[MD] loose change

[Stella Lindblom]

Interesting. Gene's Monday answer seemed balanced and informative - of  
High Quality, if you like. Then came his Tuesday answer which more or less  
returned to the pie throwing gengre - or, of Low Quality, if you like.  
This post is Re: the Monday post.

Den 2006-10-09 22:00:28 skrev Gene M <boredandunstable at gmail.com>:

> However if the intellectual patterns used are of low quality they
> should be supplanted and overthrown by higher quality ideas. Whether
> those patterns support the government or not, is irrelevant. The only
> important thing is that low Quality intellectual patterns be opposed
> by higher quality patterns.

I'm still asking who is to determine what is High and Low Quality  
intellectual patterns. As we are arguing about it, both being somewhat  
intellectual I believe, there is obviously nothing determining quality in  
being intellectual that answers that question. I would guess that being  
intellectual is only a basis for being able to think. If I don't have the  
correct information, intellectual capacity won't help me. So, if this is  
so, Low Quality Intellectual patterns would be anything based on Low  
Quality information, and High Quality Intellectual patterns would be based  
on High Quality information. So, what is morally right if there is only  
Low Quality information to be had?

> Since the loose change ideas are of low Quality to my perception, I  
> oppose them.

Exactly my point. Their ideas are of low quality - to you. If someone had  
used any means possible to topple a worse totalitarian regime than the  
Bush regime, say Hitler, would the same apply then? What I'm asking is "Is  
there an absolute morality or quality, or are they relative, and in that  
case to what?"

> The fact that in so doing I am essentially supporting the government is  
> not something I worry about.

So, according to that suggestive way of logic, there are only two options  
here; support of the government or support of the makers of LC. But what  
if I don't support either of them. Or both?

> I still disapprove of the government on pretty much everything
> else, just in this case, I think they're being illegitimately attacked.

In a democracy, it is ok to try to unravel things that seem to be wrong in  
some way. I have seen the film, and I don't see them attacking the  
government as much as trying to fill in blanks in the picture, and asking  
questions. What I find quite amuzing is people like you Gene, who so  
adamantly defends a power that ought to have resources enough to defend  
themselves. If LC is so obviously of Bad Quality, don't you think that  
people may decide that for themselves? The silly notion in this being that  
a power so grand and righteous as the gov would have to defend themselves  
at all. So why isn't it ok to ask questions and describe reality in any  
other way than the officially correct one in this particular case? I also  
think that LC is based on spurious and indicative - Low Quality -  
information, but what else is there to obtain? Some of the material that  
would give substance and credibility to the governments allegations is  
withheld. And I'm not talking about matter of state security. I'm merely  
referring to simple things, like the tapes from the Pentagon crash for  
instance. What is the reason to withhold them?

> Bad ideas are always Bad Ideas, regardless of their context.

Define "Bad". An idea cannot be anything _regardless_ of context - it's  
_all_ about context. But that is in my world.


My initial question still stands.

/S

-- 
Stella Lindblom
Ransby 126
686 97 LYSVIK
0565-803 88 / 070-692 14 82
www.bonadomo.se