>Zoroastrianism is the true wellspring of all [western] faith in "ethical behavior".

Huh? Abraham is 1700 BCE probably, Moses is 1300 BCE, and Jews don't have intimate contact with Zoroasterianism until about 500 BCE., when they are exiled in Babylon. There I think they pick up the ideas of heaven and hell, the end of days, resurection. None of these are in the Torah, which is fully written down by 1000 BCE roughly, the time of King David. The focus on ethics was there way before the Babylonian exile, and the ethical ideas from Abraham and Moses continue in Rabbinic Judaism, then subsequently Christianity and Islam.

If you know some other history give me the references.

> There I think they pick up the ideas of heaven and hell, the end of days, resurection.

Yeah, the small stuff. And of course not related to ethics at all.

hhp

>not related to ethics at all.

Actually these are mainly theological, and don't have to do really with the content of ethics. In the history of Judaism, Jews only adopted the idea of resurrection at the time of Chanukah, in 165 BCE, because it was obvious that good and pious people were getting martyred rather than getting the earthly rewards promised in the Torah. So they bought the whole heaven-hell end of days & resurrection package.

The influence of this is in my opinion decidedly mixed. On one hand it may have helped to push the idea that we should try to make a better world on earth - one variation on the messianic idea. On the other hand, the whole black and white way of thinking leads to fanaticism. It became Manichaeism, which influenced Christianity much more, with the idea of the Devil as an independent actor causing harm, and other ideas.

Abraham and especially Moses were already social reformers seeking a more just society, so I tend to think that the Zoroasterian influence (if it is that, as historians don't agree) is largely bad.

Next post will be on topic!

> black and white way of thinking leads to fanaticism.

Hmmm. That's so unlike what we're living through now. And of course seeing yourself as the Chosen People promotes great harmony with the rest of the world... It seems you still have a lot to learn from Zoroastrianism. On the other hand there's a big problem with Zoroastrianism, one that would greatly inconvenience Madonna, Whoopi Goldberg and Whitney Houston: you have to born into it from both parents; this endangers its survival immensely. But of course one can't expect perfection: every religion has its quaint little (and sometimes disasterous huge) idiocies.

William, if you ever decide to get into graphics for real, I have the perfect name for your studio:
Denial by Design

hhp

>. . . seeing yourself as the Chosen People . . .<

What is that supposed to mean?

> John could have predicted it would happen.

Predicted?! If he weren't in Prague right now he'd be running the show! :-)

hhp

>What is that supposed to mean?

Chris, that is just Hrant being tiresome. I am Jewish, and he has to throw that in as an insult. If I were Christian he would attack me for being religious; if I were flippant, he would insult me for not being serious. If I were serious, he would attack me for being stuffy.

By the way, the concept of being chosen in Judaism is that the Jewish people, having received the Ten Commandments and other ethical instructions, have a special obligation to ethical behavior--not that we are superior to others because we are Jews.

Back on topic:

>Pro Bono or non-profit work

Jered, I think that is an beautiful idea, the best thing in this thread. It is a tradition in other professions, such as law and medicine, and would just be wonderful if designers would make it a small portion of their work.

> not that we are superior to others because we are Jews.

Freeform, convenient, politically-correct personal interpretation.
In any case, don't forget: you must acquire and own the Promised Land!

Here's some ethics for you: respect your living neighbor more than your dead ancestors.
If only because the former can make your life miserable while the latter can't.

Have the courage and clairvoyance to rely on your common sense of decency more than what other people said and wrote ages ago.

What one happens to believe is less important than how one treats fellow humans.
Compromise, compromise, compromise - always - but only to benefit humanity.

--

William, I only attack you for one reason: being anti-humanity.

I think the best thing you could do to grow spritually is go live there (or really anywhere outside the cocoon), so you can feel the humanity on your skin.

hhp

I think the Chosen People comment comes from a sense that the Christian Identity movement is well and alive in America.

In this way of thinking, Americans are the new chosen people. America's enemies are God's enemies, evildoers if you like.

It is a way or organizing the least educated of the population to march in step. It appeals to the worst aspects of humanity, and you end up with a population that thinks it is moraly superior while exhibiting moraly inferior or even sociopathic characteristics.

> In this way of thinking, Americans are the new chosen people.

That is in fact another aspect of the same problem.

hhp

On the issue of the effect of international corporations in poor countries, which a number of posters have expressed concerns about:

The demand from poor countries themselves is to open up freer trade. The heavy agriculture subsidies are killers, as they undercut farmers in poor countries. Contrary to his express free trade words, Bush hypocritically re-imposed hugh subsidies to US agriculture, which will break farmers in poor countries. Europe is even worse in its protectionism, cruelly opressing its neighbors by such policies.

Similarly, textiles are historically the first item in industrialization, and the first step up for a poor country. There is no excuse for the abominable working conditions that often take place in poor countries, but this is no excuse for the trade barriers that rich countries have put up.

The WTO, in other words, is not the enemy of progress toward a more prosperous and just world. It is rather the rich countries imposing trade barriers, and the bandit governments of very many poor countries, who are the main forces keeping them poor.

>I only attack you for one reason: being anti-humanity.

Hrant, I expressed no animus against any person or people. I only disagreed with you, which doesn't make me either against you or against humanity. You owe me an apology.

The big problem is that we're pushing free trade but not fair trade. Free trade is inevitable as the planet shrinks. Fair trade is something humans actually need to care about.

William, I'm not basing my views on this one thread, but on the aggregate of the sociopolitical opinions you've voiced on Typophile over the past year-and-a-half.

That said, I have to admit that I don't yet know enough to have made such a stark statement, so I apologize for seeming so conclusive about you. On the other hand, you have yet to show an understanding of what humanity needs, and that's disturbing to me, and insulting to all the miserable people on this earth. Just my opinion? Of course - like anything else.

hhp

>I apologize for seeming so conclusive about you.

Thanks, Hrant, I appreciate it.

>you have yet to show an understanding of what humanity needs

Well we just disagree about that. One of us is wrong, or both of us, but I think we both want a better world. I understand from your postings that you think that democracy and a market economy are the worst, that communism is next best, and that monarchy is still better.

I think the other way around. I think that monarchies have been around since the beginning of recorded history, and have been and are still today proven failures in helping the poor. And I think that the world tremendously improved both in prosperity and humane treatment when democracy and market economies came in. Of course every historical change has its evils, but on balance these developments have been a great blessing to humanity.

Most of the world, including it seems those living in non-democratic countries, seem to agree with me in preferring mixed economies (market moderated by welfare safety net) together with democratic checks and balances. It doesn't make me right, but I am not exactly someone with an unusual view that is especially wicked.

I understand from your postings that you think that democracy and a market economy are the worst, that communism is next best, and that monarchy is still better.


communism / monarchy is like the dinosaurs. dinosuars had their shot and nature selected them for extinction"

...an understanding of what humanity needs,...

And how many/few valid opinions exist regarding this issue? And who will tell me (please) which of them is/are right?

In another thread (whose address I am sadly unable to remember and link), it seemed generally agreed that appreciating an individual for his/her own worth is superior to judging the individual based on his/her ethnic or geopolitical background.

While I may not have read all of his posts, billyb does not at all seem �inhuman� to me... but it is not a shock that his background is at odds with that of hhp.

cheers,
Dana

AAArrrrrrgggghhhh...

I'm having to type this with my nose...and it hurts.

As soon as I read the last few posts I had to tie my fingers together so I wouldn't get drawn in...then I find out that I can type with my nose!

Hopefully the pain will soon be great enough to stop me from typing anymore...with luck before I run out of waffle and begin to address those comments

Arrgh...The thing about the monarchy/communism statement is...oh, I'm passing out...

William, what you consistently and conveniently ignore is that most people don't have the will nor the ability to consider macroeconomic issues - they're simply trying to eke out a living. They have the sense not to trust the powers that be to look after them. And they're not qualified to consider matters of state anyway (they're qualified to repair shoes or serve food), and most of them have the sense to know that. It is mostly in the West that the illusion of individual relevance to society is so strikingly enforced. Why? Because a watertight system has been built, and when you give people the illusion of power they're a lot less likely to overturn it. Voting, freedom of speech, mandatory public education of children, television, the whole thing is rigged to produce and maintain servile, oblivious peons.

What the oppressed masses of people want in this world is something very basic they don't have: being treated decently. Your system is making things worse for most people, not better. And the few that it makes things better for, it shields from a realization of its inhumanity, lest their sense of decency causes problems.

Back off from destroying the world, otherwise you'll get your due in the end, one way or another. You cannot overpower Nature, including the nature of the human spirit.

> And who will tell me (please) which of them is/are right?

Only one person: you.

> appreciating an individual for his/her own worth is superior to judging
> the individual based on his/her ethnic or geopolitical background.

Indeed. Discriminating against an individual is racism, which is unfair and damaging. But making observations about groups of people (for example that Armenians are more conservative than the French), and even acting on them, is not racism. In fact, it's natural, and the only way forward. Otherwise you're stuck in a relativist world where nobody is responsible for their actions.

Cultures create and maintain values, and these can be conducive to the health of humanity as a whole, or not. Fear of pointing out problems in certain cultures (like the American gluttony) is exactly what the system wants you to feel. And just in case you're a brave person, you'll never get your views aired in the mainstream anyway. And you can't even complain about that, because you have no Formal Proof (a requirement for credibility in western culture) of media bias (and even if you did you could never publicize it), and because anyway you have freedom of speech, right?... Anybody can say anything they want, and they feel better, reducing the chances for action. Nevermind that you can only ever say it to a few hundred people at most. When you think about it, dissent is essentially undemocratic.

> nature selected them for extinction

Nature? Democracy is the most unnatural of systems.

All that is old will be new again. But of course the masses will continue the think that the dormant systems are "extinct", that their society is always gradually improving (nevermind that the 20th century was the worst in humankind), that their system is the best there ever was. Why? Because people believe what you tell them, and through the media the system conveys self-aggrandizement, to maintain stability.

When you vote in the US, you're part of the problem - it's that simple. The absolute least I can do for humanity is not vote - not to go through the motions of this murderous juggernaut.

hhp

> When you vote in the US, you're part of the problem - it's that > simple. The absolute least I can do for humanity is not vote - not to > go through the motions of this murderous juggernaut.

Choosing not to vote is just plain irresponsible. Especially considering the consequences.

Not voting is part of the problem. That is pretty much why we are where we are.

"Choosing not to vote is just plain irresponsible. Especially considering the consequences."

Eh. There is a reason we have such poor voter turnout in the US. It's not apathy as much as futility. We're really not a democracy anymore (not that we technically ever were). We're really a corporate run society. We're as different as monarchy's as we maybe like to think. Our Monarch tends to be a logo rather than a person, that's all. (Of course, you could also equate the Bush family as a clear Monarchy, but we'll save that for another debate...)

Voting certainly can change things...namely at the local level. But voting really doesn't accomplish a whole lot at the national level. Not until we seriously change things.

Er...NOT as different...

Vote with your money first. It is the most power you will ever have.

Then vote with your mind by not being silent.

>Choosing not to vote is just plain irresponsible. Especially considering the consequences.

I agree. Voting is a civic duty. It will make a big difference whether Bush or Kerry is elected. And, as James says, vote with your money. Give money to the Democrats. Advertising against the Bush Mendacity Machine is essential.

Vote Kerry!

I'm talking about vetting every product you buy and every stock you purchase.

Buy Conoco gas if they invest in double-wall tankers. And use as little fuel as possible.

Don't buy packaging, buy food, preferrably grown close to where you live. Grow it yourself.

Buy from the smallest and most ethical producers. No Kraft cheese. Try some Vella from California.

I'm talking about every bloody penny.

Be your own wealth distribution machine.

Discriminating against an individual is racism, which is unfair and damaging. But making observations about groups of people... and even acting on them, is not racism. In fact, it's natural, and the only way forward.

What if the observation upon which one acts is erroneous? What if someone �observes� repeated instances of members of an identifiable group participating in objectionable activities. Should he/she act towards all individuals of that group as if those individuals were perpetrators of the objectionable actions?

Otherwise you're stuck in a relativist world where nobody is responsible for their actions.

How can holding some individual reponsible for the perceived actions of a much larger group make the individual more responsible? I think that associating people (or one�s self) with the beliefs of a larger group allows for an escape from responsibility. I�ve known folks, self-proclaimed as quite devout, who could be very thoughtless in their dealings with other people... when asked about their motivation, the reply (simplified but essentially accurate) is �...don�t need to worry; I am already forgiven�.

I�ll stick with appreciating individuals on their own merits, rather than the dogmas of their political party, religion, ethnic background, job description or wealth.

cheers,
Dana

> What if the observation upon which one acts is erroneous?

Do you always stay indoors because you might get hit by a car?
You never really know anyway. You just have to use your heart and mind to make decisions. Inaction is inhuman.

> Should he/she act towards all individuals of that group as if those
> individuals were perpetrators of the objectionable actions?

Act not towards the individuals, but towards the group, yes. But groups are necessarily made up of individuals, so you end up having to act through individuals, right? Well yes, that's just life. The alternative is worse.

No individual exists outside of his societies. Thinking that is an escape.

If you're strong enough, you will do something on the order of Rachel Corrie. I know I'm not.

hhp

Do you always stay indoors because you might get hit by a car?*

No... but then I don�t take control of a car without the ability to drive it safely. I won�t assume that I can drive without instructions and practice... and I won�t assume that I can know an individual by knowing generalities about his/her �group�. The alternative is worse.

*oh, and thanks a lot... I was just getting over my paranoia and, up to now, had been looking over my shoulder much less for runaway, out-of-control cars.

cheers,
Dana

Give money to the Democrats.

William - I'm not sure about that. And I'm not going to give my money to Bush.

why to give them money? what they're going to do with the money?

more ads? that is waste of the money!!!

I donate every month +- $500 - almost 50 organizations (Black, Jewish, Arabs, kids, women, aids, cancer - you name it). One of them - with only $35 - can buy food for a week!!! (of course, for 1 person)

If Bush or Kerry is going to do that - I'm going to give them my money.




> nature selected them for extinction

Nature? Democracy is the most unnatural of systems.

"nature", "extinction" - not the literal way, of course. We like to call it: Progress. Where and how.....this is another thread.


Grow it yourself.

hey, James. I'm doing that. pure fun. too bad that i can't email you a watermelon i have a lot




The thing about the monarchy/communism statement is...oh, I'm passing out..


the order is: communism/monarchy


I'm having to type this with my nose...and it hurts.

i just hope that you know how to keep your nose clean.

Dana, I think maybe the core mistaken assumption you're making is that action could possibly hurt somebody (if it's based on erroneous ideas) while inaction at least is safe. I think the latter is untrue.

To continue the automotive analogy:
Let's say there's somewhere you have to get to, and the only way to get there in time is to drive that car, even though you've only seen it done and have never driven before yourself. If it's a critical situation (as I think it is now), then you get in and you try to figure the thing out.

hhp

action could possibly hurt somebody (if it's based on erroneous ideas) while inaction at least is safe.

What I believe, and what I have tried (apparently with little success) to say, is that personal action, being so undeniably vital, is most successful when based on an appreciation of a person�s qualities rather than the qualities of a person�s �group�.

cheers,
Dana

a late post to this discussion, but trying to claw it back on track...

first i totally agree with what jared posted above -- i share a a lot of what he had to say

i remember when i was an undergraduate at reading and we had a lecture from michael twyman. he asked us 'who wouldn't you work for?'. out of the 25 students in the year, only about 5 of us had thought about this issue already and engaged in a discussion. the rest of the group just sat there -- their concern was getting a job and not what their personal ethics were. this has always stuck with me.

at my first job (text matters) i found a place that had ethics rather than just looking for a quick buck. at one point, before i started working there, the staff decided that they didn't want to pitch for a project as they didn't believe that the organisation was just. pro-bono work was common place.

now runing my own studio, i try (with my partner) to take on pro-bono work where possible. we have a 'charity' day rate for those organisations that would benefit from our skills but cannot afford our normal rate. we do work for 'big business' on occasions. but not for the likes of mcdonalds, gap, nike etc. we only do it where we can make a difference (and it allows us to still eat and keep a roof over our heads while we help out charities and not-for-profit groups.

just my 2p...

{The "political overflow" thread is closed, so...}

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3732718.stm
Just like Ice-T said: "Freedom of speech! Just watch what you say..."

hhp