Blake wrote:
So, you might ask, how would I convince someone who thinks they "should" increase suffering that they are wrong? But that's the wrong question. How they define "should" is only a question of definition. The real question is how can someone who is trying to increase suffering be convinced to stop, independent of how they choose to define such terms as "right" or "should". Presumably, one would appeal to their compassion and their reason. I reply: A timely topic. Of course many people don't have any compassion to appeal to, and make their political choice based more on party loyalty or bloodlust, etc, which makes them difficult to reason with. I know people who are like that. Those who like to increase suffering aren't showing any signs of slowing down or stopping, and Bush is still extraordinarily popular--so do you really think that the public tend to prefer what's best? I find that some people I talk to actually enjoy the carnage that they support so enthusiastically, though they make a transparent effort to otherwise justify their bloodlust. But you can tell that they enjoy it. Anyway, I recently read some interviews of highschool students, and I was amazed by how much wiser their social understanding is, compared to the stupidity that we always hear from the stuffed-shirts who pass as experts on PBS and other mass media. Voting system reform can bring policy improvement if a sizable segment of the population are better than their leaders in govt & media, and the interviews suggested that's so. I don't know if the interviewees were chosen selectively, or whether people tend to get stupider when they get out of highschool. Mike Ossipoff Someone like that can't possibly be reached, but maybe those like that aren't the majority, though they're obviously quite numerous. _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
