[spam] Re: Traffic rules

[From Rick Marken (2006.11.21.1745)]

Kenny Kitzke (2006.11.21.1909EST)

Mike Acree (2006.11.21.1030 PST)

CONTROLLED CHAOS

European Cities Do Away with Traffic Signs

Dare we assume that people can "behave" responsibly without Big Brother being their schoolmaster?

I certainly assume that. But I didn't know you did. I thought you believed that there had to be a Big Brother in the sky acting as the schoolmaster; the one who made the signs that say things like "Don't eat the shellfish" and "Danger: Homosexuals ahead":wink:

Actually, it isn't traffic rules per se that are removed, it is just the plethora of traffic signs.

Exactly. People are still controlling for rules and they have to have whatever signs are necessary to follow those rules. We can't follow the rules at intersections, for example, without having traffic lights. If you want to get rid of traffic slights, for example, you have to organize traffic in a a way that makes unnecessary, as in a roundabout.

There is a difference, I think, between wanting to reduce the number of traffic signs and wanting to eliminate them completely. Wanting to reduce the number of traffic signs because so many are distracting, confusing, incoherent or eyesore, seems like a reasonable goal. Wanting to eliminate all traffic signs because of a belief that there should be no externally imposed rules on oneself seems, well, childish. If you've ever come to a busy intersection during a power failure you'll know that traffic signs can be your friend.

Is there any possibility of this happening in America with a Democratic controlled Congress?

No, I think the Democrats show every sign of being responsible members of society. They'll keep the signs, though I hope they work to improve their functionality so that whatever signs they make (like the tax laws) help the whole community, not just a tiny subset thereof.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

[From Kenny Kitzke (2006.11.22)]

<Rick Marken (2006.11.21.1745)>

Dare we assume that people can “behave” responsibly without Big
Brother being their schoolmaster?

<I certainly assume that. But I didn’t know you did. I thought you
believed that there had to be a Big Brother in the sky acting as the
schoolmaster; the one who made the signs that say things like “Don’t
eat the shellfish” and “Danger: Homosexuals ahead”;-)>

Oh, do agree that whether there is a Big Brother in Washington, DC, Sacremento, California or in the sky, us autonomous control systems still make our own rules?

It turns out that I don’t eat oysters…I don’t like 'em. So, go ahead, eat my ration. And, I generally don’t like homosexuals much either. I prefer women. Are you in favor of a law or signs that say I have no right to choose what I like in these regards?

[From Rick Marken (2006.11.22.1010)]

Kenny Kitzke (2006.11.22)--

Oh, do agree that whether there is a Big Brother in Washington, DC, Sacremento, California or in the sky, us autonomous control systems still make our own rules?

I think you are asking if I agree that it's us who make the rules and I do agree. But some people make believe that a big brother in the sky made (or endorses) certain rules so that those are the _real_ rules. Thus, the big brother in the sky is used by some people to give cachet to hat amount to their prejudices and hatreds. People have used one of the rule books presumably written by the big kahuna in the sky (the Bible) to justify genocide (of Canaanites by Jews and of Jews by Christians) and other obscenities. I think all decent people should spend a part of every day protesting the use of myths about rules endorsed by mythical beings to justify war, genocide, prejudice, hatred and ignorance.

At least the rules made by the big brothers in Washington and Sacremento are understood to be the work of humans. And in a nicely organized society (like ours is becoming once again) people can evaluate the rules (policies) and see if they are working out in terms of agreed on social results, such as the reduction of child poverty or increased access to education. But it's hard because every society has a surprisingly large number of people who believe that rules should be made based on what is written in ancient texts. For those people, the consequences of any rule are less important than the fact that the rule exists. Decency will always have a struggle against such folks. But it gives us liberals something to do while we're here.

It turns out that I don't eat oysters...I don't like 'em. So, go ahead, eat my ration.

So you follow that rule because it's irrelevant to you. I hope you don't particularly care for killing, stealing or making sculpture (graven images), either;-)

And, I generally don't like homosexuals much either. I prefer women.

What about homosexual women?

Why don't you like homosexual men, though? I like them a lot! I have several homosexual male friends who I adore, not least because I virtually never have any problems with them hitting on my wife;-)

Are you in favor of a law or signs that say I have no right to choose what I like in these regards?

Yes. I am in favor of laws that prevent you from exercising your right to chose to hurt other people just because those people are not to your taste. Big signs!!

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

[From Kenny Kitzke (2006.11.22.1800EST)]

<Rick Marken (2006.11.22.1010)>

<I think you are asking if I agree that it’s us who make the rules and I
do agree.>

Perhaps we should quit while we are ahead? I think this is the way people look through PCT glasses.

The rest is your view of the way you think people should behave (believe and act). That is not discerned through PCT science.

Not everyone shares your view. Neither do I. You and I debating our views seems futile in terms of changing the perceived reality in the USA.

But, your one comment is so funny that I can’t let it go.

And, I generally don’t like homosexuals much either. I prefer women.

<What about homosexual women?>

You gotta be kiddin! Of course, it’s all imagination. I have never tried one of them, so I can’t be too dogmatic. How about you?

And, just for you, what about a homosexual yew? 8-))

[From Rick Marken (2006.11.22.1850)]

Kenny Kitzke (2006.11.22.1800EST)

Rick Marken (2006.11.22.1010)>

I think you are asking if I agree that it's us who make the rules and I
do agree.

�
Perhaps we should quit while we are ahead?� I think this is the way people look through PCT glasses.

No. That's the way people look at things when their heads are up their asses. Sounds similar but really quite different;-)

The rest is your view of the way you think people should behave (believe and act).� That is not discerned through PCT science.

I count only one sentence where I volunteer my view of the way I think people should behave. I said "I think all decent people should spend a part of every day protesting the use of myths about rules endorsed by mythical beings to justify war, genocide, prejudice, hatred and ignorance". But most of the post is my view of different ways people develop and justify rules. You may not agree with it but it is informed by my understanding of PCT.

You and I debating our views seems futile in terms of changing the perceived reality in the USA.

Who knows. We definitely can't change things if we don't talk about them.

�But, your one comment is�so funny that I can't let it go.
�

And, I generally don't like homosexuals much either.� I prefer women.�

What about homosexual women?

You gotta be kiddin!� Of course,�it's all imagination.� I have never tried one of them, so I can't be too dogmatic.� How about you?

Oh, I see. I was supposed to understand that you didn't like having sex with homosexual _men_. So its not that you don't like homosexual men, it's just that you don't like having sex with them. I can see why you turn to the Bible for your rules; there's no telling when us godless liberals will make a rule saying that you have to have sex with homosexual men. So if you don't dislike homosexual men I presume you believe that they should be accorded the same respect as a presumably heterosexual man like yourself? (I say presumably because you really can tell with Republicans anymore, can you;-))

�And, just for you, what about a�homosexual yew?�8-))

If you're asking if I would like to have sex with a homosexual ewe (of either sex) then I'd give that a no.

If you are asking whether I would like (as a friend) a homosexual Jew (of either sex), then I would say that that would depend on whether he or she is a believing Jew. If he or she is a believer, then no, I wouldn't like him or her because I've pretty much had it with people who beleieve in organized religions. If you're asking if I would like to have sex with such a person then, no on the guy but yes on the lady (if she's a non-believing Jew and VERY hot and Linda gave me permission;-). But I wouldn't care if anyone else wanted to have sex with either of them or marry them. I'd just lose all respect for anyone who would give the time of day to such a person (male or female Jewish homosexual) if he or she were a believer;-)

Bill Powers once told me that he thought that the root of all human problems is belief. I believe he may have a point;-)

Best

Rick

···

---
�Richard S. Marken Consulting
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400