Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Police try to outlaw recording of their own crimes ...

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Police try to outlaw recording of their own crimes ...
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Koveras

Joined: 09 Oct 2008

Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 7:42 pm Post subject:

THW wrote:

Sure, monarchies have advantages when run by good, competent rulers. Even Aristotle admits that monarchies are the worst form of government when poorly run.

Since the conversation has grown more earnest I think I should lay out a few caveats, distinctions, and definitions. When I said "I love monarchy" I was deliberately being ambiguous and provoking. Now I have made clear, thanks to your prodding, that I also dislike modernity, so it goes without saying that I'm not going to defend modern Absolutist monarchy. We are treating of ideals here; I don't go around day to day insisting on monarchy. So while I do uphold the monarchical principle - briefly the notion that monarchy is always the most valid constitution regardless of circumstances - I'll be taking pre-modern European monarchy as my paradigm.

First I'd like to contrast the modern state with the premodern, and second the modern Absolute monarchy with the pre-modern. The modern state is - to name a few traits - sovereignty co-extensive with defined territory; centralized; secular (not sacred); rationalistic (not traditional); technical or impersonal or contractual (I haven't decided on the single best word; in any case, not patrimonial); with regards to law, active (not passive); and most broadly, individualistic (not corporate). For now it's safe enough to simply define the pre-modern state as the opposite. With you I doubt I shall have to define these terms any further, but let me know. Absolutism is defined as the assertion that the king is unlimited, free from responsibility, and that his *personal* right to rule is God-given and indefeasible. I see a great deal of individualism in the Absolutist idea. In the Middle Ages, the Law, not the king, was supreme. In the Germanic tradition there was the Good Old Law; in the Christian, there was Positive Law. From that flowed the Noble's and Freeman's undisputed right to resist - even with violence - infringements on his customary rights. In theory, and usually in practise, in order to change laws, raise funds, make war, and really do anything other than passively uphold the law, the king had to obtain agreement from the second and third estates. The important point here is that the law did not require cooperation from the subjects, as it does in a modern state; cooperation was based on common interest or loyalty. So let's not, like Bacaspar, confuse monarchy with dictatorship.

Back to Aristotle. I do think Fox's point that Aristotle's experience was limited is reasonable, though I also think Fox (1) slightly underestimates the extent of his experience, and (2) even misconstrues its nature. As to (1): In Ancient Greece the political unit was much smaller than it is nowadays, meaning that one did not have to go so far to discover quite varied constitutions. Furthermore because Greece was comparatively globalised, Aristotle was not without knowledge of distant societies. Lastly, he was well-traveled, even compared to many people today. As to (2): Greece in Aristotle's time was well into its decline, and showed several homologies with the traits of modernity I named above, such as secularism, rationalism (in the Weberian sense), and individualism. Granted that they were not as well developed as they are now. So yes, Aristotle's experience was limited, but it was in fact limited in much the same way as his, yours, and mine is: to modernity.

Now I'm going from memory here, but I think he said that while the tyranny of one is the harshest, the tyranny of many is most common. That was either him or St. Thomas. The reason for this is again structural: a hereditary king can be good, so-so, bad, or plain ineffectual, while an elected politician is almost necessarily an unprincipled demagogue.

TWH wrote:

But honestly, for a classically educated scholar like yourself, I expected a little more. As Fox said, focusing on consumer goods is an easy target. Its also a matter of taste.

I could just as easily pick on 'fine art' and in fact the two critiques would
converge. Goods produced by expert manufacture (in the etymological sense) are at once useful and beautiful and good (meaning symbolic of The Good); this was Plato's concept of art, and one has only to visit a museum to verify it. Mass produced goods are useful, but not good nor beautiful, which is only Karmic since they are made for profit, not the good of the work; fine art is neither useful nor good, but merely aesthetic. There really should be no division between craft and art to begin with.

THW wrote:

Marketplaces are places where substantial numbers of people gather to exchange. Ideas also have their marketplace. As such, this board is actually a marketplace, even though very few products are advertised, bought, or sold here. Your focus on the marketplace of the past is making a fetish of the old, which would be absolutely fine (admirable even), if you were able to be somewhat as generous towards what modernity has to offer.

I don't idealize the past for it's own sake, but only insofar as past peoples it believed in and sometimes manifested superior ideas which for convenience's sake we can call Platonic. For the rest, I'll pm you.

THW wrote:

I am most definitely not. I see where you're coming from because I felt the same way myself after graduating from a small liberal arts college. Although I very quickly made peace with modern America because of the beauty of our written Constitution, which incorporates monarchical, democratic, and aristocratic elements in the Polybius-Machiavelli-Montesqieu tradition. This in particular may not avail you because you are Canadian (actually, I'm not sure about that).

I also know there is definitely no going back. Almost all the old monarchies were supported by aristocratic landholders. The previous two centuries demolished the old aristocrat-serf relation. What hadn't been achieved through a transition to democracy, which aristocrats like De Tocqueville saw as inevitable, would later be subsumed in a series of revolts perhaps more commonly known as the rise of Communism.

The democratic relation to property is, precisely as you say, everything is for sale. Land is rarely passed down generations, and in fact property taxes were deliberately enacted to promote the alienation of land. Modern democracy still contains its aristocracies and privileged classes, else you haven't been reading mises' posts at all. But the actual wealth is liquid and dynamic. Policy inflation, enforced by the Federal Reserve, further motivates money and wealth to productive activities.

All this recalls Karl Polanyi, who was at one point a strong influence on me. This response is both fairer and better informed than Fox's, although Fox is not altogether wrong in advancing the 'Iron Law of Oligarchy'.

The Republican constitution you champion is maybe a derivation of the traditional Indo-European tripartite state. You divide powers between judiciary, legislature, and executive, whereas the pre-modern European division was between the nobility (which included the king, although he actually transcended the divisions), the priesthood, and the commons. In some ways turning the judiciary into a power of its own seems wrong. What do you think?

And yes, I'm Canadian.

THW wrote:

There are certainly problems with the system, especially now. I say again, the United States is a limited democracy because it is a mixed Constitution, although 'progress' has surrendered the balance to favor the democratic elements, as De Tocqueville predicted it eventually would. Also, De Tocqueville was right that 'private interests' would run amok in a democracy.

Tocqueville also thought that democracy and modernity would eliminate diversity. Wait, who else argued this? Wink

Kuros wrote:

But technology advances more rapidly in limited or constitutional democracies. That's the rub. Monarchies cannot compete. One hundred years ago, it used to be a simple matter that democracies had better weaponry. The Japanese caught on almost immediately, hence the Meiji Restoration. The Chinese and Koreans caught on more slowly, and paid the price. Today, oligarchies still cannot compete (where are the monarchies?). Although they can plan for the long-term, economic needs change so fast that there is much wasted. We see this today in China (well, I believe I do, anyway). Better to trust a bottom-up system than a top-down.

That may be true. I don't know. It seems like it could be adequately explained in other ways.

Edit: Perhaps in place of technology what monarchy offers is culture. It's plain as day that modern democracies have not created, say, an architectural style that rivals Doric, Ionian, Romanesque, Gothic, Russian, or Byzantine; nor a musical style that compares favourably with older styles. This isn't a completely straightforward claim (eg. Athenian democracy was responsible for some great buildings) but there seems to be some correlation.

Last edited by Koveras on Thu Jul 15, 2010 6:53 am; edited 2 times in total

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 9:35 pm Post subject:

mises wrote:

bacasper wrote:

The Happy Warrior wrote:

Fox wrote:

The Happy Warrior wrote:

Fox wrote:

The Happy Warrior wrote:

Eh. That's a pretty weak dismissal of Aristotle.

And your post was a very weak defense of Aristotle. If you want to get into a serious debate about Aristotle and his works by hurling essays back-and-forth, just say so.

I'm open to that.

Make the case you'd like me to rebutt, then. I haven't delt with him as subject material since college, and it will be good mental exercise.

I'll make a new thread on his conception of government in the next few days.

Not on CE you won't.

What?

CE is not the place for general philosophical discussions. OTOH, I don't really care if others want to, so knock yourselves out, even if inappropriately.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:39 am Post subject:

The Real U.S. Government

Quote:

Here is their first sentence: "The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work." This all "amounts to an alternative geography of the United States, a Top Secret America hidden from public view and lacking in thorough oversight." We chirp endlessly about the Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court, the Democrats and Republicans, but this is the Real U.S. Government: functioning in total darkness, beyond elections and parties, so secret, vast and powerful that it evades the control or knowledge of any one person or even any organization.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/07/19/secrecy

^ Read that. Twice. Then read the WaPo article:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/

Quote:

Most of what the U.S. Government does of any significance -- literally -- occurs behind a vast wall of secrecy, completely unknown to the citizenry. . . . Secrecy is the religion of the political class, and the prime enabler of its corruption. That's why whistle blowers are among the most hated heretics. They're one of the very few classes of people able to shed a small amount of light on what actually takes place.

The WaPo piece paints a picture of a post-republican democracy that I don't find easy to digest.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:50 am Post subject:

I'm amused by the fact a friend of mine works for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and she was hush-hush about where the new HQ would be. Lo and behold the Post has a picture and location of the place. Good times.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:58 am Post subject:

And to elabroate some more on her work: she covers China. Nearly everyone she works with is going to retire within the next decade or so. She's concerned because all the resources and new manpower are being poured into Afghanistan/Pakistan/etc while her area is getting shafted. At least that's the case with her agency. Also, a lot these new centers really aren't needed and are far from public transporation. At least here in the DC area. A co-worker was bitching to me last week about the new DoD complex in Alexandria and how it will make her commute twice as long. Good job gov't! Perhaps it foresaw itself taking over GM

Koveras

Joined: 09 Oct 2008

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:58 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

I still don't agree with your attempt to construe modern social diversity as empty, either. You focus too much on trivialities like products, and too little on the genuine differences between people, which are plentiful. On this forum alone one can see substantial diversity of thought, and this forum is limited to a comparatively small subsection of the population (the college educated). Through that diversity of thought, we can then see diversity in ideology and culture. Even mentioning product purchases in such a context is something of a red herring.

Somehow I didn't notice this before. I've been belabouring the consumer lifestyle at the expense of the point, which is this. Real diversity isn't what people eat or wear or buy, or what their opinions are, or how they spend their leisure time. It's not about individual 'choices'. That's the liberal/multicultural notion, and it's shallow. Real diversity is seen in diverse ways of life, in psychic form, rooted in generations of tradition. It's seen in separation, inequality, mutual mistrust, and the pathos of distance. Anyone who believes in humanity and human rights, in individual emancipation, in fraternity and equality, is an enemy of real diversity.

THW says he'll start a new thread on monarchy soon. I'll respond to your other posts there.

Last edited by Koveras on Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:02 am; edited 1 time in total

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:02 am Post subject:

They disaggregate important government agencies geographically for continuance of government reasons. That's why the new NSA facility is near San Antonio etc. Reading those two articles I posted really pushes me towards the President as figurehead line of thinking.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:00 am Post subject:

mises wrote:

They disaggregate important government agencies geographically for continuance of government reasons. That's why the new NSA facility is near San Antonio etc.

Reading those two articles I posted really pushes me towards the President as figurehead line of thinking.

Why do you think anything would be different if the US was a parlimentary system?

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:12 am Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

mises wrote:

Why do you think anything would be different if the US was a parlimentary system?

I meant the George Carlin "illusion of choice" theme. Democracy as a means of control and distraction. Scratch a cynic and you'll find a disillusioned idealist.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:10 pm Post subject:

Koveras wrote:

You're half right. What you describe is a type of diversity. However, it's a primitive type, the result of humanity's natural social tendencies being filtered through its limited means and understanding. It's highly destructive nearly as often as it's beneficial, and a large part of humanity's progression through history involves our slow movement away from that primitive diversity and into real diversity (which you, in my opinion, misconstrue the nature of): individual intellectual diversity, which goes beyond merely having different ideas, and into the active generation of different values and intellectual modes of living on a person-by-person basis. In fact, it's convenient that you mentioned the word emancipation, because that's exactly what this process essentially is: emancipation from the primitive phenomenon you describe, so Man can embrace individual intellectual diversity to a progressively greater degree.

This more genuine diversity is more shallow in a sense; it can't help but be, as it's something created late in life by the adult mind, rather than something one is indoctrinated in by birth. It's also more fragile and prone to change over time. Despite that, it's by far the more valuable, both to the individual, and to society. The social features you describe (human rights, etc) don't obliterate diversity, they take a deep but primitive and (outside of primitive social conditions) valueless type of diversity and aid in replacing it with a vibrant, valuable form.

I'm happy to describe this more in depth if you care to hear it.

Koveras

Joined: 09 Oct 2008

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:41 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Koveras wrote:

You're half right. What you describe is a type of diversity. However, it's a primitive type, the result of humanity's limited means and understanding. It's highly destructive nearly as often as it's beneficial, and a large part of humanity's progression through history involves our slow movement away from that primitive diversity and into real diversity (which you dismiss as not diversity at all): individual intellectual diversity, which goes beyond merely having different ideas, and into the active generation of different values and intellectual modes of living on a person-by-person basis. In fact, it's convenient that you mentioned the word emancipation, because that's exactly what this process essentially is: emancipation from the primitive phenomenon you describe, so Man can embrace individual intellectual diversity to a progressively greater degree.

This more genuine diversity is more shallow in a sense; it can't help but be, as it's something created late in life by the adult mind, rather than something one is indoctrinated in by birth. It's also more fragile and prone to change over time. Despite that, it's by far the more valuable, both to the individual, and to society. The social features you describe (human rights, etc) don't obliterate diversity, they take a deep but primitive and valueless type of diversity and aid in replacing it with a vibrant, valuable form.

I'm happy to describe this more in depth if you care to hear it.

It's a pleasing philosophy and dazzlingly described. Sadly it can't make any claim to the Truth (those darn ancient philosophers with their meaningless jargon, eh?), because it replaces the Truth with the active generation of different values and intellectual modes of living on a person-by-person basis. In other words, it's just sophistry.

The great Tao fades away
There is benevolence and justice
Intelligence comes forth
There is great deception

If you could answer one question: given that you believe our consciousness, our will, and our ideas are byproducts of our biology, just what is the nature of this emancipation?

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:13 pm Post subject:

Double Post. Last edited by Fox on Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:38 am; edited 1 time in total

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:13 pm Post subject:

Koveras wrote:

If you could answer one question: given that you believe our consciousness, our will, and our ideas are byproducts of our biology, just what is the nature of this emancipation?

Here is a brief answer to your question, accompanied by a few other points that are required to understand the answer:

The first substance (defined as a substance whose existence is a brute fact, and which is either irreducibly simple or composed multiple irreducibly simple components) expresses its nature through layers of pattern. Each layer of pattern is increasingly diverse, and has no independent existence, but rather its existence is simply the interactions of the components of the preceding layer. Further, each layer has dominion over the components of the layer which precede it; to give examples, molecular processes demonstrate dominion over atoms, cells demonstrate dominion over molecules, organs demonstrate dominion over cells, and the mind demonstrates dominion over organs.

The two layers we are focusing on now are the human mind (which is produced by the interactions of the organs; note that the body as a concept is incidental, as a body itself is not actually more than the sum of its parts), and the following layer: human culture (that which is produced by the interaction of minds, and which has dominion over the mind). The cultures you describe are ultimately non-consentual in nature; you are born into them, indoctrinated with them, and few people are able to escape their grasps (one could even argue none do, claiming that one can only defy these cultures to the extent that one was never really a full part of them).

What issue could we take with them as such, given they are seemingly simply the next logical step in the expression of the first substance's nature? The simple answer is that they aren't perfected yet; just as a child is a human that hasn't finished developing, the cultures you describe are the same. They're limiting rather than ennabling, and more importantly, they're consumptive rather than reproductive. Preceding layers all increase diversity over time; atoms have over time shifted from simple ones to ever-more complex ones, chemical processes form ever more varied molecular formations, and organic processes are constantly increasing in diversity. Primitive cultures break this trend, destroying one another whenever they have the means (and I don't speak simply of crude warfare here, though that is one potential means of cultural obliteration).

As such, something (on the surface, at least) seems wrong; these cultures do not perfectly express the first substance's nature the way preceding layers of modality do. Something needs to change before they can do that, and that change will naturally occur over time. The answer is human emancipation from culture; individual humans not being born into a culture that they are indoctrinated into from birth and which they remain a part of for life, but rather later in life creating their own values from rational considerations and observations of the world around them, resulting in individual intellectual diversity.

This is not the actual destruction of culture, mind you; that's impossible so long as a multitude of sentient minds exists, and would be contrary to the nature of that which composes us. Individuals will still end up at times choosing similar values and putting forward similar ideas to one another, and through their interactions, culture will still exist. Rather, this is the consentualization of culture. Both the slave and the worker do work, but one is enslaved, and the other is free, and the results of their labor differ accordingly (which is why slave holding societies abandon the practice as soon as their means realistically allow it; free laborers produce better results). Likewise, consentual participants in a culture will produce a better, higher quality, less destructive culture than participants who are not emancipated. There will also be greater overall culture diversity, and greater diversity within given cultures as well, as those who incidentally choose similar values and ideas, such that they end up in the same culture, will still differ moreso than those in a primitive culture do.

This, then, is a (very) brief explanation of what such an emancipation will entail, and the end result of the process will be cultures which are ennabling rather than limiting, and reproductive rather than consumptive, because cultures no longer interact in a blind, hungry way with the world, but rather tempered by rationality, purpose, and meaning. Note that I don't consider this something that needs conscious effort to bring about; this will naturally and inevitably occur over time, barring catastrophe (such as the obliteration of the human race). Individual intellectual diversity is required for human cultures to mature into their perfected form, from which point they can eventually become sufficiently diverse to form another modal layer. It also benefits the individual and society, but these are secondary, pleasant features of it.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:18 am Post subject:

Part II in the WaPo's series on the Intelligence Community.

Today's article focuses on contractors.

Quote:

What started as a temporary fix in response to the terrorist attacks has turned into a dependency that calls into question whether the federal workforce includes too many people obligated to shareholders rather than the public interest -- and whether the government is still in control of its most sensitive activities. In interviews last week, both Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and CIA Director Leon Panetta said they agreed with such concerns.

Koveras

Joined: 09 Oct 2008

Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:45 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Koveras wrote:

If you could answer one question: given that you believe our consciousness, our will, and our ideas are byproducts of our biology, just what is the nature of this emancipation?

Here is a brief answer to your question, accompanied by a few other points that are required to understand the answer:

Thank you.

Fox wrote:

The first substance (defined as a substance whose existence is a brute fact, and which is either irreducibly simple or composed multiple irreducibly simple components) expresses its nature through layers of pattern. Each layer of pattern is increasingly diverse, and has no independent existence, but rather its existence is simply the interactions of the components of the preceding layer. Further, each layer has dominion over the components of the layer which precede it; to give examples, molecular processes demonstrate dominion over atoms, cells demonstrate dominion over molecules, organs demonstrate dominion over cells, and the mind demonstrates dominion over organs.

This is in violation of the law of sufficient reason. A teleological process can't fulfill itself at random. Something has to guide it; it must already carry within it the idea of and the impetus for the finished pattern. Even in your system intellect and will precede the first substance, rather than proceeding from it.

Fox wrote:

The two layers we are focusing on now are the human mind (which is produced by the interactions of the organs; note that the body as a concept is incidental, as a body itself is not actually more than the sum of its parts), and the following layer: human culture (that which is produced by the interaction of minds, and which has dominion over the mind). The cultures you describe are ultimately non-consentual in nature; you are born into them, indoctrinated with them, and few people are able to escape their grasps (one could even argue none do, claiming that one can only defy these cultures to the extent that one was never really a full part of them).

What issue could we take with them as such, given they are seemingly simply the next logical step in the expression of the first substance's nature? The simple answer is that they aren't perfected yet; just as a child is a human that hasn't finished developing, the cultures you describe are the same. They're limiting rather than ennabling, and more importantly, they're consumptive rather than reproductive. Preceding layers all increase diversity over time; atoms have over time shifted from simple ones to ever-more complex ones, chemical processes form ever more varied molecular formations, and organic processes are constantly increasing in diversity. Primitive cultures break this trend, destroying one another whenever they have the means (and I don't speak simply of crude warfare here, though that is one potential means of cultural obliteration).

As such, something (on the surface, at least) seems wrong; these cultures do not perfectly express the first substance's nature the way preceding layers of modality do. Something needs to change before they can do that, and that change will naturally occur over time. The answer is human emancipation from culture; individual humans not being born into a culture that they are indoctrinated into from birth and which they remain a part of for life, but rather later in life creating their own values from rational considerations and observations of the world around them, resulting in individual intellectual diversity.

This is not the actual destruction of culture, mind you; that's impossible so long as a multitude of sentient minds exists, and would be contrary to the nature of that which composes us. Individuals will still end up at times choosing similar values and putting forward similar ideas to one another, and through their interactions, culture will still exist. Rather, this is the consentualization of culture. Both the slave and the worker do work, but one is enslaved, and the other is free, and the results of their labor differ accordingly (which is why slave holding societies abandon the practice as soon as their means realistically allow it; free laborers produce better results). Likewise, consentual participants in a culture will produce a better, higher quality, less destructive culture than participants who are not emancipated. There will also be greater overall culture diversity, and greater diversity within given cultures as well, as those who incidentally choose similar values and ideas, such that they end up in the same culture, will still differ moreso than those in a primitive culture do.

This, then, is a (very) brief explanation of what such an emancipation will entail, and the end result of the process will be cultures which are ennabling rather than limiting, and reproductive rather than consumptive, because cultures no longer interact in a blind, hungry way with the world, but rather tempered by rationality, purpose, and meaning. Note that I don't consider this something that needs conscious effort to bring about; this will naturally and inevitably occur over time, barring catastrophe (such as the obliteration of the human race). Individual intellectual diversity is required for human cultures to mature into their perfected form, from which point they can eventually become sufficiently diverse to form another modal layer. It also benefits the individual and society, but these are secondary, pleasant features of it.

The people you're describing are what Nietzsche called the last men. In your emancipated world, personally-created values are acceptable only insofar as they don't clash with others; or if they do clash it is only quite politely on the verbal plane. These are not serious, active men with a vision of the Good; they're subhuman trivialities.

'Primitive cultures' aimed at a metaphysical goal. They were a channeling towards that goal. It's interesting that your ideal of emancipation is basically an inversion of that. 'Primitive cultures' knew that man has higher possibilities than self-centred rationality, and knew that only an ordered and unified psychology can attain them. Laws and what you call nonconsentual, limiting culture, afforded that order. Permissiveness and what you call emancipation are dead ends: they will not produce a better higher-quality culture, they will produce an leveled-down idiocracy. In fact they already have.

I agree that something like what you describe is happening and is inevitable. It's also inevitable that once this declining cycle finally dies out a new one will begin.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
Page 7 of 9

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe