Saturday, August 1, 2009
The Hypocritical Smiley Face
The number of contradictions that exist within this passionate speech provokes me to wonder if the writer wrote it as a joke originally, and then some pro-government statist read it and thought "what a great inspiring speech for our soldiers!".
In fact, the central message of the speech is one big fucking contradiction. . .but it's inspiring, it makes my heart go thump, and triggers something within that would probably make me feel better about going to war; of course if I thought past the pretty words that were being shouted to me; if I thought about the sentences being spouted and how the prose was written, if I used my brain at all to consider what was being said to me, I probably wouldn't feel better about going to war. I'd probably just walk away.
According to the smiley face, noone should feel misery, hate or greed. These emotions should be turned off. The smiley face dictates this to us even though it acknowledges we're not robots. Though we are not robots, the smiley face seems to think we all have a switch we could just flick and eliminate all that is wrong in the world...why did it take so long for us to figure out to flick this switch so we could all live in COTTON CANDY LAND?
Anyone else find it a little bit odd we're being told to give up our humanity while being told we're not robots?
The smiley face dictates that everyone needs to sacrifice themselves, their lives, their emotions, their thoughts, their opinions to the common cause of preserving liberty and freedom all over the world. The smiley face dictates to men to fight for freedom, and at the same time tells them to not do what others tell them to do...even though the smiley face is telling them to fight...for freedom...from others who tell you what to do...so dictates the smiley face.
Wait. . .huh?
Not only that, but nasty national borders need to be eliminated to help ensure liberty is preserved! After all, those borders might prevent us from forcing liberty upon people who otherwise would choose not to have it. Need I highlight the contradiction within that thought?
I have to sacrifice myself to be free? I have to sacrifice my liberty to save liberty? I have to do as you say, so not to do what others say? People are to be free, but not free to determine their own borders with their own government?
Can I not simply choose to work to preserve my own freedom? No, dictates the smiley face. That would be greedy...and the smiley face dictates not to be greedy. Didn't we flick that switch already? Get in line and fight for democracy! Because democracies allow people to be free, well, as much as the majority says people can be free...so ya, fight for some freedom! But only for others, not yourself. Don't be greedy, and smile!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
LOL, *splash*
Here is the original:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl2e69fEFf4
from "The Great Dictator". It was a speech written as a public rejection of Hitler and Nazism BEFORE the tanks started rolling.
Good speech. And, yes, sometimes sacrifice is a virtue. Sometimes.
I bought this movie for 5000 Won last month. :)
Who said sacrifice wasn't a virtue?
Also, greed is definitely a vice, Ayn Rand was an idiot. A person can want to have things and not be greedy. There is a difference. This makes sense considering the amount of money Charlie Chaplin had, lol.
Greed is simply wanting more than you need. So if you want anything more than just enough to exist, you're greedy...you're such a greedy asshole Chris.
Charlie Chaplin delivers this speech of nonsense very well...I'm going to try to download this movie.
"Greed is simply wanting more than you need. So if you want anything more than just enough to exist, you're greedy...you're such a greedy asshole Chris"
No, you are missing a key concept here. Greed is the SELFISH want for more than one needs, which means greed can only occur in relation to to other people. The "selfish" bit can only occur around other people.
I do not see a difference.
I know you don't, and that is the problem. "Greed" is a word that is always used in relation to being WITH other people. If I sit on a deserted island and eat twelve coconuts alone, it is not greedy. Stupid, maybe, but not greedy. It is only when another person appears on that island and wants a share of the coconuts that my eating the 12 coconuts becomes greedy.
Ayn Rand basically tried to make a negative concept positive when she didn't have to, which was retarded. The selfishness/selflessness divide is not the only divide.
"If I sit on a deserted island and eat twelve coconuts alone, it is not greedy."
You live on a deserted island? Otherwise, wanting anything more than you need for existence at its most basic level is greed.
"You live on a deserted island? Otherwise, wanting anything more than you need for existence at its most basic level is greed."
Don't understand the word "if"?
No, I disagree. Greedy is related to other people. Without other people, greed has no meaning.
"Don't understand the word "if"?"
I understand the word "if" well enough to know that in the real world you do not sit on a deserted island alone with 12 coconuts. You live in the real world where all resources are shared by other people, and therefore for you to want anymore than the necessities of existence, makes you greedy.
"I understand the word "if" well enough to know that in the real world you do not sit on a deserted island alone with 12 coconuts. You live in the real world where all resources are shared by other people, and therefore for you to want anymore than the necessities of existence, makes you greedy."
Okay Mother Teresa.
Anyway, I can change the example and make it real-world. I can wake up and drink two big glasses of water. That I drink two, instead of one, which is my need, does not make me greedy, because there is no one around me and the drinking of the extra glass of water does not affect anyone. GREED IS A CONCEPT THAT IS BASED ON OTHER PEOPLE. It definitely does not mean using more than you need.
"That I drink two, instead of one, which is my need, does not make me greedy"
Sure it does. There are people dying of thirst in the world and you have the gall to drink more than you need? You greed son-of-a-bitch. What gives you the right to waste the world's resources that are shared by all? If you only need one glass, drink one glass. In fact, only drink half a glass. Save the other half for later.
On a serious note, you still fail to understand that all resources are finite, therefore scarce. The one extra glass of fresh water you have today is one extra glass of fresh water someone else will not be able to have, whether it be today, tomorrow, or some distant future. That you lack the ability to see beyond your own surroundings adds ignorance to your greed.
"Sure it does. There are people dying of thirst in the world and you have the gall to drink more than you need? You greed son-of-a-bitch. What gives you the right to waste the world's resources that are shared by all? If you only need one glass, drink one glass. In fact, only drink half a glass. Save the other half for later."
No, sorry, when I am alone there is no moral imperative. It is only when I am with other people that the social moral imperative becomes important. My immediate social imperative is to my family, and then my town or city, state, and then country. Applying the moral imperative to the globe is actually pretty low, and is why drinking that extra water at night is not immoral. If I was with a buddy and took both glasses when there was no more, that would be greedy, BECAUSE he is there.
"On a serious note, you still fail to understand that all resources are finite, therefore scarce."
I'm not failing to understand; I'm rejecting your definition.
"The one extra glass of fresh water you have today is one extra glass of fresh water someone else will not be able to have, whether it be today, tomorrow, or some distant future. That you lack the ability to see beyond your own surroundings adds ignorance to your greed."
Again, if I was on a deserted island, it could not be greed, because there would not be anyone else around.
We live in a global community. Every action you take has an affect on your neighbor, and your neighbor's neighbor. Everything is finite.
You can rationalize it so that you do not feel guilty because you're not standing next to the person you're taking the glass of water from, but you are still using up a resource that you do not need that could be used elsewhere. It is still greed; it doesn't matter the vicinity of the person who you are affecting.
"We live in a global community. Every action you take has an affect on your neighbor, and your neighbor's neighbor. Everything is finite.
You can rationalize it so that you do not feel guilty because you're not standing next to the person you're taking the glass of water from, but you are still using up a resource that you do not need that could be used elsewhere. It is still greed; it doesn't matter the vicinity of the person who you are affecting."
Got news for you! The Marxist/Communist internationals failed for this very reason. They assumed that morality, ethics, and class solidarity extended to the global and national stages. They don't. At least, they don't for everyday actions. For broad Congressional-like decisions they do extend, but only in a very weak form. The real morality is always strongest on the micro-level, and becomes less important as it gets farther away from the family level. But anyway, this has nothing to do with my point.
Greed does not exist without other people. If greed means "wanting more than one has", then all acts are, logically, immoral. ALL. Since this is absurd, and since we know that wanting stuff is a biological imperative, we can not conclude that wanting stuff is negative. Wanting stuff is a natural, biological reality. What makes a person greedy is his or her relationship to other, immediate people. So my drinking two glasses of water in Canada or Korea is not immoral, not wrong, not greedy. But if I were in 19th century Saudi Arabia, that would be a very different story..
"Greed does not exist without other people."
There's other people all over the place...6 billion of them.
"then all acts are, logically, immoral"
Only if you think greed is immoral.
"Since this is absurd"
Correct, greed is not immoral.
"since we know that wanting stuff is a biological imperative"
Indeed, greed is natural.
"we can not conclude that wanting stuff is negative"
Yes, greed is a positive
"What makes a person greedy is his or her relationship to other, immediate people"
Wrong, that's simply an arbitrary rationalization to make your argument. What makes a person greedy is his existed within a global community where resources are finite.
"So my drinking two glasses of water in Canada or Korea is not immoral, not wrong, not greedy."
Right, right, wrong. Its not immoral, its not wrong, it is greedy.
"But if I were in 19th century Saudi Arabia, that would be a very different story"
Yes, then you wouldn't just be greedy, you'd be a greedy asshole.
"There's other people all over the place...6 billion of them."
Most people are not "with" 6 billion people. In fact, most people do not interact with more than 50 people on average.
"Only if you think greed is immoral."
You try taking all the meat at the supper table. Do it. I dare you.
"Correct, greed is not immoral. "
Supper table, take all the desert. You will then feel just how non-immoral greed is.
"Indeed, greed is natural."
No, wanting stuff and greed are not equal. You already said that greed has something do with wanting more. Wanting stuff is not wanting more.
"Yes, greed is a positive"
You already said greed is "wanting more". Wanting stuff is not "wanting more".
"Wrong, that's simply an arbitrary rationalization to make your argument. What makes a person greedy is his existed within a global community where resources are finite"
Pish-posh. That is intellectual masturbation. Try taking all the desert at Grammie's house. Try not sharing with anyone else and see how you are perceived. However, if you only have your share of the desert you will not be considered greedy. Moreover, if you take the last piece after ASKING EVERYONE ELSE IF THEY WANT IT, you will not be considered greedy. Fat, maybe, voracious, probably, but not greedy.
"Yes, then you wouldn't just be greedy, you'd be a greedy asshole."
No, I'd be dead.
"Most people are not "with" 6 billion people. In fact, most people do not interact with more than 50 people on average."
Directly; what about indirectly?
"You try taking all the meat at the supper table. Do it. I dare you. "
But then I would be taking what is not mine. While greed might sometime invoke some to steal, greed and stealing are not equals.
"Wanting stuff is not wanting more."
Well you already have stuff, so is wanting other stuff not the same as wanting MORE stuff?
"However, if you only have your share of the desert you will not be considered greedy."
Some might consider me greedy for having any desert at all if there is not enough for everyone to have a share they deem appropriate. I can only have what I'm given.
Post a Comment