New Mars Forums

*Aw, c'mon.  It'll be fun. 

--Cindy

*Thank you for the answer   What is "RMS speed"?

This brings to mind another question:  What are the chances that our attempts to "thicken" the atmosphere of Mars will hold, that a denser atmosphere will develop and stay put?

--Cindy

Bill:  Voltaire and Rand are both brilliant, insightful thinkers who - IMHO - were rather too sure they were right about everything and saw little value in quiet introspection or self examination.

*Rand was this way.  Voltaire was not.  How much of Voltaire have you read?  Do some research.  Voltaire was a VERY introspective man who engaged in self-examination.  If I've given any wrong impressions, my apologies! 

Bill:  On a scientific level - as I learn more about brain physiology - I become less and less confident that homo sapiens can engage in the ideal practice of Reason advocated by Rand or Voltaire.

*Rand capitalized the word frequently.  Voltaire never did.  Please don't think that Rand and Voltaire can be used interchangeably, because they cannot.

Rand was a selfish person:  She defined reason in an Aristotelian fashion [Aristotle was her self-professed hero] ::but:: she also defined reason in a manner of being synoymous with capitalism and outright selfishness [Me First, Me Only].

Voltaire found Aristotle "baffling"...as he did Plato; he was not of devotee of either of them.  He was a humanitarian.  He was generous and compassionate throughout his life.  He said the true "job" of the philosopher is not to pity people, but rather to have compassion and seek to help them [You and Me].

And please don't sell reason short; study the 18th century philosophers, find out for yourself the why's and wherefore's of their philosophies! 

--Cindy

Phobos, someone agrees with you that perhaps any intelligent life we detect in the cosmos may prove to be artificial intelligence:

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/news?tm....ns_dc_1

--Cindy

*Ganymede.  What are the possibilities of human exploration and eventual settling there? 

And I'm also wondering what other planetary satellites might be considered for human exploration and eventual settlement?

--Cindy

ME:  No, you misunderstand me.  Hitler, the KKK, South African Colonists, etc., make collective judgments against groups of people:  "This group of people has darker skin than me, and bigger lips, so they must all be inferior."  It's  a **collectivist** judgment placed against them by another group of **collectivists**.

CLARK:  Hitler's reasons were legitimate to him Cindy, just like yours.

*Taken in the subjectivist fashion in which you phrase your sentence -- true.  But my reasons won't lead to the deaths of 11 million people [give or take a few hundred thousand].

CLARK:  I am not sugessting that your value system is "bad", just that the act of using your value system is the same as someone deciding that skin color denotes a certain value.

*So a person should have NO value judgments?  Is that humanly possible?  If my car happens to break down on an isolated stretch of road, I should be no more nervous if a car load of old ladies in ankle-length dresses pull up than I should be if a car load of young men wearing gang-style bandanas, tattoos, body piercings, and leather pulls up?  I'd rather have the little old ladies pull up to ask if I need help, thanks! 

CLARK:  What you are doing is stating that all people who murder others in a certain manner are bad

*I didn't say all people who murder are bad.  Murder can be committed as an act of defending one's self, i.e. a crook pulls a gun on you and threatens to shoot -- you pull out a gun and shoot the crook first.  You will have indeed murdered the perpetrator who started the situation, but it isn't bad.  Someone else is attempting -- and initiated --perpetrating physical harm on you; this then gives you the right to respond back with equal force, even to the point of killing them.  It's the same right as a woman fighting and struggling with a rapist.  The only other option is allowing yourself to be murdered.  The good is self-preservation, the bad is letting yourself get drilled full of lead by a criminal.

CLARK:  - that is a collectivist judgement Cindy- as such, when you utilize this form of argument to establish the moral superiority in your judgement you by neccessity valorize the very people whom you detest- you sacntify Hitler's behavior becuase you rationalize the fundamental philosphy that legitimizes the idea that one personal value system can be imposed on another individual.

*You have some very strange logic, my dear.  I've ::never:: sought to impose my value system onto anyone else.  You and I have touched on this before -- I said then and I say now, that I have no right to try and force someone to agree with me or believe as I do.  However, I am entitled to my opinions and to express them. 

CLARK:  When you decalre that someone is "bad" or "good" based on their actions, you are forcing your personal value system onto them. T

*It is?  When you go to the grocery store, do you pick ripe and healthy looking fruit, or are you searching through the refuse bins in back seeking out rotted fruit?  If you seek ripe and healthy fruit, are you imposing a personal value system onto the grocery store, its managers, etc.?  Possessing a value system is ::not:: forcing it onto anyone else.  And is it humanly possible to NOT have a value system?

CLARK:  that is wrong the same way murder is wrong- murder is the act one person forcing their will onto another to thereby end it- forcing another to do something against their will is wrong just as forciable rape is wrong- they are both the same thing. What Hitler did and others like him did was impose their personal value system on others. That is what you do when you apply values of good and bad to others actions- you by neccessity are declaring that your personal value system can extend beyond yourself and govern another- which is wrong by YOUR personal standard of "would you want the same thing done to you?"

*I do not understand your "logic."  I'm not forcing my value system onto anybody, anymore than my having long hair is "forcing" other people to have a certain hairstyle or not.

CLARK:  Would you want someone else to force you to submit to their value system? Do you want to live by what the Muslisms believe? The Mormons? The Aethists? Many of the actions that we both may take can be construed as "good" or "bad" by any number of people- who is right?

*Again, I'm not forcing, nor am I seeking to force, anyone to agree with or submit to my value system.  Actually, it's really not a question of WHO is right, considering the high level of subjectiveness in humans:  Rather, it's WHAT comes about as a result of actions, i.e. consequences and what time/history bears out as a result.  Consequences, time, and history are the true judges in these matters -- I've pointed out my reasoning in this regard more than once, yet you keep ignoring it.

CLARK:  One nation's war Hero is anothers War Criminal.

*Interesting.  Most of today's German nationals despise Hitler.  One nation's Hero can soon become tomorrow's Criminal or Despised One.  Time and consequences, Clark.

ME:  Hitler's life was less valuable because he made it so, by his actions, the decisions he made, and what he chose to do with his life:  Destruction. 

CLARK:  It was made less valuable to you

*And to millions of Jews around the world...

CLARK:  You have no right to tell me what is good or bad any more than I have a right to tell you.

*I have no right to express my opinions?  :0

CLARK:  You have no right to impose your personal view, be it God or what are the requirements for "human life and rights" any more than I do.

*Again -- I'm not imposing.  I have my opinions, I have the right to express those opinions -- take them or leave them. 

ME:  You are using the example of collectivist boneheads who damn entire groups of people based on mere prejudice. 

CLARK:  But you damn entire groups of people based on their behavior and your personal prejuidces against that behavior- I understand the sentiment, but do you see the simmilarity?

*No, I do not damn "entire groups of people."  That's prejudice.  Break down the word, Clark:  Pre [before] judice [judge]; judge before knowing, in other words.  I'm not a collectivist.  I speak individually, on the basis of individual merit [or lack thereof], actions, behaviors, etc.

ME:  You can try to tell me all you want that Hitler's life was just as equal in value to that of Fred Rogers of "Mister Roger's Neighborhood" children's show fame, but I'll disagree.

CLARK:  You never answer these questions Cindy... If the value of life is indeterminant, who decides the value?

*I never said the value of life is indeterminant...don't put words in my mouth.  Who decides the value?  You mean objectively?  Probably no person can.  Time and consequences will, however.

ME:  According to your logic, laws should be passed prohibiting employers from ever being able to fire/expel/dismiss people because no one individual is ever any better or any worse than any other  individual.   

CLARK:  NO!

*I like your spirit! 

CLARK:  I have repeatadly told you that acknowledging the way in which we view the world does not negate the act. I am not saying that we should live in a world devoid of value, or a world in which inappropriate action is not prevented or punished- I am suggesting a basic philosphy of restraint- that we limit such intervention to the bare minimum predicated on a fundamental respect of all value systems. Believe what you want, as morally reprehensible as it may be, but never force that value system onto another- if such an act occurs, then it is legitimate to use whatever force is neccessary to return to the status quo of sanctity of self

*For the ::zillionth:: time, I'm not imposing my value system onto others!  But, wouldn't be strange, if that's exactly what you are trying to do to me? 

Clark, in a post some time back, you quoted some of Jean Jacques Rousseau's political philosophy; either "The Social Contract" or "The Origins of Inequality;" I can't remember which.  You should get to know -- a more indepth and overall working knowledge -- of a philosopher's entire body of work before quoting him.  Did you know that Jean Jacques Rousseau ADVOCATED atheists, agnostics, and those who would fall away from the State Faith be executed? 

I've made my points, darling.  I think I've been very clear and consistent; I don't know how much clearer I can be.  I think you do understand my point of view, and perhaps [yes, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt] you feel I am deeply in error and are attempting to assist me to see errors in my thinking out of concern or goodness of heart.  You and I are not going to see eye-to-eye on this matter, Clark, and some of your lines of reasoning baffle me.  You keep repeating that I should not "impose" my value system onto others, when in fact I do not -- why do you keep repeating this word to me?  In an attempt to try and get me to believe I'm making impositions onto others, forcing them somehow?

I think if you really believe I'm a person who would try to force others to see things as I do, or impose myself onto others in a fascist fashion, you wouldn't bother with me.

I don't impose, I don't force.  I've simply come to develop a value system over the years, based on hard-earned experience, observation, thinking, studying various scholars and philosophers, reading history, etc., etc., etc.

This line of conversation has gotten tiresome.  Let's rest it, please.

--Cindy

*If anything, I hope whoever [if it's an individual] does make those all-historically-important first words on Mars, it WON'T be a variation of Neil Armstrong's famous first words on the moon! 

I get tired of people calling the 9/11 tragedy "a day that will live in infamy" ONLY because it borrows from the very memorable phrase used for Pearl Harbor.  Think of a different phrase befitting a very different sort of tragedy!

I'm sick to death of the current USA "copycat" trend; it started, IMO, in the mid-1980s and doesn't look to be stopping any time soon.  Originality is pretty much dead.

--Cindy

*Well, if the mission goes zero-gravity, that will provide more individual space in the private quarters.  All wall space will be utilizable, every inch of the room usable; that might make for happier space campers, instead of being "confined" to the floor. 

--Cindy

*I was born and raised in a rural agricultural town; it seemed to me the town dwellers and farm folks were having about the same number of children.  Do you have a statistic you can quote, backing up your claim of families on farms having a greater number of children?  I'm not being rude or sarcastic -- please know that.

I honestly don't see plants as related to *sex* amongst humans.  You and I are apparently on very different wave-lengths    I just see them as sources of food and beauty.

--Cindy

*I am absolutely bewildered by your post...no sarcasm intended.  Growing plants -- whether radishes or edible flowers -- have ::zero:: sexual connotations to me. 

I don't foresee any problems in this respect at all.

--Cindy

*Thanks for the link.

As to the last paragraph; sorry, but the notion of isolated space colonies kind of gives me the creeps from a sociological perspective.  I'm wondering how many of those would develop as harmonious and "democratic" a society as humanly possible, and how many would turn into something akin to "Taliban In Space," or develop a David Koresch-type guru where all other men are submissive to him and he has first dibs on all the womenfolk.

Isolationism isn't a healthy thing, generally speaking.

--Cindy

*Actually, I was thinking probably the first *real* words on Mars will be:  "Does this spacesuit make my butt look big?" 

--Cindy