# Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs



## arnisandyz (Apr 21, 2005)

This is a great read.

http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=98498


----------



## tshadowchaser (Apr 21, 2005)

An excellent  thought provoking article


----------



## Tgace (Apr 21, 2005)

The Sheepdogs are always "heros", and you hear all the "you guys dont get paid enough for..." sentiment.  Until budget/contract time comes around. Then on the subject of raises and salaries is "Zeros for Heros".

Sorry for the rant can you tell its contract negotiation time?


----------



## Tgace (Apr 21, 2005)

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/books/tbs/media_articles/2002_09_03_times.html



> Adjudication by an armed authority appears to be the most effective general violence-reduction technique yet invented. Though we debate whether tweaks in criminal policy, such as executing murderers versus locking them up for life, can reduce violence by a few percentage points, there can be no debate on the massive effects of having a criminal justice system as opposed to living in anarchy. The shockingly high homicide rates of pre-state societies, with 10 to 60 per cent of the men dying at the hands of other men, provide one kind of evidence. Another is the emergence of a violent culture of honour in just about any corner of the world that is beyond the reach of the law. The inverse is true as well. When law enforcement vanishes, all manner of violence breaks out: looting, settling old scores, ethnic cleansing and petty warfare among gangs, warlords and mafias. This was obvious in the remnants of Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union and parts of Africa in the 1990s.


----------



## Zepp (Apr 22, 2005)

Nice read.  There is one line in the article I can't agree with:



> If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep.



Every human being has the capacity for violence.  Healthy, productive citizens are able to control their violent impulses and desires.  (Sorry if I'm being nitpicky.)


----------



## Eldritch Knight (Apr 22, 2005)

I would say that it has more to do with the fact that society has conditioned them against being violent. The "violence is only for bad people" mentality. Don't you know some people who would rather submit or retreat in the face of violence, either unconsciously or consciously, rather than fight back? Fight Club has a great scene explaining this.


----------



## arnisandyz (Apr 22, 2005)

Every human being has the capacity for violence.  Healthy, productive citizens are able to control their violent impulses and desires.  (Sorry if I'm being nitpicky.)[/QUOTE]

The author later on does say that he is presenting extremes to make a case (provide an anology) and that most people are rarely just a sheep or just a sheepdog but fall somewhere inbetween.

"This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between."


----------



## TonyM. (Apr 22, 2005)

That was some of the worst unmitigated rationalized BS propaganda justifying turning America into a police state I've ever read.


----------



## Zepp (Apr 22, 2005)

TonyM. said:
			
		

> That was some of the worst unmitigated rationalized BS propaganda justifying turning America into a police state I've ever read.



I don't know what article you were reading.  All I saw was a call for better appreciation of soldiers and peace officers.


----------



## TonyM. (Apr 23, 2005)

Exactly. What we need are more responsible citizens and less armed thugs.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 23, 2005)

What do you mean by that statement?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 25, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> What do you mean by that statement?


He means he's offended by the fact that not everyone else on this planet is like him, and thinks he can take care of himself, and he balks at the idea that police should protect society or that he should be grateful for that protection. This type of attitude is typical of either Rams or Wolves, more likely Rams. (Rams are like sheep, but capable of protecting themselves, they resent sheep dogs for their interference, as Rammy behavior typically attracts sheep dog attention. Further, Rams get offended when called Rams).  Or he may simply be concerned with expanded police powers.  Who can be certain.

Amen to the comment about salaries and benefits. Everyone wants a hero, but on a budget. Miracles cost extra.

In reference to someone's statement that everyone has a capacity for violence, that is a truism that isn't as true as it seems. The statement "Everyone has a capacity for violence" may be true at first glance, but it doesn't deal with the question. Everyone does not have an EQUAL capacity for violence, and some people have such a negligible capacity for violence, that it makes the point moot. We can see that the women who Ted Bundy victimized had no where near the capacity for violence that Ted himself dead. Women, by virtue of genetics, conditioning, and other factors, as a rule have no where near the capacity for violence as men do. That doesn't mean that some women don't have a greater capacity for violence than some men, it does mean that the baseline is nowhere near where the baseline for men is. The most violent women are no where near as violent as the most violent men. There was no Ghengis Jane.

As far as sheep dogs, sheep, and wolves, it is a useful analogy of the roles violence takes in our society. The belief that all violence is wrong, is not applicable in the world we live in. The fact that violence occurs, with or without our consent, means that we have to be ready to meet violence with preparedness. Since all men aren't equally ready to meet violence when it comes, a select few of us volunteer to meet violence for them. BUT, it is vitally important for those of us who take that responsibility to remember that the vast majority of people out there are the sheep we serve, and not the wolves. The sheep are to be treated as our masters, like it or not. We are required to nip them back in to the flock from time to time (such as when they are speeding), but we should still treat them with deferance and respect. The wolves, however, deserve our undying enmity.  I tell all my new officers to learn to understand the difference between the sheep (even the Rams) and the wolves, and to learn what master we serve.

(The preceeding has been pure satire, any resemblance to real people, living or dead, is merely intentional. No animals were harmed in the production of this post.)

<Insert comment about blanket statements or other retorts here>


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 26, 2005)

First of all, to all the LEOs and Military personell, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

Second, you guys don't make enough, or get the appreciation and respect that you deserve (one of the reasons I still do private security is that I make about what the LEOs around here do with a fraction of the hassles).
Like the article said, no one wants a cop around.  In fact when most people see a police car drive by or when they talk about the police, it's always "stupid cops" or "can't they find something better to do than harass people." But when the excrement hits the fan it turns into "where the hell is a cop when you need one." suddenly the police are their bestest buddies.  

Another point.  While the article specifially mentions police and military as the "sheepdogs," I don't think this status is limited to those two groups.  To me a sheepdog is anyone who will say "I refuse to be a victim or allow people I care about to be victimized by the scum of society."  As a result, this definition includes those who obtain a CHL and some firearms training, or study self-defense so that they can protect themselves and their loved ones.  Rather than sitting back and expecting someone else to be there to save their butts they are ready, willing, and able to do it themselves if it becomes necessary to do so.   

As far as the capacity for violence thing...I think sgtmac_46 summed it up very well.  We all have it but not to the same extent.  In my mind, a high capacity towards violence is not always a bad thing.  The wolves are the ones that manifest their violent tendencies in the wrong way-to victimize the sheep.  The sheepdogs are those that manifest their violent tendencies to deal with the wolves.  When discussing self-defense we spend a lot of time talking about mindset.  To me, that elusive "self-defense mindset" is nothing more than being able to instantly "tap into" that violence and aggression and direct it toward the threat.

Just my $0.02

Woof


----------



## TonyM. (Apr 26, 2005)

That wasn't what I meant at all so pound sand.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 26, 2005)

1. The "sheepdog/sheep," bit is a direct ripoff of Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers." Which helps suggest exactly why it looks an apologia for something very like a Fascist state.

2. As always, the chest-thumping is accompanied by a remark about the status of women. What this sugests is that a great deal of all this "necessary violence," really reflects a self-confirming, self-justifying prophecy. 

3. Yes, I do know people who would rather retreat than take violent action. They're called, "martial artists." It is possible that if our society was a little less violently repressive, we'd have a little less violence.

4. We have to have cops, unfortunately. It's also unfortunate that in cities like LA, the good citizens are too damn cheap to pay for the police force they actually need.

5. I don't understand why it isn't enough for cops to understand that they perform an absolutely-essential social function, often rather heroically, always under a great deal of stress that lots of the good folk wouldn't endure for five minutes, and just skip the sheepdog jazz.

6. Funny. I'd thought we were human beings, not dogs.


----------



## eyebeams (Apr 26, 2005)

It's pretty much unsubstantiated, vaguely propagandistic garbage.

 Grossman is not really a significant player in the social sciences because the vast majority of his insights are supported by anedotal or unverifiable evidence.

 Pinker is another case: a psychologist who's decided to take upon himself the diagnosis of how the human psyche affects history, despite lacking that analytical training to actually see what societies do. For example, his correlation between the "feminist" US and increased violence is easily refuted by noting the general downward trend in violent crime since the late 1960s.

 More false correlations abound. The primary difference between the US and the more violent societies mentioned is wealth and degrees of social inequality. Less violent countries have more money and less social inequality. More violent countries have less money and more social inequality. 

 What is particularly stupid in Pinker's model is his utter failure to account for two societies with strong military ethoi and pervasive law enforcement structures:

 Y'know: the Third Reich and the USSR under Stalin (and other times, too).

 Real social research, has however, shown that the relationship between violence and law enforcement is neither one-sided nor a simplistic panacaea. _Violent Men_(http://www.ncpc.org/ncpc/ncpc/?pg=2088-1790), Hans Toch's study of male violence, concluded that many violent situations involving law enforcement officers were instigated by the officers, and not civillian participants. Both police and civillian participants in a violent encounter characterized themselves as victims and reactors, rather than actors. The idea that the police prevent violence in wealthy societies is not as convencing as the idea that police regulate violence. Studies across different ethnic groups show that violence is "regulated" by law enforcement to favour privileged groups. The chief problem of democratic societies vis a vis the police is how to, in fact, moderate police power. They are only "sheepdogs" because they are broken to the leash by civillian authority.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 26, 2005)

Oh boy, another one.....:shrug:


Gentle readers, the following is a quote from Theodore Roosevelt:

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face in marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. Shame on the man of cultivated taste who permits refinement to develop into fastidiousness that unfits him for doing the rough work of a workaday world. Among the free peoples who govern themselves there is but a small field of usefulness open for the men of cloistered life who shrink from contact with their fellows. Still less room is there for those who deride of slight what is done by those who actually bear the brunt of the day; nor yet for those others who always profess that they would like to take action, if only the conditions of life were not exactly what they actually are. The man who does nothing cuts the same sordid figure in the pages of history, whether he be a cynic, or fop, or voluptuary. There is little use for the being whose tepid soul knows nothing of great and generous emotion, of the high pride, the stern belief, the lofty enthusiasm, of the men who quell the storm and ride the thunder. Well for these men if they succeed; well also, though not so well, if they fail, given only that they have nobly ventured, and have put forth all their heart and strength. It is war-worn Hotspur, spent with hard fighting, he of the many errors and valiant end, over whose memory we love to linger, not over the memory of the young lord who "but for the vile guns would have been a valiant soldier."​


----------



## eyebeams (Apr 26, 2005)

Actually, it depends what "valiant" people do. I feel pretty free to criticise "men of action" who bomb noncombatants, torture in the service of a state or ideology and serve as tools in repressing human liberty.

 This is, of course, what "valiant" people have done, almost without exception throughout history whenever they have not been restrained by regulation and legislation by "critics."

 The irony is, of course, that the American system is structured to put just such a leash on its own military, by having ordinary citizens choose who fills the CinC role -- like Roosevelt.

 A further irony is that in 1932, folks who were in favour of  those "valiant" guys run things tried to sieze the US government in a fascist coup (http://www.nndb.com/people/572/000055407/).

 Methinks this is not the paen to uncriticised use of force folks might think it is.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 26, 2005)

I'm not sure that I understand what the most-often quoted bit of Roosevelt's writings has to do with the topic of this thread, where it appears in a context that makes it look as though we should admire Hitler because, well dagnabbit, the man went out and DID things, as opposed to, say, Thoreau, who just sat around and read and wrote. 

The most interesting thing so far is the attempt, yet again, to impose a biological answer (it's in our genes--there're winners, and losers) on social questions, and the attempt to impose a simple binary opposition on a complex matter.

This "two kinds of people," jazz? Yes, there are--people who think there are only two kinds of people, and people who don't.

Oh--and when the human race has finally grown up, it will have become obvious that violence is always a piss-poor, short term solution. At times a necessary one--but only because we're idiots.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 27, 2005)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> It's pretty much unsubstantiated, vaguely propagandistic garbage.
> 
> Grossman is not really a significant player in the social sciences because the vast majority of his insights are supported by anedotal or unverifiable evidence.
> 
> ...


"It's pretty much unsubstantiated, vaguely propagandistic garbage." 

Apparently Grossman has much in common with the Marxian wackos who believe wealth inequality explains everything from the Big Bang to why bread always falls butter side down. 

As for the assertion that crime has been on a steady 'downward trend' since the 1960's, by what bizarre standard do you measure that? There's actually so many inaccuracies and distortions in this post I don't know where to begin. In fact, I think it's clear enough to any rationally thinking person, especially after that assertion, that the inaccuracies are self-evident and really don't need to be refuted. From the early 1960's until the early 1990's, violent crime was at an all time HIGH. The 1960's were one of the most violent and turbulent civil decades in our history. The violent crime rates of the 1960's were NINE TIMES that of the 1950's.

Again, this just shows the lengths that Marxians will go to do distort reality for political gain. The irony is that Marxians, any time they manage to gain power to 'fix' the so-called wealth and social inequalities, end up doing so at bayonet point, case in point the aforementioned Soviet Union, as well as Cuba, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, to name a few. Then they start instituting a little inequality of their own.  

Further, much research by Marxian minded social scientists is of an extremely dubious and highly subjective nature. Take the statement "Both police and civillian participants in a violent encounter characterized themselves as victims and reactors, rather than actors". What that statement actually says is that both officer and suspect viewed themselves as a victim. Does that in any way mean they both were? Is it a surprise that a criminal would view himself as a victim of the officers inteference, even if he were engaged in criminal activity? This proves what? That one or both parties tend to view the incident from different points of view? It's a completely subjective standard. A better one would be to ask the question, based on the totality of the circumstances, was officer behavior reasonable. We are to presume that this little gem is somehow evidence of anything. 

The lesson about Marxian philosophy is this, beware any philosophy that claims it is the only philosophy built on scientific principles. What will follow will be a harrowing journey in to the most dogmatic propaganda imaginable. 

Take this jewel "The most interesting thing so far is the attempt, yet again, to impose a biological answer (it's in our genes--there're winners, and losers) on social questions, and the attempt to impose a simple binary opposition on a complex matter."

The issue isn't with trying to deal with obvious and varied impact that genetics has on behavior, it's obvious that it has a huge impact. The dogma comes from those who refuse to let go of the anachronistic Marxian belief that it's all learned behavior about wealth inequality. The problem with many social scientists is that they are still too in love with Marx to realize they've entered the 21st century and much their believe systems about social behavior don't stand up to hard science. When social science becomes religion, it's time to take a step back and look at the big picture.

As far as the statement about moderating police force and sheep dogs broken to the leash by civilian authority, of course that's the case. If that's your ownly issue, then you don't have one. That's what a constitution is, is nothing more than hard rules of behavior and conduct to lawful authority limiting when and how to act. There is no other way to conduct business in a democratic society. 

You wouldn't buy a sheep dog and not train him to do the job right and to know his limitations, would you? hehe.

People get pretty worked up about analogies, especially when they think they are being called sheep.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 27, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that I understand what the most-often quoted bit of Roosevelt's writings has to do with the topic of this thread, where it appears in a context that makes it look as though we should admire Hitler because, well dagnabbit, the man went out and DID things, as opposed to, say, Thoreau, who just sat around and read and wrote.
> 
> The most interesting thing so far is the attempt, yet again, to impose a biological answer (it's in our genes--there're winners, and losers) on social questions, and the attempt to impose a simple binary opposition on a complex matter.
> 
> ...


I've detected a trend recently where those of a certain political philosophy who disagree with another point of view try to 'anchor' their opponents arguments as being Fascist by building a Hitler or Nazi strawman. I don't recall anyone but you and eyebeams mentioning Nazism or Hitler. You guys wouldn't be trying that old cheap debate trick would you? I think pretty highly of you guys, don't cheapen yourselves like that.


----------



## arnisandyz (Apr 27, 2005)

I think you guys getting all worked up about thiss are putting too much into it. Its not meant to be a Thesis or a scientific study, but more of a "take it for what its worth".  It starts out "One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me...."   

Whether you agree with it or not, I though it was written in such a way to be easily understandable as to what he is trying to say (obviously not). NO, people are NOT dogs and NO people are NOT sheep, some people are having a hard time getting past just this. 

"This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between."
(if you look at this not as one person being a sheep and another a sheepdog, but that everybody has both sheep and sheepdog in them to varying degrees, I see it as not having to rely on somebody else, but taking a step personally to at least be aware of the wolves).


----------



## Adept (Apr 27, 2005)

*cough* Godwin's Law *cough*


----------



## arnisandyz (Apr 27, 2005)

Adept said:
			
		

> *cough* Godwin's Law *cough*



yup...can a mod please lock this thread?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 27, 2005)

Or, folks could try to learn how to offer more than belittling and patronizing remarks based upon inadequate understandings of ideas with which they are not familiar.

1. I see that nobody wanted to discuss what happens when we take concepts (sheep and sheepdogs, in this case) from science fiction novels, and apply them onto complex social situations using a broad brush.

2. What Marx actually wrote was that capitalist societies necessarily exploit their members, not that, "wealth inequality," was the source of crime. He certainly did not claim that the members of the poor and the working class, let alone anybody else, were angels. In fact, one of the most-criticized (by "marxians," anyway) set of concepts in Marx concerned his reliance on human nature and inherent greed to drive history forward, and the absence of anything resembling a real consideration of gender (which might have bright up some interesting things) in his work. Oh yes, and his "religious," (if you prefer, Hegelian) concept of historical destiny, far too often used to justify all sorts of horrors. You might want to read something like Foucault's reworkings/criticisms of Marx--would you like references?

3. I see that I am (again) personally responsible for Stalin, Korea, Vietnam, and no doubt, Hanoi Jane (who if the review I just read in the NYT of her bio is any guide, is even a bigger twit than anybody had suspected....shame, too, as "Steelyard Blues," is a great stoner movie) but I think you left out Pol Pot, who studied at the Sorbonne focused on very much the sorts of ideas you're attacking. I could assure you that I learned about this repulsive crap way earlier than you did, but what's the point? I'm sure your eyes are skidding off this very paragraph, since it doesn't fit the stereotypes employed to avoid actually looking at reality. So how 'bout this--that "sheepdog," bit has been used by nearly every tin-pot dictator of modernity...there's that wacky Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet, Bautista, all them bastards in Africa...I think we can get the body count up there with Joe Stalin, especially since it's my suspicion that all these SOBs tell themselves something about being sheepdogs.

4. As for the behavioral genetics stuff, well, funnily enough, I did a fair amount of my undergrad work with one of the founders of the current field, Robert Plomin. He insisted that it was ALWAYS a mistake to confuse the underlying genetic substrate with the complex causes of human behavior. Incidentally, something else I learned--there is a fairly-long history of pseudo-scientific attempts to ground social policy on the notion of genetic superiority and inferiority. I recommend starting with Galton's, "g," and working forward, and hey, don't miss Cyril Burt and that Robert Ardrey claptrap. But to quote my developmental psych prof, "The whole point of being human is that we're not slaves to our biology."

5. I liked the point about the Sixties and crime, even though of course it's being used to support the notion that it's them damn hippies-'n-liberals whut ruint this country. (When I read some of the touchy-feely, pseudo-scientific crap that's being used in education these days to help middle-class people avoid spending money, I even sort of agree.) But two points: a) crime has been dropping--probably because of the decline in numbers of males aged 16-24, b) that Happy America way back then--had a few little violences of its own. You know--racial segregation, war after war, completely-unacknowleged domestic violence, the constant abuse of workers, the Tuskeegee "bad Blood," experiments; yes, a big bag o'stuff, but all violences that I would consider a little tough to explain with sheepdogma.

6. I agree that it's wise to beware of political philosophies that calim to be pure science. But then, that's pretty much what I was trained to do in all them leftist classes--hey, here's a ref; try another of my teachers, E.P. Thompson, "The Poverty of Theory." You'll kvell at his leftist biography (head of Europe's CND, for one thing; dind'cha just know it?); you'll find confusion in his unrelenting, informed attacks on the claims of science in leftist social and cultural theory. Or try Christopher Hitchens; he's in "Slate," he supports having invaded Iraq, he loathes Big Money and thought Vietnam was a sterling example of genocidal stupidity. Or, just stick with the whole Dr. Tom Dooley Was A Saint Martyred By Godless Communism routine.

7. As always, I see that folks are unable to write without adverting to the fantasized emotional states of those with whom they disagree ("People get pretty worked up..."), and without returning to the biological reductionism. That's OK by me. But it is what it is--a pseudoscientific analogy, not a simple picture of actual reality. Everybody relies on these at some point (one thinks of Marx and his, 'werewolf hungers," of capitalism, for instance), that's for sure.  It only becomes dangerous when folks start claiming some absolutely-privileged access to the Truth, especially when their claim looks so much like an ugly history of such claims. 

And yes, of course that applies to us worthless CommieSymps too.


----------



## KenpoTess (Apr 27, 2005)

Mod Note

Thread Moved to Study for content.

~Tess
-MT. S. Mod


----------



## ginshun (Apr 27, 2005)

Good little essay.  I think the responces to it in this thread pretty much illustate the point of it.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 27, 2005)

Just FYI, this came from a site dedicated to the Colt 1911 pistol. It seems to be a very good site; nice discussions, and willing to affiliate itself with:

http://www.wecembroidery.com/

But the sheep/sheepdog crap is ridiculous.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Apr 27, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Just FYI, this came from a site dedicated to the Colt 1911 pistol. It seems to be a very good site; nice discussions, and willing to affiliate itself with:
> 
> http://www.wecembroidery.com/
> 
> But *the sheep/sheepdog crap is ridiculous*.


That's why I split all people, all over the world, every day (is that enough sweeping generalizations?) into two groups: Star-bellied sneetches, and those with no stars upon thars.  Works for me.

D.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 27, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I've detected a trend recently where those of a certain political philosophy who disagree with another point of view try to 'anchor' their opponents arguments as being Fascist by building a Hitler or Nazi strawman. I don't recall anyone but you and eyebeams mentioning Nazism or Hitler. You guys wouldn't be trying that old cheap debate trick would you? I think pretty highly of you guys, don't cheapen yourselves like that.


http://www.paultastic.com/interesting_winArgument.php



> *Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler
> 
> *This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say: "That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say" or "You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler."


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 27, 2005)

Moderator Note:

 Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314 Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

  -Georgia Ketchmark
  -MT Sr. Moderator-


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 28, 2005)

Uh...the "paultastic," site, which seems to have been put up by a very nice guy, also uses a discussion of what its author refers to as logic to claim that no other religion than his own--he's a born-again fundamentalist--can possibly be true or logical. And he has no idea what the religions he's attacking actually have to say. So, it might be wise to find a little better source for claims about rhetoric and logic--I recommend Geoffrey de Vinsauf, "Poetria Nova." 

But then too, I figure if anybody who disagrees can be compared to a sheep, and anybody else's ideas immediately bring up a comparasion to Stalin, an occasional mention of Herr Schickelgruber is not all that out of line.

But to be sure, the whole problem with the sheepdog/sheep bit is that actual life is a tad more complicated than that.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 28, 2005)

...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 28, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Or, folks could try to learn how to offer more than belittling and patronizing remarks based upon inadequate understandings of ideas with which they are not familiar.
> 
> 1. I see that nobody wanted to discuss what happens when we take concepts (sheep and sheepdogs, in this case) from science fiction novels, and apply them onto complex social situations using a broad brush. .


There's enough painting with broadbrushes going around here. In fact, this whole subject has been blown out of proportion. No where did anyone claim that people were literally sheep dogs or sheep. Some people, however, seem easily offended by the whole concept. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. What Marx actually wrote was that capitalist societies necessarily exploit their members, not that, "wealth inequality," was the source of crime. He certainly did not claim that the members of the poor and the working class, let alone anybody else, were angels. In fact, one of the most-criticized (by "marxians," anyway) set of concepts in Marx concerned his reliance on human nature and inherent greed to drive history forward, and the absence of anything resembling a real consideration of gender (which might have bright up some interesting things) in his work. Oh yes, and his "religious," (if you prefer, Hegelian) concept of historical destiny, far too often used to justify all sorts of horrors. You might want to read something like Foucault's reworkings/criticisms of Marx--would you like references?.


Your defense of Marxians is, i'm sure, quite admirable, and telling. Of course it is clear that many Marxians and Neo-Marxians believe that Marx didn't go far ENOUGH, as is clear by your gender statement. You seem to have misunderstood my religious statement. I didn't mean that Marx was religious, I meant his followers treat Marxian ideas like a religion, replete with all the appropriate dogma and iron obedience.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 3. I see that I am (again) personally responsible for Stalin, Korea, Vietnam, and no doubt, Hanoi Jane (who if the review I just read in the NYT of her bio is any guide, is even a bigger twit than anybody had suspected....shame, too, as "Steelyard Blues," is a great stoner movie) but I think you left out Pol Pot, who studied at the Sorbonne focused on very much the sorts of ideas you're attacking. I could assure you that I learned about this repulsive crap way earlier than you did, but what's the point? I'm sure your eyes are skidding off this very paragraph, since it doesn't fit the stereotypes employed to avoid actually looking at reality. So how 'bout this--that "sheepdog," bit has been used by nearly every tin-pot dictator of modernity...there's that wacky Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet, Bautista, all them bastards in Africa...I think we can get the body count up there with Joe Stalin, especially since it's my suspicion that all these SOBs tell themselves something about being sheepdogs..


Seems you're taking this discussion a bit personally. Unlike your linking your opponents to Hitler, at no point were you indicted as being part of any Marxist dictators atrocities. Maybe you're just so used to using that debate trick, you assume everyone else is as well. I in no way believe that you are the type of person who would engage in any of those activities. As I listed Cambodia, I didn't leave out Pol Pot. I am glad to see that you are still trying to link your opponents in this discussion with Hitler and other fascists, however. I guess if a trick works, keep using it. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 4. As for the behavioral genetics stuff, well, funnily enough, I did a fair amount of my undergrad work with one of the founders of the current field, Robert Plomin. He insisted that it was ALWAYS a mistake to confuse the underlying genetic substrate with the complex causes of human behavior. Incidentally, something else I learned--there is a fairly-long history of pseudo-scientific attempts to ground social policy on the notion of genetic superiority and inferiority. I recommend starting with Galton's, "g," and working forward, and hey, don't miss Cyril Burt and that Robert Ardrey claptrap. But to quote my developmental psych prof, "The whole point of being human is that we're not slaves to our biology.".


Again, trying to anchor your opponents arguments by creating a strawman. At what point can you quote me as saying genetics are the sole cause of human behavior? You can't. I'm fairly well acquainted with human behavior, and I understand that one doesn't exist without the other. Claiming socialization is the biggest contributor to human behavior, however, is like claiming that a windows program has more to do with how a computer works than the hardware it runs on. They are irrevocably linked together. That is my point, and I defy you to refute it. The problem, however, with the idea of free will is this statement "We can do what we want, but we can't will what we will". I do like your consistency in, again, back-door attempting to anchor my argument with fascism. Albeit, this time it was more discrete, and is only discernable by your "psuedo-scientific" and "genetic superiority and inferiority statement". That can only be a backhanded label of eugenics, which, as we all know, is associated with Adolph Hitler. It's the primary reason that a rational, reasonable discussion of genetics can't be undertaken. There's almost a phobic scale response to the idea of genetics role in behavior. Is this the only line of debate available?



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 5. I liked the point about the Sixties and crime, even though of course it's being used to support the notion that it's them damn hippies-'n-liberals whut ruint this country. (When I read some of the touchy-feely, pseudo-scientific crap that's being used in education these days to help middle-class people avoid spending money, I even sort of agree.) But two points: a) crime has been dropping--probably because of the decline in numbers of males aged 16-24, b) that Happy America way back then--had a few little violences of its own. You know--racial segregation, war after war, completely-unacknowleged domestic violence, the constant abuse of workers, the Tuskeegee "bad Blood," experiments; yes, a big bag o'stuff, but all violences that I would consider a little tough to explain with sheepdogma..


So you arrived at all that from my pointing out the flawed state
ment that the 60's were LESS violent than previous decades? More strawmen.
6. I agree that it's wise to beware of political philosophies that calim to be pure science. But then, that's pretty much what I was trained to do in all them leftist classes--hey, here's a ref; try another of my teachers, E.P. Thompson, "The Poverty of Theory." You'll kvell at his leftist biography (head of Europe's CND, for one thing; dind'cha just know it?); you'll find confusion in his unrelenting, informed attacks on the claims of science in leftist social and cultural theory. Or try Christopher Hitchens; he's in "Slate," he supports having invaded Iraq, he loathes Big Money and thought Vietnam was a sterling example of genocidal stupidity. Or, just stick with the whole Dr. Tom Dooley Was A Saint Martyred By Godless Communism routine.

Hmmm, I think you're getting a little defensive considering you were only attacked for the statements you made about Hitler, and a few other erroneous comments. You're not the only one with a more complex position than it would first appear. If you have me pegged as a cut-and-paste, cardboard cuttout right winger that you can attack with cliche's, you're mistaken. Further, my statements about the 60's were a clarification of a silly statement made that violent crime was lower in the 60's than in previous decades, a statement that must have been made off the cuff as the facts are so enormously in the opposite direction. If we wish to have a discussion about what I believe the causes are, we'll have to start a different topic as that would be a long discussion.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 7. As always, I see that folks are unable to write without adverting to the fantasized emotional states of those with whom they disagree ("People get pretty worked up..."), and without returning to the biological reductionism. That's OK by me. But it is what it is--a pseudoscientific analogy, not a simple picture of actual reality. Everybody relies on these at some point (one thinks of Marx and his, 'werewolf hungers," of capitalism, for instance), that's for sure. It only becomes dangerous when folks start claiming some absolutely-privileged access to the Truth, especially when their claim looks so much like an ugly history of such claims. .


This paragraph I have to agree with, and I think YOU might want to read it again. It's good advice, even if you didn't think it applied to you when you wrote it. 

And yes, of course that applies to us worthless CommieSymps too.[/QUOTE]Really, quote me as calling you a commiesymp. Again, "getting worked up" ,hehe, never solved anything.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Uh...the "paultastic," site, which seems to have been put up by a very nice guy, also uses a discussion of what its author refers to as logic to claim that no other religion than his own--he's a born-again fundamentalist--can possibly be true or logical. And he has no idea what the religions he's attacking actually have to say. So, it might be wise to find a little better source for claims about rhetoric and logic--I recommend Geoffrey de Vinsauf, "Poetria Nova."
> 
> But then too, I figure if anybody who disagrees can be compared to a sheep, and anybody else's ideas immediately bring up a comparasion to Stalin, an occasional mention of Herr Schickelgruber is not all that out of line.
> 
> But to be sure, the whole problem with the sheepdog/sheep bit is that actual life is a tad more complicated than that.


What that has to do with his comments about using Hitler in any argument I have no idea, other than it is another of those grand old debate tactics known as "ad hominem attacks". They work like this. Anytime you disagree with some good point made by someone, but you have no method to attack what was said, attack the person. As we all know, attacking the person will immediately nullify their credibility and invalidate what they say. This is turning in to Debate tricks 101. I think there's enough painting with a broad brush to go around. For example, the world is more complicated than the idea that anyone who disagrees with a position MUST be a fascist in league with Hitler.

P.S. My intent isn't to snipe, merely to debate a philosophical perspective. I hope we are all adult enough to handle disagreeing without getting snotty. Personally, it's clear to me that rmcrobertson is an intelligent, well educated person. I just disagree with his position a few topics. Nothing wrong with that, that's why Baskin Robbins has more than one flavor. I promise to refrain from engaging in personal ad hominem attacks. Attacks on a philosophical position, however, seem perfectly valid to me. That's what debate is. If I am wrong, please let me know.  And, of course, if one of the moderators decides that this line of discussion should not continue, i'll respect their decision.


----------



## TonyM. (Apr 28, 2005)

Gamma programming.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 28, 2005)

Perhaps if you avoided following up on something I specifically wrote with these sorts of comments:

"....this just shows the lengths that Marxians will go to do distort reality for political gain. The irony is that Marxians, any time they manage to gain power to 'fix' the so-called wealth and social inequalities, end up doing so at bayonet point, case in point the aforementioned Soviet Union, as well as Cuba, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, to name a few. Then they start instituting a little inequality of their own. 

Further, much research by Marxian minded social scientists is of an extremely dubious and highly subjective nature....It's a completely subjective standard. A better one would be to ask the question, based on the totality of the circumstances, was officer behavior reasonable. We are to presume that this little gem is somehow evidence... 

The lesson about Marxian philosophy is this, beware any philosophy that claims it is the only philosophy built on scientific principles. What will follow will be a harrowing journey in to the most dogmatic propaganda imaginable. 

Take this jewel "The most interesting thing so far is the attempt, yet again, to impose a biological answer (it's in our genes--there're winners, and losers) on social questions, and the attempt to impose a simple binary opposition on a complex matter."

{This sort of}...dogma comes from those who refuse to let go of the anachronistic Marxian belief that it's all learned behavior about wealth inequality."

....then I wouldn't suspect that this was a too-personal response, or that I was being called a commiesymp or some such. You know--one of those who is just holding back till the glorious day when he can, at the point of a bayonet, impose Stalinism just like in the good ol' USSR? Or at least use, "the most harrowing propaganda imaginable?"

Ad hominem is as adhominem does. Therefore, it might be wise not to begin every response to a quote with one remark or another about the emotionalism of the person you're arguing with: "some people seem easily offended," or, "maybe you're just so used to that debate trick," or, "there's almost a phobic scale response," or, "I think you're getting a little defensive," and the like. 

However, since you're traying at least to be polite, I'll tell ya my favorite 1980s Moscow streets joke: "Under capitalism, man exploits man. But in Russia under Communism, things are the other way around."


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 30, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Perhaps if you avoided following up on something I specifically wrote with these sorts of comments:
> 
> "....this just shows the lengths that Marxians will go to do distort reality for political gain. The irony is that Marxians, any time they manage to gain power to 'fix' the so-called wealth and social inequalities, end up doing so at bayonet point, case in point the aforementioned Soviet Union, as well as Cuba, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, to name a few. Then they start instituting a little inequality of their own.
> 
> ...


The only reason you should take those comments personally is if you actually represent the Marxian mindset I was referring.   If not, then there is nothing personal to take.


----------



## Cruentus (May 1, 2005)

Hi everyone...

I don't know what the big uprising is over this analogy. That is just what it is, you know...AN ANALOGY. That's it. It is an analogy that describes the difference between those people who are self-defense, protection, and safety minded, the majority who are not, and those who are preditors looking to prey on the majority who are not safety minded. And, btw, the 'sheepdogs' are not limited to civil service people in that speech.

I am not sure where some of you are getting the idea that this analogy is a justification for a police state, or propiganda to institute facism, but it does boggle me.

And, yes, I do believe that in many ways the great country I live in has turned somewhat facist, and will slowly getting worse if we don't all do something about it. However, saying that this analogy supports THAT...well... I am afraid that them are just windmills over the hill that there yonder...

What concerns me more then a simple analogy is the apparent aversion some of you have to wanting people to be self-defense and safety minded. We should all wanting to be "sheepdogs" and not wolves or sheep. And no, being a sheepdog doesn't really mean keeping the gunrack in your truck shined up. It means protecting your family and community by raising your kids right, paying attention to what goes on in your community, helping others, voting for people who are going to help good working people in your community rather then screwing them, etc., etc. etc.....as well as not being mindful of how to stay safe and how to protect yourself and others should something go wrong.

It amazes me that people are so pissy over an analogy, when it seems that we could all learn from it regardless of our political differences.  :idunno:    

Paul


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 1, 2005)

1. We're not dogs or sheep. Nor are we all that much like them. But if one assumes that we are, then this question comes up: why do dogs herd sheep? what are sheep for?

2. The analogy was specifically being used by military and para-military people, which is a little disturbing.

3. The analogy's origins appear to be in things like, "Starship Troopers," a fun book but not a great social blueprint.

4. The analogy's defenders quickly started drawing upon the usual suspects to defend their argument.


----------



## Han-Mi (May 1, 2005)

I just saw it as a call to make a choice. A choice to be a "repsonsible cictzen" or a "sheep dog" or whatever you want to call it.  You don't have to be a police officer or in the armed forces to be a sheep dog, you just have to have the drive to take an active role in making the world a better place.  I'm not entirely sure why so many people got so worked up about this post. That's my buck two five.


----------



## evenflow1121 (May 1, 2005)

Nice article.


----------



## Tgace (May 1, 2005)

WOOF!:rofl:.......Baaaaaaaaaaaa! :rofl:


----------



## evenflow1121 (May 1, 2005)

Thats a cute dog.


----------



## Cruentus (May 2, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> I've gotta agree with robertson, the analogy does imply such a police state. Think about it, sheepdog guard and herd sheep, who just follow, and wolves are predators who prey on sheep (and probably the occassional sheepdog, if they get really desperate.) When you apply this to humans, it does imply the following: (1) some people, the sheepdogs (the few, the proud, the...you get the idea), are meant to protect and guide and direct (2) other people, the sheep, who are by nature meant to follow and be passive and obey the sheepdogs, always under the constant fear that (3) the wolves, those big bad predatory out-theres, are always threatening the flock. These are the resulting implications that arise when you apply this sheep-sheepdog-wolf analogy to human society, and it is pretty fascist. This is true, whether the sheepdogs consist of the State or moral outstanding individuals. Either way, one group is the guide and protector, the other is the passive follower.



I can see that arguement, except for one thing; the speaker does not limit the "sheepdogs" to only military/para-military people. If he did, I could agree with you and Mr. Robertson - but he didn't, so I can't.

To reiterate, he says:

_In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision. _ 

He also used the Todd Beamer example where a band of civilians stood up for themselves to fight the hijackers on 9-11, grounding a plane that could have hit a building and cost more lives.

So, yes it is true that his audience when he was SPEAKING (remember that this was taken from a speach) was at a navel academy, and were military/police personel. This is why he used a lot of military/police related examples. 

But, he did not limit the analogy to only them. He does not assert that the "sheep" are not allowed to defend themselves. He instead states that as human beings, we can be whatever we can; that we can be safety and defense minded or not. 

Because he opens the analogy up to all citizens and invites us all to be "sheepdogs", it can't be analogious to a police state.

I think what has happened is that many people brought their own personal baggage to the analogy and the speech to assert something that the speaker did not. But I think that if we all take a breath and read it objectively, we'll see that the speaker did not assert that civilians have to be "herded" by men in uniform.

Paul


----------



## Tgace (May 2, 2005)

artyon:


----------



## KenpoTex (May 2, 2005)

Okay, some people have problems with this analogy, so let's change it a little.  Instead of sheepdogs which "herd the dumb, defenseless sheep," lets go with wolf-hounds: dogs bred to hunt and/or kill wolves, not to herd sheep.  That way we take the whole "herd and direct" thing out of the mix.
  For that matter let's just change animals alltogether.  Instead of wolves, let's call them coyotes, which is actually probably a better description as coyotes are cowardly little bastards.  Calling most criminals "wolves" is giving them too much credit.  Instead of sheepdogs or wolfhounds let's use donkeys or llamas; both of which are used by sheep ranchers to "fight off" the coyotes.  So the bad guys are coyotes, the good S.D. minded people are jackasses--I know, let the jokes begin.  On the other hand, from the perspective of some of the more "enlightened" members of our society, this may be a more apt description for us. but I digress...

Seriously, this whole thing is getting a little stupid.  Take the analogy for what it's worth, recognize that there are different types of people: the good the bad, and the ugly...nevermind, that's a movie.   For the purposes of this disscussion the basic types are: the sheep, or maybe they shoud be called ostriches (kewl, another animal, ain't zoology fun); those that don't or _won't_ understand that there are bad people out there and that sometimes they have to be dealt with "with extreme prejudice." The sheepdogs/wolfhounds/jackasses-people that refuse to themselves or their loved ones to be prey, or in the case of military and LE, spend their time taking out the trash.  And the the wolves or coyotes-the murderers, rapists, robbers, and serial-killers of the world.

Okay I'm done.  I think it's time to let this one fade away.


----------



## Flatlander (May 3, 2005)

*



RP700 
Think about it, sheepdog guard and herd sheep, who just follow, and wolves are predators who prey on sheep (and probably the occassional sheepdog, if they get really desperate.) When you apply this to humans, it does imply the following: (1) some people, the sheepdogs (the few, the proud, the...you get the idea), are meant to protect and guide and direct (2) other people, the sheep, who are by nature meant to follow and be passive and obey the sheepdogs, always under the constant fear that (3) the wolves, those big bad predatory out-theres, are always threatening the flock. These are the resulting implications that arise when you apply this sheep-sheepdog-wolf analogy to human society, and it is pretty fascist. This is true, whether the sheepdogs consist of the State or moral outstanding individuals. Either way, one group is the guide and protector, the other is the passive follower.

Click to expand...

 *
I think that this: 





> (2) other people, the sheep, who are by nature meant to follow and be passive and obey the sheepdogs


 is the fundamental truth upon which the entire concept is predicated. I must agree that the sheep, by nature, seek to follow one who will lead. _Must_ they "obey"? No. They choose to do so because it is advantageous, survivally, given their nature. They have evolved into this role - it provides them with a survival advantage. It's not a question of _must_, its a question of _should_.

Further, (3) is a real fear. There is no question that the wolves are out there. Its in every day's news. Pick your paper, and have a look. From streetcorner to boardroom to government office, wolves prowl. Why? because there are not, nor will there ever be enough sheepdogs. If there were, the wolves would run out of sustenance.


----------



## Flatlander (May 3, 2005)

Random Phantom 700, please accept my most sincere apology.  In replying to your post, which was #40 in this thread (previous to the one which now reads as #40) I, quite unfortunately, edited your post rather than quoted it.  As a Moderator, I have the ability to edit posts.  I made a big mistake, and now your post is gone for ever.  I'm really sorry.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (May 3, 2005)

No biggie, I was wondering what was up with the Moved version of this thread on the main Study page.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 3, 2005)

1. Uh....those are people out there. You might read about, say, Rome in the tenth century or so, when there really WERE wolves at the door.

2. I'd point out that there is a tendency to use biology as an excuse for the ways we've structured our world.

3. Please provide some sort of proof for this imaginary, "fundamental truth...that the sheep, by nature, seek to follow." 

4. Typically, these claims are put forward by those who believe themselves superior, and who wish to justify a certain kind of politics.


----------



## arnisandyz (May 3, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Typically, these claims are put forward by those who believe themselves superior, and who wish to justify a certain kind of politics.



To read more into this anoalogy of sheep, sheepdogs and wolves, I think you are putting to much focus toward the sheepdog and forgetting about the shepard.

I'm not even going to bring up a wolf in sheeps clothing!


----------



## Flatlander (May 3, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Uh....those are people out there. You might read about, say, Rome in the tenth century or so, when there really WERE wolves at the door.
> 
> 2. I'd point out that there is a tendency to use biology as an excuse for the ways we've structured our world.
> 
> ...


1. Yes, they are people.  
2. Perhaps.  What's the point?
3. Watch sheep.
4. What kind of politics are you referring to?  It seems to me that the intent of the analogy is to encourage helping, not hurting. Would you agree?


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 3, 2005)

Watching sheep will only tell you so much about human beings, inasmuch as we are not sheep.

And these "sheepdogs and sheep," analogies, oddly enough, only ever appear in police and military contexts, or among right-wing politicians. I guess it wouldn't be surprising if Stalin used it, but then that's hardly the sort of thing that gives the image intellectual or moral authority.


----------



## arnisandyz (May 3, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Watching sheep will only tell you so much about human beings, inasmuch as we are not sheep.
> 
> How about watching people?  if you are in a crowded room and yell FIRE!!! I can bet a majority will "flock" to the exits. Some will instinctively know where to go, others that may be confused will follow them.  Still others will see where the fire is and try to put it out or help the people evacuate. Nothing wrong with any of them.


----------



## arnisandyz (May 3, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And these "sheepdogs and sheep," analogies, oddly enough, only ever appear in police and military contexts, or among right-wing politicians. I guess it wouldn't be surprising if Stalin used it, but then that's hardly the sort of thing that gives the image intellectual or moral authority.



It is used in religion as well...(so by your formula the priest that wrote this thinks of himself higher and almighty compared to the congregation?)

Another such analogy I like to use that the Lord showed me is that, since He is the Good Shepherd, I as a priest am in some ways better described as a "sheepdog". 

Look at it this way - the sheepdog has to rely on the Master for survival as much as the sheep must. Yet the sheepdog (aka: border collie) has the job of watching the Master for where He wants the sheep to go, and then move the sheep for the Master. The other type of sheepdog (aka: shetland sheepdog) has the job of watching and defending the sheep - or barking loud enough to warn the sheep and bring the Master to defend the sheep.

Finally, if the sheepdog doesn't rely on the Master for food, the dog's instinct would be to turn on the sheep - and most of us know some priest who has turned on the People of God.

So both sheep and sheepdog are owned by the Master, yet there is a difference. And we do describe ordination as making a difference in the one ordained (we call it an ontological change).

Anyway... analogies can be great ways to describe something that is hard to describe - so-long-as we don't make the analogy the only way of seeing something.

"Doggedly" yours,

Fr. Frank (wuff)


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 3, 2005)

Sorry, still not a sheep, don't really want a master, guru or shepherd--and kinda resent (though not all that much) being told that I should.

And yes, in hierarchical religions, priests are "better," than the rest.


----------



## Ray (May 3, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And yes, in hierarchical religions, priests are "better," than the rest.


I don't believe that is true in all cases.


----------



## arnisandyz (May 3, 2005)

Maybe this will help:

PUPPY = DOG as kitten = _______
The analogy is read "Puppy is to dog as kitten is to 'blank.'" Try reading the analogy as a sentence that expresses the relationships between the words: "A puppy is a young dog, like a kitten is a young . . ."? Cat is the best answer.

Nobody is saying a dog is a cat.


----------



## arnisandyz (May 3, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> I don't believe that is true in all cases.


Have to agree there.  Although there are some that take advantage, most men of the cloth see themselves as "servants" of God and his people.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 3, 2005)

I wrote, "hierarchical," religions. Zen Buddhism doesn't see it this way; most Christianities do. And the whole notion of having a few, proud sheepdogs implies that they are superior to the herd. It's inherent in the image.


----------



## Tgace (May 3, 2005)

Thinking we are better than anybody else and flaunting it is in bad taste. Those who truely are "superior people" dont have to prove anything and their "excellence" is something other people see in them vs. what they say about themselves. Much like how going on and on about how experienced we are, how many years of X we have done, how many books we have read, written and quoted and how everybody has to "prove" anything I disagree with (even dumb analogies) is in bad taste. Smacks of superiority complex. 

Woof.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 3, 2005)

It's radically different to claim that a few are naturally superior--or superior through God's Will--and to mention a book now and then that anybody can go read. Especially considering that the high-falutin' tome I mentioned here was what? "Starship Troopers?" 

And it's also different to argue ideas, or to look at history, vs. repeating back the old right-wing fantasy--anybody who sees the world differently from me must have a superiority complex, or personal neuroses. Sorry--your fantasy, not mine.


----------



## heretic888 (May 3, 2005)

arnisandyz said:
			
		

> How about watching people?  if you are in a crowded room and yell FIRE!!! I can bet a majority will "flock" to the exits. Some will instinctively know where to go, others that may be confused will follow them.  Still others will see where the fire is and try to put it out or help the people evacuate. Nothing wrong with any of them.



Actually, most research on the matter would indicate such things are a result moreso of the _social circumstances_ moreso than any supposed, pe-existing internal dispositions (or "natures", if you want). Its social psychology at its finest.

In all likelihood, the people that try and put the fire out or help others have either (a) had experience in similar situations, or (b) have had special training to prepare them for such situations. In no way does this make the unprepared any more or less "sheepish" than them, nor does it mean they have an intrinsicially different "nature" or "personality".

Of course, another principle in social psychology could be brought up here: the fundamental attribution error. It is our collective tendency to attribute our own negative actions (be they "immoral", "cowardly", or "weak") to external circumstances, while we attribute others' negative actions to internal dispositions (i.e., "the terrorists do what they do just because they're 'evil', not because they've been living in constant fear and mind-raping poverty for generations").

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (May 3, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I wrote, "hierarchical," religions. Zen Buddhism doesn't see it this way; most Christianities do. And the whole notion of having a few, proud sheepdogs implies that they are superior to the herd. It's inherent in the image.



At this point, we could also bring up the Mahayana Buddhist notion of the Bodhisattva's Vow --- namely, that the Bodhisattva absolutely, utterly, completely refuses to accept the bliss of Nirvana (in contrast to the detached Arhat) unless _all_ sentient beings, without exception, can also share and partake of the Liberation.

In fact, it goes even further: the reason the Bodhisattva cannot accept Nirvana under such conditions is because he (or she) experiences the suffering of others as his (or her) _own_ suffering. "What you have done to the least of my brothers" or some such...

Although, for all you Bible-heads listening, there are also ready parallels to this idea in the New Testament. From that wacky gnostic Paul, no less.

Laterz.


----------



## Flatlander (May 3, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I wrote, "hierarchical," religions. Zen Buddhism doesn't see it this way; most Christianities do. And the whole notion of having a few, proud sheepdogs implies that they are superior to the herd. It's inherent in the image.


Superior, or able?  Desiring to control, or socially conscious?  You're projecting.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 3, 2005)

Am I really.

"Since all men aren't equally ready to meet violence when it comes, a select few of us volunteer to meet violence for them. BUT, it is vitally important for those of us who take that responsibility to remember that the vast majority of people out there are the sheep we serve..."


"All men aren't equally ready...a select few of us...take that responsibility."


----------



## Tgace (May 4, 2005)

"Since all men aren't equally ready to meet violence when it comes, a select few of us volunteer to meet violence for them. "



Is that statement false on its face?...many people do call 911 to have somebody else face the danger. Its the smart thing to do. However many people will also take a beating, shooting or stabbing and then blame the police for not being there to protect them...those are the "sheep".


----------



## Tgace (May 4, 2005)

Did nobody read this part...



> It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.
> 
> Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.
> 
> ...


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 4, 2005)

Or, we could skip all the animal crap and go with Edmund K. Parker's statement that the first consideration of combat is acceptance.

The sheepy thing is a bad analogy--it's not good writing, and it carries along with it a wide range of problems.

Incidentally, I tend to believe that democracy is preferable to elitist notions, however well-intended.


----------



## heretic888 (May 4, 2005)

Hrmmmm....

I'd have to agree with Robert on this one, in that the whole "sheep" analogy is just really bad writing and almost assuredly prone to the interpretations that many of this thread have given it. 

I mean, fer crissakes, when you're calling the majority of the population --- including a substantial number of very well-educated, intelligent, independent-minded folks --- "sheep", what the hell do you expect??  :idunno: 

Although, I can also see where Tgace is coming from, and perhaps Robert is exaggerating the analogy somewhat. "Projection" in this context, however, is far too strong of an accusation.

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## Tgace (May 4, 2005)

I think both sides are taking the analogy to an unintended extreme...for petes sake who really believes people are animals? He's just trying to make a simplified point about denial and duty. And as his audience is typically LE and military, of course its slanted towards them. Should he be saying "hey you guys are overpaid, rights trampeling, self-important pawns of the capitalistic power-elite....thats all, have a nice day."?? :idunno: 

Some just refuse to find a valid point at all costs.


----------



## Cruentus (May 5, 2005)

Um....

1. As I mentioned before, incidentally or not this is a SPEECH, not a writing piece.

2. Again to reiterate the point I made before, the speaker expressed that as human beings we have the choice to be a certian way. In no way does this imply, then, that being "sheep" is biological.

3. The analogy IS intended in part to piss off the sheep. To piss them off into being more safety/defense minded, and more supportive of those who keep us safe for a living. Let's face it, the large majority of people out there do not think of their own safety or defense, or of the safety or defense of those around them, and they rely on others to keep them safe. This is a sad but true fact.

4. Just because certian groups or people might use the analogy to justify wierd right-wingisms, that doesn't mean that this was the speakers intent, or that it is a bad analogy. Nor does this mean that the analogy implies police state, elitism, stalinism, facism, or any other claims that seem to be based off personal baggage.


----------



## arnisandyz (May 5, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Or, we could skip all the animal crap and go with Edmund K. Parker's statement that the first consideration of combat is acceptance.
> 
> The sheepy thing is a bad analogy--it's not good writing, and it carries along with it a wide range of problems.
> 
> Incidentally, I tend to believe that democracy is preferable to elitist notions, however well-intended.



As a speech, if it gets people to listen its sucessful. Some people are more likely to retain a piece of information when they can relate it to something they know or that is well known. Sheep have been known to follow, it IS well known  the duties of the sheepdog. My 5 year old knows this. From reading your posts and getting a feel for your writing style I would bet that a majority of high school students (for example) would retain the analogy of the sheep/sheepdog over your social dogma.  If  you took a control group and let a professional speaker/presenter address the crowd and  then let a person who studies the social sciences present thier thesis to them, I can almost guarantee more people will follow the professional speaker.  Im not saying that you are not intellegent, as your writing does show that, but in that, you loose touch of the reader (you use some mighty big words I dont understand). Its all about communication, you can be the most gifted scientist in the world, but if you dont know how to convey your ideas, nobody will know about it, or care to hear it.


----------



## arnisandyz (May 5, 2005)

Think about your teachers in college or high school.  Which ones were most influental to you, the ones who hit a chord, knew how to relate to you and got you involved or the ones who rattled off lectures like a text book? In this guy's speech he pushed the right buttons to get people to notice, whether they agree or not. People are more aware afterwards, and I think that was the main purpose of his writing, not to win awards, and not to be documented as social literature.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 5, 2005)

Hitler, of course, gave one king-hell of a speech.


----------



## FearlessFreep (May 5, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Hitler, of course, gave one king-hell of a speech.


 So did Martin Luther King Jr.  So what?


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 5, 2005)

The previous arguments were that what was being implied didn't matter, because all that really counted was delivering an effective speech.


----------



## arnisandyz (May 5, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The previous arguments were that what was being implied didn't matter, because all that really counted was delivering an effective speech.



Nobody said what was being implied didn't matter, if it didn't matter it wouldn't have been an effective speech. (This was in response to you refering to the piece as 'bad writing").  The analogy is simply a vehicle to take the audience to where the speaker wants them to go.

There are different components to a speech and recognizing your audience is one of them.  You can' simply state facts, cite work, and present your case.  Many times the audience needs to be led (bahahah) or taken somewhere. The best speakers, writers have a captivating personality.
Sometimes this can overcome a flawed position.


----------



## FearlessFreep (May 5, 2005)

My assumption was simply that the author was exploring or explaining the relationship of those who don't/can't exercise power/violence in self-defense, those that prey upon the first group, and those that are willing/able to use violence in defense of the first group from the second group. In exploring the interaction of those three groups, the sheep/sheepdog/wolf metaphor was effective as an illustration, but only for the limited view of that relationship; those willing to use violence and those unwilling...for different reasons. 

 No metaphor should be taken beyond it's intended meaning. When MLKJr said "I believe that we as a people can get to the promised land", the 'promised land' was a metaphor drawing upon the Exdous story of God leading his people from slavery to freedom. People could clearly understand the illustration. Nobody took it that MLKjr was saying that black people were going to have to cross a desert, or wander around in the wilderness for 40 years, or eat manna three meals a day, or that blacks in America were God's Chosen People. The metaphor worked for it's intent, and it was a good metaphor.

 In the case of willingness to use violence and how people, both willing and unwilling, view each other, the sheep/sheepdog/wolf metaphor works. You can disagree with the meaning of the metaphor, such as people both depend on and fear their protectors, but to object to the methporic language itself in terms of "people aren't sheep" is pretty silly because the authors intent for the metaphor was not to say that people really are sheep, anyway. The only point to the metaphor is "some people act like sheep when it comes to their willingess or ability to use violence against threats and thus need protectors, and some people act like sheepdogs as protectors." I mean, a sheepdog doesn't feel smugness or superiority over the sheep, it just does what it does. Similarly, the comparison of criminal to wolf breaks down at a point because a wolf breaks no moral or legal code in what it does. So if you expand the metaphor to far beyound it's intent, it breaks down, as all metaphors naturally do. If you want to object to the results of the metaphor and say "no, there are no sheep, everyone is physically and emotionally capable and ready to defend themselves against violence, so there are no need for 'protectors' (police or military, formal or informal) so there are no sheepdogs", that's fine, but most sheep have cuddly, fluffy, hair suitable for use in making clothing and while you might be able to say the same for people, I seriously doubt that was the intent of the metaphor

 I can turn the same phrasing around: teenagers are like sheep, easily influenced and led by their peers; ad executives are like wolves, seeking to pray upon the sheep; consumer protection agencies are like sheepdogs protecting the sheep against threats they really don't understand or can withstand. To a certain level and only a certain level, the metaphor works as a way of framing the start of a conversation or and understanding. To take the metaphor beyond it's intent and the critique it on grounds it was not intended to deal is a waste of time.

 It would be akin to objecting to MLKjr's speech by saying "It's not fair for us to roam around in the desert for forty years!". Well, probably not, but that wasn't the point of the metaphor, anyway. 

 The imagery in the speech works at illustrating an interlationship and interdependency and set of attitudes and responses. That's all it was intended to do and it did it effectively. Anything beyond that is the problem of the listener


 Some days I'm the sheep, some days I'm the sheepdog..maybe some days I'm the wolf. I understand what the author was trying to say, and I see how it applies to me and the people around me.

 I'm much more concerned if I look into the metaphor and think about wolves prentending to be sheepdos or sheepdogs becoming wolves than I am about taking affront to being called a sheep


----------



## elder999 (May 6, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Um....
> 
> 1. As I mentioned before, incidentally or not this is a SPEECH, not a writing piece.


I'm not so sure about that-it is a chapter in Dr. Grossman's _On Killing,_ without the mention of Columbine and 9/11, since it was first published in 1995. It may be in Loren Christensen's recent collection, _Warriors: on Living with Courage, Discipline and Honor_, or in their collaboration _On Combat_, both of which I haven't read yet.

Or it could be one of those internet things where somebody spiced up the original content and it started circulating.

Where'd you get the idea that it's a speech-I haven't found any attribution for it, other than the original which I've had for some time ;my lopng ago shrink ex-girlfriend loved it and insisted that I was a "sheepdog," which is only somewhat more flattering than wolf to me, and implies subservience to the sheep-just to put another spin on it.


----------



## Cruentus (May 6, 2005)

It was a chapter in Grossmans book, but it was taken from a speech:



> The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997...



I only pointed this out, because a couple people argued that it was "bad writing." The excerp was taken from a speech, so it was not originally intended to be submitted as a writing piece. The speech took place at a navel academy. This helps bring context to the analogy.

 :supcool:


----------



## elder999 (May 6, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> It was a chapter in Grossmans book, but it was taken from a speech:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think-if I';m understanding you-that you may have that backwards. It's a chapter in the book that _quotes_ William Bennet's speech..though it doesn't in the book, because, as I said, it was first  published before the speech took place.


----------



## Cruentus (May 6, 2005)

elder999 said:
			
		

> I think-if I';m understanding you-that you may have that backwards. It's a chapter in the book that _quotes_ William Bennet's speech..though it doesn't in the book, because, as I said, it was first  published before the speech took place.



I see what your saying....but now I'm confused.

I'll have to dig up my copy of Grossmans book and see what's going on there...


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 6, 2005)

Since the point of this thread is to use an analogy to justify a moral doctrine--the idea that a certain select few have both the responsibility and the right to protect the, sheep," whether they like it or not--using a citation from William Bennett, ex-Secretary of Education, author of, "The Book of Morals," and world-class gambling addict, is a sweet choice.

Among the things it opens up is this: has it ever occured to you guys that a) criminals might very well use exactly the same analogy for self-justification; b) down through history, the wars and misery caused by all these sheepdogs as they work so very, very hard to protect us losers is a primary driver of endless human misery?


----------



## Flatlander (May 6, 2005)

a) Why would we be concerned with how criminals justify their own actions?  There is no end to crime; it has been around forever, and will remain a part of our society forever.  I cannot begrudge one for justifying what they have done, or what they will do.  I needn't agree with it, but they're still free to justify things in their way.  The wonderful thing about democracy is that the criminals are usually in the minority.  That speaks to me a great deal about the nature of free people.
b) Perhaps those weren't sheepdogs.  Perhaps those were wolves.  Perhaps by being the one choosing to educate the ignorant about the TRUTH, you are a sheepdog too.  

Ultimately, it seems as though the interpretation of this analogy can be quite subjective.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 7, 2005)

If we find ourselves using exactly the same rationales as criminals and monsters, I would say we probably ought to reconsider--especially when we're using that rationale to justify violence, no matter how good the cause happens to be.


----------



## Tgace (May 7, 2005)

Looks like were in last word mode..tag your it.  :shrug:

Woof!


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 8, 2005)

Or, we could try being people and actually thinking about the topic.

And dogs do not actually say, "Woof."


----------



## Tgace (May 8, 2005)

Tag.


----------



## Cruentus (May 10, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Or, we could try being people and actually thinking about the topic.
> 
> And dogs do not actually say, "Woof."



Uh....Bark!?


----------



## shesulsa (May 10, 2005)

I met a dog who said "Ruff-Ruff," "Roo-Roo," "Bark-Bark" and "Arf-Arf."  His owners taught him that.  Was pretty impressed, actually.

 AND, as far as I understand it, sheeps don't go "Baaaaah," they go "meeeeh."

 Thoughts? Comments?


----------



## Cryozombie (May 10, 2005)

I think cats don't go meow, they go MEW.


----------



## shesulsa (May 10, 2005)

Actually, kittens go "mew" - cats go "meow," "rare," meeyowwrrrr," and "eeerrrr."


----------



## Cruentus (May 10, 2005)

Gorsh...all this talk about animals gets me all pumped to go put on a uniform, beat the crap out of the public, and turn our country into a police state!


----------



## Tgace (May 10, 2005)

Woof!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 10, 2005)

I stuck my head in this post, after submitting a little bit to it early on, and wasn't surprised to see some people still trying to link the opposing argument with Hitler. Oh well, I guess that's just the nature of the opposition.

I also noticed a couple Heinlein references. Since the Heinlein tome was mostly veiled anti-communist allegory, I can see how some people with communist-esque philosophers could find it deeply disturbing. Still, Heinlein's main point was that some people take responsibility for protecting society, while other's don't. 

I can also see where, if you have no intention of taking responsibility for protecting society, how some might resent those who do. It's a backhanded way of feeling superior for them. They can view those who they look to provide basic protection to them in their beds while still maintaining a feeling of sophistication, being above all those mundane concerns. They chaffe at even the slightest suggestion that anyone who does the sacrificing should be in any way viewed as having done any great service. That offends their egalitarian nature. As we all know, we need to all be EQUALS. Hmmm. Again, there's that equality thing. Equality by nature, or equality by deeds? 

"And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."

Maybe the problem is that some don't like the feeling they get when they contemplate the sacrifice of others. And to be the slightest bit GRATEFUL for that sacrifice? NEVER! That would be....uncivilized. That's alright, we don't do it for the gratitude. We just do it anyway. It is ironic that Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers was brought up, as he illustrates very well in the book that those in the military are likewise despised by civilians for the very same reasons that many object to the term Sheep. It's worth reading Heinlein's book to make the determination yourselves. Don't make a judgement about the book by the horrible satire created by Paul Verhoven. Many of Heinlein's detractors attempt to paint Heinlein's book as Fascist (much like they try to paint anyone who has a political philosophy they disagree with by saying 'Hitler would say that'.) There is absolutely nothing Fascist about Heinlein's book, and I defy anyone to show otherwise.




"Nothing of value is free. Even the breath of life is purchased at birth only through gasping effort and pain. . . . The best things in life are beyond money; their price is agony and sweat and devotion . . . and the price demanded for the most precious of all things in life is life itself--ultimate cost for perfect value." Jean V. Debois 

Starship Troopers 
​


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (May 10, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I can also see where, if you have no intention of taking responsibility for protecting society, how some might resent those who do. It's a backhanded way of feeling superior for them. They can view those who they look to provide basic protection to them in their beds while still maintaining a feeling of sophistication, being above all those mundane concerns. They chaffe at even the slightest suggestion that anyone who does the sacrificing should be in any way viewed as having done any great service. That offends their egalitarian nature. As we all know, we need to all be EQUALS. Hmmm. Again, there's that equality thing. Equality by nature, or equality by deeds?
> 
> "And gentlemen in England now a-bed
> Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
> ...


Wow, I love how everything you're talking about here isn't being said by anyone in this thread.  Nobody made any insults about LEOs or military personnel, this discussion was (supposed to be) about the accuracy of an analogy.  That's ok, though, if you have to resort to accusations and guilt trips, you go ahead.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 10, 2005)

Heinlein wrote a book in which, essentially, a military cadre runs the government: one only becomes eligible to vote by enlisting.

Moreover, the world depicted is at seemingly-endless war, with an enemy specifically despised because of their biology: no civilian authority whatsoever is visible anywhere in the book, only the military.

The book may very well be satirical, like Heinlein's weird, "Farnholm's Freehold," and his similar novels of the period.

The best single critique of the book appears as Joe Haldeman, "The Forever War."


----------



## Tgace (May 10, 2005)

Woof! Bark?


----------



## Tgace (May 10, 2005)

"We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian:'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.'
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 10, 2005)

Of course, it is important to remember that, a) old Willy the Shake was both shaky and biased in his presentation of history; b) the brave English were, at the time, engaged in a wee bit o'overseas imperialist piracy.


----------



## Cruentus (May 11, 2005)

I think I'll bring some practicality back to the thread, as it seems to have taken a turn for the weird...

Does anyone deny that some people are conditioned to go TOWARDS the danger, while most move away? Does anyone deny that most people (people with good intentions, families, respectable jobs, etc.) won't stop to help someone in trouble? 

If danger was present, most would worry about getting themselves to safety, which seems fairly natural to me. However, there are a few who would worry about getting everyone else to safety first, or making as many people as they can safe, before they worried about themselves.

Some of these people are in uniform....some are not. However, does anyone deny this?


----------



## Tgace (May 11, 2005)

I believe that I read somewhere that most people go "towards the sound of the guns" when they have a duty (job) to rather than some sort of "conditioning". I mean, after all what sort of cop would I be if I drove the opposite direction of a robbery in progress call? Its not "bravery", rather a sense of "this is what am expected (and expect of myself) to do."


----------



## Cruentus (May 11, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I believe that I read somewhere that most people go "towards the sound of the guns" when they have a duty (job) to rather than some sort of "conditioning". I mean, after all what sort of cop would I be if I drove the opposite direction of a robbery in progress call? Its not "bravery", rather a sense of "this is what am expected (and expect of myself) to do."



I would say that your training, your swearing to protect, your uniform and how you feel about your badge, are all forms of conditioning that makes you respond differently to danger then most people.

And...all your prior experiences (both formal and informal) that caused you to decide to persue a calling like Law Enforcement were all forms of conditioning as well.

This is to your credit, btw.

Paul


----------



## Tgace (May 11, 2005)

True..that being said however, it would really need to be a necessity for me to get involved with a situation that happened while I was off duty with my family somewhere. The risk of something happening to them or them watching something bad happening to me just isnt worth it.....


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 13, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Heinlein wrote a book in which, essentially, a military cadre runs the government: one only becomes eligible to vote by enlisting.
> 
> Moreover, the world depicted is at seemingly-endless war, with an enemy specifically despised because of their biology: no civilian authority whatsoever is visible anywhere in the book, only the military.
> 
> ...


First of all, Starship troopers was an allegory about communism. 

Second, you apparently haven't read the book very well. There is no military leadership in the book other than within the military itself. You cannot show one passage from the book that supports this, because it isn't there. The government in Starship troopers IS NOT military in nature, Military personnell cannot vote. They cannot hold office. It is only AFTER they are released from federal service, when they are citizens, that they can vote or hold public office. It is a civil government ran by those who bought their civil authority THROUGH service. They are no longer in the command of the military, nor do they answer to it. IT answers to THEM. This is the ultimate civil democracy. It is only thought to be a fascist regime by those who see as fascist anyone who disagrees with them (As illustrated by calling the opposing argument Hitleresque). The world is no bipolar Fascist/Communist, they are both creations of European thinkers, Heinlein brought a uniquely american perspective to the dialogue. Heinlein despised compulsory military service. In Starship Troopers ALL soldiers were volunteers, no one was compelled. Further, service and citizenship were open to anyone, with no respect to race, creed, or gender. Anyone who was willing to sacrifice was welcome. Those who decided to remain civilians did not suffer. In fact, they were probably individualy better off. They were left to live their lives with all the personal freedoms afforded any free civilian. They engaged in trade and commerce and enjoyed all the fruits afforded them by the protection of citizens. The only thing they could not do was make political decisions for others. Again, a truly democratic society devoid of racism and oppression. A far cry from the Nazi label given by the pro-communist attackers of the book.  This voluntary responsibility is a far cry from the Nazi/Fascist label that many try to hoist on Starship Troopers. 

The bugs in Starship Troopers are not HATED because of biology, that is a charge leveled by those who realize the anti-communist leanings of the book, and are offended by THAT. The bugs are hated for their group think and voracious desire to expand (Sound familiar?). The point made by Heinlein is that it is just and moral for a society to defend itself from such a threat. The derogatory terms used toward the bugs in the book are not meant as racism, but merely a commentary on how the enemy is dehumanized in order to fight it. The bugs started the war in Starship Troopers. Again, though, it's easy to see where someone might identify more with the collectivist views of the bugs (communists?) and be deeply offended by it. 

Joe Haldeman's Forever War was a completely overrated book which I doubt you've read. I read it years ago and it was extremely boring and overrated. I don't even know if it's still in print. You no doubt read about it on Wikipedia.

How this became a dialogue about Starship Troopers on the part of some, I have no idea, but it's a book i've read several times and the Fascist comments about it are dead wrong. 

Finally, in reference to the comments by yourself and RandomPhantom700, it's ironic that Random finds my painting with a broadbrush (just illustrating it's easy) offensive, but you labeling everyone as sounding like "Hitler" isn't? There's a lesson there. I didn't say anyone attacked the military or law enforcement, I said that there was an attempt to downplay the idea that there is a sacrifice involved. That is at the core of the disagreement over those terms. It becomes clear by looking at the focus of most of rmcrobertson's posts.


----------



## Tgace (May 13, 2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 13, 2005)

Personally, I don't believe Starship Troopers is the appropriate book to discuss this subject matter.  The fact is, a far more important primer before this topic could be rationally and intellectually discussed is Robert Pirsig's "Lila", which is the followup to his book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance".  In Lila, Pirsig develops further his metaphysics of "Quality".  Specifically, and most directly related to the subject matter, is issue of "Biological, Social and Intellectual Quality".  I suggest anyone interested in an intellectual discussion of the subject matter should read Lila first.  Pirsig deals with the issue of Social order in relation to biological quality, and the Intellectual rebellion against that social control and how it's lead to the disorder and fragmented society we have.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 13, 2005)

1. Oh really. Now, you are outmatched. Lifelong (began about...1957, with "Space Cadet," ghosted by Heinlein) sf nerd here. You might find, "Free Men," and, "The Day After Tomorrow," useful reading in regard to your assumption that he was never ever writing satirically. Or, you might wanna note his lifelong admiration of Mark Twain, resulting in such work as, "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag," and, "Jerry Was A Man," an utterly indefensible story.

2. I recommend reading Freud, "The Psychopathology of Everyday Life," as the best single guide to this thread.

3. Nice move, the attempt to describe all critics of "Troopers, "as, "pro-Communists." Not enough of a move, an old-fashioned move, but nice move. I feel so guilty to've mentioned "Reader's Digest," and their made-up nonsense about Dr. Tom Dooley now.

4. Oops, sorry, read all the Haldeman books. Would you care to explain, a) who they're "over-rated," by, b) why they're over-rated, or you just wanna stick with the intellectually lazy, politically-correct offhand remarks?

5. The offensive and hilarious thing about Paul Verhoeven's cream pie in the American face of a film is that he--utterly correctly, in my professional opinion--connect Bug society and the Federation as the hives they were. Or did you not notice that the military, "tactics," of both sides were virtually identical? before you answer, watch not merely "Robocop," but, "Soldier of orange," one of the best war movies ever made. Yes, he distorted the overt message of the novel. Oops, he got the political unconscious dead right.

6. We don't have a disorderly and fragmented society. We have a commercialized, consumerized and mediatized one, well on its way to becoming Foucault's carceral nightmare. But hell, even John Carpenter noticed THAT.

7. The whole notion of separating human beings along the lines of a, "dogs," and, sheep," binary opposition is characteristic of the register of the Imaginary which underpins all fascisms.

P.S. Heinlein actually wrote novel after novel, book after book, throughout his career--see, "By His Bootstraps," "Solution Unsatisfactory," the Corbett books, "Red Planet," "Citizen of the Galaxy," that novel set on Venus whose title I cannot recall right now, "Revolt in 2100," "Friday," and others--about the dangers of a militaristic, colonialist and slaving central government. ALL of his bastard autocrats have some theory about being sheepdogs, guiding the helpless sheepies. I suggest you read them before further sledding along with the Mussolini argument.  Oh, and read the stuff in which he argues for the biological superiority of a few. Oops, looks like--like a lot of American writers--he was possessed of a somewhat-contradictory ideology.


----------



## Flatlander (May 14, 2005)

Ya know, I'm curious, Robert.  How could your Constitution retain its relevance if there were no Americans prepared to accept the duty of protecting it?  

 Given that there are members of our civilization who choose to take (posessions, safety, lives, vandalize) from people rather than contribute (work, pay taxes, love their families, volunteer) and there are folks out there who are less than able (disabled, naive, elderly, physically weak, low self esteem) to protect themselves and/or enforce the rule of law;  who shall accept that role???

 Sheep, wolves, sheepdogs, _it is a metaphor_.  Is it a good metaphor?  I don't know.  It worked for me, I got the point.

 If you find it to be unsatisfactory, simply provide us with a metaphor you feel is more appropriate.  Really, its that easy.

 Incidentally, I encountered a great deal of difficulty in attempting to relate any of your points made in the previous post to the topic of this thread.  Perhaps you are overthinking this.  Perhaps I'm underthinking this.  From here, its tough to say.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 14, 2005)

Ya know, I'm curious too. Where is it in the works of the so-called founding fathers that they announce that the elite are superior to ordinary citizens, and have the right to tell them what to do, for lo, they are a sheepdog?

Or I'm curious about this: how long does democracy last, when a few, a happy few, decide--not because they want power, perish forbid, but only to help the poor foolish schmucks--that they are just going to tell, "the sheep," what to do?

Ideas, images, words, have meanings that come out of their cultural and historical connections. The sheep-and-sheepdogs jazz has some particularly-unfortunate connections, is all, and there's no point pretending otherwise. Or perhaps there is. 

Another metaphor? OK. How 'bout this one: one of the problems democracies have is that some people seem to be more willing to accept responsibility than others. Another problem is that a few people keep thinking that they're better than everybody else. Another problem is that we need cops and soldiers and laws, but that these very things create problems at times.

Oops, not really metaphors at all. Good; that way, maybe we discuss reality rather than talk about wolvies and sheepies.

P.S. Was responding to snooty post.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 14, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> P.S. Was responding to snooty post.



I see nothing different in this post then I see many or not all of your other psots. 

Why the caveat?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 14, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Oh really. Now, you are outmatched. Lifelong (began about...1957, with "Space Cadet," ghosted by Heinlein) sf nerd here. You might find, "Free Men," and, "The Day After Tomorrow," useful reading in regard to your assumption that he was never ever writing satirically. Or, you might wanna note his lifelong admiration of Mark Twain, resulting in such work as, "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag," and, "Jerry Was A Man," an utterly indefensible story.


You keep up with these strawman arguments, and i'm going to call you Scarecrow. You might want to quote me on when I said that Heinlein NEVER wrote satirically. I stated that Starship troopers was not satire, as it reflected Heinlein's anti-communist leanings. You might want to read something a little heavier than SF to get political enlightenment, however.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. I recommend reading Freud, "The Psychopathology of Everyday Life," as the best single guide to this thread.


I recommend reading something that hasn't been debunked for over 50 years and fallen in to such ridicule that anyone who reads it seriously isn't autmatically shown to be a lightweight. Why is it everyone with just enough psuedo-psychological understanding always picks Freud as a primer. Usually guys who took a couple psychology classes in College, because it always starts with Freud, despite the fact that any discussion of Freud and modern psychology is about as relevant as discussing the Wright brothers and modern aircraft engineering.




			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 3. Nice move, the attempt to describe all critics of "Troopers, "as, "pro-Communists." Not enough of a move, an old-fashioned move, but nice move. I feel so guilty to've mentioned "Reader's Digest," and their made-up nonsense about Dr. Tom Dooley now.


 About as old fashioned as calling anyone who disagrees with you "Hitler". That was my little of bit of satire to you, and you fell for it. It's ironic that you feel the need to point out the use of an obvious ploy you've been using since this thread started. Who's in over their head? pffft.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 4. Oops, sorry, read all the Haldeman books. Would you care to explain, a) who they're "over-rated," by, b) why they're over-rated, or you just wanna stick with the intellectually lazy, politically-correct offhand remarks?


Why would I bother, nobody but you even seems to remember it. Politically correct? You might want to use terms with a little more thought before you just toss them off, that sounded ridiculous.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 5. The offensive and hilarious thing about Paul Verhoeven's cream pie in the American face of a film is that he--utterly correctly, in my professional opinion--connect Bug society and the Federation as the hives they were. Or did you not notice that the military, "tactics," of both sides were virtually identical? before you answer, watch not merely "Robocop," but, "Soldier of orange," one of the best war movies ever made. Yes, he distorted the overt message of the novel. Oops, he got the political unconscious dead right.


Professional opinion? lol. Paul Verhoeven has very much the same political opinion as you, obviously, coming from a socialist viewpoint, he tried the same old tired tactic of linking any viewpoint he disagreed with to Hitler. That was the point of the entire movie. That's why the "Triumph of the Will-esque" propaganda pieces. Robocop worked for me when I was twelve. Further, it's ironic that you have to use Verhoeven's hatchetpiece as evidence against Heinlein's version. Why not quote Heinlein's original. It should be relatively easy to prove your thesis with the original work, not other peoples "Take" on it.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 6. We don't have a disorderly and fragmented society. We have a commercialized, consumerized and mediatized one, well on its way to becoming Foucault's carceral nightmare. But hell, even John Carpenter noticed THAT.


Obviously you haven't read Lila, or you'd be attempting to dissect it as opposed to discussion my statement about it. Try actually reading the work cited, before you attack it. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 7. The whole notion of separating human beings along the lines of a, "dogs," and, sheep," binary opposition is characteristic of the register of the Imaginary which underpins all fascisms.


There we go with the Fascism theme again. I guess that's more of that intellectual laziness you were talking about earlier. The world is more complex than the bipolar one you imagine. The sheep/sheepdog comment is allegory, but you really do believe that the world is made up of only fascists and non-fascists. Of course, I guess if it's the only note you can play, keep tooting it. Talk about in over your head.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> P.S. Heinlein actually wrote novel after novel, book after book, throughout his career--see, "By His Bootstraps," "Solution Unsatisfactory," the Corbett books, "Red Planet," "Citizen of the Galaxy," that novel set on Venus whose title I cannot recall right now, "Revolt in 2100," "Friday," and others--about the dangers of a militaristic, colonialist and slaving central government. ALL of his bastard autocrats have some theory about being sheepdogs, guiding the helpless sheepies. I suggest you read them before further sledding along with the Mussolini argument. Oh, and read the stuff in which he argues for the biological superiority of a few. Oops, looks like--like a lot of American writers--he was possessed of a somewhat-contradictory ideology.


You keep missing the point. It may be your obsession with fascism that keeps your mind narrow. Sheep dogs don't guide the sheep, they serve them. Sheep aren't required to respect or even appreciate the sheepdog. They are free to do whatever they want. It's the sheepdogs who do the suffering and sacrificing. That's probably the part you don't understand, suffering and sacrifice. The Sheep command the sheepdogs, the sheep make rules for the sheepdogs. The elected are sheep too. It is only that the sheep dog is ordered to stand the line between the wolves and the sheep, so that the sheep can live out their lives in whatever matter they see fit. The sheepdogs don't make the laws that they enforce, the sheep do. Again, you keep up this silly strawman, where you keep acting as if anyone is suggesting that the sheepdogs should RULE the sheep. Only the wolves want that. It is the sheep (social quality) using the sheepdogs, not the other way around.

Read Lila and get back with me. Biological, Social and Intellectual Quality and the conflict between them is at the core of this argument. Sheepdogs serve social quality, society in effect. Sheepdogs must, of necessity, be subservient to social quality, and social quality, in turn, to intellectual quality. We call them sheepdogs because they have a certain biological quality so they are able to engage in conflict with those who live on the biological level. What you are demonstrating, however, is the intellectual ingratitude toward social control over biological quality present among many who don't understand the dual nature of it's relationship. Robert Pirsig deconstructs your line of argument pretty effectively and with a finality that I doubt you'll very easily overcome. He does so by pointing out the inconsistency of thought present within the metaphysics of Intellectual quality toward both social and biological quality. Demanding that sheepdogs not engage in enforcement activity over intellectual quality is paramount to a free society. Demanding that sheepdogs not engage in enforcement over biological quality, however, is self-destructive and tantamount to suicide. Intellectual quality needs to understand who's side it is on. That is because it IS moral that biological quality be suppressed for the sake of social and intellectual quality, but not that intellectual quality be suppressed for the sake of social or biological quality. It is in this analogy that the term sheepdogs take on an extremely appropriate term. They exhibit the biological qualities of the wolf (or of biological man), aggression, physical strength. They have been adapted by social (sheep) and intellectual man to serve them, and protect them from biological quality (wolves), just as real sheepdogs were adapted from real wolves. The fact is, however, that if sheep represent social man, the Intellectual level is MAN himself, who should ultimately be in control. Without social control over biological quality, there could be no society. Without intellectual quality taking over, however, human society could not evolve. That is why your fascist argument is utterly unfair and flawed.  Fascism and Nazi Germany was immoral, because it attempted to make social institutions, the state, dominant over intellectual quality.  I could go on, but I won't.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 14, 2005)

1. Pirsig is the best you got?

2. Personally, I'd learn to spell, "pseudo," correctly before I went off about, "intellectual quality."

3. Heinlein never wrote satirically. Really. Damn. And here I thought that "Troopers," was an entertaining satire about militarism, while books like, "Podkayne of Mars," and a whole long list of others were satires about corporate capitalism. But then, unlike other children of John W. Campbell--the most famous being L. Ron Hubbard--Heinlein tended to go with the whole, "long live freedom, and damn the ideologies," approach of your Robinson Jeffers.

4. If you think Freud's irrelevant, well, a) you ain't read none, b) you've bought the Party Line (try W.H. Auden, "In Memory of Sigmund Freud," which might just have a thing or two to show y'all--"If he succeeded, why, the Generalised Life/Would become impossible, the monolith/Of State be broken and prevented/The co-operation of avengers"--about the limits of Communism and Fascism) that Bush et al have been pushing, c) you're simply unfamiliar withe Freud's hilarious careereing through the intellectual life of the last thirty years.

5. If ref to point #4--Sparky, if you want to rank on people like me, follow Freud's path through academia since, oh, 1979, and you'll have much, much better ammo. You particularly wanna Googol, 'Louis Althusser." Trust me. MUCH better ammo.

6. Nice try on the, "12," remark about "Robocop." Haven't seen, "Soldier of Orange," have ya? Note--to criticize Verhoeven properly, discuss, a) cyborgs and male fantasy, b) his misogyny (see "Spetters," and "Striptease," together, much better ammo), c) "Total Recall." Whoops--that would demand being familiar with, say, Claire Kahane's, "In Dora's Case," and Constance Penley's stuff on "Terminator," and whoops, there ye are with Freud again, me hearty.

7. The oldest excuse of all dictators is that they are only the servants of the People.

8. Thanks for slamming the shuttlecock back over the Net; it's weird fun, and no harm meant on this side.


----------



## Tgace (May 14, 2005)

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=296039&postcount=7


----------



## Tgace (May 14, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Pirsig is the best you got?
> 
> 2. Personally, I'd learn to spell, "pseudo," correctly before I went off about, "intellectual quality."
> 
> ...


hmmmm...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 14, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Pirsig is the best you got?
> 
> That's the best critique you have of Pirsig.  lol.  It's obvious you don't have the first clue of his argument, let alone how to develop a critique of it.  That's because the whole subject matter requires more than a cursory scanning of a synopsis and definitely requires more than a one liner for critique.
> 
> ...


----------



## punisher73 (May 15, 2005)

> Another point. While the article specifially mentions police and military as the "sheepdogs," I don't think this status is limited to those two groups. To me a sheepdog is anyone who will say "I refuse to be a victim or allow people I care about to be victimized by the scum of society."


 Exactly, I wonder how many of the people who have jumped on the big political hidden agenda stuff have actually heard him speak in person or heard him explain more about this concept.  This was the point he was making...you can be a sheepdog and be a lawyer, doctor or burgerflipper it doesn't matter.  

Ask yourself this easy question....If you were in a mall and you saw some thug trying to beat up an old woman for her purse than what would you do?

1) Try and help her the best you can
2) Defer to someone else to help her

If you answered #1 than you are a sheepdog, if you answered #2 than you are a sheep.


----------



## FearlessFreep (May 15, 2005)

_ This was the point he was making...you can be a sheepdog and be a lawyer, doctor or burgerflipper it doesn't matter. _

That's how I took it.  In some ways I'm a sheep, but as I train in MA I'm learning to be a sheepdog as well...and when I'm a sheepdog it is my wife and kids who are the sheep.  But...my kids have their own friends and peers to deal with as well and in some ways my son is also learning to be a sheepdog, and yet so so are my daughters.  In other words, being a sheep or being a sheepdog is just a state of mind and a willingness or not to act in a certain, physical way, when confronted by a 'wolf', especially for the sake of those who cannot.

What I'm more intrigued by is that attitude of sheep toward sheepdogs.  The sheep know the wolves are out there; they know they need a sheepdog, but there is a certain nervousness in being around one.  I know a guy at church who is a TKD black-belt, and while he is a great guy there is always in the back of my mind the knowledge that this guy is physically dangerous.  I know he would never do anything against me, but I also know he could..and it's an odd state of mind to think about him.  I think we often have that feeling in dealing with police officers and soldiers as well. "He's a good guy...he's my protector....he's dangerous"


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 15, 2005)

Yes, I thought that might happen.

To summarize: you haven't read the books, you don't understand what I'm arguing, you aren't going to try, and you find it easier to attempt personal attacks and a claim of irrelevancy. That's common, these days, given what's passed off for discussion on radio and TV.

You might want to apply the dogies and sheepies analogy to intellectual life, where the dogs know the books and arguments and the sheep repeat back whatever they're told by the media, baaing occasionally at anybody who talks to them like human beings who simply see the world differently.

In other words, in intellectual life--I have the heavy responsibility of being the dog, trying to guide and to help the sheep. 

Somehow, I bet the responses to that last sentence are going to show a quick rejection of the whole analogy--or (I know!) a quick set of remarks about pointy-head intellectuals who think they're smarter than they are but have been Brainwashed By Communist Lesbian Freudians.

These self-glorifying analogies of dogs and sheep are inherently offensive, and inherently fascist (with a small, "f"), inasmuch as they assume that the few are naturally superior to the many. 

Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury of believing that I am inherently smarter or stronger or even more moral than anybody else. I'm stuck with these damn democratic principles, whether we're talking about society or intellectual life.


----------



## tshadowchaser (May 15, 2005)

Mod. Note. 
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful, and on topic.

Sheldon Bedell
-MT Moderator-


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 15, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Yes, I thought that might happen.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 15, 2005)

I'm afraid--and I write as one of the intellectual guardians of American thought here--that you're completely astray here. Among other things, I called nobody a fascist. Except maybe Mussolini, and, well...

I've tried to help, but as one of my professors told me, "Robert, from time to time you will simply find that some of the common people do not wish to acknowledge your superiority in matters intellectual. Nor do they wish to recognize your having taken on the responsibility of keeping the light of Western culture alit."

Offensive, ain't it?

I say it's spinach--just like the sheepdog bit--and I say the hell with it.


----------



## Tgace (May 15, 2005)

Thought and deed are two different things aren't they?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 15, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I'm afraid--and I write as one of the intellectual guardians of American thought here--that you're completely astray here. Among other things, I called nobody a fascist. Except maybe Mussolini, and, well...
> 
> I've tried to help, but as one of my professors told me, "Robert, from time to time you will simply find that some of the common people do not wish to acknowledge your superiority in matters intellectual. Nor do they wish to recognize your having taken on the responsibility of keeping the light of Western culture alit."
> 
> ...


Your attempts at sarcasm are more telling about you than you think. It appears as though you take the greatest offense, not to the suggestion that anyone is superior to anyone else (As it is obvious you believe that you are superior to anyone here), but to the paranoia on your part that anyone else thinks they are superior to you. 

This seems to be the case even when that has no where been suggested. You frame the argument that others make so that you can again argue that you are somehow to superior to them. It's no wonder you're so interested in Freud, you are starting to sound like one of his case studies. 

As for the ludicrous suggestion that you have not either insinuated anyone you disagree with was a 1) Nazi 2) Hitler or 3) a Fascist (with a small "f" of course), or out and out asserted it directly, anyone that's read your posts knows that is the most ludicrous assertion you've made yet. I don't think there is a post where you HAVEN'T called or insinuated that those you disagree with were one (or all) of those things. Further, it seems to be the center piece of any argument you make. 

Again, save the pretentiousness for a more appropriate place. There does seem to be a marked deterioration in the quality of the last couple of your posts, however. Are you quite alright?


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 15, 2005)

Liked the post on thought, word, and deed. Exactly the point, in my opinion.

Of course, it is to be expected that the sheep would attempt to deny the superiority of their intellectual guardians. Expectable, too, that they would attempt to describe anyone who disagrees with their status in the world of the mind with some sort of Dr. Phil-esque faux concern. 

I say all those fantasies of one's superiority are spinach, and I say the hell with them. But then, I have these democratic principles that don't reduce to simple analogies that puff me up, and paper over who my real enemies are.

I prefer to believe that police officers, soldiers and the like are doing a kind of social dirty work that I am not myself suited for. I think they deserve our respect for doing it--but not anyone's obeisance, and not anyone's kowtowing admission that they are as sheep, however tempting the imagery from the Old Testament might be. 

Why isn't being a human being, working hard at an honorable profession, struggling to do what's right, enough?


----------



## Tgace (May 16, 2005)

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=296039&postcount=7


----------



## Tgace (May 16, 2005)

> Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.
> 
> There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke
> 
> Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.




Yeah its all about police officers and soldiers believing they are superior....:shrug:


Baaaa!
Woof!


----------



## Tgace (May 16, 2005)

Yes..comparing people to animals is preposterous...oh wait....

http://www.pacificnet.net/~johnr/aesop/aesop1.html



> The Crab and Its Mother
> 
> 
> A CRAB said to her son, "Why do you walk so one-sided, my child?
> ...


Methinks someones agenda is showing.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 16, 2005)

Ah; well, then, perhaps one would wish to re-examine the desire to cling to a repressive analogy expressed on this thread. And, one might wish to re-examine the connections of that analogy to repressive thought across the political spectrum.

Of course, those of us who have taken on the responsibility of intellectual guardians tend to consider such issues in the selfsame terms advanced by middlebrow Michael Schermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things," a question he borrows from Spinoza.

But such questions cannot be answered in terms of children's stories. 

They require looking at history and cultural connections, such as the ones that lead, "intellectuals," and, "workers," alike to dream of their superiority to everyone else.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (May 16, 2005)

Ok, Tgace, which will it be: the broken record picture again, or another "Woof"?


----------



## Tgace (May 16, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Ok, Tgace, which will it be: the broken record picture again, or another "Woof"?


So you work for the same label? At least the opposing viewpoint on this thread has been contributing something to this topic...unlike yourself. Even if he ignores the quotes from the original speech that repeatedly state that the "sheep/Sheepdog" thing is about responsibility rather than job. Like the quote about Mr. Beemer above that was conveniently ignored. I know many people who are neither soldiers or cops that are far from "sheep". One also thinks that some people are overthinking and projecting overmuch on a simple analogy. A basic storytelling tool that goes back to Aesop.


----------



## Tgace (May 16, 2005)

Aesop's Fables
The Wolves And The Sheepdogs
THE WOLVES thus addressed the Sheepdogs: "Why should you, who are like us in so many things, not be entirely of one mind with us, and live with us as brothers should? We differ from you in one point only. We live in freedom, but you bow down to and slave for men, who in return for your services flog you with whips and put collars on your necks. They make you also guard their sheep, and while they eat the mutton throw only the bones to you. If you will be persuaded by us, you will give us the sheep, and we will enjoy them in common, till we all are surfeited." The Dogs listened favorably to these proposals, and, entering the den of the Wolves, they were set upon and torn to pieces.


----------



## Tgace (May 16, 2005)

The Wolves and the Sheep
Fables by Aesop

"WHY SHOULD there always be this fear and slaughter between us?"
said the Wolves to the Sheep. "Those evil-disposed Dogs have
much to answer for. They always bark whenever we approach you
and attack us before we have done any harm. If you would only
dismiss them from your heels, there might soon be treaties of
peace and reconciliation between us." The Sheep, poor silly
creatures, were easily beguiled and dismissed the Dogs, whereupon
the Wolves destroyed the unguarded flock at their own pleasure.


----------



## Tgace (May 16, 2005)

The Wolves and the Dogs
Fables by Aesop

"WHY should there be strife between us?" said the Wolves to the 
Sheep. "It is all owing to those quarrelsome dogs. Dismiss them, 
and we shall have peace."

"You seem to think," replied the Sheep, "that it is an easy thing 
to dismiss dogs. Have you always found it so?"


----------



## Tgace (May 16, 2005)

> "And, if you need copsarmed men and women prepared to use force to protect you against the most violent armed criminals that roam abroad in societywell, sad to say, the same need for self-sufficiency is stark. Welcome, not just to American society, but to the Planet Earth.
> 
> Face the reality. Perhaps the meek will inherit the earth, but not until those of us who aint meek are done with it.
> 
> ...


Isnt about being a cop or soldier here.....


----------



## Flatlander (May 17, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And, one might wish to re-examine the connections of that analogy to repressive thought across the political spectrum.


 Could you please clarify those for me, and the viewers at home? I'm not familiar specifically with the context of these "connections." 

 Irrespective and ignorant of those connections, I remain quite in agreement with the analogous theme. It seems to me that the main contention with it is that, due to the "perceptible connotations" of the analogy, its fundamental theme is invalid.

 The perceptible connotations would, by my interpretation of the counter position, include within their definition a reference of: One with a position of power over others intentionally and knowingly decieves, and/or profits, at the negative benefit of the people or community being served.

 My question is, does the analogy become valid in theme if no intent can be reasonably shown to exist; particularly in retrospect, given no ill act having ever been committed? For example, a WWII vet? Which is to say, out of a sense of duty, rather than greed, lust, or avarice?



> Access to power must be confined to those who are not in love with it.
> ~Plato


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 17, 2005)

And I still don't see what the big prob is with simply saying that you're a human being with a hard job who has taken on a responsibility to protect other human beings.

Why isn't that good enough, all by itself, without the cliched analogy?


----------



## Tgace (May 17, 2005)

Because the analogy isnt purely about my or anybody elses "job". As the quotes from the original speech I posted show....The speech was given to soldiers so of course it was slanted towards the audience. Its about denial/acceptance...not profession. As Grossman and I have repeatedly stated.

That and your repeated insinuation that the professions you now call honorable, are letting their "Facist" show through this simple allegorical speech...this thread would have faded away long ago. I find this speech interesting and can appreciate the intent. But other than that.....


----------



## shesulsa (May 17, 2005)

Let's get this back on track.  I believe the point is that the analogy (be it attractive or not) speaks to denial and acceptance of the existence of threat and danger in society (not just America but the world).

 We could apply said analogy (in its proper perspective) locally, nationally, even globally.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 17, 2005)

Again, the problem with the analogy is the company it keeps. Try an Internet search under, 'sheep, woves and sheepdogs," and you will find this same article quoted about fifty-eleven times, ALWAYS with some sort of (to say the least) very conservative political slant.

Here is one example--which, note, is introduced by a writer who can't help but take a whack at Democrats ("blue states") who, it would appear, are either too stupid or too America hating to grasp reality:

"This poem was posted on KevinSites.net (Sites is the NBC photographer who filmed the now infamous shooting in Fallujah)  Sites apparently is not completely devoid of respect for the men who protect him.  He posted this poem from a Vietnam Vet...it bears reading, particularly in 'Blue America.'

The Sheepdogs

Most humans truly are like sheep
Wanting nothing more than peace to keep
To graze, grow fat and raise their young,
Sweet taste of clover on the tongue.
Their lives serene upon Lifes farm,
They sense no threat nor fear no harm.
On verdant meadows, they forage free
With naught to fear, with naught to flee.
They pay their sheepdogs little heed
For there is no threat; there is no need.

To the flock, sheepdogs are mysteries,
Roaming watchful round the peripheries.
These fang-toothed creatures bark, they roar
With the fetid reek of the carnivore,
Too like the wolf of legends told,
To be amongst our docile fold.
Who needs sheepdogs? What good are they?
They have no use, not in this day.
Lock them away, out of our sight
We have no need of their fierce might.

But sudden in their midst a beast
Has come to kill, has come to feast
The wolves attack; they give no warning
Upon that calm September morning
They slash and kill with frenzied glee
Their passive helpless enemy
Who had no clue the wolves were there
Far roaming from their Eastern lair.
Then from the carnage, from the rout,
Comes the cry, Turn the sheepdogs out!

Thus is our nature but too our plight
To keep our dogs on leashes tight
And live a life of illusive bliss
Hearing not the beast, his growl, his hiss.
Until he has us by the throat,
We pay no heed; we take no note.
Not until he strikes us at our core
Will we unleash the Dogs of War
Only having felt the wolf packs wrath
Do we loose the sheepdogs on its path.
And the wolves will learn what weve shown before;
We love our sheep, we Dogs of War.

Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66"


"Here is another use of the analogy--one, as far as I can see, that is pretty typical of Internet sites:

Stalin Would Be Proud Of Them

The Fifth Column/Edward Daley

April 22, 2005 - What do most members of the Democratic National Committee, the American Bar Association and the American Civil Liberties Union have in common? They hate the Constitution of the United States of America.

Of course, people in each group have somewhat different reasons for hating that document. Democrat party leaders hate it because it forces people with minority opinions like themselves to abide by rules which reflect the will of the majority. ABA law practitioners hate it because it does not permit them to make legal decisions based upon their political ideologies. Members of the ACLU hate it because they are socialists, and the Constitution is designed to promote the liberties of individuals while limiting the powers of government.

Some people belong to all three of these groups, and they are among the most despicable, anti-American people you will ever meet, because they hate the Constitution for all of the above reasons and more. Although none of them will ever admit it, that document represents to them the single most offensive thing on earth, namely the restriction of their authority over the American citizenry.

You see, these DNC/ABA/ACLU types think that normal, working class people are idiots, who have no business running their own lives. Average folks are only competent enough to go to work, pay taxes, and shop at WalMart. Beyond that, they're morons, with no clue as to what's really good for them.

Now, before I continue I need to point out, to those of you who weren't paying attention when I used the word "most" in my opening sentence, that there are some people in these groups who don't hate the Constitution.

Senator Dick Shelby, for instance, is a member of the ABA, yet he is a conservative Republican, who introduced the Constitution Restoration Act earlier this year. The legislation is intended to "reinforce states rights by clarifying that the Supreme Court and district courts do not have jurisdiction to hear cases brought against a federal, state or local government or officer for acknowledging God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."


Then there's Zell Miller, the former Senator from Georgia. He's a life-long Democrat, yet he opposed the filibustering of President Bush's judicial nominees by obstructionists in his party, who support only liberal activists for positions on the federal bench.

I was going to include an example of an ACLU member who isn't an America-bashing socialist, but I haven't been able to find one yet.

Be that as it may, I am willing to concede that there may well be someone in that organization who thinks the Constitution, in it's current form, is a pretty good thing. If indeed that individual actually exists, I can only suggest that he keep his opinions to himself if he wishes to remain in the ACLU much longer.

I'm sure there are countless liberals out there who are infuriated by what I've asserted thus far in this article, and I'm just as certain that many of them want to know what proof I have to back up my arguments. Frankly, the evidence supporting my contentions is so overwhelming that I can't decide where to begin.

It seems to me that anyone who has been alive for the past couple of decades, and isn't illiterate, shouldn't be having a problem comprehending that the elitists I've writing about are determined to bastardize the Constitution via judicial fiat. They know that they have no popular support for their views, so they have little choice but to turn to activist judges who are willing create laws from the bench on their behalf.

In fact, mentally deficient justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer have been steadily eroding the integrity of both the Supreme Court and our Constitution for years now, and there's no reason to believe that they'll suddenly pull their heads out of their respective posterior orifices and embrace the wisdom of their detractors.

These are the kinds of arrogant nitwits who actually believe that the opinions of foreign courts should be taken into consideration by members of the Supreme Court during their deliberations on Constitutional matters. At the same time, the will of the American people, as expressed in the laws of the several states, is often ignored completely by them. 
If I'm wrong, how then can one explain the recent declaration, by certain members of the high court, that the execution of minors is cruel and unusual, and therefore unConstitutional?

Where in the Constitution are the words cruel and unusual defined in any way which relates to the execution of anyone, let alone minors? Here's a hint... NOWHERE!

Justice Kennedy wrote, with regard to the abolition of the death penalty for individuals under the age of 18, "Our determination finds confirmation in the stark reality that the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty."

To this I ask SO WHAT? What does that have to do with OUR Constitution and OUR laws? The answer is clear... NOTHING!

Prior to the aforementioned 5-to-4 decision, twenty states allowed for the execution of minors. Apparently the people of those states believe that determining whether or not a juvenile deserves the death penalty should be left up to a jury of his peers, instead of a bunch of old farts in black robes who think that America is wrong for being different from the rest of the world.

Another justification used by these types of judges after they've made decisions like this one, is that they have somehow been able to gauge the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." What they have never been able to do, satisfactorily, is answer the question: what makes you think it's a judge's job to do that?

It's our elected representatives who are charged with determining what society's standards are! We, the people, let them know what we think of the laws they create when we vote, and when we don't like the legislation they've enacted, we elect other people who's legal proposals more closely reflect our views.

And when the time does come when America's "standards of decency" have evolved to the point at which we feel the need to amend our Constitution, we'll be perfectly capable of doing it, and we won't be asking any judges what they think about our decision.

Believe me, that concept scares the living crap out of the members of those three groups I mentioned previously. The very idea of average citizens deciding for themselves how they will be governed, and under which laws they will live, is like a knife through the heart of those fascist swine.

Make no mistake about it, they want to run your life. If they didn't, why would the ACLU's legal staff be suing everybody and their mothers over matters which have always been considered common sense issues by the vast majority of people? The answer is clear. They know that as long as they keep suing folks who have limited resources, they'll either win by attrition, or their cases will eventually end up before activist judges, who'll declare that the laws they happen to be opposing are unconstitutional. Whether the issues before those judges are actually addressed in the Constitution or not will be irrelevant, because few non-liberal members of the legislative branch of government have the guts to challenge their rulings.

As for the leaders of the Democrat party, those who aren't trial lawyers are usually bought and sold by trial lawyers, and practically all of them are sympathetic to the views of the ACLU. The paltry few who don't march in lock-step behind the rest, are either ignored or treated as traitors. There is no room in their world for things like sincere reflection, intellectual honesty, or self-criticism. Their religion is utterly intolerant of such blasphemies.

People often ask me why Republicans in Congress never seem to be as united as their Democrat counterparts are, and my answer to them is always the same, in so many words. Republicans are mostly conservative, and conservatives believe in individuality and the diverse opinions which come with it. Democrats are mostly liberal, and liberals believe in forced equality and the conformity necessary to achieve it.

Put a thousand conservatives in a room together, and you've got a room full of individuals. Put a thousand liberals together in a room, and you've got a room full of sheep, being herded by a few angry sheepdogs."

As far as I can tell after a quick search, there is no use of this analogy by the center or left of the political spectrum. 

However, I have personally--and more than once--heard or read left-to-far-left "intellectuals," announce that they have taken on a special moral and intellectual responsibility to guard and to guide the poor masses in the right directions. In one case, I heard Jonathan Dollimore and Alan Sinfield say, very clearly, that the intelligentsia had a particular historical mission to guide the poor dopes--and in response to a direct question, that the proper thing at times was to flat out lie to workers and others in order to serve their best interests.

Sorry, no. I dislike the analogy, and I despise the basic attitude--though I should note that of all these guys, I don;t really have the least problem with a tired and disgusted soldier's writing...any more than I do with Kipling's, "Barrack-Room Ballads." As an old-fashioned American, give me Carl Sandburg's, "The People, Yes, the People." Or gimme Ernie Pyle's tired soldiers. Any day. Or should we just change the Constitution to, "We the Sheepies?"

That's who you're eager to write off as sheep. 
__________________


----------



## Tgace (May 17, 2005)

In this speech, you are only a sheep if you choose to be one..it was flat out stated as such. You are the one turning it into a "class struggle". At the bottom of it all, Grossman is just instilling a "mindset" for dealing with violence. If people believe themselves to have an obligation to protect (sheepdog) they will have a better chance of acting when the moment of truth arrives. As Ive said before LEO's/Soldiers by and large are no more "braver" than the next guy. Its the obligation of duty and knowing you are expected to act that motivates them to face danger ("Id like to run, but this is my job"). Thats the point of this speech. It applies to "civilians" just as much. If you were on one of those 9/11 planes and knew what was going to happen you either sit like a sheep and wait for someone else to act, or you stand up. Doesn't matter if you are a cop or a used car salesman. You are what you believe youself to be...


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 17, 2005)

You're absolutely right. I'm the one who made this an issue of class and politics; it was simply an analogy that has nothing whatsoever to do with such issues, or with things like immigration. 

Oh, the same quote is approvingly mentioned and extensively hoorawed on:

http://www.texasminutemen.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-36508.html


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 17, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> You're absolutely right. I'm the one who made this an issue of class and politics; it was simply an analogy that has nothing whatsoever to do with such issues, or with things like immigration.
> 
> Oh, the same quote is approvingly mentioned and extensively hoorawed on:
> 
> http://www.texasminutemen.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-36508.html


lol, that's the best you can do, try and tie this to a political ideology? So it seems the real issue you have is with conservatives, you just figured you'd tie everything up in to one huge bundle to save time? Sorry, but nice try.

Lets get back to the analogy. You claim the sheepdog analogy is an attempt by some to claim they are better than others. I don't recall sheepdogs being in charge of the flock. In fact, sheepdogs are expendable, and without the flock HAVE no purpose. Their only job is to place themselves in harms way to prevent harm coming to the flock. 

Of course you still haven't realized that the term sheepdog isn't a derogatory term toward you (it seems you're fairly sensitive to any real or perceived criticism toward whatever your lot is) but is merely a description of a mindset that is less like that of an herbivore and more like that of an aggressive, controlled, canine. If that idea sounds fascist to you, so what. It doesn't change the need for people of that mindset in a half-civilized world. If the world were completely civilized there'd be no need for sheepdogs, but that's not the world we live in. The analogy stands, and if you want to link the whole idea with whatever boogie men it conjures in your mind, fine. 

However, it is good that you've backpedalled in to acknowledging the role those who serve in that function play, even if you've retreated to simply arguing semantics over terms. We've gone from claiming that the whole idea is fascist, to you stating you just don't like the term sheep/sheepdog because it sounds bad. Sounds like the closest thing to a surrender we'll ever get from you.


----------



## Tgace (May 18, 2005)

Yeah, you see its now not even about the speech itself, but who else uses it on their website......

Convienient. If you cant debate the topic, switch to "well THESE guys say the same thing!"....name any topic you cant use that tactic on.

So Mr.Beemer actions are no longer admirable because that quote was used on a militia website? Thats a pathetic tactic...


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 19, 2005)

Absolutely. The imagery and the general analogy have nothing to do with a) right-wing politics, b) repressive ideas, c) fundamentalist Christianity. Nothing whatsoever. 

Oh, wait. 

Ken's Youth Ministry Resources
Ideas, games, illustrations, drama, object lessons and other resources for youth ministry.
« Telling the Easter Story | Main | Dealing with Setbacks » 

March 28, 2005
Sheep and Wolves
Central Truth
God wants us to help when we see others in trouble 

Materials
1. Large open area... 
2. Identifiers for participants as follows:
white armband - sheep
Black armband - wolf
Large Doggie bone on a string - Sheep Dog

Scripture
Read the 23rd psalm or have a participant quote it. Sometimes we call the 23rd Psalm "the Good Shepherd Psalm" because it teaches us that God is like a shepherd and were like sheep. We arent told if sheep dogs were used in Bible times, but today its very common for shepherds to have sheep dogs. 

Teaching Activity
Play a game of tag with the following rules:

Setup
1. All sheep must wear a white armband. The only sound they can make is a "baa"
2. Wolves must wear a black armband - there should be two or more wolves depending on the size of the group. The only sounds they can make are a growl and snarl!
3. Sheepdogs wear a big bone around their neck. Get a large rawhide bone from your pet store or make a large bone from a piece of posterboard. There should be two or more sheep dogs depending on the size of the group. The only sounds they can make is to "bark" like a dog.
4. Designate an out of bounds area for those that are eliminated.

Game Play
1. Wolves may tag sheep. If tagged they are out of the game.
2. Only Sheep dogs may tag a wolf. If tagged they are out of the game.
3. If two or more wolves tag a sheepdog at the same time the sheep dog is out of the game.
3. If the wolves are eliminated the sheep win the game.
4. If the sheep are eliminated the wolves win the game.
5. Vary the number of sheepdogs and wolves to change the game play. 6. You might give sheepdogs some time to develop strategies to protect the sheep while the wolves develop their strategies to attack the sheep.

Debrief
1. What strategies did the wolves have to eliminate the sheep? How are these similar/ different from Satan's strategies? (See also Matthew 7:15, Matthew 10:16, Acts 20:29, 1 peter 5:8)

2. What does a shepherd do? How do sheepdogs help a shepherd? What function did the sheep dogs serve? How are sheep dogs similar/ different from spiritual leaders and mentors in the church? 

Key Points
A. Were all Gods sheep, and Jesus is our Good Shepherd. But sometimes God needs us to be sheep dogs. 
B. Sometimes sheep wander away or are separated from the flock and become more vulnerable.
C. Shepherds and sheepdogs help keep the flock together and protect the sheep, but they can also be attacked.

One doesn't seem to be able to come up with anybody who isn't politically right or libertarian who uses this imagery and analogy at all. Funnily, too, some of us feel that the history of an idea, or an image, as well as their current employment, are important.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 19, 2005)

Oh, now I understand what is going on.  There is a lot of bleed over from THIS thread...

Good Post, Robert, I've actually heard of that activity.  Some friends of the family did it at their church.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 19, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Absolutely. The imagery and the general analogy have nothing to do with a) right-wing politics, b) repressive ideas, c) fundamentalist Christianity. Nothing whatsoever.
> 
> Oh, wait.
> 
> ...


Since i'm a completely secular person, tagging ME as a fundamentalist christian will not help you win this debate. That's just more of that "lumping all my enemies in to one basket, so they are easier to fight" debate tactics you've been being criticized for.  I pick my battles on pragmatics, not on religious doctrine. Please try again.

And yes, upnorthkyosa, you've probably been spotting some bleedover. I should have let you know about this thread. All these issues do have connections, so dealing with them in a somewhat holistic way could be of benefit. However, let me caution everyone on thinking it's simply "Leftists" versus "Right wing". It's much more complex than that.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 19, 2005)

I would be interested to see a source cited in which this analogy is used by someone who is neither, a) a political conservative, or b) a fundamentalist, or c) a dictator.

And yes, I quite agree that these three categories don't necessarily overlap at all.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 19, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> And yes, upnorthkyosa, you've probably been spotting some bleedover. I should have let you know about this thread. All these issues do have connections, so dealing with them in a somewhat holistic way could be of benefit. However, let me caution everyone on thinking it's simply "Leftists" versus "Right wing". It's much more complex than that.


I'll have to read up and jump in.  From the tidbits I've gathered...existentialism keeps popping to mind.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 19, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I would be interested to see a source cited in which this analogy is used by someone who is neither, a) a political conservative, or b) a fundamentalist, or c) a dictator.
> 
> And yes, I quite agree that these three categories don't necessarily overlap at all.


What am I, robertson?  I mean, you've done your best to label me a a) Fascist b) a religious fundamentalist c) a dictator


----------



## Tgace (May 19, 2005)

And what? One group somehow equates to the other?? (like liberals, communists and America haters....) 

Lots of crazies agree with "liberal" beliefs too...how is this an argument?


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 19, 2005)

1. I'm afraid I was actually quite specific in noting that these three groups had no necessary connection. Nor did I make any claim whatsoever about your belonging to any of the three groups I cited.

2. The relevance is that I thought it interesting that all the folks using the analogy seemed to belong to particular religious and/or political groups, and I was simply wondering if anyone had better information.

But in both cases, the best approach is simply to provide evidence that I was seeing things wrongly.


----------



## Tgace (May 19, 2005)

Well hell..in one post you say that this analogy is flawed because of the "company it keeps", then in another you list Conservatives,Dictators and Fundamentalists together...seems like a trend to me.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 19, 2005)

Do you have any evidence at all that other sorts of groups use this analogy?


----------



## Tgace (May 19, 2005)

Who cares who "uses it" thats a lame way to avoid the issue (hmm diversion who would have thought that of you?). What about Col. Grossman? Which one is he in your opinion?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 19, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Do you have any evidence at all that other sorts of groups use this analogy?


I'm still waiting for you to tell me what I am.  That will be the answer to your question.  I'm not a fundamentalist, i'm not a fascist, i'm not a DICTATOR, my views are extremely diverse and ecclectic.  So, in answer to your question, here I am.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 19, 2005)

More than a general suspicion that your views are politically conservative, I have no idea. 

But I don't seem to be seeing any substantiation of what I take for your position: that this analogy cannot be identified with any particular political or religious group. The bit of research I did suggested otherwise: could you support your argument, please?


----------



## Tgace (May 19, 2005)

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22899


----------



## Makalakumu (May 20, 2005)

I read the article on the "ressurected thread" in the firearms forum and I've skimmed this thread. Thus far, I haven't seen this point brought up. This analogy screams of existentialism

*Definition*  The universe in inherently disordered. Thus we struggle to make our own meaning, if only for a little bit. Either way the human desired for logic and morality are ultimately futile. Everything changes.


*Some relavent points about Existentialism that relate to this analogy...*

1. The dialectic. Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis. This is a process in which groups of people form their own truths regarding the universe. The Thesis exists as one belief and the Antithesis exists as its opposite. When placed on a spectrum they come together and synthesize a middle ground. This process has often been used to control the beliefs of the masses. If the Thesis and Antithesis in a population is controlled, the Synthesis direction is also controlled.

2. Anti-religion. This is the complete disregard for all things that cannot be scientifically proven or demonstrated. This principle does not claim that nothing exists that cannot be proven, nor that those things should be disregarded. What it does suggest is that many people use religion, especially Judeo-Christian teachings, as a crutch for avoiding decisive actions. Existentialism encompasses the idea that men must accept that they are part of a material world, regardless of what else might exist. As part of this world, men must live as if there is nothing else beyond life. A failure to live, to take risks, is a failure to realize human potential. Religion is nothing but a diversion from humanity.

3. Will To Power. Existentialists claim that this is the primary human instinct, representing the pinnacle of human achievement through his animistic roots. Existentialists reject sympathy as the basis for human morality by pointing to the fact that humans are naturally competitive. The individual who is most successful is usually the individual that will do anything to become successful, resulting in a reliance on brutality and cunning. This stronger instinct will always dominate over sympathy, eventually erasing it from a culture.

4. Supermen. The Superman rejects faith and immortality, assuming that either "God is dead," or that the Creator is no longer active in human development. By rejecting faith, this Superman and his ideal society become responsible for their own morality. Existentialism concludes that no person had yet reached such a level, noting that even the greatest of men is "all-too-human."

5. Master Morality. The ruling class is successful because they were born successful. They became leaders through their naturally superior abilities and stronger aggressive instincts. This translates into an acceptance of aggression and the use of force. The masters express power openly, they view the pursuit of power and the defense of self as honorable. For this reason, it is speculated that these leaders would not hold a grudge against enemies. In fact, they would not view competitors for power as enemies, but rather as opponents in a great game of human ability. These rulers welcome competition, believing that it builds character and teaches valuable lessons. After a battle, they study their failures and openly admit the strengths of others. Master morality does not see a right and wrong, only a superior and inferior combatant.

6. Slave Morality. In stark contrast to the ruling class, the subservient populations embrace a moral code based upon a mythical equality of individuals. Knowing this, the aristocrats claim to acknowledge this equality in various empty manners -- such as equality under the law, which applies seldom in reality. The subservient, slave class eventually realizes that life cannot be equal, so a religion is developed promising that they are actually superior to those in power on earth. Existentialism hypothesizes that the slave class embraced democracy and the principle of equality in order to bring the naturally superior class down to their own level. Sin and evil are artificial constructs, created by the slaves and adopted by the leaders of this class, who often become leaders in the aristocratic class -- proving they do not believe in this religious myth. The slaves demean sex, human desire, and teach humility instead of respect for power and authority. Existentialism postulates that this was a repression of resentments. A minority of religious leaders are either true believers or individuals seeking power, but unable to admit this due to their own repressed natures.

Thus we see things like the sheep, sheepdog, and wolf analogy. The *Sheep* have assumed a slave morality, while the *Wolves* have taken the will to power to its logical limits. A *Sheepdog* strives to be a superman by rejecting the _religion_ of his fellow sheep and taking responsability for his own (and societies) morality. The whole concept is dialectic with the *Sheep* equating the thesis and the *Wolves* equating the antithesis. The *Sheepdogs* are the synthesis because the struggle between the thesis and antithesis demands their existance. Throughout the whole peice is the concept of master morality. The Sheepdogs demand honor and respect because they feel that they are what makes our society possible.

While I agree with some existentialist points, I would have to point out, that it isn't the only way of looking at things. In fact, there have been people who have been much smarter then me who have written critiques on this philisophic POV.

In a nutshell, there is a lot of inherit darkness in existentialism. It is godless, souless and mostly hopeless, with an over-reliance on the _self_. It is a fearful (and ultimately craven) philisophy that casually brushes moral difficulties away in favor of pragmatism, because, hey what else is there? The main problem with existentialism is that it over-simplifies human interaction. It negates the structures of culture and the ties between people and the power that those things have in our lives. 

The *Sheepdog* synthesis is a horrible simplication of our wants and desires and of the skills that each of us was born with. The *Wolf* peice of this is dehumanizing because it reduces the reasons that one would become a wolf down to the will to power. And finally, the *Sheep* is downright derogatory. The label disempowers and devalues the diversity of those labeled and it undermines the power inherit in all people. 

If their are two paths in the woods, this analogy is the easy one, chosen by those who do not wish to see the complexity and diversity in our world.  Creating meaning from the total package is just too difficult.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Tgace (May 20, 2005)

Which is all counter to what was ACTUALLY WRITTEN by the author.



> Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog;





> There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.





> Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.


For Gods sake its just a simple analogy Grossman uses to describe/instill a survivor mindset. One he used in a speech to military personnel. 

The only "darkness" here is what the reader brings in his own head.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 20, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Which is all counter to what was ACTUALLY WRITTEN by the author.





> 4. Supermen. The Superman rejects faith and immortality, assuming that either "God is dead," or that the Creator is no longer active in human development. By rejecting faith, this Superman and his ideal society become responsible for their own morality. *Existentialism concludes that no person had yet reached such a level, noting that even the greatest of men is "all-too-human*."


 

Please note the boldface. The Superman concept fits the sheepdog like a glove. In fact, ever quote you took from the article points directly at one of the six points I posted above.



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> For Gods sake its just a simple analogy Grossman uses to describe/instill a survivor mindset. One he used in a speech to military personnel.




That doesn't make it any less AynRandian. Objectivism is an enticing philosophy for military types. It certainly bolsters their confidence by making them feel important. 



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> The only "darkness" here is what the reader brings in his own head.


Sorry, to burst your bubble, but this analogy is existentialist...It has all the trappings.




> In a nutshell, there is a lot of inherit darkness in existentialism. It is godless, souless and mostly hopeless, with an over-reliance on the _self_. It is a fearful (and ultimately craven) philisophy that casually brushes moral difficulties away in favor of pragmatism, because, hey what else is there? The main problem with existentialism is that it over-simplifies human interaction. It negates the structures of culture and the ties between people and the power that those things have in our lives.


 

I didn't suddenly "make" this thing existentialist. It just is.


----------



## Tgace (May 20, 2005)

You keep on using that word..I do not think it means what you think it means. Since when has existentialism=BAD?

http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/exist.html


----------



## Makalakumu (May 20, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> You keep on using that word..I do not think it means what you think it means. Since when has existentialism=BAD?
> 
> http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/exist.html


I gave a good definition of the the philosophy above and I believe that I laid out a pretty logical breakdown based on existentialist thought.

Existentialism isn't all bad. The philosophy has its appeal in certain areas, yet there are some problems...especially where this analogy is concerned.

Here is a book review of "Existential America" see this link.  Very interesting and applicable to what we are talking about.

BTW - are you trying to tell me that Nietzche isn't just a little depressing?


----------



## Tgace (May 20, 2005)

http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/exist.html



> Kierkegaard and Nietzsche are forerunners of existentialism. If we want to thank, or blame, two men for radical individualism, we could start with them. There were others before them, but most texts on existentialism seem to firmly place them at the the base. Radical individualism is not existentialism, however.





> Existentialism is Living
> 
> Mankind is the only known animal, according to earth-bound existentialists, that defines itself through the act of living. In other words, first a man or woman exists, then the individual spends a lifetime changing his or her essence. Without life there can be no meaning; the search for meaning in existentialism is the search for self which is why there is existential psychotherapy. (Imagine a therapist telling people life has no meaning!) In other words, we define ourselves by living; suicide would indicate you have chosen to have no meaning.
> 
> ...


As I recall my under/post grad philosophy courses, this closely matches what I understand as existentialism, so no I really dont see how this condemns the topic at hand.


----------



## Tgace (May 20, 2005)

Among the most famous and influential existentialist propositions is Sartre's dictum, "existence precedes and rules essence", which is generally taken to mean that *there is no pre-defined essence to humanity except that which we make for ourselves.*

Hmmm...sounds more anti-"sheep,wolf,sheepdog as class" and more "you have a choice to create what you are" to me. So maybe the concept is existentialist....


----------



## Makalakumu (May 20, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/exist.html
> 
> As I recall my under/post grad philosophy courses, this closely matches what I understand as existentialism, so no I really dont see how this condemns the topic at hand.


It doesn't condemn the topic at hand, it helps understand it.  As I have said before, existentialism is not all bad.  Yet, concepts like "master morality" and "slave morality" and "supermen" etc...all have root in existentialism.  It is a philosophy with limits on how it explains the world and, as I have pointed out, these limits are the same limits of this analogy.

I believe the author was influenced heavily by this philosophy, why else would his constructs match so closely other existential constructs.  Particularly, I believe the author to be rather Objectivist which is a AynRandian offshoot of existentialism, owing its roots to the works of Nietzche in particular.

Existentialism is a bleak philosophy for most Christians...or any other religious person.  There is no God.  There is no outer meaning.  There is nothing but the self.  And this concept translates into an understanding of the Sheep, believing the Wolf doesn't exist, praying for their world to be safe, but the Sheepdogs know this is not true.  They are the supermen.

See where I am going with this?


----------



## Makalakumu (May 20, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Among the most famous and influential existentialist propositions is Sartre's dictum, "existence precedes and rules essence", which is generally taken to mean that *there is no pre-defined essence to humanity except that which we make for ourselves.*
> 
> Hmmm...sounds more anti-"sheep,wolf,sheepdog as class" and more "you have a choice to create what you are" to me. So maybe the concept is existentialist....


I'm a little confused at what you are trying to say here, but I'll give it a go...

Lets take this quote, "*there is no pre-defined essence to humanity except that which we make for ourselves*,"and call it truth...

What about those who believe otherwise?  What about those who believe that God will protect them?  That Jesus Saves?  Why worry about the Wolf?  These people are the Sheep, because they just don't know the truth.

The Sheepdogs, on the other hand, know the truth.  Nobody is going to protect you when the Wolf comes.  Nothing will save you but me, because *I* am the real protector of society/morality.

Check this quote from the article...



> If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.


Everything I've said is right there.


----------



## Tgace (May 20, 2005)

I see where you are going its called an "extension".


----------



## Makalakumu (May 20, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I see where you are going its called an "extension".


It's called Nietzche.  Its called Rand.  It's called existentialism.  And it may even be an "extension" in the Venn way of thinking.

I don't think that I'm too far off and I think that understanding this analogy in a Socratic sense, pretty much requires a knowledge of the above.  

Without it, I believe, you won't understand the critiques of the analogy...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 21, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I gave a good definition of the the philosophy above and I believe that I laid out a pretty logical breakdown based on existentialist thought.
> 
> Existentialism isn't all bad. The philosophy has its appeal in certain areas, yet there are some problems...especially where this analogy is concerned.
> 
> ...


You have laid a fairly well argued statement bout Nietzsche's will to power concept.  What you have NOT done, is in anyway refute it?  It is godless and places too much emphasis on the self? That it reflects an ultimately futile existence. lol, So you're saying you disagree, because you don't like it?  Well, now we get to the core of the question.  Master Morality versus Slave Morality.  I was wondering when someone was going to hit on the concept.  I didn't want to bring it up myself, I wanted to wait until it was argued.  Thesis, Anti-thesis and Synthesis.  I'm very impressed, upnorthkyosa.  You are very perceptive.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 21, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> More than a general suspicion that your views are politically conservative, I have no idea.
> 
> But I don't seem to be seeing any substantiation of what I take for your position: that this analogy cannot be identified with any particular political or religious group. The bit of research I did suggested otherwise: could you support your argument, please?


It depends on which views you are referring to. My foreign policy and crime control views could be considered very conservative. My views on social programs, taxation, morality and other issues, might get me labeled a liberal. So, again, take your pick. What's more, religion is a non-starter topic with me, I don't derive my viewpoint from any religion. I seem to disprove your point. I believe you are barking up the proverbial wrong tree.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 21, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I read the article on the "ressurected thread" in the firearms forum and I've skimmed this thread. Thus far, I haven't seen this point brought up. This analogy screams of existentialism
> 
> *Definition*  The universe in inherently disordered. Thus we struggle to make our own meaning, if only for a little bit. Either way the human desired for logic and morality are ultimately futile. Everything changes.
> 
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (May 21, 2005)

Very nice post.

Wouldn't you agree that knowing about existentialism helps understand this analogy?  I don't think we are off topic at all, I think we have just begun to dig deep.

A few things...

I am a sheep, a sheepdog, and a wolf.  At points in my life, I have been all of this and I think that this represents a greater span of humanity then existentialism presents.  We all wear different hats and I don't think we can be born into these roles.  

While there are many truths in existentialism, there are a few problems and the biggest in the tendancy to over-simplify.  The structures of culture are often brushed off as "slave morality" and are not seen to encompass much power at all.  The driving focus on the "self" is too myopic in my opinion.

Thus, we reach the limitations of this analogy.

A few quotes from your post...



> This is correct in a sense, but there is a great underlying problem. The idea controlling the beliefs of the masses on any large scale is silly. The reality is that Thesis and Antithesis blend as concepts because of their interaction, not as part of some action plan. These ideas are much to large and chaotic to be controlled.


I think you sense the gist of what I was getting at, but I think that you are wrong to say that the synthesis cannot be _controlled_.  Perhaps if we weaken the word and say manipulated.  Think of this as Problem/Action/Solution.  A problem is presented, people demand action, and a solution is given.  The problem is the antithesis.  The action is the thesis.  The solution is the synthesis...and this solution can be totally contrived.  (I'm going to bring up the Nazi's but this isn't in an effort to label anyone)  The Riechstaag Fire is a perfect example of a problem/action/solution.  The Nazi's set fire to this place and blamed it on others.  The people bought the lie and demanded a solution.  And the Nazi's gave them one..._Kristolnacht_.  



> Supermen are necessary for society, they drive change and progress. They are all too human as well, however.


I think the concept of "Supermen" is an oversimplification.  It ignores the chain of events that led to it.  People with power often feel that they are different then those without.  This is true to an extent.  Yet, it ignores the hurdles of environment.  For some, being a "superman" is "easier" then it is for others.



> Don't forget, Slave Morality is the morality that usually looks with such resentment on such analogies. Isn't it ironic to see the very ideals we are discussing, at play in our own philosophies? It's very difficult to argue that this is not a description of real phenomenon, using the very ideology to make that argument.


How true.  Their is a fair bit of truth in this way of thinking, yet it has limitations, as I have pointed out above.  I think Humanism is a more accurate description of human life...btw, Humanism flowed from Existentialist thought.



> Yes, except I noticed you didn't explain WHY the struggle between thesis and antithesis demands their existence. The answer is actually very complex. Depending on which point you view existence through, master or slave morality, the sheepdog can be viewed as a protector, a stumbling block to power, or even a defender of the status quo. In reality, the sheepdog is part of what holds the social order together, ALL social orders, be they formal or informal.


It is part, but not the only part or even the greater part.  The scientist who has no capacity for violence, but invents the antibiotics for our diseases does just as much for our society as the police officer.  However, I feel that this article places an emphasis on the Sheepdog's/Police Officer's/Soldiers input on society.  The disease, in essence, is also the Wolf.  And I think that I'm giving a perfect example of the oversimplication that I talking about.  We all wear many hats.



> Those critiques usually take the form of reasons WHY existentialism "seems" bad. In other words, it's not pallatable to everyone.


No, its just that other ways of thinking explain the world better.  I'll make that my next post.



> Again, isn't that what Nietzsche said, that not everyone could handle such a reality? I mean, have you asked yourself, upnorthyosa, if it is remotely possible that you ARE embracing the Slave Morality, and for the very reasons listed above. In fact, aren't your arguments paralelling EVERYTHING that Nietzsche said about Slave Morality? Just food for thought.


Sometimes I'm the Slave, and sometimes I'm the Master.  It depends heavily on the environment.  Our world can seem like a giant interplay of hypocrisies, but I think there is a path in which people can "stick to their guns" as best as they are able.



> Ok, I know, i'm rambling significantly from topic, but these are connections I see, and since upnorthkyosa grasped this much, I thought i'd run this by you folks.
> 
> Since I brought it up, anyone care to share what Keirsey personality type matches any of you?


Do you have a link for this so I can refresh my memory?  I'm going to be changing diapers any minute so I won't be able to respond to your question with any sort of haste without it.

Thanks for the thought provoking discussion.  I hope Robert chimes back in.  He really knows way more then I on this subject and I think could contribute greatly.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 21, 2005)

1. The "master/slave," bit actually comes from Hegel. Marx adapted it in discussions of bourgeoisie/proletariat.

2. Rand is in no sense an existentialist. She defines her philosophy as, "objectivism." But see her and Nathaniel Branden's unreadable, "philosophy."

3. Existentialism is sometimes warped into selfishness. However, the actual books always imply one's relationship--and obligation--to others. See Malraux, "Man's Fate," and DeBeauvoir's, "The Blood of Others," especially. But in general, the individual/social relation tends to be described as a problem for which there are no answers: see Sartre's plays, "No Exit," and "Dirty Hands," as well as his, "The Roads to Freedom," series of novels. And existentialism turned out to be a solipsistic dead end--which is why Sartre and DeBeauvoir both became screaming Maoists...a real pity. For a takeout, see (can't remember author), "One Doesn't Move Without the Other."

4. Fundamentally, the problem with all these analogies--and Pirsig's chart of binary oppositions--is that they are far too simplistic to get at anything like the actual grain of human experience and history.


----------



## TonyM. (May 21, 2005)

If anyone is intesested, Neitzche was enlisted to write his works and financed by The house of Rothschild. Probably not original to him at all but a contination of other illuminatti fairy tales.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 21, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. Rand is in no sense an existentialist. She defines her philosophy as, "objectivism." But see her and Nathaniel Branden's unreadable, "philosophy."


Perhaps I am mistaken, but I can see lots of existential influence in Rand's writing.  I suspect she drew heavily from Neitzche.  Is this incorrect?  Could you explain this further?


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 21, 2005)

I'm not that great on Nietszche--but most of this stuff is a distortion of arguments he directed against bourgeois society and human hypocrisy.

Rand was just a wannabe philosopher, who didn't write terribly well and who simply couldn't tell the difference between democratic society and communism--and who gets used at every turn, whether or not they know it, by jerks who want to justify their fantasies of superiority and their belief that they should be empowered to grab as much as they possibly can from whoever they want.

And please, whoever you are, spare me the veiled anti-semitism (House of Rothschild, my foot) and Dan Brown secret society goofiness.


----------



## Tgace (May 21, 2005)

Hmmm...I always thought the point of analogy WAS to simplify reality. I doubt Grossman was trying to explain reality. 

And has Grossman stated repeatedly, the Sheep/Sheepdog thing is "a choice" and that prople can be one or all of them in their lifetime. In one quote he states its a "sliding scale" and that the Sheepdog that goes out unarmed is a Sheep (thats highly debateable but the point is hes not making a "superman" argument). So how is that different from anything stated so far?


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 21, 2005)

Arguably, yes, analogies, metaphors, and all the rest of language simplifies reality so we can communicate.

The problem is, it's a silly and inadequate analogy--and what's worse, one that a) has a bad history, b) encourages other sillinesses, and c) conceals reality.


----------



## TonyM. (May 22, 2005)

No anti semite here my friend. Anti illuminatti. The Rothschilds are not even jewish. They are hofjuden. People that assume jewish names so that the jews will take the heat for their despicable behavior.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 22, 2005)

Nonsense. And who is Turtle Island occupied by exactly? Lemme guess...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 24, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It is part, but not the only part or even the greater part. The scientist who has no capacity for violence, but invents the antibiotics for our diseases does just as much for our society as the police officer. However, I feel that this article places an emphasis on the Sheepdog's/Police Officer's/Soldiers input on society. The disease, in essence, is also the Wolf. And I think that I'm giving a perfect example of the oversimplication that I talking about. We all wear many hats.


The Scientist is more MORAL, based on Pirsig's metaphysics of quality, because it serves Intellectual Quality, whereas sheepdogs operate as a defender of Social Quality against Biological Quality (crime).  Scientists aren't sheepdogs because sheepdogs are servants.  Scientists would be better equated with the shepherd, or as purely human.  

The sheepdog is given greater emphasis in this article, as it is written TOO sheepdogs, that is why the emphasis.  Col. Grossman has spent his life studying the roles of soldiers and sheepdogs, and he is outlining the duties and responsibilities of operating on that level.  Sheepdogs are important, because without them society could not exist.  

Scientists operate at a whole different level, above that Social/Biological conflict realm.  So far above it, in fact, that they are hard pressed to believe it exists, detached as they are from the whole concept. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Do you have a link for this so I can refresh my memory? I'm going to be changing diapers any minute so I won't be able to respond to your question with any sort of haste without it.
> 
> Thanks for the thought provoking discussion. I hope Robert chimes back in. He really knows way more then I on this subject and I think could contribute greatly.
> 
> upnorthkyosa


Certainly.  This would be a good start  http://www.typelogic.com/ along with this http://keirsey.com/ You can take the test that determines which of the 4 archetypes and 16 sub-types represent your personality.  Again, these are just representations that explain some aspects of the human experience.  There is some real validity to these types and archetypes, though there are some who disagree.  Check in to yourself.

In the name of full disclosure, my personality type is an ENTP. 

Let me know what you find out.


----------



## TonyM. (May 24, 2005)

Do your own homework McRobertson. Your ignorance is showing.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 24, 2005)

So fine; did a quick Internet search. "Hofjuden," as much as I can see through the blizzard of loony fascism and fundamentalism, refers either to, a) a certain segment of European Jews, who considered themselves, "courrtly," in contradistinction to the garden-variety sort; b) the secret conspiracy of Jesuits and others who took Jewish names, like, "Greenspan," and who Run Everything From The Vatican.

So who've you got the problem with? Catholics, or Jewish folks?


----------



## Tgace (May 24, 2005)

Thread Drift!!!!


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 24, 2005)

Fair enough!!!

I guess drifted or dead are the options....

However, I will note that people who belive in secret conspiracy theories tend to think that the secretives ones are being sheepdogs, for better or for worse...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 25, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Fair enough!!!
> 
> I guess drifted or dead are the options....
> 
> However, I will note that people who belive in secret conspiracy theories tend to think that the secretives ones are being sheepdogs, for better or for worse...


lol, that doesn't surprise me.


----------



## heretic888 (May 25, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> From the tidbits I've gathered...existentialism keeps popping to mind.



Y'know, its funny, Steve.

See, you keep _saying_ "existentialism" --- but, apparently, what you _really mean_ is "quasi-Nietzscheanism".

For example, one of my favorite "existentialist" philosophers is Martin Heidegger, but I saw not a wink of terms like "trascendence" or "bad faith". Just stuff from Nietzche. Very interesting.

For what its worth, I very much admire existentialist philosophy as a whole, in that it absolute refuses to condone the fantasy of Ego Immortality --- whether via a mythic heaven, New Age narccisisms, or the rational-industrial ontology. The idea that the "self" is not predetermined or preset, but constantly in a state of dialectical development, flux, and evolution is spot-on, as far as I'm concerned. Its also very much in alignment with Piagetian cognitive constructivism (especially the ego-constructivism of Jane Loevinger). 

Regarding the whole Pirsig, morality, and "social quality" thing --- I much prefer the work of Lawrence Kohlberg and Carol Gilligan as far as moral development is concerned.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (May 25, 2005)

And, as for the whole "illuminati conspiracy" thing --- puh'leeze, girlfriend.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 28, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Y'know, its funny, Steve.
> 
> See, you keep _saying_ "existentialism" --- but, apparently, what you _really mean_ is "quasi-Nietzscheanism".
> 
> ...


Kohlberg and Gilligan have done a good job of describing the stages of individual moral development from a psychological perspective.  This does nothing to explain what IS moral, merely how an individual arrives at certain conclusions about morality within a society.  Apples and oranges. Actually, a more appropriate analogy would apples and bowling balls, as the Pirsig's metaphysics of moral quality has absolutely nothing to do with what Kohlberg and Gilligan were researching.  They are entirely different levels of a much larger argument.  Kohlberg and Gilligan were researching psychological development, Pirsig was exploring the philosophical concept of morality itself, and the philosophical underpinning of what is and isn't this thing called morality.  

That having been said, i've always been a fan of Kohlberg and Gilligan's research in moral development as well.


----------

