FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Discussion ABOUT “State your Poly Philosophy! 1000 FRIH$”





The Philosopher Princess
{EDITED-IN ANNOUNCEMENT}

Arrow Current news: The contest is officially over. The awards have been presented. These sibling topics are now open for further political philosophy discussion. But they are no longer being as closely facilitated or monitored as before. (See why, here.) (Staff is always around, though. Wink) Nevertheless, please keep up the high-quality standards of discussion. Readers and T.P.P. will appreciate it. Very Happy

{THIS TOPIC}

This is a subordinate (but very important) sibling topic, whose main sibling topic is located in the Religion and Philosophy forum here: State your Political Philosophy! (1000 FRIH$ to the best!).

The contest is fully described in the main topic. That is where your most serious posts on politics and philosophy go.

This topic here is where you may discuss things such as FRIH$, questions about how the contest is being run, questions on how to enter, and really anything on the contest that may not be as serious as is needed over there.
NjRocket
i made my submission Smile, first one actually, when will this be over?
tamilparks
yes tell me when the contest is over or upto how many days its going on so that only we can prepare......
The Philosopher Princess
Thanks, NjRocket, smartass.id.au, and MadeinIndia for your entries! Very Happy

tamilparks wrote:
yes tell me when the contest is over or upto how many days its going on so that only we can prepare......

Since I am seeking quality of competition over speed, I don’t know when it will be over, but I’ll make announcements along the way here. You’ll have time to prepare Smile. I’ll give at least 3 days’ notice about the deadline for an entry. Okie dokie?
~~~~~~~~~~
I’d like to encourage people to post, here, the names of the Frihosters whom we would expect to have a good entry over there. These would be people who aren’t shy about speaking their opinions on various issues of politics and what the laws should be, and thus would surely have a political philosophy of some sort guiding them.

Names that come to my mind -- just without doing a thorough search -- people I’ve run into on pertinent topics -- are (in alphabackwards order):

Vrythramax
Soulfire
smalls
S3nd K3ys
rwojick
ocalhoun
nopaniers
mike1reynolds
lyndonray
lib
JoeFriday
horseatingweeds
HoboPelican
DoctorBeaver
Bondings
blackheart
Arnie
alkady


Would any of you care to write us up something of political principles, credo, etc.? I name names here not to put any hard pressure on these people (especially if they’re not interested) but to show in public that I have genuine interest in what they might come up with for us. I am sure there would be many more if I searched, but these came to me off-hand.

Who else do we all run into on the forums whom we’d like to see give us a form of their political philosophy?
NjRocket
cool, did you like mine? I think it covered everything, if anything should be added, let me know.
Arnie
You sure got a tough topic for us now! No more holidays here, so little time - but I may write something in the weekend.
Rico
Manure is probably the most valuable substance known to man. Not as shiny as gold, nor as sweet-smelling as a freshly primed virgin but it assures next seasons breakfasts. It proliferates from the digestive systems of both cows and the mouths of men. (Men being a collective term for the species in toto. That means women and even royalty may decree boolsheet per occasion). Nevertheless it’s valuable, within lies the power of life and death. How do FRIH$ compare to this?
The Philosopher Princess
Alright, Indi! I’m glad you showed up over on the main topic. That’s the kind of questioning and challenging I’d like to see each entrant get from one or more people, so that they can have a chance to expand our understanding of what they’re presenting. Thanks, Indi, and if you have time for more, that’d be great.
~~~~~~~~~~
NjRocket wrote:
cool, did you like mine? I think it covered everything, if anything should be added, let me know.

Yes, I like yours! I notice there are some questions for you to consider Wink. I hope you’ll have time to write us some more.
~~~~~~~~~~
Arnie wrote:
You sure got a tough topic for us now! No more holidays here, so little time - but I may write something in the weekend.

Sounds good!
~~~~~~~~~~
Rico wrote:
How do FRIH$ compare to this?

I guess that’s a rhetorical question? Considering my comments on your comments over there, are you sure you wouldn’t like to add/merge the above to what you have there and create a full entry? If FRIH$ don’t matter to you, maybe the personal challenge would. Smile
Rico
I don’t like talking about politics that much, my experience with
government and politics has never been pleasant. It started the first
time I was institutionalized in grade one. Here I am expected to jump
through a bunch of hoops, and the person put in control of is
in a paradigm of a sexually frustrated 35 year old that let herself go
so that she looks 50 and she predominantly works with kids that have
no power base at home because they’re orphans. This lovely woman
would terrorize these poor kids to gratify her own twisted ego. One
day she made a girl pee herself, refusing to let her to go to the loo.
On another occasion she sewed a boy’s pockets closed and paraded
him in front off the class crying with embarrassment, so that she could
gloat.

That was 1969. Nothing good has happened between then and now.
There’s enough nasty to write a 30 000 word novel about it. If you don’t
mind I don’t to want remember why I hate government, I’d rather stick
to subjects that I perceive to fall into my sphere of influence.

And about the FRIH$. I choose not living for tomorrow.
Great party though!
The Philosopher Princess
{CONTEST ANNOUNCEMENTS}

I should say directly that:

(1) Until the deadline for contest entries has been reached, I will not be thinking about how I might judge. I am leaving myself as open as possible on the judging until that time, and then I will consider everything together. While I am reading everything posted, I am only doing so very lightly and without comparison between the entries. After the deadline, I will look at everything deeply and thoroughly to see how the contest criteria has been met.

(2) Judging will not be based on the writings of any challenging non-entrants. Instead, it will be based (partly) on the entrants’ responses to the questions and challenges. So, even if questions and challenges might be “unequal” (e.g., more or less difficult, probing, or voluminous) to the different contestants, the judging will still be only on what the entrants offer.

For example, Indi is questioning some, I might question some, and maybe another person will show up to question some -- but when I get to the judging part, I will use our questioning only to set context of how to understand the entries.

(3) Keep in mind that the questioning and challenging for any one person might very well be applicable to more, if not all, persons.

(4) I do hope the entrants will give some responses to questioning.

(5) If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, for other notes.

I’m glad to see the new entry by Bikerman and the questions and challenges to smartass.id.au by Indi. Thanks!
~~~~~~~~~~
Rico wrote:
That was 1969. Nothing good has happened between then and now.
There’s enough nasty to write a 30 000 word novel about it. If you don’t
mind I don’t to want remember why I hate government, I’d rather stick
to subjects that I perceive to fall into my sphere of influence.

I hear you loudly and, I believe, very clearly. Thank you for your “testimony” to let us know where you’re coming from -- figuratively and literally.

I consider your one post over there to be a contest entry unless you let me know you don’t wish that.
~~~~~~~~~~
Rico wrote:
And about the FRIH$. I choose not living for tomorrow.
Great party though!

Dancing
rwojick
So, you will be making up the rules as we go along, the criteria is mostly hidden, and there are more than one person doing the Judging and we have never seen them before. Cool.

I think I have an unfair advantage here in that I am from New York State. They have been making up the rules since I dropped in years ago. Anyways, I like Politics just fine so this should be fun...
The Philosopher Princess
You are amusing and engaging, and I thank you for that Smile.

rwojick wrote:
So, you will be making up the rules as we go along, the criteria is mostly hidden,

In almost all, if not all, cases where humans are judging, the rules are hidden to much greater degrees than most people realize. (This is actually one of my areas of great interest, and I plan to eventually expose to the public some of the maybe-not-hidden-but-little-known workings of rules.) Yes, rules can be seemingly more or less objective, but even the seemingly most objective set of rules will still be subjective. And many times, what appears to be objective actually is not.

Example: Whoever solves “the” math problem first wins. Seems very objective since the answer is provable and repeatable. Yet there’s the subjective judgment of “first”. One person wrote it on a piece of paper and turned it in but another shouted it out first. But another person claims they thought of it before those 2 people, saying, “The rule was we had to solve it first; you didn’t say anything about telling you first.”

No matter how seemingly specified an “objective” set of rules are, there will always be the edges where it’s a gray area and human subjective judgment comes in.

As another thinking exercise, consider which of the following situations any of us would rather participate in:
(1) the rules seem very objective, but the human judge(es) have been known to be unfair (given our definition of unfair)
(2) the rules seem somewhat subjective, but the human judge(es) have a strong reputation of being fair, reasonable, etc. (given our definitions of those concepts).

rwojick wrote:
and there are more than one person doing the Judging and we have never seen them before. Cool.

Hmm? Now, that one I don’t understand. It’s just me, one person, judging. The questioning is by more than one person, but that’s not the same as judging. What I was hoping for was a panel of questioners, so I wouldn’t even have to question and challenge and I could just absorb.

rwojick wrote:
I think I have an unfair advantage here in that I am from New York State. They have been making up the rules since I dropped in years ago.

Oh you really think it’s worse there!? You think a little podunk town with “local people rules” is going to have its rules be much clearer, much more objective and fair!? Ha! Razz

Anyway, thanks again for the cool challenges of your own. I wish I had more time to extract more cool stuff from you.
The Philosopher Princess
On the sibling topic, Bikerman wrote:
PS - I just read the post again and (silly me) note that it was not intended for me at all. Ho hum....I'll leave this anyway, and next time I'll read more carefully Smile)

Not silly you at all! Smile

Look at what I wrote above:

The Philosopher Princess wrote:
(3) Keep in mind that the questioning and challenging for any one person might very well be applicable to more, if not all, persons.
rwojick
I wrote my claims about the rules being hidden and all BEFORE I clicked on the link and went to the next page and SAW the rules. Sorry about that.

It might be nice to have all that wish to state where they live. I saw where one fellow was from Austrailia and he said the problem there was that they have so many different people from different cultures etc and that was a problem.

Well, the US Constitution was born with those types of observations in mind. Freedom of Religion, Free press, free speech, etc and the reason our system is so unrecognizable is that much gets lost in our demonstration of it.

Anyways, it would be nice to know who is from where, that would add a bit for me.

I was born and crazed in East Rochester, New York...
The Philosopher Princess
{CONTEST COMMENTS}

Having such back-and-forth discussion on the main sibling thread is really excellent! Thank you to those who are questioning and challenging other people’s political philosophies! I’m happy some new blood showed up Smile!

I can see that when the time comes, I will have a real job distinguishing what people are presenting as their own political philosophies, versus their critiques of others’. But I look forward to my own challenge, there.

Also, while it’s not easy for me not to get involved at the issue level, you can see that I am properly staying at my “bird’s eye view” level. I thought I was going to be “forced” to step in due to claims of “insults” but I very much would prefer to allow the full freedom of expression in discussion. However, I would like to remind everyone that being courteous and classy -- especially in the HEAT of political debate -- is very important. Please have that be your goal too Smile!

I will be out of town till Sunday, which means I won’t be able to monitor for awhile. I hope the smart talk will continue and that everyone will play nicely Very Happy!
~~~~~~~~~~
{Question Question Question}

Does anyone (Indi? make_life_better? someone else?) have it in them to make 3 lists of people and post them here? I would really appreciate it. We need 1 list of the people who are candidates (entrants) in the contest (and we can add to it if more come in). We need another list of the people who are questioners and challengers. Some people will be in both of those lists (and playing different roles at different times). We also need a list of entrants who have not received questioning and challenging yet.

The lists don’t have to be perfect, because that’s the point: We want to give everyone a chance to make sure the lists are correct.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, for a personal note.

rwojick wrote:
I wrote my claims about the rules being hidden and all BEFORE I clicked on the link and went to the next page and SAW the rules. Sorry about that.

No problem Smile! Thanks for letting me know. (Everything I said is still true; I just might not have been prompted to say it.)

rwojick wrote:
It might be nice to have all that wish to state where they live.

I agree that it’d be nice. That and other important context will regrettably be missing. While you are certainly free to try to discover that about people, I didn’t think it appropriate for me to ask it at the contest level. It would be a whole different ballgame if we had the wherewithal to analyze and fully understand each and every assertion by people. But, alas, we can only scratch one level below the surface. Wink
rwojick
Princess, perhaps you noticed that I made a few comments on the woman's participation in democracy in the past and perhaps its time to bring it up again<wink>

I see women as very present moment thinkers, and this is fine when you are choosing which lip gloss to wear but it tends to make an information system break down in that the woman always makes the "system" guidelines secondary to her prejudices.

I first noticed this after Pope John Paul mentioned it (pardon the cheap name dropping here) but I see what he means. The American Legal System divides information into true and false and law and prejudice. This creates a clear line for what is legal and what is not, however, the woman tends to park her carcass anywhere she pleases and then when you point out that she is illegal she claims you are "harrassing her".

Nowhere is this more evident than in New York State where the law says that Adutlery is a defense in a divorce action but the woman laden buracracy has chosen to leave that fact out when explaining the law in exchange for "money" for their "services".

This makes for a situation where when Rudy G, the Mayor of the World, was suing his wife for divorce WHILE he was openly committting Adultery in the NYC newspapers no lawyer and no women in the state even pointed out the VIOLATION of the RIGHTS to his spouse.

The whole system stands on the lawyers telling the truth about the law and, apparently, all the lawyers go together in the back room (I know, big room, but you can pack a lotta rats in a...) and decided to LIE about this law that affects 65000 families in New York each year.

I am sure this made for some classic arguments in front of the children, and perhaps Hillary can chime in here (she is the Senator in New York) however, I think the bottom line is that when a State or a Country accepts a false paradigm, such as that women compete equally and within the bounds of fair play, the the results can be disasterous.

Now, mind you, I am comparing true fact to true law and telling the truth. That is the standard in a democracy where the law, and not the person, is the authority.

Another way I would look at it, and this would fall under opinion, is suppose the Buffalo Bills made half their team women. Well, the teams performance would fall off miserably, however the women would narrow the gap between themselves and the top football players. So, they raise their "relative" position by lowering the teams "absolute" position.

So, comparing fact to law, Rudy sued his wife for divorce while he was committing Adultery, and the "half women football team of lawyers" in New York did not even NOTICE. "Uphold the law, they won't even talk about the law!"

I love women dearly, I just think some provisions need to be made if and when they want to make decisions where others are involved....this passage alone is worth 500 fri host dollars, no?...and it should liven up the discussion a bit too.

You compare fact to law and tell the truth after you are under oath, except for those who are "playing stupid" or "plain stupid"...they are the ones who deliver the false answer....and this gets discounted in a true democracy...
rwojick
[Edited-in by The Philosopher Princess: This post was moved here from the main topic.]

I noticed that the tag on my name is "adolescent fri hoster" and everyone else is "senior" or " moderator" or "your highness".

This is kinda like being carted into Court in a orange jumpsuit, handcuffs, and leg chains...for the record, when this happened to me the case against me was subsequently dismissed!

Can I at least be called "Mr Adolescent Frihoster", like the Judge in "a few good men" said, "I KNOW I've earned it".
rwojick
I re read my claims to Princess on "how" women compete and I said the law on Divorce in New York affected 650000 families and that was 1 too many zeros.

The proper figure is 65,000 families but the point is the same. The law is written so that more than 1 person can refer to it at the same time, and the lawyers (and the women make up 1/2 of the divorce contest) simply took the person who the law says was to lose and they gave that "loser" the win.

This would be like a tennis server spiking the tennis ball into the ground the way a quaterback does when he wants to stop the clock and then GIVING THE TENNIS SERVER WHO NEVER HIT THE BALL OVER THE NET THE POINT.

This would make the game of tennis a rediculous waste of time, so lets not do that to the rules of tennis, and I suggest we don't do it to the rules of life, either.

Princess, I do want to thank you for getting my points total up, though
The Philosopher Princess
Dear Mr. Adolescent Frihoster Very Happy,

You might be right that, in general, women might be more “present moment thinkers” than men. (But men start more wars. How long-term a-thinking is that!? Razz) My related observation, though, is that most all people are much more “present moment thinkers” than I would wish they would be.

Certainly, when it comes to anything political, I find both genders offering “solutions” that may have some short-term pros (and usually some easy-to-notice short-term cons, as well); but those so-called solutions do not fit within a whole political philosophy, so they are definitely not long-term solutions.

One can only validly claim to have a long-term solution if they have studied how its ramifications will ripple through to everything else. For example, take someone who advocates the “solution” of forced minimum-wage laws in trying to solve the conditions of poor people. If that advocate does not know their answers (not mine, but theirs) for how such laws will affect the “bottom lines” of small business owners, then -- whether that “solution” will “work” or “not work” -- one thing we know for sure is that it is not long-term.

This is one reason that I promote people thinking about politics from a philosophical perspective, namely, so that they will begin to think long-term.

Have you noticed that Frihost’s Religion and Philosophy forums are mostly about religion? There are some exceptions, but even the ones about philosophy are often also about religion in one way or another. It’s by no means the fault of Frihost. I claim that it’s because people aren’t used to thinking about politics as philosophical. Thus, I have lately tried to start a few threads that were political and philosophical. I would hope that some other people would like to start doing that as well.

P.S. Mr. Adolescent Frihoster, I actually wrote some political comments responding to some other interesting things you brought up (about marriage and divorce), but then I realized I should refrain from speaking at that level until after the contest is closed.

P.S.S.
rwojick wrote:
Princess, I do want to thank you for getting my points total up, though

My pleasure!
rwojick
Princess,

I understand how important the integrity of the contest is to you, that is how I feel about the contest that broke up my family.

This bird's eye view and withholding information until some later date is not uncommon from women, and I do love the smiley faces in your messages, but it seems to me if one places women in a competition with men in sports like tennis, golf and football (or even chess) the women say, "don't be rediculous, of course we can not compte in those areas".

However, if we go to areas like advertising, journalism, and law then the woman says she can compete on an equal level.

To this I say, "not so fast". Suppose we could bring the same level of "scorekeeping" to those widely accepteted areas where women are "supposedly equal" and then we find that woman can't compete there either.

I suggest that may be the case, and then if that is true then it may become apparent that when women compete they tend to foul up the scoring system in an ongoing manner, such as in jumping offsides on every play so that the first pass the quaterback throws is at "1st and 40", in order to narrow the gap between themselves and the "top competitors".

Please do not think that I am anti women in any way, I'd like for them to have the most wonderful lives possible, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart, but if this means we must send innocent (or at least "not guilty") men to prison for years in order to fulfil their "fantacies" then I say "hold on here, we have to draw the line somewhere".

At which time the woman flickers her eyebrows and says "this ex parte communication is highly irregular....did you bring the wine..." and then finishes with "what line?".

Anyways, I'll be waiting with baited breath (is this caused by sushi?) until you decide who wins and you grace us with your comments. Rolling Eyes

Please do not take these criticisms the wrong way, like I say, I'd like women to have the most wonderful lives possible and I do not begrudge them one bit for being "natural born tyrants"!
The Philosopher Princess
Mr. Adolescent Frihoster,

Thanks for more of your core!

Don’t worry: I doubt I’m taking anything the wrong way because that’s not my style. While I can coyly bat my mascaraed eyelashes as well as the next girl, I rarely fit the so-called woman traits, and thus I don’t take offense when those are challenged. Sorry to toot my own tiara, but I usually think I’m not only more analytical and reality-based than most women, but also more than most men. I’m often in a class of my own, which, while it may have its pros, it also has its cons.

Let me give you a hint on the solutions to the issues I see you bringing up. In the context of the long-term situations (and not addressing your shorter-term though obviously very important personal situations), I think you need to trace the cause(s) of the problems more to their roots. I see you tracing things back to a certain extent, but the real causes come before the place you’re looking. Like I said, that’s just a hint.
rwojick
I do not know what Country you are from, but I am from the US, and we have this system based on the Bill of Rights.

In the mind to mind contest, if it is that, we can go back to this core and that core to find truth, however, in the legal battle the onset occurs in pring and it is the "alleged claims" of the accuser.

These claims are written in order to prevent "creepage of terms". And then, if they are proven at Trial to be true and they place the accused over the line of the law then, and only then, do they become "legal fact."

If the claims of the accuser break down (in my case I showed where my wife's lawyer met with the Judge in an illegal ex parte communication and this is proven to a certainty) well, if those written claims break down, then the defendant is "free to go" and the accuser is shown to be, at best, incompetent.

"If you said you had a proof on the day you signed it then why did you have to meet with the Judge in my abscence before the Trial?" If they tell the truth, they lose. If they lie, they lose.

The written complaint is signed, dated, and SWORN TO as true by the accuser. Time passes and things occur (these occurances are spelled out in law) and then the complaint is either proven to be true or not at Trial.

And James Madison came up with this in 1776 or thereabouts...want me to take you through the steps to show that Hillary is not eligible to run for Senator again next month, let alone run for President in two years...

is there one of those emoticons for chuckling?
The Philosopher Princess
{LISTS FOR YOUR APPROVAL}

If anyone has any additions, deletions, or related comments, please let us know.

These are the people whom I detect (so far) as being contestants (entrants) in the political philosophy contest:
NjRocket
smartass.id.au
MadeinIndia
Rico
Idoru
Bikerman
raghu.steppenwolf
rwojick
LeviticusMky
Lennon
McMuffin
seej
Jinx
nathanuk
Asgardsfall
[added]
HoboBarticus [added]
just-in [added]
billys [added]

These are the people who have questioned and challenged others:
Indi
Bikerman
salman_500
MadeinIndia
make_life_better
rwojick
McMuffin

Asgardsfall [added]
just-in [added]

I believe every contestant has been questioned and challenged somewhat (and some people have responded while some have not).

Did I miss anyone Question
The Philosopher Princess
(on the sibling thread) MadeinIndia wrote:
as you know, in my post, I clearly have mentioned that I am quoting from the Bhagavad Gita. As you might be aware, Bhagavad Gita is an ancient text of Hindus (like Bible for Christians) so if I quote a verse from Bible, lets say an edition of Bible translated into telugu language by a publisher called Andhra Printing Company, do you think I will write here saying that according to the Bible printed by Andhra Printers or just say Bible? The same way, I mentioned according to Bhagavad Gita and not the website which has translated it (plus million other websites carrying the same text) as the source is the original Sanskrit texts.

Yes, I am aware of the Bhagavad Gita. Excerpts from it, or translations of excerpts from it, still need to be properly quoted Smile. “Properly quoted” in terms of Frihost means that the “QUOTE” tags need to be used. This is not just some illogical rule for rule’s sake; this is so that readers can tell the differences between original and quoted texts before reading the contents of either. Just stating that included text comes from another place doesn’t fit “properly quoted”.

MadeinIndia wrote:
(Hope this will not get me out of the contest Wink )

Not at all. Everything’s cool there. Smile

MadeinIndia wrote:
I will update my previous post accordingly but without offending you;

Thanks!
TeenZine
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
Names that come to my mind -- just without doing a thorough search -- people I’ve run into on pertinent topics -- are (in alphabackwards order):

Vrythramax
Soulfire
smalls
S3nd K3ys
rwojick
ocalhoun
nopaniers
mike1reynolds
lyndonray
lib
JoeFriday
horseatingweeds
HoboPelican
DoctorBeaver
Bondings
blackheart
Arnie
alkady


Would any of you care to write us up something of political principles, credo, etc.?



You know ALkady is not realy active any more. I will tell him since I need him to win since hes been giving me all his frih$ Laughing
The Philosopher Princess
TeenZine wrote:
You know ALkady is not realy active any more. I will tell him since I need him to win since hes been giving me all his frih$ Laughing

Well I did PM everyone on that list a long time ago. But I’m sure anyone who finds out that you expect their future FRIH$ will surely show up to work hard for it Razz. Good luck!
TeenZine
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
TeenZine wrote:
You know ALkady is not realy active any more. I will tell him since I need him to win since hes been giving me all his frih$ Laughing

Well I did PM everyone on that list a long time ago. But I’m sure anyone who finds out that you expect their future FRIH$ will surely show up to work hard for it Razz. Good luck!
LOL Check your records. I do get all his frih$ since I have hosted alot of stuff related to OUR site. As seen on the credits page of www.aedolis.com And on the developers BLOG. Im even working on an Ask Andy computer help.
The Philosopher Princess
{ANNOUNCEMENT of CONTEST SCHEDULE}

Arrow Deadline for new political philosophy entries: Tuesday, 10 October 2006, 6:00 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time

Arrow Short period of last questioning and last additions to previous entries

Arrow Contest closes (date to be determined). Both sibling threads will be temporarily locked during a judging period (hopefully only a few days up to a week)

Arrow Winner announced at awards ceremony

Arrow Threads re-opened for further discussion
The Philosopher Princess
@ rwojick

Thank you for attempting -- on-thread and via email -- to engage me in discussion on the issues of your interest and personal involvement. After the contest has been finalized, I will comment on some of those things. Smile
rwojick
Do you intend to delete the "record" of what was "written" in the contest and then issue a decision? I'd file this under "American Cheese".
rwojick
Sorry about the "delete comment above", i get twisted around with all the threads.

As for your promise to "comment", the US system delivers one of two values, either "guilty" or "not guilty".

I have shown with Court docments that the process that placed me guilty was invalid, yet the lard in the system has kept me guilty and my children lied to.

I'd really have no interest in your comments passed, can you see that there is only 1 possible return, that being "not guilty", or are you not able to get your anwser up to the 1 possible truthful return?

All parties are placed under oath, they all SEE the same laws, and the facts are contained right in the Court Record.

[url]proof.rochesterdailynews.frih.net[/url]

Only a tyrant holds an accused person guilty under those facts!
The Philosopher Princess
{CONTEST ANNOUNCEMENT}

Arrow The deadline for accepting new contestants has now past.

Arrow The deadline for questioning, challenging, answering, and offering other political philosophy additions has been set for Thursday, 19 October 2006, 6:00 p.m. GMT. At that time, the threads will be temporarily locked.

(I am thrilled at the quality of the discussions on the main sibling thread Very Happy! I had expected to close the threads {temporarily} from more discussion in just a few days from now. But because of the current good quality, I extended the plans to give about a week and a half.)
The Philosopher Princess
{CONTEST NOTE}

That’s wonderful to have had enough time for every political philosopher writing lately on the main thread to answer their last customized questions. Thanks! In fact, it’s been nice to allow the contest serious discussion to take on a leisurely schedule. I won’t be asking anything more (unless someone who currently has outstanding questions comes back). But “last minute” discussion or other additions to your philosophies will be fine till the Thursday deadline.

I don’t think that anyone can legitimately claim that they didn’t have a chance to finish adding whatever they wanted Wink. For non-posting readers of these threads, you probably wouldn’t know that back on October 3, I had PMed the following to every single person who had posted even once on either topic:

Via PMs, The Philosopher Princess wrote:
Subject: Courtesy PM about Political Philosophy Contest

Hello Smile! This is a courtesy PM being sent to everyone (whatever their status) who has posted on either of these threads:
State your Political Philosophy! (1000 FRIH$ to the best!) and
Discussion ABOUT “State your Poly Philosophy! 1000 FRIH$”

The contest deadline has been set. Please read any announcements that might interest you. Here are the latest ones from each of the sibling threads:
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-443584.html#443584
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-443588.html#443588

{@ POLITICAL PHILOSOPHERS}

I will now be even stricter on requiring meta discussion towards me personally or about the contest, to be posted (or moved to) this topic. I would like to keep the main topic limited to actual philosophy talk.

That will be true even after the contest ends. For example, I could certainly see new people showing up with their political philosophy presentations. And then some of the (truly excellent!) questioners here might want to challenge them, elaborate, etc.
The Philosopher Princess
The following note from the main sibling topic is applicable here too:

The Philosopher Princess wrote:
This thread is temporarily locked (along with its sibling topic) during political philosophy contest deliberations. Please do not despair, for both topics will be re-opened for discussion within hopefully a week.

Now you have some time to work out what you’re going to post here later. Very Happy
The Philosopher Princess
{POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY CONTEST AWARDS CEREMONY}

In reverse alphabetic order:

@ smartass.id.au, seej, salman_500, rwojick, Rico, raghu.steppenwolf, NjRocket, nathanuk, McMuffin, make_life_better, MadeinIndia, LeviticusMky, Lennon, just-in, Jinx, Indi, Idoru, HoboBarticus, billys, Bikerman, Asgardsfall, and everyone else who may be here

Very Happy Welcome one and all -- ladies and gentleman -- posters and readers -- thinkers and philosophers -- to the Awards Ceremony for the Political Philosophy Contest held by The Philosopher Princess. I’m glad you’re here and I’m proud to announce that high quality was achieved by our contestants and challengers. One never knows what to expect from such public forums, but it is my opinion that great success was had here -- and can be had by anyone who further ponders what our posters have offered.

Soon we will learn who won the Grand Prize of 1000 FRIH$ for doing the best job of presenting and defending a superior Political Philosophy, as fitting the contest criteria. The competition was fierce, all competitors had valuable things to say, and the top contenders showed particular excellence. Anybody who reads the contest entries -- and even the questions posed to the contestants by a number of challengers -- will find a lot of philosophical food for thought. I certainly found this, and I, personally, will be saving these for posterity.

May I take this opportunity to sincerely thank those who participated, both the contest entrants and those who questioned and challenged, a few of whom played both roles at various times. As these sibling contest threads have been my last planned Frihost topics before I take my leave from Frihost to attempt to write some books and carry out some other personal projects, I’d like to say that it’s been an honor to be amongst such a wonderful group!

I am proud of the way the contestants and challengers kept their decorum in the heat of argument, and acted with proper manners as befits philosophers and intellectuals. As said on the main thread:

The Philosopher Princess wrote:
This has turned out to be quite a contest. Here we have 18 contest entries; 18 competing political philosophies; 18 thoughtful people who have sincerely put forth their ideas of what a superior political philosophy would be. We also have some serious questioning of each and every competing political philosophy, and the ensuing back-and-forth arguments for and against many of them. This is not to mention how much thinkings might have been (and still could be) inspired by the posters’ readers.

This contest has caused the creation of a wealth of knowledge, assertions, facts, evidence, and logical reasoning supporting and/or opposing various political systems and their implementation.

So, thank you all for your inputs, your thoughts and reasoning, and especially for helping to make this contest interesting, lively, and fun. Now, on to an explanation of the judging, and then to the awards!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{INTRODUCTION TO JUDGING}

To best understand the whole contest, including the methodology used for judging, you may want to re-read the first post in the main sibling topic, which the below supplements and does not attempt to re-create. Judging was based solely on what was posted to the main sibling thread (i.e., it was not based on posts to other Frihost topics nor to anyplace else).

A main goal for the contest was to get people truly thinking and deeply focusing, rather than for me to choose which philosophy will actually work in the world. To do the latter, I (or anyone) would need much more input, feedback, studies, etc. than feasible on such forums.

I had set forth 4 areas for judging -- with more weight on the first area, less on the next, and so on. I discuss these areas in the next section as regards to what could have and actually did occur during the contest discussions.

For my use during the deliberations of judging, I created for myself an easy-to-use point system in a spreadsheet, which allowed me to be as objective as possible. For example, I could focus just on the creative aspect, comparing and contrasting, without regard to practicality. Then I could look at another aspect, alone; and so on. My formulas incorporated the different weightings (priorities) of the 4 areas, and each of the 4 areas had sub-areas, to which I allude but don’t completely share.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{EXPLANATION OF JUDGING}

Arrow SINCERITY. Since sincerity is the most important qualification for whether a concept deserves recognition, this area has been weighted highest. If one is insincere, then the whole presentation is suspect, and not worthy of the consideration given to a sincere presentation.

The increased weighting of sincerity was designed to assure that if anybody posted farcical nonsense or insincere junk -- wasting the time of the people being sincere -- that the logical point system I created for my judging would keep such “philosophies” from being judged on the same level as the sincere political philosophy contestants. Happily Smile, no such insincere posters showed up!

The sincerity level in this contest was generally quite high, and much better than expected. In fact, most contestants rated highly on their initial submissions. However, points could be knocked off if the follow-ups weren’t deemed sincere or were off-topic.

Arrow CREATIVITY/ORIGINALITY. Being creative and original is extremely important in that it would be unfair for a contestant to take a political philosophy espoused by another philosopher, already published somewhere, and present it as his own in competition with people who are working from scratch.

In general, most of the entries seemed to be the original work of the competitors. There were some discrepancies in proper quoting of sources, which were mostly fixed by the posters after they were identified. Some proponents presented systems devised by other thinkers, but presented them in their own words and defended them in their own ways -- and this was welcomed. These were not penalized, because it is deemed appropriate, for the purposes of this contest, to advocate the political philosophy and/or system that one considers the best, even if others have proposed it before.

However, there was one area that was disappointing across the board. It had been requested that the initial philosophies be presented as if they might appear “on the back of [one’s] published political philosophy book. (Obviously, something very boring is probably not going to be published.)” I’d asked that philosophers “write/create something for us that will make [them] stand out from the crowd. Be innovative. Be provocative. Be profound.” Unfortunately, I didn’t find that there was much that would likely be considered interestingly publishable on the back of a book. The closest things were a few notable eye-catching assertions, surrounded by “regular” prose.

But that’s okay. Not every criteria can be met by all. Since no philosophy stood out from the crowd in the area of interestingly publishable, there also were no discrepancies on points in that one sub-area.

Arrow PHILOSOPHY THAT IS POLITICAL. This is where contestants were judged on whether or not their submission was really a political philosophy according to the guidelines of the contest. Most passed this milestone fairly well, though some did it much better than others, and therefore got some well-deserved points.

Arrow PRACTICAL, MORAL, FEASIBLE, CONSISTENT, ETC. Though this should be considered the most important area when it comes to implementing a political philosophy, it is also the most difficult area to judge objectively with such relatively little input, so it got the least weight in judging.

If an advocate provided very little information about how their system could work, then their points would be less in this area. Likewise, if there were non-addressed seeming inconsistencies, points could be decreased. There were quite a few other factors I used to compare in this area as well. Everybody did provide some information addressing these things, and some showed serious thought about how to implement their proposed systems in real life. This area didn’t determine the winner, but it helped to narrow the field to a few top contenders.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{POINTS JUDGED}

I used my weighted point system based on many sub-factors (only some of which are mentioned) to determine the group of semi-finalists. Then I further studied the entries of the semi-finalists to determine a subset to become the finalists. And of that group, I delved even deeper in what the finalist philosophers offered to determine the grand winner.
The Philosopher Princess
{POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY CONTEST AWARDS}

I set out to bestow all my FRIH$ to participants of this contest. Besides the 1000 FRIH$ to whomever was to become the winner, I devised a (logical-to-me and fair-in-my-mind) approach to bequeath FRIH$ to everyone who submitted a valid political philosophy, everyone who questioned and challenged contestant philosophers, and extra amounts to those I personally deemed having made special contributions in those areas.

I would like to publicly thank horseatingweeds, who, upon learning of this contest and without my solicitation, donated a nice chunk of FRIH$ towards the contest. Thanks! Very Happy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{AWARDS FOR POLITICAL PHILOSPOHY CONTESTANTS}

Each of the 18 bona fide contestants is to be awarded 22 FRIH$ for submitting a valid entry to the contest. Without these fine philosophers, there would be no contest! In the order of their first post, the valid political philosophy entrants were:

Contestant #1: Philosopher: NjRocket
Contestant #2: Philosopher: smartass.id.au
Contestant #3: Philosopher: MadeinIndia
Contestant #4: Philosopher: Rico
Contestant #5: Philosopher: Idoru
Contestant #6: Philosopher: Bikerman
Contestant #7: Philosopher: raghu.steppenwolf
Contestant #8: Philosopher: rwojick
Contestant #9: Philosopher: LeviticusMky
Contestant #10: Philosopher: Lennon
Contestant #11: Philosopher: McMuffin
Contestant #12: Philosopher: seej
Contestant #13: Philosopher: Jinx
Contestant #14: Philosopher: nathanuk
Contestant #15: Philosopher: Asgardsfall
Contestant #16: Philosopher: HoboBarticus
Contestant #17: Philosopher: just-in
Contestant #18: Philosopher: billys

Congratulations to these 18 people for being thinkers and being philosophers! Applause

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{AWARDS FOR QUESTIONERS AND CHALLENGERS}

Each of the 9 questioners (not including T.P.P.) is to be awarded 23 FRIH$ for being an essential part of this contest, challenging the contestants with good questions, and helping to make the contestants think through and defend their political philosophies. Without them the contest would have lacked challenge. In order of their first post, the questioners and challengers were:

Indi
Bikerman
salman_500
MadeinIndia
make_life_better
rwojick
McMuffin
Asgardsfall
just-in


Congratulations to these 9 people for good challenges, which helped to raise the bar from what otherwise could have been “too” comfortable a level for our philosophers Wink! Applause

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{SPECIAL AWARDS FOR SPECIAL QUESTIONERS AND CHALLENGERS}

Before moving to the semi-finalists, the finalists, and the grand winner awards, I would like to present some other special awards. These next 4 people were questioners and challengers that I found particularly helpful as well as interesting.

~~~~~~~~~~

I would like to award 25 FRIH$ to salman_500. Who could forget those incredible photos!? At the very least, they, along with the other challenges, stirred the philosophy pot! Very Happy

~~~~~~~~~~

I would like to award 50 FRIH$ to Indi for such difficult questions, they almost defied response! Very Happy

~~~~~~~~~~

To Asgardsfall, I would like to award 75 FRIH$. The challenges from this questioner were truly exceptional. It takes a real thinker to pull people out like Asgardsfall did. And, the fact that he worked on presenting his own philosophy along with the questioning of others -- well, that is to be commended. Very Happy

~~~~~~~~~~

My most special questioning and challenging award is being presented to Bikerman who is to receive 125 FRIH$. He not only presented and defended his own political philosophy, but also took it upon himself to very thoroughly question and challenge the suppositions of many other contestants. He was instrumental in pointing out the weaknesses of various political and social systems, and to cause others to defend their principles, which is the essence of competition of political philosophies. Very Happy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{SPECIAL AWARDS FOR SPECIAL PHILOSOPHERS}

These next people are receiving special awards in the areas of my choice while presenting their philosophies.

~~~~~~~~~~

NJRocket was our very brave first contestant and is to be awarded 17 FRIH$ for this. Very Happy

~~~~~~~~~~

Well then let’s go ahead and give an award to the last contestant. billys barely submitted an entry before the deadline and is awarded 12 FRIH$. Very Happy

~~~~~~~~~~

Out of all the philosophy entries, there was one that stood out to me as possibly the most provocative. Therefore, I would like to award that philosopher, HoboBarticus, with a special amount of 33 FRIH$. Very Happy

~~~~~~~~~~

raghu.steppenwolf had the shortest yet valid philosophy and is awarded 13 FRIH$. Very Happy

~~~~~~~~~~

There were many wonderful quotes within the posts that stood out to me, and I will be posting some of those after awhile. But one in particular really got me because it captures a thought I was hoping to inspire in people. The following was posted at the beginning of one of this person’s very thinking posts.

Asgardsfall wrote:
I sure am glad I'm on holiday...... and to think at the start of the week I was just looking for some free webspace!!!

Everyone around here has free webspace available from our great host, Frihost. And of course we all know that quality posting is what we do to get that free hosting. But there’s quality -- and then there’s quality! I consider that everyone who was a valid contestant and/or questioner gave us true quality. To Asgardsfall for helping me realize this, I award 14 FRIH$. Very Happy

~~~~~~~~~~

Bikerman gave us the most posts -- and these were not just posts for posts’ sake, but they contained valid presentations or challenges. For the most number of posts, I would like to award 9 FRIH$. Very Happy

~~~~~~~~~~

For the philosophy presented with no defense that I’d most have liked to have received more on, I award the contestant Idoru an amount of 11 FRIH$. Very Happy

~~~~~~~~~~

For the philosophy presented with defense (and good defense at that) that I’d most have liked to have received more on, I award the contestant Jinx an amount of 16 FRIH$. Very Happy

~~~~~~~~~~

I would like to award rwojick an amount for being the youngest reader at 16 months old:

rwojick wrote:
"Better 40 guilty people go free than one innocent man be convicted". I read that when I was 1 1/3 years old...

Just kidding Wink! It was a funny quote though. rwojick was kidding us there and I am doing likewise here. But I’m presenting him an award for his humor of which there was quite a bit. For that he receives 8 FRIH$. Very Happy

~~~~~~~~~~

I think that just-in probably had the best organized initial entry, so I award 15 FRIH$ to recognize that accomplishment. Very Happy

~~~~~~~~~~

To seej, I award 19 FRIH$ for the best initial philosophic principle:

seej wrote:
A political system should be based on truth and thats all

This may at first seem like a trivial assertion, and possibly too trivial to mention. But I contend that it is all too often not paid attention to and thus causes inaccurate philosophies. Philosophy must be based on truth (as best as can be determined), so publicly stating this as a first principle may help the rest of the philosophy. Very Happy

~~~~~~~~~~

This next award is the runner up to possibly the most accurate initial philosophic principle.

smartass.id.au wrote:
Firstly I think that Philosophy comes first.

To smartass.id.au goes 10 FRIH$ for beginning at the beginning, and taking it nicely from there. Very Happy

~~~~~~~~~~

MadeinIndia is to be awarded 18 FRIH$ for presenting the most comprehensive and yet most different philosophy from all the others. Very Happy
The Philosopher Princess
{SEMI-FINALISTS OF THE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY CONTEST}

Without further ado, I would like to announce the 6 semi-finalists.

Contestant #3: Philosopher: MadeinIndia
Contestant #6: Philosopher: Bikerman
Contestant #8: Philosopher: rwojick
Contestant #13: Philosopher: Jinx
Contestant #15: Philosopher: Asgardsfall
Contestant #17: Philosopher: just-in

Congratulations to these outstanding philosophers, each of whom will receive an award of 33 FRIH$ for making it to the semi-finalist round in the contest. Applause

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{FINALISTS OF THE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY CONTEST }

After the further detailed deliberations as previously described, the 6 semi-finalists were pared down to 4 finalists. And here they are.

Contestant #3: Philosopher: MadeinIndia
Contestant #6: Philosopher: Bikerman
Contestant #13: Philosopher: Jinx
Contestant #15: Philosopher: Asgardsfall

These 4 philosophers presented the most exceptional philosophies. They will each receive an additional 35 FRIH$ for their achievements. Congratulations, Finalists! Applause
The Philosopher Princess
{THE WINNER OF THE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY CONTEST}

Could we have a drum roll please! Let’s all give a huge cheer to our contest winner, who did a superb job of devising, presenting, and defending a political philosophy. The winner is:

Contestant #15: Philosopher: Asgardsfall

Applause Applause Applause

Asgardsfall is to be awarded the 1000 FRIH$ as befitting a philosopher of such political philosophy distinction. Congratulations! Very Happy
The Philosopher Princess
{TOTALS OF FRIH$ AWARD DONATIONS}

Before the contest ceremony and analyses of philosophies posts were made, I had a total 2411 FRIH$ and I chose to distribute them all according to the already-named awards. Here is a summary and totaling of those awards. People are listed in alphabetic order.

Asgardsfall is awarded 22 + 23 + 75 + 14 + 33 + 35 + 1000 totaling 1202
Bikerman is awarded 22 + 23 + 125 + 9 + 33 + 35 totaling 247
billys is awarded 22 + 12 totaling 34
HoboBarticus is awarded 22 + 33 totaling 55
Idoru is awarded 22 + 11 totaling 33
Indi is awarded 23 + 50 totaling 73
Jinx is awarded 22 + 16 + 33 + 35 totaling 106
just-in is awarded 22 + 23 + 15 + 33 totaling 93
Lennon is awarded 22 totaling 22
LeviticusMky is awarded 22 totaling 22
MadeinIndia is awarded 22 + 23 + 18 + 33 + 35 totaling 131
make_life_better is awarded 23 totaling 23
McMuffin is awarded 22 + 23 totaling 45
nathanuk is awarded 22 totaling 22
NjRocket is awarded 22 + 17 totaling 39
raghu.steppenwolf is awarded 22 + 13 totaling 35
Rico is awarded 22 totaling 22
rwojick is awarded 22 + 23 + 8 + 33 totaling 86
salman_500 is awarded 23 + 25 totaling 48
seej is awarded 22 + 19 totaling 41
smartass.id.au is awarded 22 + 10 totaling 32

I will be distributing the FRIH$ via the Frihost system, next.

Thank you to everybody! I hope you had as much fun as I did. The contest is officially over and the discussions are re-opened to everyone.
just-in
Congratulations Asgardsfall!!!! Applause Applause Applause

Congratulations winners!!!

I am proud that I made it to the semifinals Very Happy

As rightly said 'Well Defended Philosophy', Asgardsfall was there always in the forum and defended well all the times.

About my philosophy,

I posted my philosophy the moment I saw the contest and indeed I missed some points which were pointed out by Bikkerman through a long chat over posts.

May be the contest is over but we'll have a healthy discussion on the philosophies...

Thanks Princess, for the great topic.

Can we have the names of judges posted here?
Asgardsfall
Dear Philosophical Princess and other competitors,

As it was pointed out I did indeed only stumble over this contest in my search for free webspace.
I had two weeks holiday and thought it would be nice to set up yet another Anime website, only one which contained my opinions and not the marketing blurbs off the back of the boxes.

Its funny how things work out, a month later my website sits with hardly a word written. Why? I found a far more interesting and thought provoking way to spend my time. A diversion for which I offer my profound thanks.

Political Philosophy has always been an interest of mine, however it was not an interest I have had the opportunity to indulge in since I had to disappoint the Head of my University's Political Science department a decade or so ago, by turning down an invitation to join the honours program, because I was in fact completing a Commerce degree and not an Arts degree.

Checking out the Forums for my “Quality Posts,” this one was a given as my first choice. Once here this topic stood out like a beacon in a sea of repetitive religious babble, (and I must admit the 1000 $FRIH didn't hurt either).

After reading the 50 something A4 pages that spewed out my printer it quickly became apparent that this “competition” was not something which should be taken lightly and deserved some serious attention. To be honest I wrote a lot more challenges but wound up deleting them because I found others had already asked the same questions. I got so wrapped up in it, if you calculate the time I posted my questions to Bikerman on resources you may notice that it was at 2.57am.
Instead of my wife beside me, I was busy dreaming about political theory. After waking up with an active mind I had to get up and post. The following day was not pretty.

I found that one of the best parts of the competition was that, although I have held the pieces of my political philosophy for many years, I have never been given the opportunity or motivation to try and coherently piece them together. Furthermore, they have never been tested against questioning (the price of having commerce students as friends).

Princess, your suggestions ring true. I am by profession a negotiator and it is natural to me to concede a little in an attempt to gain more. Additionally, as I am no longer thestarry eyed student who believes the world is a simple place, such concessions fit naturally into an attempt to make my philosophy as plausible as possible. I agree, this is not a negotiation and at this level there is no other party to satisfy so I should make a stronger effort to stick to my principles without watering them down for the benefit of others.

I thank you for the huge amount of time and effort you have put into this competition, and am truly saddened to see you go as I arrive. I thank you for my prize *pops champagne cork and sprays crowd* but hasten to point out that the journey for me has been more valuable than the destination. Long may it continue.
The Philosopher Princess
Thank you Smile, just-in, for your post above and very nice PM. Your question is discussed in the first post over here.
~~~~~~~~~~
And I appreciate all the other PMs of thanks as well.

There’s something funny: When sending (donating) FRIH$ I don’t have control over what the Frihost system puts in the subject text (nor does it allow me to preview the formatted text of the message body), but it apparently generates this:
Frihost wrote:
You have recieved a donation from The Philosopher Prince

The word “received” is misspelling of course, but what’s really funny is the truncation of my name from “Princess” to “Prince”. Laughing I guess that could’ve been my alter ego if I’d wanted.

Anyway, readers, this is what was supposed to be received by award winners along with their FRIH$ winnings.

to award winners, The Philosopher Princess wrote:
Subject: Political Philosophy Contest

My Analyses of Philosophies posts have been posted over here.

The Political Philosophy Contest Awards Ceremony also spanning multiple posts has been posted over here.

From the top of my brain and the bottom of my heart, thank you very much for your valuable contribution! Very Happy

I am sending you the FRIH$ as announced at the awards ceremony.

Both sibling topics have now been re-opened for political philosophy discussion. Please continue to post only substantial philosophy discussion to the main thread (in the philosophy forum). Discussion about the contest particulars and other meta-discussion is welcome on the Discussion sibling thread (in the contest forum).

~~~~~~~~~~
Asgardsfall, you’re a very gracious winner. Smile Excellent acceptance speech! Since there’s not an emoticon for shaking hands, how about a high five!? Speak to the hand
Asgardsfall
Speak to the hand
rwojick
Dear Ms Princess,

Your contest was locked for a week, and then I see no entries before you, acting as a school maarm, began critiqing everyones position which implies to me that the contest actually closed when you locked the thread.

The US system began to fail about 55 years ago. When I was a child the Federal Government carried no debt and even had surpluses from time to time.

Today we are trillions in debt and I feel our system is being mis represented around the world.

What changed? Well, in New York there was a Family Court initiated about 50 years ago. This Court gave mommies positions legitimacy. Today the LAW says that in a certain situation (it does not matter which one) the Accuser loses and the Defendant (accused) wins. It is just like tennis. Ball finishes on one side, the server wins. The other side, the returner wins.

Well, I have shown that the lawyers and Courts are routinely and in every matter where 1 woman must be present in the contest exactly switching the outcome that the law prescribes and grants the "win" to that person that the law says is the "loser".

I tried to show how the system is mathematically correct and true and you showed how the women will 1)Start new threads 2) Lock threads with no notice 3) Fill the threads up with non sensical verbiage and 4) Generally undermine any sense of order.

This is EXACTLY what is happening in our Courts today.

Now that you are the Judge and you have a winner in your contest ( as I understand it, he uses the honor system with a "mugging" should someone speed through a school zone and kill a child) I wonder if you could answer in the case at proof.rochesterdailynews.frih.net is the defendant "guilty" when you apply the law and tell the truth or "not guilty".

I suggest the system provides for only one "right" answer and that you, as a woman, will either show yourself to be "plain stupid" when you get it wrong or "playin stupid" when you get it wrong.

Women have placed themselves into the American system today much like barnacles place themselves on the sides of boats in order to slow down speed and use more fuel to get from point A to point B. Should you wish to take the time to remove the barnacles well, then, that job too is a pain in the ass.

The Pope declined the woman's help with the Priesthood when the numbers fell drastically low, and I truly wish I had his grace. Also, I wish my Country had his "foresight" and declined their "help" 50 years ago when Family Court came into being and ushered in unprecedented homelessness, drug use, childhood obesity and a "united we stand" attitude as we fight a war for the Amrerican way with no "evidence" of our claims.

I must admit, I found you "without models" much more attractive when I was in my 20's and had not gathered so much data on your "ways". And by "without", I am speaking of "brains", get your mind outta the gutter, willya....
The Philosopher Princess
@ rwojick

If you would please take me off your email lists and other solicitation forums you have going on, I’d appreciate it. Smile
~~~~~~~~~~
I am sincerely sympathetic for your personal legal problems. I see no logical reason to expect real justice from the “justice system” in which you explain you are stuck. It is one I am familiar with fairly well, but only indirectly, not first hand.

Your problems with the system are huge to you, and I truly wish they could be made right. However, having seen and heard about hundreds of such cases, many of which are much more severe than yours (long-term incarceration {many for victimless “crimes”}, murdered in jail, executed, shot in a raid, and many innocents found “guilty”), I realize that I can do nothing directly to right all the wrongs that are perpetrated by the injustices of government monopoly legal systems. (I, instead, work to better the world in a different manner, but that is another whole subject.)

I had every intention, after the contest, of sharing some of my ideas with you about your situation. But that was when I believed that you were sincerely asking me for help. Then I came to the belief that, after all, you really didn’t want me to try to help you. So that’s fine, because I obviously can only be beneficial to people who are open to listening.

rwojick wrote:
I'd really have no interest in your comments passed, can you see that there is only 1 possible return, that being "not guilty", or are you not able to get your anwser up to the 1 possible truthful return?

Okay, I understand. You have no interest in my comments, and you only want me to tell you what you want to hear.

I imagine that I could have worked hard to study your legal battle, spent time working up and writing up my ideas for you (some on which I’d already made some philosophy-related notes) -- all to have you come back with, “all I wanted was the 1 answer that I’ve been trying to force you to say.” But no, I won’t be able to give you the 1 answer you’d like; I either study the situation as truthfully as I am able, and tell you truthfully what I believe, or I don’t give you any answers.

So, I’m just going to wish you the best. I can see that you are deeply hurting and I truthfully hope that you will one day be able to get past that.
~~~~~~~~~~
The comparison of me with Hillary Clinton is really “hillaryous” given that I abhor everything that she says she stands for and that she actually does stand for. Hillary Clinton is a long-term advocate of monopolistic government power and big-time encroachments on the privacies of people -- which is the exact opposite of my position. I doubt there would be even one opinion that Clinton holds that I’d agree with -- and vice versa; I say that matter-of-factly, having followed her politics from afar.
~~~~~~~~~~
I’m sorry to disappoint you in not being able to give you the 2 words you want from me (but I also do not give you the opposite of those 2 words, nor any actual answer because I have not researched your legal case). rwojick, it’s time for you to move on from expecting that. In any case, good luck Smile!

We’re philosophers. Let’s discuss philosophy of a public, not private, nature, shall we? Very Happy
rwojick
The first election story is from the one where GW was elected the first time. I was living in Florida at the time and, if anyone recalls, the Elections were a virtural dead heat and the State of Florida came out to almost an exact tie, less than 200 votes separated Gore, the Democrat, and GW, the Republican. Millions of votes...virtual dead heat...

What to do? Many were demanding a recount because the ballots were punch outs and some "chads" were not completely punched out.

Well, they sent it to a woman, Katherine Harris, and she said "lets recount these 5 Counties and Not recount these 25 counties". Don't beleive me? Go look it up.

This is like getting an addition problem wrong and then saying I will check half of the numbers I was adding and not the other half, and then, once I do, I will be sure that I did it right. I file this under "woman's logic".

The next story came from Seminole County, in Forida and about three counties over from where I was living.

Here, they had 15,000 "absentee ballots" and if they were Counted GW was going to be Plus 5000 in the recount. 5000 would swing the election as every other County was quibbling over 300 to 500.

The problem was that Florida law said that anyone could request an absentee ballot but they had to call in to get it. Its like, who serves in tennis? Well, the rules tell you who serves and if you are a citizen of tennis, then you "play by the rules".

Anyway, Seminole County had 15,000 of these absentee ballots and no other County had more than 1000. How could this happen? Well, it turned out that some government employee, AND I JUST BET IT WAS A WOMAN <wink> direct mailed out the ballots.

Do you know how many ballots you have to mail out to get 15,000 back? A LOT!

So, this happened before in Florida and the legal precedent was you throw out all the ballots. But, not in this election.

No, they went to Court and before a Woman Judge (of this I am sure) and she counted the illegal ballots, GW got the 5000 extra votes and "the rest is history".

So, Katherine Harris ordered the recount of some states, but not all states, and the woman Judge in Seminole County counted the votes that Florida law said should be thrown out.

Now, I saw this "at the time", but many do not see it even to this day. "It is like my hindsight is 20-20, and yours is blocked by the seat of your pants". Believe me, this is no fun for me either.

Much can be learned from GW's Presidency. I honestly just think he reacted like a Texan to 9-11 and under it all he is a teacher who thinks long term. Say what you want about GW but he lets the discussion take place.

Written laws are better than unwritten ones, ask Hammarabi. And which laws get written? The US system is as good as any I've seen, but you have to be willing to follow it, and not undermine it and ladies, you know who I am talking about here....

I've always seen the Constitution as kinda like a prescription for a world party...
The Philosopher Princess
{SOME OF THE MOST CATCHY / THOUGHT-PROVOKING QUOTES}

The following quotes (which I gathered during the time I was deliberating the contest results) are just a smattering of the excellent ones that could have been plucked from the political philosophy discussions to showcase the main topic. I don’t necessarily agree nor disagree with them (though with some I definitely do!), but I do find each and every one of these very interesting. I hope you will too. Many of these could be good philosophic conversation starters on their own.

Idoru wrote:
Gouverments seem to try different methods and ideologies, but often with somewhat similar resaults - it just doesn't reach everyone that's included.

Bikerman wrote:
Why 'created' and 'reason' ? Does there have to be an underlying reason for humans to exist ? A hidden agenda ? Is it not equally valid to assume that we are simply here because two other humans had sex.

Lennon wrote:
The problem with any democracy is that the vote is cast with an element of ignorance, indifference and lack of intelligence/enlightenment on the subject.

Jinx wrote:
Now, our Citizens may have started out as working men, content with burgers and beer, but the diplomats from other countries would expect certain protocols and a certain level of treatment at state functions. We would have to provide it when we are the hosts so as not to insult their delicate sensabilities. That could get expensive.

rwojick wrote:
The best way to fight terrorists is, "Don't be one yourself".

Asgardsfall wrote:
I sure am glad I'm on holiday...... and to think at the start of the week I was just looking for some free webspace!!!

MadeinIndia wrote:
If GOD is one thing that scares people, GREED is the other thing that forces them to disobey him!

seej wrote:
The one wrong thing you do multiplies 10 times and comes back to you.

Jinx wrote:
The most difficult thing about my ideal system would be the change of mindset needed to live there. We have all grown up in a world where we expect to be able to fall back on someone else to help us. The first thing we think when something big goes wrong is, "Why isn't the government dong something about this?" That is why we are in the mess we are in now. What we should be thinking is, "What can I do to fix this?"

HoboBarticus wrote:
There is no ideal government. People are corrupted and have been since the cavemen. Greed is encouraged and rewarded, shrewdness, cunning, lieing. They are all promoted in the world we live in. Then these people get in a position of power. Power translates to more power, catch my drift?

raghu.steppenwolf wrote:
"To discuss which form of government is best is a debate for fools..."

billys wrote:
I guess the "enviromentalist monster" bursted from inside me.

salman_500 wrote:
If religion was implemented on the society people would really start to live in a global village... where every1 would care for the other person.

rwojick wrote:
Bear arms for self defense (not a little point, "defense") or "Not bear arms" and then when someone from another Country (or your own government) comes in WITH ARMS they take you over in short order?

seej wrote:
1) Voilence begets voilence.......be it domestic or international.....history stands witness.

HoboBarticus wrote:
how do people change? What do we have to do? Well, I'll tell you. How about you raise your own kids? How about you quit complaining and do something? How about you work for a living instead of squatting on welfare? How about you instill values and morals and ethics and intelligence into your own life? How about you become knowledgeable? Read a book? Say hi to a neighbor?

Indi wrote:
Philosophy is, at best, a moving target. Ten different philosophers will give you eleven different philosophies, all with wildly different conclusions about what is right and what is wrong. So if you're going to let philosophy decide the law, the question is... who's philosophy? Alfred Rosenberg's?

Asgardsfall wrote:
Technically this makes all Governments illegitimate and able to be overthrown

just-in wrote:
My system gives value to the people who voted for the opposition party because by voting the opposition party a citizen doesn't do any sin.

Bikerman wrote:
Sheer hypocrisy of course. Would anyone accept that Cuba had the right to launch whatever missiles it could get against the US? Yet Cuba has far more reason to fear the US than the US had to fear Iraq.

nathanuk wrote:
T.v's modern celebrity culture is pathetic. What kind of normal person wants to watch a person is a house, i ofcourse refer to t.v's big brother. Its pathetic in the past people where famous becuase they did somthing actualy worth while now a person can become famous for staying in a god dam house on tv. This really angers me, people are more interested in other peoples lives then there own.

McMuffin wrote:
IQ test can NOT be used for thi purpose, as IQ is a very unreliable standard (yes, of course there is difference between an outcome of 80 and one of 140, but there are too many different tests, they don't focus on all aspects a human can be proficient in, and the relativation of IQ is also pretty lousy, so "calculating" the weigth of a vote with IQ is unreliable, and should actually not be done at all, since not everything a human can be good at is graded with it)

Idoru wrote:
All you have to do is to respect and accept your neighbours right to a place to exist in the fashion he or she likes to, regardless of what you think of it. You don't have to have them over for coffee. Wink

rwojick wrote:
No one has the "right" to throw the first punch, but everyone has the right to defend if someone else attacks you. I suggest the same thinking holds true if you are bearing a legal gun for your protection or harboring a missile for your protection.

HoboBarticus wrote:
The problem is the people, not the government.

Jinx wrote:
No need for drug laws. If you sit quietly in your basement and get stoned out of your gourd you aren't hurting anyone but yourself. If you get hopped up on speed and go rob a liquor store you have caused damage and will be tried for it.

make_life_better wrote:
What about those who choose to go out and do productive work rather than sit and think in ivory towers? Lots of really smart or wise people that I know never bothered with university or college.

MadeinIndia wrote:
Take all the good things out of Communism, Capitalism and Socialism and form Humanism, the ultimate model for a society.

Indi wrote:
For starters, you say the government should control the people and the information the people receive. But... what is the "government" if not people?

Bikerman wrote:
A war on terror is and always has been a completely useless term meaning absolutely nothing either semantically or in reality. You cannot wage war on a concept, though the US seems to want to constantly try to do so - with it's war on drugs and war on poverty etc. etc. I wonder if the politicians know exactly how stupid this makes them seem to many.

just-in wrote:
But Democracy has one failure according to me that is I have to select a Joker from a bunch of Jokers nominated in my constituancy

Lennon wrote:
Outside the perfect, utopian ideals, I cannot, cannot single out any system above the others.

Rico wrote:
Maybe first world is different but where I come from politicians only lie when their lips move.

rwojick wrote:
The US system is as perfect as can be. The fact that it is in the hands of idiots is not my fault.

seej wrote:
A political system should be based on truth and that’s all.

LeviticusMky wrote:
Who gets to decide which scientists and economists get to make the decisions?

Jinx wrote:
There will always be people who want to be in charge. This relatively small and and harmless government would give them a chance to play at politics without doing too much damage to anyone else.

Asgardsfall wrote:
A document is the result of a Philosophy, it is not the founding concepts or the rationale.

MadeinIndia wrote:
Finally, Everyone should be reminded about the real joy of living, When we understand and respect the need for the other person to live respectfully, any society will progress. Live and let live...

smartass.id.au wrote:
My point is(got there at last!!) that Philosophy comes first. You gotta think thru in a structured, logical manner before setting rules in law.

NjRocket wrote:
Government should be intact of a group of people with different beliefs. I say this because if everyone has the same beliefs, TOO much stuff will get done, hurting the citizens and the people around them.

HoboBarticus wrote:
So...Government, in and of itself, is defying the nature of humans.
Bikerman
Asgardsfall,
I just realised that I never congratulated you....I hope you don't think it was sour grapes, it was just my memory letting me down.
Congratulations....and, for what it's worth, I agree with the result.

Cheers
Chris
Asgardsfall
Thank you Bikerman.
Sour Grapes didn't enter my mind for a minute.

And in return I must congratulate you on second place ... and thank you for teaching me a few things.

Regards
Stephen.
Bikerman
Asgardsfall wrote:
Thank you Bikerman.
Sour Grapes didn't enter my mind for a minute.

And in return I must congratulate you on second place ... and thank you for teaching me a few things.

Regards
Stephen.


I doubt there is too much I can teach you, but if/where I can do so then I'm happy for the chance. It is always a pleasure to engage with people who think carefully about things before taking a position or firing off a reply since it stimulates genuine thought and debate rather than thoughless posturing and predefined positions.

Best wishes
(We will no doubt cross paths many more times - I look forward to it)

Chris
The Philosopher Princess
--Locked--

This message from the main sibling topic is applicable here too. Very Happy

The Philosopher Princess wrote:
There has been some excellent philosophy talk here, and meta-philosophy talk on the sibling topic! Thanks, everyone! Very Happy

The discussion seems to have run its course. How appropriate to have our political philosophy contest winner have the last say of significance! Very Happy

Of course, philosophy goes with each of us everywhere. Hopefully we will choose to improve and use ours to the best of our abilities.

Good Luck and Good Life to all philosophers! Dancing
The Philosopher Princess
--UN-locked--

The same announcement from the main topic applies here.

The Philosopher Princess wrote:
There were reasons, which I won’t go into, for closing the political philosophy discussions here. But the situation has changed, and here’s the new situation.

I am re-opening these topics for discussion, but I will not be around for facilitation, as today is my last day. That means that you are welcome to comment on previous philosophic topics, or to present new ones. I do strongly request that any posters attempt to keep to the high standards that our other philosophers have met. But I won’t be around to help ensure that.

Therefore, if anyone notices something improperly posted, please contact a Frihost Staff member via PM for help. A Staff member who agrees with your assessment, can move any true spam to the Spam Can, or move anything that was posted on the main Philosophy topic that does not fit the strictest philosophic requirements, well, they can move it to the sibling Discussion ABOUT Philosophy topic.

Without their prior agreements or knowledge, I unofficially designate both Asgardsfall and Bikerman to be co-leaders of this topic.

So, there’s lots more that could be delved into. Have at it! Thanks again to everyone who’s posted so far. Very Happy
Related topics
Buying Website - 1000+ FRIH$
Going-away party by and for The Philosopher Princess
State your Political Philosophy! (1000 FRIH$ to the best!)
More than 4 points/Frih$.
Redesign my site and get all my Frih$
Need frih$? - your 1 post away! - too late!
Win 1000 frih$
Will pay 1000 frih$ for MODS
1000 frih$ for helping with scripting.
1000+ Frih$ - Php Forum Points Project
I'm inactive, giving 1000 Frih$ to first poster.
2008 - 2009 Frihost fantasy Football League *1000 frih*
Need Template, Will pay 900 Frih$
2009 - 2010 - Frihost Fantasy League *1000 frih*
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Miscellaneous -> Contests

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.