that our diversity is all of a shallow, external sort. Essentially, we look different. So, is a group of people who all look different or belong to different demographic groups but who all identify with the same thoughts and beliefs truly a "diverse" group? Or are they really as homogenous in thought as that TEA Party group that everyone claims only differs in the color of their shirts?

And expanding on that idea, I sometimes wonder if the people who go in for tattoos and other types of body art and even further into body modification are doing so because it is one way to be an individual. You can't think differently, but it is tolerated to LOOK different, even in very extreme ways, just like it used to be prized to THINK differently, even in very extreme ways.

And if this is so, are we in reality a richer or poorer society for it?