You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Respecting Life
Speaking in a broad sense, I think egocentrism is the root of violent behavior. We simply aren't hard wired to place the needs of others above our own. This same rule applies to the animal kingdom (which we are a part of, albeit in what exact sense can be debated) right down to the most simple organisms. We are simply more resourceful at acting on this primal self centerdness, and we often do so on a global scale. Also, our highly developed brains allow us to form concepts like revenge and getting even, which helps sustain the cycle of violence.
It's relatively easy for most anyone who has lead a stable life in a stable environment to be able to feel compassion and empathy for the suffering of others, up to the point of being compelled to do something to help out. However, as soon as the environment changes to a more chaotic and unpredictable setting where survival is hard pressed, that same stable person will kill his neighbor without much remorse to further his own goals or simply to ensure his own survival for a while longer. I think everyone, even the most devout religious pacifists, are capable of atrocious acts of violence if they are driven to the edge by circumstance or another person or group of persons.
Inequity breeds unrest, which breeds war. The unequal allocation of the world's resources, both in a global scale (as in nation to nation) and in a smaller one such as in cities and neighborhoods, causes feelings of hatred and jealousy, which leads to strife, and eventually violence ensues in one form or another. It's as simple as that, IMO.
It's relatively easy for most anyone who has lead a stable life in a stable environment to be able to feel compassion and empathy for the suffering of others, up to the point of being compelled to do something to help out. However, as soon as the environment changes to a more chaotic and unpredictable setting where survival is hard pressed, that same stable person will kill his neighbor without much remorse to further his own goals or simply to ensure his own survival for a while longer. I think everyone, even the most devout religious pacifists, are capable of atrocious acts of violence if they are driven to the edge by circumstance or another person or group of persons.
Inequity breeds unrest, which breeds war. The unequal allocation of the world's resources, both in a global scale (as in nation to nation) and in a smaller one such as in cities and neighborhoods, causes feelings of hatred and jealousy, which leads to strife, and eventually violence ensues in one form or another. It's as simple as that, IMO.
originally posted by Shafty:
I like your point of view Shafty, but if we really want to exit from this primitive violent sea, then we need to teach respect for non-violence right from school. It is frm school among the more stupid that the idea they can get what they want by force and domination is born.
If your neighbor were to hit you, you would rightly take him to court. So why is this ok for an adult and not a child? On the contrary, the child bully should be punished even more so he understands once and for all there is no way he can get what he wants with force. If not, he will slowly gravitate towards delinquency and finally, crime. All the violence that is poisining the neighborhoods around the big cities saps its nourisHydromaxent from the over-tolerant school system that lets bullys get away with it.
Any threat of violence should be punished as severley as the act itself, because to threaten means that the person has already aknowledged that they will resort to violence as a way of getting what they desire.
Originally posted by sikdogg:
Yes, the whole planet is caught in this terrible logic. "Might is right", or "only the strong survive" is showing a complete lack of intelligence. It opens up the foundations of violence, creating a terribly confused world and messup-up thought process which is preparing the next generation to be even more terrible. That next generation promises to be horrifyingly unbalanced because for them who have grown used to seeing it everyday, violence will seem ordinary.
I think the saddest thing in our world is that people believe they are in the right with this violent ideology. The Germans who went on to become Nazis and massacred all those Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies were not fundamentally bad people. It is just that they entered into a horrific logic, into a reasoning that seemed so right, that they bought into that system without questioning it; they were convinced that they were doing the "right" thing and serving the cause.
"Collateral damage" is such a cop-out; there is no justifyng killing any innocent civilian.
We should all follow Jesus' example of peace. He spoke only of love. He came to tell us "love thy neighbor as you love yourselves" in replacement of the barbaric message of "eye for eye, tooth for tooth." This means that if someone hits you, then you should hit them back, but its exactly the oppositte of everything Jesus stood for. And Jesus, a Jew among Jews, told them, "if someone hits you on the right cheek, show them your left cheek". Love your enemies more than your friends, because they need more love than your friends. You already love your friends! If someone hates you, I know its hard, but answer them with love not violence. Answer saying, "if you want to hit me then go ahead! You will then have to live with it, your own conscience!" It was truly a revolutionary ideology, and we all know what fate awaited Jesus.
The Dalai Lama is doing the same thing today for Tibet. He could encourage his people to revolt, to use bombs against the Chinease, but instead he said, No! No violence, with time, awareness will come bringing understanding between humans."
We must not forget the great achievements of all the people who worked so hard for pece and non-violence. I realize this world is full of hate and despair, but we have to change that.
It's relatively easy for most anyone who has lead a stable life in a stable environment to be able to feel compassion and empathy for the suffering of others, up to the point of being compelled to do something to help out. However, as soon as the environment changes to a more chaotic and unpredictable setting where survival is hard pressed, that same stable person will kill his neighbor without much remorse to further his own goals or simply to ensure his own survival for a while longer. I think everyone, even the most devout religious pacifists, are capable of atrocious acts of violence if they are driven to the edge by circumstance or another person or group of persons.
Inequity breeds unrest, which breeds war. The unequal allocation of the world's resources, both in a global scale (as in nation to nation) and in a smaller one such as in cities and neighborhoods, causes feelings of hatred and jealousy, which leads to strife, and eventually violence ensues in one form or another. It's as simple as that, IMO.
I like your point of view Shafty, but if we really want to exit from this primitive violent sea, then we need to teach respect for non-violence right from school. It is frm school among the more stupid that the idea they can get what they want by force and domination is born.
If your neighbor were to hit you, you would rightly take him to court. So why is this ok for an adult and not a child? On the contrary, the child bully should be punished even more so he understands once and for all there is no way he can get what he wants with force. If not, he will slowly gravitate towards delinquency and finally, crime. All the violence that is poisining the neighborhoods around the big cities saps its nourisHydromaxent from the over-tolerant school system that lets bullys get away with it.
Any threat of violence should be punished as severley as the act itself, because to threaten means that the person has already aknowledged that they will resort to violence as a way of getting what they desire.
Originally posted by sikdogg:
Non-violence sounds great but that will only work in an enlightened utopian society were everyone is on the same page. That is never the case... the fact is that violent people only understand violence and the meek WILL be slaughtered. Given the choice... i choose to slaughter.
Yes, the whole planet is caught in this terrible logic. "Might is right", or "only the strong survive" is showing a complete lack of intelligence. It opens up the foundations of violence, creating a terribly confused world and messup-up thought process which is preparing the next generation to be even more terrible. That next generation promises to be horrifyingly unbalanced because for them who have grown used to seeing it everyday, violence will seem ordinary.
I think the saddest thing in our world is that people believe they are in the right with this violent ideology. The Germans who went on to become Nazis and massacred all those Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies were not fundamentally bad people. It is just that they entered into a horrific logic, into a reasoning that seemed so right, that they bought into that system without questioning it; they were convinced that they were doing the "right" thing and serving the cause.
"Collateral damage" is such a cop-out; there is no justifyng killing any innocent civilian.
We should all follow Jesus' example of peace. He spoke only of love. He came to tell us "love thy neighbor as you love yourselves" in replacement of the barbaric message of "eye for eye, tooth for tooth." This means that if someone hits you, then you should hit them back, but its exactly the oppositte of everything Jesus stood for. And Jesus, a Jew among Jews, told them, "if someone hits you on the right cheek, show them your left cheek". Love your enemies more than your friends, because they need more love than your friends. You already love your friends! If someone hates you, I know its hard, but answer them with love not violence. Answer saying, "if you want to hit me then go ahead! You will then have to live with it, your own conscience!" It was truly a revolutionary ideology, and we all know what fate awaited Jesus.
The Dalai Lama is doing the same thing today for Tibet. He could encourage his people to revolt, to use bombs against the Chinease, but instead he said, No! No violence, with time, awareness will come bringing understanding between humans."
We must not forget the great achievements of all the people who worked so hard for pece and non-violence. I realize this world is full of hate and despair, but we have to change that.
Violence sucks. If somebody hits me, they're going to find that they've made a mistake.
Shafty,
You nailed it. When designing any system, political, economic, whatever, human tendencies, and frailties must be considered. If you do not, you end up with a failed system.
Humans are flawed in so many ways. That is Kal's problem. He does not recognize those flaws, and account for them in his thinking. He believes if he just wishes it so, it will be so. That would be nice.
The avowed enemies of the west, Muslim extremists, are extremely flawed individuals. They do not wish, nor will they tolerate living in a world with infidels. That is just fact. Now, do we sit back and just die for them? Or do we defend ourselves in the most effective way possible? I choose life.
Bigger
You nailed it. When designing any system, political, economic, whatever, human tendencies, and frailties must be considered. If you do not, you end up with a failed system.
Humans are flawed in so many ways. That is Kal's problem. He does not recognize those flaws, and account for them in his thinking. He believes if he just wishes it so, it will be so. That would be nice.
The avowed enemies of the west, Muslim extremists, are extremely flawed individuals. They do not wish, nor will they tolerate living in a world with infidels. That is just fact. Now, do we sit back and just die for them? Or do we defend ourselves in the most effective way possible? I choose life.
Bigger
Kal-el said:Why is it that no one respects life? Why is it that the nature of humanity is to always gravitate toward war, death, destruction, and chaos? Why do we hate ourselves so much that we would destroy our own species in ways so horrific and in numbers so large?
And why do we respond to violence with violence? Hatred creates more hatred. War brings war and violence brings more violence. It seems like violence is the only thing we understand. The idea of a peaceful resolution to conflicts is so far beyond us as a species that we can be nothing without war.
So in your opinion,is Bush right or wrong, with the war in Iraq?
Originally posted by Bib:
Bib, if you didn't say my name I could of sworn you were referring to President Bush.
Anyway, we should'nt listen when the powers that be speak to us about potential enemies while at the same time these people allow armament factories to compel underpaid workers to make destructive weapons that only bring profits to big industrialists.
And when it is said, "this insurgency is definetly growing and becoming a treat to us." These are the same people who support the stockpiling of wmds under the pretext of "deterence."
Originally posted by Britishprick:
British prick, if you read my posts, you should already know my feelings on this. But the approval rating of this Iraq war is the lowest its been ever. Americans are not patient. And whoever voices their opinion on this, is labeled things like "unpatriotic", or other nonsense. These people want to teach you violence, to teach you not to be afraid of killing someone like yourself, falsly using the excuse that he is wearing a different uniform, and training you until it becomes a mechanical reflex after repeated practice against training targets.
Humans are flawed in so many ways. That is Kal's problem. He does not recognize those flaws, and account for them in his thinking. He believes if he just wishes it so, it will be so. That would be nice.
Bib, if you didn't say my name I could of sworn you were referring to President Bush.
Anyway, we should'nt listen when the powers that be speak to us about potential enemies while at the same time these people allow armament factories to compel underpaid workers to make destructive weapons that only bring profits to big industrialists.
And when it is said, "this insurgency is definetly growing and becoming a treat to us." These are the same people who support the stockpiling of wmds under the pretext of "deterence."
Originally posted by Britishprick:
So in your opinion,is Bush right or wrong, with the war in Iraq?
British prick, if you read my posts, you should already know my feelings on this. But the approval rating of this Iraq war is the lowest its been ever. Americans are not patient. And whoever voices their opinion on this, is labeled things like "unpatriotic", or other nonsense. These people want to teach you violence, to teach you not to be afraid of killing someone like yourself, falsly using the excuse that he is wearing a different uniform, and training you until it becomes a mechanical reflex after repeated practice against training targets.
Kal,
>Bib, if you didn't say my name I could of sworn you were referring to President Bush.
Anyway, we should'nt listen when the powers that be speak to us about potential enemies while at the same time these people allow armament factories to compel underpaid workers to make destructive weapons that only bring profits to big industrialists.<
Just no reply to this dribble. You are a piece of work.
Bigger
>Bib, if you didn't say my name I could of sworn you were referring to President Bush.
Anyway, we should'nt listen when the powers that be speak to us about potential enemies while at the same time these people allow armament factories to compel underpaid workers to make destructive weapons that only bring profits to big industrialists.<
Just no reply to this dribble. You are a piece of work.
Bigger
Originally posted by Bib
Just no reply to this dribble. You are a piece of work
Thankyou, I try.
Collateral damage: the phrase used by the misnamed Department of Defense to describe lives and property destroyed as a side effect of actions taken in the War on Terror. It is also a favorite phrase of pro-war pundits and bloggers because it sounds so much nicer than "wanton destruction and murder."Originally posted by Me "Collateral damage" is such a cop-out; there is no justifyng killing any innocent civilian.
Note, however, that those who use the phrase seriously always apply it to foreigners – Iraqis and Afghans, for example, whose lives were snuffed out "inadvertently" when a two-ton bomb was dropped on a suspected terrorist hideout in their village. Rather than treat these people as humans victimized by evil actions, simply write them off as collateral damage, i.e., debris.
I forgot to post where I got the story from.Read Whole Story-
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/tennant3.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/tennant3.html
You are right we better not stop at 1. I wish it did work that way. One murderer gets the death penalty then every murderer after him got it.
Let me tell you a story, how things were done in the old days. True story. One day this guy down the street bobby pushed down my dads little sister (my aunt) and took her red tricycle. My dad got his other brother (my uncle tommy) and they went to this boys house, he came out the door and tommy decked him. When the boy was lying on the ground stunned he told him never to touch his sister or her red tricycle again.
Brothers, Fathers, Uncles, and the like in a family used to do the mediating of problems with other people, to a degree. Normally to loners or people acting out of line, or whose family would also want them punished. Typically you could go talk to the father or head of the family and explain your plight, then they could talk to that person and have them apologize or be punished someway.
Unfortunately our bogus justice system went over the edge with lawsuits and the most ridiculous court cases are appearing, and less 'true justice' is being served. On top of this, divorce, fathers not being around, etc is further exacerbating the problem.
I went off on a tangent, but I must say this, anyone who murders another person in cold blood, should not be given the chance to do it again. If they are alive they have a chance no matter how big or little. It is not your right to even ALLOW that person to live to endanger another person. That is why I think any sexual assaults should be life in prison. So many of them are repeat offenders it is ridiculous to put them back on the streets in 5 10 15 years.
Let me tell you a story, how things were done in the old days. True story. One day this guy down the street bobby pushed down my dads little sister (my aunt) and took her red tricycle. My dad got his other brother (my uncle tommy) and they went to this boys house, he came out the door and tommy decked him. When the boy was lying on the ground stunned he told him never to touch his sister or her red tricycle again.
Brothers, Fathers, Uncles, and the like in a family used to do the mediating of problems with other people, to a degree. Normally to loners or people acting out of line, or whose family would also want them punished. Typically you could go talk to the father or head of the family and explain your plight, then they could talk to that person and have them apologize or be punished someway.
Unfortunately our bogus justice system went over the edge with lawsuits and the most ridiculous court cases are appearing, and less 'true justice' is being served. On top of this, divorce, fathers not being around, etc is further exacerbating the problem.
I went off on a tangent, but I must say this, anyone who murders another person in cold blood, should not be given the chance to do it again. If they are alive they have a chance no matter how big or little. It is not your right to even ALLOW that person to live to endanger another person. That is why I think any sexual assaults should be life in prison. So many of them are repeat offenders it is ridiculous to put them back on the streets in 5 10 15 years.
You haven't joined any rooms.