Animal Farm

[crisaor]

Originally posted by kilted exile
I am in favour of a technocratic approach, where the countries would be controlled by groups of experts on various issues. For example in my world every budget would have to get the ok from a commitee of 10 financial experts (who should be independent of political allegiances) before the measures could be carried out.
I believe that these groups would prevent laws being made which benefit the electorate in the short-term, but create nothing but problems 15 years down the line.
I thought that was one of the things the book warned about. Oceania's government consists in exactly that: experts (there is no such thing as political independence, by action or by inaction) in charge of ministeries who have absolute control in their area of influence. The people isn't allowed to do anything except following orders. Is that what you want?

[fayefaye]

A world run by experts. Just imagine. :)

[kilted exile]

Crisaor: I am aware that there is no such thing as political independence, but I can dream. As far as following orders, if following those orders means a betterlife for the whole as compared to the few, I would willingly sacrifice my independence.

[crisaor]

But who decides which rules are good? The ones that order? Your attitude is definitely altruistic, although sometimes that can kind of behaviour can lead to dangerous situations, when someone decides to make a profit out of it.
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, the closest thing to an "expert" in politics or in economics is an honest man/woman.

[kilted exile]

My attitude basically stems from the fact that I do not believe that the public as a whole is well informed enough to question their rulers on a variety of subjects. People in power realise this and use it as a tool to maintain the current status quo, if there were people who they had to answer to maybe things would be better.

[IWilKikU]

But who would THOSE people answer to? Do you see the inevitable corruption that goes along with almost EVERY idealistic political theory?

[kilted exile]

ME :D (again unlikely)

[subterranean]

I see what kilted exile's point. I believe that Singapoeran are like that. Politically the citizens are not free (I mean it's against the law to held demonstration for any kind of reason). But the govt ( i believe dominated by the so-called experts) convinced the people that this restricted political freedom would be replaced by massive economic growth, and Singaporeans believe it. They said that it's better for people to be wealthy instead of having free rights politically. And as u can see now, Singapore is one of the richest countries in the world. The people indeed just following orders from the Govt.

[IWilKikU]

Wow, if I could never speak up against my government, with all the bull**** that they wreak upon the world, I would implode.

[subterranean]

Well I believe citizens of western countries think like that Kik, but check out countries in Asia or Africa. You can say that those people are silly for not standing against their government. But hey, when they have to choose between food and the right to speak up..I believe they prefer to have their stomach full.

[simon]

My favorite part of Animal Farm is the very last paragraph when he describes the pigs and humans at the table and all the farm animals looking in on them and they cannot distinguish the two apart.
What does that say about the sickness of humanity?

[IWilKikU]

I see what you're saying Sub. If I lived in a restricted freedom country, I would be just as spineless to resist them as anyone else, but Exile is SUPPORTING absolute power like that. Which I think is rediculous. Exile, I think you take for granted the freedoms that Canada alows you. Your thinking might be different if you were deprived of them.

[kilted exile]

Ok perhaps i'm not making myself too clear with what I believe.

1) I do not believe that people should just blindly go along with what they are told by the govt. I am in favour of people questioning decisions which they do not believe in. My earlier post about people not being well informed enough to question their rulers refers to people who bllindly go along at every election voting for the same party without paying attention to how the parties have changed e.g "socialists" who still vote for New Labour, despite the current Labour party spouting more centrist than left wing policies.

2) The expert panels I am in favour of would be elected, however the only information the electorate would be given is their qualifications - canditates would not be allowed to make speeches & would be subject to re-election every 6yrs.

3) The MP's would continue to be elected as normal.

Perhaps the best way to describe the expert committees would be as a replacement to the House Of Lord's - which is currently an unelected quango as it is. I am merely in favour of replacing people who are there by virtue of birth with those who actually know about the subjects.

[fayefaye]

Do you think there's such a thing as a perfect world? [stupid question]

ok, do you think the human race is screwed?

[simon]

Yes, we are innately evil.

[crisaor]

Originally posted by simon
Yes, we are innately evil.
That's as naive as saying that we're all do-gooders.

[simon]

Perhaps.

[emily655321]

Depends on what you mean by "evil." No, if there is a universal standard of evil there is an opposing force of good, which (I'm sorry) I'm certain Orwell would conceed is ludicrous. What we are is innately selfish -- even the "good deeds" we do we owe to the instinct of self-preservation: of the species. We feel good when we do things for others for the same reason we feel good when we eat; it's an evolutionary reward for keeping ourselves alive and thereby promoting our genes. So, no, we don't do "evil" things out of pure evil, we do them out of selfishness. And I do believe we are all innately selfish.

Ok, rant over. :p

[crisaor]

Originally posted by emily655321
We feel good when we do things for others for the same reason we feel good when we eat; it's an evolutionary reward for keeping ourselves alive and thereby promoting our genes. So, no, we don't do "evil" things out of pure evil, we do them out of selfishness. And I do believe we are all innately selfish.
Emily, don't you consider selfishness (in its purest form) to be an evil act? Do you believe that selfishness is the thing that drives man?
Feeling good is an evolutionary reward? Then I guess all the junkies that give themselves a good time through drugs must be the most evolutioned people on earth...
Jokes aside, I think we're oversimplifying things here. Men are not driven by their (supposedly) completely evil nature, or by their egotistical desires, but by a much broader list of things whose proportions vary according to each individual.

[emily655321]

[whoopsie, edit.]

[emily655321]

Crisaor-- (sorry for the critique, first off, but I think you mean "evolved.") Personally, I don't believe there are actual forces behind the human labels of "good" and "evil." I think there are things that hurt others, or help them, or are benign. It's up to people's own feelings of personal responsibility which outcome they choose. In my opinion, the black-and-white dogma of organized religion often provides people with more loopholes than motives to do good. Like children knowing what is "good" and "bad" according to mommy, but not understanding the reasons behind it. Once people grow up they learn to use their own common sense and code of ethics to determine what is "right" and "wrong" on a case by case basis. (Sorry again, I don't mean to belittle anyone's religious beliefs, but I'm really not in the mood to soften that analogy. :p)

Just as a footnote, the evolutionary "feel good" reward is produced by the neurotransmitters in our brain, such as dopamine and serotonin. There are a bunch more that are triggered by different things in the environment -- for instance, sex, childbirth, nursing (for the mother and the child), and chocolate all release the same chemicals in the brain. Eating and sex also release dopamine -- so does alcohol. Various things in the environment, such as natural drugs, trigger activity in our brain originally evolved to reward us for beneficial, healthy activities, but we clever monkeys have developed alternate ways of getting these "rewards" without doing the intended work. Kind of like CEO's on Wall Street. :p

[crisaor]

Originally posted by emily655321
Crisaor-- (sorry for the critique, first off, but I think you mean "evolved.")
You're right. My mistake.

Originally posted by emily655321
Personally, I don't believe there are actual forces behind the human labels of "good" and "evil." I think there are things that hurt others, or help them, or are benign. It's up to people's own feelings of personal responsibility which outcome they choose. In my opinion, the black-and-white dogma of organized religion often provides people with more loopholes than motives to do good. Like children knowing what is "good" and "bad" according to mommy, but not understanding the reasons behind it. Once people grow up they learn to use their own common sense and code of ethics to determine what is "right" and "wrong" on a case by case basis. (Sorry again, I don't mean to belittle anyone's religious beliefs, but I'm really not in the mood to soften that analogy. :p).
I see your point. I agree that the concept of good and wrong usually differs from one person to another, but I do feel that there are some objective boundaries as to determine what's good and what's wrong. Otherwise, chaos would erupt (laws can only go so far).

Originally posted by emily655321
Just as a footnote, the evolutionary "feel good" reward is produced by the neurotransmitters in our brain, such as dopamine and serotonin. There are a bunch more that are triggered by different things in the environment -- for instance, sex, childbirth, nursing (for the mother and the child), and chocolate all release the same chemicals in the brain. Eating and sex also release dopamine -- so does alcohol.
I've heard that argument before. And it's simply stupid. Sex (or love, even less so) can never be the equal of eating chocolate, on any level. Humanity would be extinct by now... :rolleyes:

[IWilKikU]

Its obviously not an equal. I think everyone here has eaten chocolate, and most everyone has had sex :rolleyes:, but the same chemical is released in the brain. Its just on a MUCH smaller scale. Chocolate isn't going to give you an instant orgasm, but there's a reason that girls flock to the stuff when their aunt flo is visiting.

[emily655321]

:D :D Does anyone else get a kick out of this thread having gone from Animal Farm to "aunt flo"?? But anyway, crisaor, I think you misunderstood my reference to chocolate-inot-sex as it creating the same physical effects rather than chemical. Orgasm happens to the body, not the brain. It's the euphoric "afterglow" feeling that is attributed to the release of neurotransmitters. And chocolate certainly does produce its own little version of that. :D

[crisaor]

Then could you send me some of the chocolate you eat around there? 'cos here it tastes fine, but nothing more. Or maybe I'm more inclined to the old fashioned way of releasing neurotransmitters... :D

[amuse]

em...chocolate never put me to sleep. ;)

[IWilKikU]

I dont even particularly like chocolate :(

[simon]

Chocolate seems to be a hobby of mine, but I have nothing to compare it's possible orgasmic influenceing qualities to, yet a good slice of raspberry chocolate torte certainly makes one moan.

[emily655321]

LMAO Just watching and giggling, wondering how far it is possible to take this conversation. :D :D

[simon]

Farther and farther until the earth moves!?

[emily655321]

*sits quietly for a second* I don't feel it moving, but I'm told it already does. :p

[fayefaye]

YOU DON'T LIKE CHOCOLATE???!!! how do you survive?

[fayefaye]

uhm, guys, chocolate is just a food. Not a comparison to means of procreation....

[emily655321]

No, not the means... just the effect. ;)

[simon]

Simmer down, so the real question here is did the pigs like chocolate? And if they did does that mean that they wouldn't share it with the other farm animals? What about important questions such as these that Orwell never divulges, enquiring minds wan tto know, the withholding of chocolate could have been a form of control for the pigs over the other farm animals.

[emily655321]

Did the withholding of chocolate drive down their libido, thereby facilitating their compliance as selfless drones?

[cutsiegirl191]

maybe we were all born equal. then society changed it.
im new. i have already read animal farm but im rereading it to refresh my memory. i fully agree with u on the fact that society changed people. i also think that we were born equal and society changed it. we r not equal at this point or else there would be no such thing as poverty or homelessness. we were all created with the same intelligence but the homeless and poor people did not have access to the schooling so of course u might say that we do not all have the same intelligence...

[cutsiegirl191]

oh i did not realize u were talking about chocolate :confused:

[subterranean]

YOU DON'T LIKE CHOCOLATE???!!! how do you survive?


well, by staying thin...:D

[simon]

Hehe, chocolate is merely another addiction, a substance used to quell our minds into peacefull submission of we know not what.

[Stanislaw]

How could you even think of questioning great lord cadbury, or master hershy? :confused:

[simon]

Fools! Stanislaw knows where the power is.

[imthefoolonthehill]

*wonders whether simon was directly addressing him as multiple people... or what*

*questions whether or not Fool has multiple personality disorder*

*questions sanity*

*desides the anser is pi + 42*

[Stanislaw]

mmmmmm greek pastries.

[fayefaye]

well, by staying thin...:D

lol.... last Christmas I ate about TWO kilos of chocolate and I lost about FOUR kilos of weight. by now I should have a whole flock of cult weight loss freaks trying to live the 'faye' lifestyle..... :wave: :yawnb: :nod: :brow:

fool.. you already know you're insane. :)

[fayefaye]

HA!! i sound like a PIG!! lol

[fayefaye]

im new. i have already read animal farm but im rereading it to refresh my memory. i fully agree with u on the fact that society changed people. i also think that we were born equal and society changed it. we r not equal at this point or else there would be no such thing as poverty or homelessness. we were all created with the same intelligence but the homeless and poor people did not have access to the schooling so of course u might say that we do not all have the same intelligence...

that's pretty much what I think too... except that other things change it, not just schooling but people's perceptions of themselves, and the world around them.

[Stanislaw]

Lets not forget genetics, certain people a predisposed to certain philosophies, I believe it also depends on the relationship one has with their parents,

and how many times one was dropped on their head... :rolleyes: :brickwall :sick:

Anyways, I think alot of peoples choices are somewhat predetermined, we just need to figure out why we are the way we are,

[fayefaye]

My best friend was dropped on her head as a baby. :D lol.... you can tell. :) :P

[Stanislaw]

Yeah, does she come to this forum often, your friend? JK; :goof:

Anyways a persons views do come from their surroundings with just a tich of genetics.

[fayefaye]

nope.

Ii think most of somebody's views come from their surroundings.. almost entirely actually.

[simon]

a nurture not a nature girl?

[fayefaye]

I wouldn't trust my genes to decide my personality or my future. [shudder] :D

[Stanislaw]

Well a good majority of a personality does come from their surroundings, however certain traits are genetic, some people are just predisposed to cruelty or empathy. An example is ADD children, that is genetic in origin.

[Taliesin]

Advanced Dungeons and Dragons are genetical? Gee, you learn something every day :banana:

What do you really mean it? (having trouble with arconymes)


NMPKWTMBIIAND

[Stanislaw]

Attention Deficit Disorder, it is uasually accompanied by Hyper activity
ADHD, is the most common, attention deficit hyperactive disorder

[simon]

An overdiagnosed disorder in the states.

[Stanislaw]

I recently found out that there are variouse levels of the disorder aswell.

[simon]

And it's one of those things where if a kid acts out in class they call the parent and say, get him tested. Is it like altzheimers where undoubtable proof of the disorder is only provided after the patient is dead and the brain can be fully exposed, poked and prodded in it's grey mass of lifelessness?

[Stanislaw]

Don't actually know, I don't think anyone has tried this. But I take it from your posts that you were wrongfully diagnosed, you could sue?

[simon]

It was me brother, though I wouldn't have minded if medication had kept him away from me, but he didn't need it. I wonder if it would even make it in courts?

[Stanislaw]

It might, if you get a good laywer. and I am sorry for your brother.

[Riddick]

Psychologists don't know what they are talking about, they try to quantify qualitative behaviour, and actually believe that they have the knowledge and superiority to judge others and their behavour.

[Stanislaw]

Well put Riddick, I couldn't agree more.

[nns]

If you choose to focus on the Language (newspeak), which is one of the major and most fascinating aspects of the novel, perhaps you may want to read one of GO best known essays: Politics and the English Language (you can find it at www.assumption.edu/dept/history/His130/PoliticsAndLanguage.html)
Besides, if you are required to analyse 1984 in 350words, you'd better get acquainted with the newspeak: you are going to need it.

My apologies: the above post was intended as an answer to another thread. Instead I posted here (by mistake). Sorry again.

[subterranean]

Psychologists don't know what they are talking about, they try to quantify qualitative behaviour, and actually believe that they have the knowledge and superiority to judge others and their behavour.

Are u saying that people like Freud and Fromm are just bunch of bullies?

[Riddick]

Basically yes, they feel that they are superior enough to judge their fellow humans. I think that is wrong.

[Scheherazade]

Basically yes, they feel that they are superior enough to judge their fellow humans. I think that is wrong.

I don't think it is about 'judging' but more about trying to understand and help others to do so as well...

[Stanislaw]

I dont know I have to agree with Riddick, afterall they are only human.

[Scheherazade]

They are humabeings and fallible;no doubt there. However, having studied human psychology they are in a position to help us understand certain things... Of course what I am saying wouldnt make much sense if you are one of those people who would agrue that psychology is not actually a science.

[Stanislaw]

Of course what I am saying wouldnt make much sense if you are one of those people who would agrue that psychology is not actually a science.
well the art of psychology uses qualitative data not anything really measurable, only based on personall interpretation.

[Scheherazade]

well the art of psychology uses qualitative data not anything really measurable, only based on personall interpretation.

and this would be wrong/unacceptable?

They use statistics and measureable data a lot anyway...
When they collect data and do experiements...

[Stanislaw]

I suppose, but there is not a definite definition of how the human mind can be measured.

[Scheherazade]

I suppose, but there is not a definite definition of how the human mind can be measured.

We cant 'measure' literature either but that doesnt stop us from trying to understand it? Do you think critics think they are better than authors/poets?

[Stanislaw]

well they feel they have the authority to trash or support a certain book

[Scheherazade]

they are expressing their opinion, hopefully an educated and informed one...

I know counsellors and people who have benefited from talking to them. I don't think they do their job out of a feeling of superiority. They only try to be a sounding board and help out.

Should we be critising the surgeons as well because many of them do suffer from a superiority complex, feeling almost god-like. That doesnt make their job any less worthy...

[Stanislaw]

I suppose, but it is still moraly wrong, and society is elevating these people above us, making them seem superior, when infact they are just people and can screw up just as esily as the rest of us

[Scheherazade]

I dont think a psychologist is considered above other people in the society but if that is the case they shouldnt be... they are paid for providing a service after all.

[Stanislaw]

Yes, they shouldn't be but subconsiosly people place them above the average person because of their role in society.

[Scheherazade]

So it is not their fault? Going back to Riddick's comment which started this discussion :

"Basically yes, they feel that they are superior enough to judge their fellow humans. I think that is wrong"

we, ordinary people, should question ourslves about whom we place on pedastal rather than being judgemental and defensive towards who try to help us. (IMHO)

[Stanislaw]

we, ordinary people, should question ourslves about whom we place on pedastal rather than being judgemental and defensive towards who try to help us. (IMHO)

Okay, I have to agree with your statement, I suppose the question is not why they judge/help us, but why we assume that they are better than us and can actually judge/help us.

[Scheherazade]

And I agree with your statement too :D

[subterranean]

Okay, I have to agree with your statement, I suppose the question is not why they judge/help us, but why we assume that they are better than us and can actually judge/help us.

I think it's becoz judges are choosen from the community, representing various backgrounds of people, which of course with various background of values, point of view, education, cultures, etc. Now when a group of diversed people could reached a final agreement, say that the person is gulity, then perhaps we can say that this person has did someting which is considered illegal from various point of view/values/cultures/etc.

[Stanislaw]

But why do we place them above ourselves in status, and prestige, they aren't really superior, we just assume they are.

[Scheherazade]

I wonder we acatually feel the need to have someone to look up to, someone who would help us in times of stress?

[Stanislaw]

Yes I think it is human nature to place someone on a pedastool and look up to them. Something just ingraine into us from birth.

[Bongitybongbong]

:banana: Animal Farm was quick but deep.

[subterranean]

But why do we place them above ourselves in status, and prestige, they aren't really superior, we just assume they are.


do you think that doctors are not supperior than you in medical issues?

same thing goes to jurries..they're justified to represent the community in the court, so in this case they are supperior than us..

[Scheherazade]

They are knowledgable yes, but superior?

[Stanislaw]

They may be more educated in a specific area, but are they really superior, are teachers superior because they can teach. Arenintendo nerds superior because they can beat nintendo games. are soldiers superior because they can take or give life? Am I superior because I have more posts?

I think that perhaps they put more work into a specific area, but they are not superior as a whole.

[Scheherazade]

How much respect do you pay to someone because their knowledge in a specific area?

[subterranean]

both of you, i admit the jurors superiorty inside the courts, as in for they have the power to give final decision regarding a person's freedom, and this right is justified by law, which i as a citizen of a country also aceept and bind to that law and thus should respect it.

[den]

Judges and juries are appointed by their peers, we live in democratic society, it's the system `we' have developed, and I think it works fine most of the time.

Although sure, there are corrupt people in positions of power, be they doctors or politicians or teachers, but again, they've either gotten to their `pedestal' by way of the educational system and a governing body (College of Physicians and Surgeons...) or the majority have elected them.

[Stanislaw]

But not they are not superior on a whole, perhaps more learned in a specific catagory but not superior as a whole. for example I know more about model railroading than my doctor, neither of us is superior to the other, we just have different areas of expertese.

[Scheherazade]

So it would be OK to apply for your expertise regarding model railroading?

PS:Model railroading? :rolleyes:

[BSturdy]

Is model railroading where, under ideal circumstances, you forcefully impose something quite unreasonable upon others?

:brow: :brow: :brow: :brow: :brow:

e.g. I think a purple smiley has been model railroaded above my message

[Stanislaw]

So it would be OK to apply for your expertise regarding model railroading?

PS:Model railroading? :rolleyes:

so
i enjoy working with models, and designing elaborate landscapes...in a few weeks my websight will be up and you will be able to view my creatiions... still working on it though.

any ways... I know more about, perhaps I am superior in that area, but not as a whole.

[Scheherazade]

Stan,

Going waaaaaaaaay back to the reason why we started talking about superiority...
If you remember we were discussing whether psychologists had a right to 'help' others as someone had suggested that they shouldn't be doing that.

Just like your knowledge on model railroading, their knowledge of human psycholohy and problems they might face in this area is more than average person. So, it would be OK for us to apply them when we have problems with those issues?

*rests her case*

[Stanislaw]

Uh yes...was I arguing against that?... *foot in mouth*... heh heh

Uh I submit. (boy am I dumb. :blush: )

[Scheherazade]

Uh I submit. (boy am I dumb. )


A submission, eh? Is that a rhtorical question, by the way? :p

[Stanislaw]

I suppose, more like rambling out loud...

btw, arrrr I be doin no more submitting from now on! ;)

[Scheherazade]

Too late, private! :D

[Stanislaw]

arrr ye got the best o me again.

[Scheherazade]

*underlines and highlights 'again'

:D

[Stanislaw]

arrr I be learnin one o these days.

[Scheherazade]

Ah an optimistic pirate! :p

[Stanislaw]

well it be better than bein a pesmistic one now doesn't it? ;)

[Scheherazade]

Whatever you say, Cap'n! :p

[Stanislaw]

atlast people be callin me by me proper title. :D

[Scheherazade]

It always amazes me how irony and sarcasm is lost on some people :D

[Stanislaw]

are you hinting at something? :D

[Scheherazade]

*wonders if she needs a diagram too* :p

[Stanislaw]

How about sock puppets? :D

[Scheherazade]

Bees and flowers? :p

[Golding15BF]

It was a very cynical fable, and very thinly disguised as an original fable. What it really does is show the greed of humans and the ploys, such as propaganda, that humans use to get what they want. This books happens to portray the Russian Revolution, and it has one of the truest endings in a book I have read.

[MrBojangles]

'You can't give up. Did Bush give up after losing the primary election?' -- Peter Griffin, 'The Family Guy'.



Hhahahhahahahahah lol , just thought i should mention, while scanning the orwell discussion i came accross this and it made me smile :D.