Thought I'd post an aggregate of a bunch of other people's opinions
Corruption Perception Index 2011
The perceived levels of public-sector corruption
note that a low score is corrupt
edit: oh, right, and USA ranks 24, because this is related to this thread
- Registered Member
Member for 11 years, 8 months, and 16 days
Last active Sat, Jan, 7 2012 13:01:51
- 0 Followers
- 1,618 Total Posts
- 44 Thanks
Dec 15, 2011Posted in: General Off TopicQuote from Special_A
You know with your logic,
THE ENTIRE WORLD IS CORRUPT
I mean, have you ever watched the news, or read a newspaper?
Obviously since there are humans out there murdering people, EVERYONE must be a murderer!
who are you even talking to?
Dec 13, 2011Heyyyyy, I'm going to in a few months.Posted in: General Off Topic
yeah, observe the lese majeste laws. Don't insult royalty in any form, including online, and including while you're in a different country prior to visiting thailand. because they'll arrest you for a couple of years. seriously, don't. And don't point at things or touch things with your feet. And don't touch kids -or other people- on the head. And don't show emotions related to being irritated, impatient, or angry, because that's just emotional weakness.
Oh, and everything* was recently flooded, so good luck with that
Dec 6, 2011What are you going to do about it?Posted in: General Off Topic
This is the knowledge problem whereby knowing things one becomes confused about the nature of their humanity. Engrossed in culture people are swept in language and meaning and fail to experience. Some people care and worry, some people do not, but the anguish we feel from our distance to our humanity remains. Whether dull or poignant it's there for many or most.
Humanity brims with potential, and no loss is irreversible. One cannot travel the same way back, but things are found in other ways.
If it's any consolation, there are plenty of people who have taken it upon themselves to invigorate humanity and dissolve the confusion. People who are human as **** and who know where they stand with a lonely, steadfast dedication.
As some have said, we have passed the Trial of Species and we now struggle with the Trial of Culture and the deadly spiral of language which we tread with carelessness to obvious effect.
Dec 4, 2011While to a degree what you say is undeniable in the sense that it is an account of how people think and what motivates them, but it is not a sufficient account and to pretend it is makes it shallow. Many people have this same view, that it is impossible to be truly altruistic because one finds pleasure in the altruism, and so, the altruism is really self-serving. But I don't think that's the case. If you and those like you find nothing else stirring within you that motivates your action except being pleased, reaching some sort of satisfaction, then I ask you to look again.Posted in: General Off Topic
To think in this way is to bundle up a much larger and complex series of ideas into the single package of pleasure where it doesn't belong. Ideas like the sense of duty, whether imagined or intrinsically human, are different from the drive of pleasure. And though I understand you don't mean hedonism in the common sense of pleasure, that satisfaction is rather more prismatic than monochrome.
So I agree with the person who says this is a shallow view. This is not to say it is inaccurate, only shallow like the explanation one gives to children for natural events before the child can grasp complex systems. It is one facet that answers a question, but if you try to model a human being out of this point of view, you'll end up with a hollow person lacking in many sorts of motivations which are not covered by this point of view.
At the same time, it is a useful observation to make, but even then I must say I still think it is shallow because it only makes up the basis of predictive models. What I mean is that this is simply the idea that beings seek pleasure and avoid pain. But it quite obviously doesn't account for people who are masochistic because it doesn't explain the relationship between the things that happen and the pleasure people gain. Also, using this description of human motivation distorts the understanding of other sources of motivation such as instinct and habit, simply by being a too-broad explanation.
So again, I do not think it is inaccurate as far as it goes, but it is an observation of limited use and like others have said, an idea that is practically an unspoken assumption. It's pervasiveness throughout human behavior is so clear that one is hard pressed to make a prediction of another's behavior that serves to that other person's detriment except when one thinks that person is mistaken about the result of their actions. Otherwise, we don't expect someone to work to their detriment unless there is some superseding factor, like sacrifice.
But to say that sacrifice is self-serving primarily, is a fallacy, I think. Just because someone understands that pleasure is forthcoming from a given action does not mean that pleasure was the motivation for that action. More so if the pleasure was an unavoidable result, as it often is. So the claim can be made that everyone is a hedonist, and there is some use to that statement for it clarifies the idea that people avoid pain and seek pleasure. However, to say that everyone is only a hedonist would be, if anything, a little cynical.
I think once you get down to actual motivation and the desire to act, hedonism isn't necessarily present. The compulsion to right a wrong, to save a life, to act on behalf of others, to improve do not need to come from that place. I think the disparity appears when you look at the idea of "how things should be," which suggests that when things are as they should, we are pleased and we move to put things as we think they should be.
And so this idea is basic (and rather old) and reduces the complexities of motivation to an almost unrecognizable premise which does not fully (or very much) account for human nature. It is like saying that humans breathe air when the issue is the composition of the air and the process of filtration by which our lungs take the oxygen and put it in our blood. Indeed we are hedonistic in the way you say, but our motivations run deeper than that.
Dec 3, 2011People lose or never get a sense of scale for their problems, and so the problems seem prominent. Same sort of desensitization happens when you go on with your life and lose the sense of scale for your problems. Don't be mad at them, it's just sort of a matter of course for most people to never get or lose that sense of scale. lndPosted in: General Off Topic
Nov 24, 2011 Posted in: General Off Topic
Nov 24, 2011Turns out he's to be suspended. Voluntarily. With pay.Posted in: General Off Topic
Oh yeah, and he admits no "guilt, fault, or wrongdoing."
Nov 21, 2011Posted in: Culture, Media & ArtsQuote from Zillo7
What they meant by 'bringing balance to the force', is that anikin kills the emperor by throwing him off the deathstar at the end of the series. Since the emperor was the senator/president/king/prime-minister/whatever at ep1, he would have destroyed the jedi regardless of what anikin did, by getting the clones to kill everyone.
So even though anikin kills a lot of jedi, rebels, and kids, he still is seen as a good guy since he kills the emperor. <sarcasm>What lesson have I learned from star wars?...
Keep killing people indiscriminately until you kill the bad guy.</sarcasm> :laugh.gif:
What you say may well be true. While he upset the situation initially, he eventually killed the emperor and died with him, and so, without a jedi council or a sith lord, there was a balance. Thank you, good sir, for shedding light.
- To post a comment, please login.