Message from Jeremy in Athens #piraeus_politics_news
Alive and well in this channel.
Why would I not be
Don't analyze it too much.
How's your day unfolding, my friend?
@Boop / 브파 / C'thUwU, freedom of speech has been around for some time. 😄
I'm working rn, you?
I'm just going over some financial spreadsheets, brewing some more coffee and catching up on my lack of cancer in-take for the past 6 hours.
What do you have going on over there, as it relates to your occupation?
Time to roll out the guillotine
This whole anti-Brexit (i.e. anti-democracy) thing should be made unconstitutional
What a waste of tax dollars
`Should the party not win the election, it would then go back to supporting a second referendum and campaigning to remain.`
If you won't want us doing the thing, we'll do the thing anyway. <:thinkgon:560211224923734026>
The interbred, more of a Marxist cast, @Xaverius. I'd argue for their dropping of "liberal," given they're nothing akin to Locke.
I hear Kafka is spinning in his grave
Only to the extent by which entities must be restricted from infringing upon it. I'd consider myself radically anti-collectivist.
I'm very much on board with that
Morally radical individualism, pragmatically eh, gotta roll with the punches
I thought you would be, given your past remarks. You seemed to advocate for individualism in our previous discussion, which my reflections are modeled to serve that model. So, I'd consider myself a Classical Liberal, who has adopted Objectivist philosophy along my journey.
I'm sure you're familiar with Ayn Rand.
Indeed, ET. Pragmatism is a necessity to prevent an accidental subversion of your intent.
I'm somewhat familiar with Ayn Rand's objectivism, although I don't fully subscribe to it
Thus, that's where you can find yourself in conflict with the isms.
I believe a distinction between idea and reality should be made, because survival and utopia are two different battlefields
There's the war for heaven, and there's the war against hell, which I believe is not the same thing
Why do men abandon their principles so easily when they face hell, but hold them up when they see heaven in their reach?
Especially true in the fields of economics, when both egalitarian and utilitarian values are best served by leaving the individual to their own devices.
Well, the Milgram Experiment might have a lot to say about that, ETBrooD. But, that is a rather broad question.
The common conclusion to this experiment is bunk
Never trust when science becomes dogma
It is true that perceived authority does make people push others or themselves too far, or not act even when their moral code or their emotional state tells them to act. However, this experiment doesn't prove that, because it's far too unscientific.
To this day the field of psychology suffers from poor science like this. A lot of misconceptions.
It's unscientific, because Williams gave an additional 25 commands in totality, spread across all subjects, to administer additional shocks? That was the purpose of the experiment, after all, to see if these individuals would abandon their ethic at the will of an authoritative figure, and they did so, under far less strain than what the experiment has been cited for as an explanation for the behavior of individuals tried at Nuremberg, of which a family member of mine was subject. His improvising, highly limited in scope to verbal commands which was part of the script, are far less than what you can account for the pressure imposed by authority figures during any notable genocide throughout history. Certainly, the rate would've been 100%, if under the threat of death or a fear of losing loved ones. Don't you believe your logic is flawed, accounting for this? I've listened to the recordings, myself, while expanding upon the experiment with theories of my own, though they'll likely never be tested.