"God Says ... "

[michaello]

Here are just a few quotes from a few “influential individuals” who are using the concept of “God” to explain their actions.

Condoleezza Rice: "When I'm concerned about something, I figure out a plan of action, and then I give it to God," she told Essence magazine earlier this year. ‘I just ask to be carried through it. God's never failed me yet.’"

George Bush: "I believe God has called us into action ... God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did ..."

Osama Bin Laden: "On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa ..."

David Berkowitz (Son of Sam): "I would like to be used by God to reach out to a lot of teenagers ... The Lord calls me the Son of Hope."

Seriously - Is it healthy that these people are "throwing it to God" and being told what to do by God?

Where is the line drawn between an issue of faith and an issue of requiring psychiatric help?

What do you think?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by michaello

Where is the line drawn between an issue of faith and an issue of requiring psychiatric help?


how about when god tells someone to go out and kill in his name?

[michaello]

Like this, you mean?

George Bush: "I believe God has called us into action ... God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did ..."

Osama Bin Laden: "On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa ..."

[zimv20]

Originally posted by michaello
Like this, you mean?

George Bush: "I believe God has called us into action ... God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did ..."

Osama Bin Laden: "On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa ..."

honestly, i don't see much difference between the two.

except that bin laden will be satisfied once the mideast is free of non-muslims. when will bush be satisfied?

[michaello]

They'll be happy when they "succeed in doing God's work", I guess.

But, my point in the thread is NOT to compare Bin Laden to George W. Bush or to the Son of Sam.

My point is their BELIEF that they are all doing "God's Work", in "God's name" - and there are an awful lot of people in the Bush administration who feel that they are doing the work of "God".

And, my question is: "Is this healthy?"

[zimv20]

Originally posted by michaello
my question is: "Is this healthy?"

no. anything that can make anyone feel good about killing others cannot be healthy.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
honestly, i don't see much difference between the two.

except that bin laden will be satisfied once the mideast is free of non-muslims. when will bush be satisfied?

I think GWBush was just fine and dandy up until Sept 11th happened. So, UBLaden will be satisfied when the MiddleEast is free of non-muslims. GWBush will be satisfied when the threat of terrorism is not present.

Maybe a public apology from UBL in al-Jazzera saying he was wrong, and that he is going to go back to Saudi Arabia to become a construction company tycoon would be just fine with GWBush.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by zimv20
except that bin laden will be satisfied once the mideast is free of non-muslims. when will bush be satisfied? now, now, i think it's naïf to take Bin Laden's word for it that that's all he wants. i suspect that his "god" would tell him to do anything if it kept him popular with the extremists.

seriously, it's one thing to be cynical about bush. great. good for you. but to turn around and be naïf about Bin Laden makes you look kinda dumb...

as for what "God says," i don't see any problem with it in Condoleezza Rice's quote; it was pretty good.

bush's quote is unequivocally freaky. i would appreciate something like "i believe that i am following a course of action that is just in the eyes of god," but "God came to me and told me to kill this guy and that guy" seems a bit out of tune. it's far too mystical for politics.

i think i would draw the line about "hearing something from god" where people start to use it to (a) neglect to do something they should, and "trust god to take care of it," or (b) do something that people find objectionable and use the "argument" as an excuse not to make a valid, just argument for what they do.

[Daveman Deluxe]

I would like to present the opinion of the token liberal youth minister. To avoid any misunderstanding, I am speaking only from the Christian view of God and make no claim as to the beliefs of any faith other than Christianity.

From my limited knowledge of history, I can only see two times that a case can be made that a war would be justified in God's eyes.

-When God told the Children of Israel to invade the Promised Land. In this instance, God was using Israel as his method of punishment to the Phillistines who had rejected him.

-World War II. I suggest this because the Holocaust had to end (it would have been preferable that the Holocaust never started, of course). I am aware there were many other reasons for WWII, but the only one that I know of and see as justifiable is the Holocaust.

I see God's primary concern as building up life, and it is our purpose on Earth to preserve it, not tear it down over petty issues (wars often are fought over petty issues). It is also reasonable for a nation to defend itself when under attack.

In short, I agree with zimv20. Anybody that is trying to justify killing, especially with death tolls on the order of war, is unhealthy. When I see Christians who believe the same way Dubya does, I think they have a warped view of what God stands for.

Edit: It would probably have been easier to say I agree whole-heartedly with shadowfax's post, but I wanted to get a bit more specific about the way I see things.

[zimv20]

i'll try again:

UBL's stated goals:
1. remove the infidels from the holy land
2. get a palestinian state

now while i'm not naive enough to take him at his word, he has his out strategy. while unlikely, it's a possible scenario (e.g. if the mideast ran out of oil)

bush's stated goal:
1. to wipe out terrorism

i'm definitely not naive enough to believe that. but let's assume that's the goal. it's practically unattainable. the mere act of fighting terrorism causes more of it.

fighting terrorism is fighting entropy. entropy always wins.

if the US becomes energy self-sustaining, and the US withdraws its interest from the middle east, and the US becomes a good international citizen, the terrorism will stop. but not until then.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
if the US becomes energy self-sustaining, and the US withdraws its interest from the middle east, and the US becomes a good international citizen, the terrorism will stop. but not until then.

But we can't do that.

We can't drill off the shores of the United States.
We can't drill within the state of Alaska and ANWR.
We can't use nuclear energy.
We can't use coal.

[Daveman Deluxe]

Frohickey-

There are other ways of generating power. There's wind and solar, not to mention the intriguing field of hydrogen power.

By far the best thing would be to use fusion, of course. It's hard to do, though, or I suppose we'd already be doing it.

[vwcruisn]

Originally posted by Frohickey
But we can't do that.

We can't drill off the shores of the United States.
We can't drill within the state of Alaska and ANWR.
We can't use nuclear energy.
We can't use coal.

huh.. how about stricter regulations on fuel efficiency .If every noncommercial driver in the United States owned a vehicle that got at least 27 miles to the gallon, our country would no longer need to import oil from the Middle East. Regardless, we are a wasteful society.. nobody can argue that. How can one justify destroying such a beautiful place on earth.. such as the alaska national wildlife refuge when we are still producing vehicles that get 10 miles to a gallon?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
But we can't do that.

We can't drill off the shores of the United States.
We can't drill within the state of Alaska and ANWR.
We can't use nuclear energy.
We can't use coal.

then we live w/ terrorism.

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by zimv20


i'm definitely not naive enough to believe that. but let's assume that's the goal. it's practically unattainable. the mere act of fighting terrorism causes more of it.

fighting terrorism is fighting entropy. entropy always wins.

if the US becomes energy self-sustaining, and the US withdraws its interest from the middle east, and the US becomes a good international citizen, the terrorism will stop. but not until then. [/B]



okay say we withdraw and do all of what you said above... they will say they win.. fine... but what makes you think they won't bother us anymore???

[zimv20]

Originally posted by krossfyter
okay say we withdraw and do all of what you said above... they will say they win.. fine... but what makes you think they won't bother us anymore???

same reason we stopped attacking the british. they left.

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by zimv20
same reason we stopped attacking the british. they left.


okay correct me if im wrong but dont the terrorists unlike the british (at that time) have this religious zeal to stomp out "the great satan"?? so doesnt it matter not if we do or dont do anything because of this zeal that they have? we are a target primarily of our unique position in the world not so much because of our opposition to leave their so called land. i agree though that our boys on their land is one factor but im not sure if its the main one. another big factor would be our support for isreal. now please dont be offended by what i am saying here. i am trying to conduct this discussion with respect for your views as well as others. i am trying to learn a little from this discussion so im not here to bad mouth anyones opinions or views.

with respect,
krossfyter

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by krossfyter
okay correct me if im wrong but dont the terrorists unlike the british (at that time) have this religious zeal to stomp out "the great satan"?? so doesnt it matter not if we do or dont do anything because of this zeal that they have? we are a target primarily of our unique position in the world not so much because of our opposition to leave their so called land. i agree though that our boys on their land is one factor but im not sure if its the main one. another big factor would be our support for isreal. now please dont be offended by what i am saying here. i am trying to conduct this discussion with respect for your views as well as others. i am trying to learn a little from this discussion so im not here to bad mouth anyones opinions or views. exactly. this is my point, zim. you are talkng about stated goals, but when we leave, OBL will come up with some new goals. he'll be killing some other "great evil" in the name of allah. he's a crusader.

[tazo]

Originally posted by zimv20
how about when god tells someone to go out and kill in his name?

Like some arab guy?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by tazo
Like some arab guy?

Exactly! Or some redneck.

[Sayhey]

When God starts telling somefolks they have the right way for us all, I always start looking for the nearest exit. I know some very, very good people who claim to have had a one-on-one with the almighty and that is all fine and good, but that disembodied voice in someone's ear should be greeted with a healthy dose of skepticism. For every Joan d'Arc there are too many Torquemadas. And so that no one think that this is just a problem of Islam, we should remember that Paul Hill went smiling to his death wishing to kill more doctors because his God told him it was right. Fundamentalism, the belief that there is only one way to live and that has been revealed to us by God, is a problem in every religion. It provides the excuse for Judge Moore and John Ashcroft to take away our basic rights, just as it provides the excuse for jihadis to kill US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As to terrorism, I think we have to fight it. It just can't only be fought with bullets and bombs. You get rid of terrorism by combating not only the current bin Laden, but also by fighting what causes people to go to such horrible methods. That includes ignorance, poverty, and a sense of powerlessness. Those are not things that it is easy to declare victory over after a military campaign, but if we are serious about stopping terrorism we will have to deal with them.

[mactastic]

Who started the "War on Poverty"? Was it Nixon, or was that the "War on Drugs"?

Regardless, we've been fighting both "wars" for some time with little success.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Sayhey
As to terrorism, I think we have to fight it. It just can't only be fought with bullets and bombs. You get rid of terrorism by combating not only the current bin Laden, but also by fighting what causes people to go to such horrible methods. That includes ignorance, poverty, and a sense of powerlessness. Those are not things that it is easy to declare victory over after a military campaign, but if we are serious about stopping terrorism we will have to deal with them. i have a question: do you think the middle east will prosper, ever, if the US leaves it entirely, gives them israel and everything they want (as of right now)?

i mean, i think bin laden thrives on their poverty. it makes people much more prone to manipulation, being impoverished. so another question--i am curious--what should we do in iraq now that we are there?

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by mactastic
Who started the "War on Poverty"? Was it Nixon, or was that the "War on Drugs"? i think LBJ was the war on poverty, was't it? "the great society," and all that? war on drugs sounds more like reagan or carter, but i could be wrong on that, just a shot in the breeze...

[mactastic]

Well, now that we are there, we have to fix it. Leaving it alone is no longer an option. We need to leave Iraq in good hands, even if that means that 50 years from now we are still involved if necessary, or out ASAP if that is what's required. All decisions now need to be made in the best interests of the Iraqis, not the US if we are too avoid having to deal with this problem 10, 20, 50 years down the line. We have caused problems for ourselves before with short-sighted foreign policy decisions. This would be a bad place to make more.

We need to pony up for the Iraqi reconstruction in a big way. I only hope it doesn't cause much more economic pain.

[IJ Reilly]

Soon after 9-11 it occurred to me that most of the problems in the world are created by people who are completely certain about what they believe.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by shadowfax
i have a question: do you think the middle east will prosper, ever, if the US leaves it entirely, gives them israel and everything they want (as of right now)?

i mean, i think bin laden thrives on their poverty. it makes people much more prone to manipulation, being impoverished. so another question--i am curious--what should we do in iraq now that we are there?

First, we can't "give" Israel to anybody. We don't own it and we can't give it away. If you mean should we stop supporting the right of Israel to exist, absolutely not.

Will the countries of the region every prosper? Some of them already are, but in many places, among the Palestinians, the majority of Egyptians, etc. a life of poverty is the norm. Can these nations prosper - certainly, if they make certain descision about the way they conduct their economies and foreign corporations do not just pillage their natural resources.

All I'm saying is that in order to eliminate terrorism we also have to deal with root causes of terrorism. I would never suggest that the US should totally disengage from the region. The problem is the content of that engagement. If we are seen as a friend that respects the cultures of the countries and brings the benefits of modernization in our economic, cultural, and political contacts; then we have a much better chance of cutting out the sources of terrorism and hatred of the US. If we are going to continue to make the military our main export to the middle east then we are going to be manufacturing as many or more terrorists than we eliminate.

What do we do now in Iraq? First we turn over the political leadership of the country to the UN. Second, we make it very clear we do not want our troops in Iraq any longer than necessary and will turn over the security functions to the new UN sanctioned Iraqi government as soon as possible. Last, we pour in aid to Iraq and Afghanistan to help build the infrastructure that would make democracy possible. If we truly want Iraq as a bastion of democracy in the region it will have to be of the Iraqis own chosing rather than from a long term commitment of US troops.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by krossfyter
okay correct me if im wrong but dont the terrorists unlike the british (at that time) have this religious zeal to stomp out "the great satan"?? so doesnt it matter not if we do or dont do anything because of this zeal that they have? we are a target primarily of our unique position in the world not so much because of our opposition to leave their so called land.


that's a valid point. there are, of course, no guarantees. there is also no black and white.

let's say we go whole hog:
1. withdraw all foreign troops
2. drop support for israel
3. cease any program that offers relief for political gain

will that stop terrorism against US interests?probably not completely, but it would greatly lessen it. there would be a handful of people who still hate the US for past actions, but i firmly believe the fire that drives terrorism would, by and large, be extinguished.

am i espousing such a position? not necessarily, i think it's an overreaction. but we could and should start thinking more along those lines.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by shadowfax
exactly. this is my point, zim. you are talkng about stated goals, but when we leave, OBL will come up with some new goals. he'll be killing some other "great evil" in the name of allah. he's a crusader.

honestly, i think he would turn his attention to saudi arabia, to turn the kingdom into a pure islamic state.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by tazo
Like some arab guy?

yes. they're both using god as an excuse to kill. personally, i'm disgusted all around.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by shadowfax
i think bin laden thrives on their poverty.

yes! more to the point -- terrorism thrives on it.

i draw a parallel between that and crime in the US. the way to solve crime is to lift all of society -- a higher standard of living for all (read: strong economy), better education for all, health care for all, an achievable american dream for all.

do that, crime will go down, like it did under clinton.

apply the same ideals to the world, and terrorism goes down.

can crime and terror ever be eliminated completely? no, but they can and must be brought to the lowest levels possible.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Soon after 9-11 it occurred to me that most of the problems in the world are created by people who are completely certain about what they believe.

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell

[michaello]

How does it affect us, as Americans, that our leaders are Fundamentalists?

Does this Fundamentalist point of view help us, as a nation, in our communications with other countries, or even to "terrorists"? And, where does the non-Fundamentalist American population fit in to this picture? Are we still welcome here in America?

How much does the administration's Fundamentalist "zeal" influence their decisions?

Would we have gone into Iraq as quickly, as rashly, if this Fundamentalist "zeal" was less influential? Or would we have dealt calmly and methodically with the rest of the world, and worked peacefully, respectfully and fairly to make the entire world a true Global Unit - which might have ultimately made the world much safer from the terrorist threat.

We now find ourselves in need, with no Global respect or trust, fighting a damn Crusade with a self-ordained, unbalanced and slightly fanatical religious zealot at the helm of our ship, yelling, “Bring It On!”. As an American, I hear that and feel I’ve been hijacked into this fight.

I would prefer my leaders to be level-headed and thoughtful, and to act in my best interests as an American citizen - not in the interests of their personal “Devine Calling”.

So, again, my question - Is this Fundamentalism healthy for America?

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by zimv20
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell

I ran into that quote relatively recently and have since used it as a sig line. Great minds think alike, eh? :D

[zimv20]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I ran into that quote relatively recently and have since used it as a sig line. Great minds think alike, eh? :D

it's one of my favorites. i've used it in my signature a few times, too.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by michaello
How does it affect us, as Americans, that our leaders are Fundamentalists?

More then anyone would like to admit. The main reason the United States supports Israel in the uncritical way we do today is because fundamentalist forecasts of Biblical end-times require the Jews to be in their homeland. Do I want US foreign policy to be driven in any way by the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies of the apocalypse? Uh, no... but it is.

And before it becomes a question -- yes, I do think the US should support Israel, but not in the lopsided way we do today. The reason why this is so is pretty darned scary.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Sayhey
First, we can't "give" Israel to anybody. We don't own it and we can't give it away. If you mean should we stop supporting the right of Israel to exist, absolutely not.you understood what i meant, but somehow you suggest that i said it wrong. everyone knows that if israel didn't receive MASSIVE amounts of help from the US, it would not stand a chance against its neighbors, all of which are hostile or would be if the US weren't backing Israel. nearly all their decisive weaponry is oursfighter jets, bombs... the threat that if Israel sustains an attack, the US may join in a war on their side... to withdraw this, functionally, is to give up Israel to the Arab nations around it. the idiom of my phrase is very simple. if you left your laptop in a public square and just flat out left, never to come back, it could be said of you that you're giving away your laptop. maybe it's not your laptop, maybe it's someone else's, but if you leave it there, you're giving it away, whether you own it or not. previously, you were the only thing keeping it from being stolen. likewise, we are just about the only thing that could keep israel from being swallowed up by those nations around it that want it for the palestinians.

about turning iraq over to the UN, why? what are they better at than us? if anyone has any business making the country prosperous, i think it's us. as such, i don't think it matters. i would like to see the US troops come out quickly, like in our occupation of Japan, but if it mus come to a situation like South Korea (i.e., a protected, successful nation beleagured by foes), and when you think about it, it's really going to, whatever nation or group of nations supports it will probably be stuck there for a damned long time. Whether the US continues as it is or turns it over to the UN, the US will be the nation bearing the brunt of this, if past experience proves anything, and as such i don't see the point of troubling ourselves with that particular body of international government that can't do anything at all because the nations of the world cannot agree on anything and hence agree to do nothing decisive in every truly important case.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by michaello
How does it affect us, as Americans, that our leaders are Fundamentalists?

Does this Fundamentalist point of view help us, as a nation, in our communications with other countries, or even to "terrorists"? And, where does the non-Fundamentalist American population fit in to this picture? Are we still welcome here in America?

How much does the administration's Fundamentalist "zeal" influence their decisions?

Would we have gone into Iraq as quickly, as rashly, if this Fundamentalist "zeal" was less influential? Or would we have dealt calmly and methodically with the rest of the world, and worked peacefully, respectfully and fairly to make the entire world a true Global Unit - which might have ultimately made the world much safer from the terrorist threat.

We now find ourselves in need, with no Global respect or trust, fighting a damn Crusade with a self-ordained, unbalanced and slightly fanatical religious zealot at the helm of our ship, yelling, “Bring It On!”. As an American, I hear that and feel I’ve been hijacked into this fight.

I would prefer my leaders to be level-headed and thoughtful, and to act in my best interests as an American citizen - not in the interests of their personal “Devine Calling”.

So, again, my question - Is this Fundamentalism healthy for America? prove that religion is intrinsically fundamentalism. it can't be done, because it isn't true. i don't think that every religious member of the administration is "fundamentalist"--isn't Colin Powell a Christian?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by shadowfax
prove that religion is intrinsically fundamentalism. it can't be done, because it isn't true. i don't think that every religious member of the administration is "fundamentalist"--isn't Colin Powell a Christian?

Now you are going the route of deliberatly misconstruing someones arguement. I don't think he meant that every single member of the gov't is a fundamentalist... but that several top people are. Particularly Bush and Ashcroftl.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by mactastic
Now you are going the route of deliberatly misconstruing someones arguement. I don't think he meant that every single member of the gov't is a fundamentalist... but that several top people are. Particularly Bush and Ashcroftl. true; sorry. i don't think that bush is really a fundamentalist at heart. i think he's just really bad at arguing a case that does have some good arguments, and as such just excuses himself with the fundamentalist front here and there. Ahcroft is definitely a fundamentalist. but more than that, he's aesthetically stupid and generally bad at his job.

[michaello]

"i don't think that every religious member of the administration is "fundamentalist"--isn't Colin Powell a Christian?"

-----------

Whether Bush is a Fundamentalist or not is an interesting point.

I don’t think he’s deep enough to totally embrace the whole religion thing. If he were asked to debate with a Fundamentalist, he’d probably bow out.

But, when he stopped drinking (at forty) he went full swing into creating himself a Fundamentalist, and he is OWNED by Fundamentalists, (like the Christian Coalition) and surrounded by Fundamentalists like, yes, John Ashcroft and a great many others in his administration.

So, Bush might be the scariest sort of zealot - one who has to "appear" to believe, purely for profit gain. This is a dangerous position to be in and one could get easily carried away, as he seems to be doing.

No, not all of them are Fundamentalists - but their doctrine is Fundamentalist to it’s roots, and he’s got to stick by that in order to do his job for the people who finance him. I don’t think anyone would disagree that their doctrine caters to Fundamentalist thinking, considering the Supreme Court nominees and straight down the line from there.

Right, Colin Powell is not a Fundamentalist - but, then again, while Colin Powell is dedicated to serving this administration, I don’t feel is totally sold on it’s mission.

If Colin Powell had more influence, I feel we would be sailing through calmer waters in a much more sturdy boat right now.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by shadowfax
... everyone knows that if israel didn't receive MASSIVE amounts of help from the US, it would not stand a chance against its neighbors, all of which are hostile or would be if the US weren't backing Israel. nearly all their decisive weaponry is oursfighter jets, bombs... the threat that if Israel sustains an attack, the US may join in a war on their side... to withdraw this, functionally, is to give up Israel to the Arab nations around it. ... likewise, we are just about the only thing that could keep israel from being swallowed up by those nations around it that want it for the palestinians.

about turning iraq over to the UN, why? what are they better at than us? if anyone has any business making the country prosperous, i think it's us. as such, i don't think it matters. ...

Why turn over the political control to the UN? First, it is the UN's role to try and ease international tensions. It is the UN's responsibility to respond to a nation in crisis like Iraq and to try in help administer the rebuilding efforts until the Iraqis can take it over for themselves. In short the UN plays a fundamentally different role as a multi-national orgainzation than a country that operates in its own interests, like the US. It would be much harder for a nation to conquor and control another nation under UN control. That perception is critical for the Iraqis and the Arab world. They must know that in short order Iraq will be controlled by Iraqis. Otherwise, the risk of more attacks on US personnel increases everyday.

Second, it provides a legal framework for countries like France, Germany, Russia, and Japan to participate in the rebuilding effort. Why should they particpate in what they see as an illegal US adventure that they will have no control over and no financial reward (ie contracts to French, German corporations in the rebuilding) and will subject them to enormous risk? Any other nation that is lining up to get its people into the Iraqi situation in the present conditions is crazy.

Last, my comments about Israel were not meant to offend you. Sometimes shorthand explanations of ideas get in the way. I was trying to make sure we were talking about the same thing. I don't share your assessment of the likely outcome if US support is withdrawn. Israel has one of the largest military machines in the world and nuclear weapons to boot. As much as I personally dislike the politics of the present Israeli government I would never suggest withdrawing US support for its right to exist. Anymore than I would want the US to withdraw its recent endorsement of the national rights of Palestinians. The answer to ending terrorist attacks stemming from this conflict is to figure out how to balance both peoples rights.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Why turn over the political control to the UN? First, it is the UN's role to try and ease international tensions. It is the UN's responsibility to respond to a nation in crisis like Iraq and to try in help administer the rebuilding efforts until the Iraqis can take it over for themselves. In short the UN plays a fundamentally different role as a multi-national orgainzation than a country that operates in its own interests, like the US. It would be much harder for a nation to conquor and control another nation under UN control. That perception is critical for the Iraqis and the Arab world. They must know that in short order Iraq will be controlled by Iraqis. Otherwise, the risk of more attacks on US personnel increases everyday.

Second, it provides a legal framework for countries like France, Germany, Russia, and Japan to participate in the rebuilding effort. Why should they particpate in what they see as an illegal US adventure that they will have no control over and no financial reward (ie contracts to French, German corporations in the rebuilding) and will subject them to enormous risk? Any other nation that is lining up to get its people into the Iraqi situation in the present conditions is crazy.

Last, my comments about Israel were not meant to offend you. Sometimes shorthand explanations of ideas get in the way. I was trying to make sure we were talking about the same thing. I don't share your assessment of the likely outcome if US support is withdrawn. Israel has one of the largest military machines in the world and nuclear weapons to boot. As much as I personally dislike the politics of the present Israeli government I would never suggest withdrawing US support for its right to exist. Anymore than I would want the US to withdraw its recent endorsement of the national rights of Palestinians. The answer to ending terrorist attacks stemming from this conflict is to figure out how to balance both peoples rights. I don't think that Israel produced much of that weaponry itself... they certainly weren't able to get nuclear warheads without us.

as far as they UN taking over, i have to admit that to me the only compelling argument you made for it was the appearance to the rest of the middle east, and iraq as well. however, i suspect that they might realize in short order that it's still a US endeavor. the UN is not going to change much. they're not much more respected than we are over there, i don't think.

And as for other European nations participating in this--i don't think they will provide more than a token of contribution compared to the US.

don't get me wrong about this, though. i am alright with UN aid, i just don't think that it's something that will be of any significant help to the issue. not enough help to complain about the administration not turning to them.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by michaello
If Colin Powell had more influence, I feel we would be sailing through calmer waters in a much more sturdy boat right now. Colin Powell for President, 2004. :D

[michaello]

Yeah, not a bad idea.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by michaello
Yeah, not a bad idea.

Not bad, but completly impractical. Powell could not run against Bush in the primaries. For one, Bush has a huge head start in the fund-raising game. Not to mention Powell would have to have organized a nationwide network of fundraisers without the Republican heiracrchy finding out, and in between his diplomatic missions. No, I don't think we will see Powell run until '08 at the earliest.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by mactastic
Not bad, but completly impractical. Powell could not run against Bush in the primaries. For one, Bush has a huge head start in the fund-raising game. Not to mention Powell would have to have organized a nationwide network of fundraisers without the Republican heiracrchy finding out, and in between his diplomatic missions. No, I don't think we will see Powell run until '08 at the earliest. most importantly, i think he's much to intelligent to take responsibility for a country like ours ;)

[mactastic]

Maybe Wes Clark will run against Bush in '04.

[michaello]

I don't think Powell will ever run. I think he'll move to the country and write books. I look forward to reading his books, he’s a brilliant man.

Yeah, Wes Clark seems like he's going to run - He and Howard Dean would make a tough team to contend with.

[Daveman Deluxe]

We could have brilliant people running for President, but there's no money in it. I honestly believe that is the reason that our best and brightest are not running.

[mcrain]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... more people have been killed in the name of 'God' than for any other reason.

Remove the concept of God from all society, and will things be better or worse?

I'd be willing to bet that religion adds very little to our "morals" and our sense of "right vs. wrong," but it DOES add to the amount of violence in the world.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by mcrain
I've said it before, and I'll say it again... more people have been killed in the name of 'God' than for any other reason.

Remove the concept of God from all society, and will things be better or worse?

I'd be willing to bet that religion adds very little to our "morals" and our sense of "right vs. wrong," but it DOES add to the amount of violence in the world. what you fail to recognize, imo, is that humans require a god of some kind. whether that be a deity per se or something abstract, like the good of society, i believe that humans will always need to follow some ideal. and there will always be people who bend this tendency to their own evil ends.

so sure, i'll agree with you that it would work to take it out, if it were possible. but it isn't.

[Daveman Deluxe]

Originally posted by mcrain
I'd be willing to bet that religion adds very little to our "morals" and our sense of "right vs. wrong," but it DOES add to the amount of violence in the world.

It's interesting to note that among people who claim to be Christians...

-More teenage girls are pregnant
-More women have abortions
-More marraiges end in divorce
-At least 50% of men are addicted to pornography

Speaking as a Christian, this is very disheartening.

[mcrain]

I know it is not possible, but it is something to remember anytime you hear someone pointing to God as their reason for causing violence.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by shadowfax
what you fail to recognize, imo, is that humans require a god of some kind. whether that be a deity per se or something abstract, like the good of society, i believe that humans will always need to follow some ideal. and there will always be people who bend this tendency to their own evil ends.

so sure, i'll agree with you that it would work to take it out, if it were possible. but it isn't.

I disagree that we require a personification of the divine/spiritual. Man has existed for many thousands of years w/out the kind of behavior in the name of religion that we have now.

The problem is us and our society, not the inherent shortcomings in humanity. We are not humanity, just one society in its long history.

[michaello]

Yeah, but we're the ones who have the power to do something about our world in the here and now - in order for future generations to stand on more solid ground.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by michaello
Yeah, but we're the ones who have the power to do something about our world in the here and now - in order for future generations to stand on more solid ground.

Agreed. What's your suggestion?

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I disagree that we require a personification of the divine/spiritual. Man has existed for many thousands of years w/out the kind of behavior in the name of religion that we have now.

The problem is us and our society, not the inherent shortcomings in humanity. We are not humanity, just one society in its long history. you misunderstood. not divine or spiritual, necessarily, but an ideal for which they act. utilitarianism follows the ideal of "the greatest good for the greatest number;" democratic politics follows "the will of the people." these are not spiritual entities, but they can lead humans to disastrous behaviors. fascism was not a spiritual movement. it did not have any deities. oh, look what the liberation of men from religion accomplishes.

you can't blame violence and evil on religion or fundamentalism. religion and fundamentalism serve violent, evil people, and if you take them away from violent, evil people, they will find other ways to excuse their violence.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by shadowfax
you misunderstood. not divine or spiritual, necessarily, but an ideal for which they act. utilitarianism follows the ideal of "the greatest good for the greatest number;" democratic politics follows "the will of the people." these are not spiritual entities, but they can lead humans to disastrous behaviors. fascism was not a spiritual movement. it did not have any deities. oh, look what the liberation of men from religion accomplishes.

you can't blame violence and evil on religion or fundamentalism. religion and fundamentalism serve violent, evil people, and if you take them away from violent, evil people, they will find other ways to excuse their violence.

You've misunderstood as well. Man (as in homo sapiens) has lived on this planet for a long time. Our society and its concepts of right/wrong, etc are new and just a tick on the long continuum of man's life on this planet.

Look at aboriginal peoples to see what I'm talking about. They have simple lives that don't depend on a complex, arbitrary set of "laws". They survive, as they have for many years, by doing what is best for the tribe and what's best for the tribe has been developed and perfected for millennia.

When our society moved to its current form of totalitarian agriculture and the ease of life and equality we once had was lost, we turned to the idea of salvation in an afterlife (or in this one in enlightenment) to make this one bearable. Artificial constructs begotten by our lifestyle.

I'm not trying to blame violence or evil on religion that would be futile, as they are inherent human traits. But, they provide a mindset and attitude that exploits and intensifies these traits.

[pseudobrit]

Sorry, but public office is something that has to be first carried out with tools tangible and universal:

logic, reason, order, law, justice...

When you just go on a hunch and just throw it to God you're inviting trouble.

When all the normal avenues of rationality fail you somehow, you're left with faith and hope, and it's then and only then proper to use them.

God help us (pun intended) if faith and hope are the first tool Bush reaches for.

It would explain the Iraq fiasco though -- backpedalling from earlier irrational and false arguments based on hunches or feelings and not fact, and asking for international help to restore law and order logically when your hope for an easy score fails.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
You've misunderstood as well. Man (as in homo sapiens) has lived on this planet for a long time. Our society and its concepts of right/wrong, etc are new and just a tick on the long continuum of man's life on this planet. now, let's not get into a debat about origins--i don't believe that humans evolved from another animal, whatever else i believe about evolution; don't bother trying to convince me otherwise. that said, there is still some common ground we can find:Look at aboriginal peoples to see what I'm talking about. They have simple lives that don't depend on a complex, arbitrary set of "laws". They survive, as they have for many years, by doing what is best for the tribe and what's best for the tribe has been developed and perfected for millennia.scratch "millennia." there are few evolutionists who believe that man has been around for anywhere near a million years. and then there's me, you'll be lucky to get 10,000 out of me. but that said, you just fit them (aborigines) into my philosophy all by yourself. "They survive, as they have for many years, by doing what is best for the tribe and what's best for the tribe." is that what they do? who decides? "nature?" no. men do. and don't deny that many tribes are also very religious; religion is, in fact, from your perspective i believe, one of the first ways that men accounted for the anomalies of nature that they observed. and in the name of their religion, aboriginal peoples have made both human and animal sacrifices, have gone to war with each other... the list of things taht you no doubt would consider atrocious is myriad.When our society moved to its current form of totalitarian agriculture and the ease of life and equality we once had was lost, we turned to the idea of salvation in an afterlife (or in this one in enlightenment) to make this one bearable. Artificial constructs begotten by our lifestyle. you've interpreted that backwards. as man has developed as a rational human being, he has more and more rejected the existence of a supernatural force like a deity. life was never easier than it is now. cave men were not these exemplary beings who were liberated from the toils of life such that they didn't feel the need to envision an afterlife. where did you get this?I'm not trying to blame violence or evil on religion that would be futile, as they are inherent human traits. But, they provide a mindset and attitude that exploits and intensifies these traits. again, i think you have it backwards. they don't provide a mindset that exploits them, they simply provide a way for traits to manifest themselves that, lacking that way, would find another way to exhibit themselves.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by shadowfax
now, let's not get into a debat about origins--i don't believe that humans evolved from another animal, whatever else i believe about evolution; don't bother trying to convince me otherwise. that said, there is still some common ground we can find:scratch "millennia." there are few evolutionists who believe that man has been around for anywhere near a million years. and then there's me, you'll be lucky to get 10,000 out of me. but that said, you just fit them (aborigines) into my philosophy all by yourself. "They survive, as they have for many years, by doing what is best for the tribe and what's best for the tribe." is that what they do? who decides? "nature?" no. men do. and don't deny that many tribes are also very religious; religion is, in fact, from your perspective i believe, one of the first ways that men accounted for the anomalies of nature that they observed. and in the name of their religion, aboriginal peoples have made both human and animal sacrifices, have gone to war with each other... the list of things taht you no doubt would consider atrocious is myriad.you've interpreted that backwards. as man has developed as a rational human being, he has more and more rejected the existence of a supernatural force like a deity. life was never easier than it is now. cave men were not these exemplary beings who were liberated from the toils of life such that they didn't feel the need to envision an afterlife. where did you get this? again, i think you have it backwards. they don't provide a mindset that exploits them, they simply provide a way for traits to manifest themselves that, lacking that way, would find another way to exhibit themselves.

If you rule out the evolution of human beings, shadowfax, I won't try and convince you, but from an anthropologist's perspective he is right - millions of years it is. At least if your talking about the Homo genus. Homo sapiens as a species is more in the 200,000 to 400,000 range. This includes neandertals who are now thought to be a subspecies, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis

The first indication of hominids use of "religious" ceremony goes back to neandertal burial goods and ceremonial burial practices (bodies placed in particular positions) - again over 100,000 years ago. Lastly, it is instructive to do some reading of ethnographic studies of band societies, such as the !kung, and the time they spend in work as opposed to leisure - it makes Hume's idea of prehistory as "nasty, brutish, and short" look pretty stupid. Just trying to add some information to what is an interesting debate.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Sayhey
If you rule out the evolution of human beings, shadowfax, I won't try and convince you, but from an anthropologist's perspective he is right - millions of years it is. At least if your talking about the Homo genus. Homo sapiens as a species is more in the 200,000 to 400,000 range. This includes neandertals who are now thought to be a subspecies, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis

The first indication of hominids use of "religious" ceremony goes back to neandertal burial goods and ceremonial burial practices (bodies placed in particular positions) - again over 100,000 years ago. Lastly, it is instructive to do some reading of ethnographic studies of band societies, such as the !kung, and the time they spend in work as opposed to leisure - it makes Hume's idea of prehistory as "nasty, brutish, and short" look pretty stupid. Just trying to add some information to what is an interesting debate. great. thanks. i am not particularly well-educated on the subject, for various reasons. i had interpreted him as talking specifically about homo sapiens--the whole "ease of life" thing threw me off a lot.

about the lives of men being "nasty, brutish, and short," that's from The Leviathan, not by Hume but by Thomas Hobbes :)

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by shadowfax
great. thanks. i am not particularly well-educated on the subject, for various reasons. i had interpreted him as talking specifically about homo sapiens--the whole "ease of life" thing threw me off a lot.

about the lives of men being "nasty, brutish, and short," that's from The Leviathan, not by Hume but by Thomas Hobbes :)

My mistake, I meant Hobbes, but you know you get typing and sometimes ... thanks for the correction.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Agreed. What's your suggestion?

we must kill god.

[Rower_CPU]

shadowfax-

Since you've laid your cards out on the table, let me lay out mine...

First off, millennia is thousands of years. Modern society as I've described it (totalitarian agriculture) is thought to have began about 10,000 years ago. Lucy is thought to be 3.5 million years old.

To me, interpreting Genesis (or any part of the Bible) literally is pretty ridiculous. I think it's more of a series of stories and metaphors designed to perpetuate an ideology. Interestingly enough, the fall of Adam and Eve by eating from the tree of knowledge can be interpreted as our society's switch to totalitarian agriculture away from our old lifestyle in harmony with Nature.

Man has taken it upon himself to decide what is best for not only himself, but every other living thing on this planet. Man plays god.

Sure, Man made up ways to describe strange phenomena, but it's presumptuous to say they based their religion on it, or vice versa. War in its current form has never existed before our society. Aboriginal peoples would fight, yes, but not to the point of wiping out another tribe or group - they had no reason to. I find much more atrocious things in our world than in theirs.

Like Sayhey pointed out, the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is a much easier lifestyle than ours. We are the instruments of our own misery.

The main difference between our religions and those of aboriginal peoples is that we believe our lifestyle is the "one right way", whereas they let cultural diversity thrive. This attitude makes Jihad/Crusade/fatwa etc, possible.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by zimv20
we must kill god.

I'll go you one better:
We must realize that god never existed.

[michaello]

Rower_CPU,

My suggestion is that we educate ourselves and pay attention to what is going on around us. Not just in our country or town - but all over the world.

I think it's important to ask questions, even when our leaders and neighbors tell us it's "unpatriotic" to ask questions - and try to remain levelheaded, even in the face of utter chaos - so that things like the Constitution do not crumble like sand castles while no one's watching.

To protect our homes and our children, even if it means protecting ourselves, with our votes and our brains, from a government that seems to be harming us financially, taking away our voices along with our civil liberties, not telling the full truth, and parading their ideology down our streets and into our bedrooms - where we make decisions as well as love.

I was fortunate enough to grow up knowing three of my great grandparents, as well as all of my grandparents. This gave me a generational sense and scope, I think, and I am concerned not only for my own generation, but also with the generations to come. It is our responsibility to remain alive and active in the world, in order to have a hand in shaping history.

History books will be written about this time we are living in and the facts will be known eventually. Why not gather as much information now, and take the responsibility to write our own history instead of allowing our history to write us? How many times have you seen documentaries with people saying things like, “Yes, we knew about that, but there was nothing we could do.”?

Some people don’t do things because they are afraid for themselves and other people do things because they are trying to help others. The people who try to help others are usually called “Heroes”, while the people who do nothing are usually regretful.

It’s not a matter of being a Republican or a Democrat - we’re all people, and we should use our minds and communicate through all of this - respectfully and thoughtfully, like we’re doing in this forum.

So, my suggestion is for as many people as possible to decide to do some small thing - whether it’s to vote, to register others to vote, to make sure the voters get to the polls and that their votes are counted, to educate ourselves, to educate others, to write, to make films, to protect our rights, to try to be aware, to help people who are in need - but, mainly, my suggestion is for people to fall in love and make babies - and to do their part to make sure that all of our children have a healthy world to live in.

We could do that. Anyone’s God would approve of that.

[Rower_CPU]

michaello-

I'm not sure why you've addressed that to me. I'm not arguing against any of those things by any means - in fact I'm arguing for a far greater introspection and reassessment of our basic philosophical viewpoints.

Not stopgap patches and fixes, but a fundamental shift in views.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I'll go you one better:
We must realize that god never existed.

Perhaps a more realistic suggestion would be striving for a society where all religious and non-religious views are respected and the attempts to merge religion and politics are not tolerated.

[michaello]

I wasn’t directing it toward what you wrote.

You asked me for a suggestion like ten posts back - I saw it when I checked in, so I thought I'd - y'know, offer a suggestion.

I'm in total agreement with you that we need these to make lasting changes.

Long live introspection!

[michaello]

"When we take God away, we are left with only the Devil.

And, only then will we find clarity of faith - in ourselves.

This is the battle we must fight if we are to be courageous men, living in the modern world."

So, yeah, I agree that people need to begin to find some faith in themselves and have the guts to stand alone on their own two feet, without having to drag their own personal god into the picture with them ...

... unless it’s Buddha, of course, who would straighten this whole thing out by making everyone sit down and breathe until they loved each other.

[krossfyter]

"You have to be an intellectual to believe such nonsense. No ordinary man could be such a fool." ---George Orwell


George Orwell was talking politics when he coined this aphorism -- one of The best things anybody ever said -- but he might just as well have been referring to this thread! You guys rock. Even though I disagree with what some of you all are saying I love the aura of the conversation.

[Thanatoast]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU + Shadowfax
quote:
When our society moved to its current form of totalitarian agriculture and the ease of life and equality we once had was lost, we turned to the idea of salvation in an afterlife (or in this one in enlightenment) to make this one bearable. Artificial constructs begotten by our lifestyle.

you've interpreted that backwards. as man has developed as a rational human being, he has more and more rejected the existence of a supernatural force like a deity. life was never easier than it is now. cave men were not these exemplary beings who were liberated from the toils of life such that they didn't feel the need to envision an afterlife. where did you get this?
What I believe Rower was referring to was feudal Europe, when the christian church ruled everything and life generally sucked. The peasants were told by the church that in order to be "pleasing to God's eye" they had to obey their fuedal lords and farm their hard-scrabble plots. In compensation for their crappy lifetime of back-breaking labor and ridiculously pious personal lives(some people never took their clothes off their entire lives, even to bathe, because being naked was sinful) they were promised pure bliss in the "afterlife". It was all just a story to keep the peasants from realizing how bad they had it and to keep them servile. Hence, an "artificial construct begotten by our lifestyle".

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
What I believe Rower was referring to was feudal Europe, when the christian church ruled everything and life generally sucked. The peasants were told by the church that in order to be "pleasing to God's eye" they had to obey their fuedal lords and farm their hard-scrabble plots. In compensation for their crappy lifetime of back-breaking labor and ridiculously pious personal lives(some people never took their clothes off their entire lives, even to bathe, because being naked was sinful) they were promised pure bliss in the "afterlife". It was all just a story to keep the peasants from realizing how bad they had it and to keep them servile. Hence, an "artificial construct begotten by our lifestyle".

Actually he is refering to the advent of agriculture and the changes made in society that were necessitated by it. As he pointed out, that took place, as best we can now tell, about 10,000 years ago - not in feudal Europe.

[shadowfax]

rower--first off, i don't know how in hell i looked at millenniaand thought million, it's a common error i know, but i thought i was a bit above it, having spent so much time with millimeters and milliseconds and such... i'm really sorry for going off about that; i guess i made enough of a fool of myself though :)
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
shadowfax-
...To me, interpreting Genesis (or any part of the Bible) literally is pretty ridiculous. I think it's more of a series of stories and metaphors designed to perpetuate an ideology. i agree that interpreting Genesis literally is foolish as well. i do believe in the evolution of species (it's impossible not to, really), but not that worms evolve into blue whales--that's just too much of a presumption for me. and even more presumptuous, i believe, is being sure that man evolved from an ape. i believe that god created the earth and all that's in it, and in 7 days too--which leads me to ask the question, how long is 24 hours? is it the same as 24 hours 6 billion years ago, when the universe was... much more densely packed? time is not physically absolute; it depends on gravitational fields and velocity, among other things. i am not even going to attempt to explain the relativity physics of this to you; i didn't understand it at all myself, but the idea was posed by a jewish physicist (forgot his name) that the first day of creation might have comprised what our dating methods would call many, many millions of years. that's still irrelevant to taking Genesis literally, though, because it relates it straight to the rising and setting of the sun, which clearly... yeah. needless to say, the science of origins is very open to interpretation and i am pretty happy with mine...

and as such, i'd like to agree to disagree about our differences of belief about human nature as it relates to religion and/or ideology.

krossfyter, i absolutely agree that the tenor of this discussion is nothing short of engrossing and pleasant.

[Thanatoast]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Actually he is refering to the advent of agriculture and the changes made in society that were necessitated by it. As he pointed out, that took place, as best we can now tell, about 10,000 years ago - not in feudal Europe.
Or I could be completely off base... you know. :p

But I still hold to my point.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
What I believe Rower was referring to was feudal Europe, when the christian church ruled everything and life generally sucked. The peasants were told by the church that in order to be "pleasing to God's eye" they had to obey their fuedal lords and farm their hard-scrabble plots. In compensation for their crappy lifetime of back-breaking labor and ridiculously pious personal lives(some people never took their clothes off their entire lives, even to bathe, because being naked was sinful) they were promised pure bliss in the "afterlife". It was all just a story to keep the peasants from realizing how bad they had it and to keep them servile. Hence, an "artificial construct begotten by our lifestyle". you do have a point. but religion in that age was usually just a tool of what Ayn Rand calls the "moochers"--the "mystics of spirit" and "mystics of muscle." Feudal Europe's social system rested on the idea that some men are better than others, and that men who are inferior have a resposibility to make sacrifices for their betters. rulers bent the tenets of the christian religion to subjugate their citizens into serfs. this has nothing to do with the intrinsic meaning of religion and everything to to with the intrinsic evil of men.

[mactastic]

People who believe in evolution don't think we came from an ape, rather that the ape and human had a common ancestor at some point. That makes them cousins, rather than parents. Interesting that we share over 97% identical DNA with them, no? Thats a pretty freaky conincidence for an unrelated creature.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by mactastic
People who believe in evolution don't think we came from an ape, rather that the ape and human had a common ancestor at some point. That makes them cousins, rather than parents. Interesting that we share over 97% identical DNA with them, no? Thats a pretty freaky conincidence for an unrelated creature. yeah, especially considering how much we hav in common with pigs...
man is a rational being capable of doing things like making choices. if animals can evolve to this state, how come we are the only ones who have?

whether we evolved from apes or a common ancestor is not relevant to me. the point is that it entails believing that humans are just another animal, and i don't accept that, nor do i feel compelled by real science to do so.

[mactastic]

How much do we have in common with pigs?

mmmmm bacon....

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by shadowfax
yeah, especially considering how much we hav in common with pigs...
man is a rational being capable of doing things like making choices. if animals can evolve to this state, how come we are the only ones who have?

whether we evolved from apes or a common ancestor is not relevant to me. the point is that it entails believing that humans are just another animal, and i don't accept that, nor do i feel compelled by real science to do so.

Evolution is not a linear progression with humans at the top and amoebas at the bottom. Every species adapts to its environment; we adapted as bipedal hominids by increasing our brain size. It allowed for humanity's most successful adaptation, our culture. There is no plan for evolution, it is just what works best for a particular species, at a particular time, in a particular environment. In short, you might as well ask why snakes don't have wings.

[Daveman Deluxe]

Originally posted by shadowfax
i believe that god created the earth and all that's in it, and in 7 days too--which leads me to ask the question, how long is 24 hours? is it the same as 24 hours 6 billion years ago, when the universe was... much more densely packed?

Here is an interesting point to bring up, however. The Hebrew word "yowm" (transliterated) is normally translated as "day". However, the word could also mean "a period of time". How long was that period of time? 24 hours? 24 years? 24 million years? That is how I reconcile the time frame of the Genesis account with the records dating back 4.6 billion years.

I would like to pose a question that may seem unrelated to the subject at hand, but could also be of extreme value to the discission: Why do humans create music?

One could argue that songbirds sing, crickets chirp, and sheep bleat. But they make their noises for reasons related to subsistence. Songbirds sing to mark their territory. Crickets chirp to attract a mate (I think), sheep bleat to let us know they want food (at least mine do when I walk to the shop to get my car with no intention of feeding them). But humans make music with the sole intention of entertaining.

So the question becomes: "Is the human creation of music deeply rooted in subsistence, or is it an invention purely related to a desire to create and entertain?"

Take the question for what you will.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Evolution is not a linear progression with humans at the top and amoebas at the bottom. Every species adapts to its environment; we adapted as bipedal hominids by increasing our brain size. It allowed for humanity's most successful adaptation, our culture. There is no plan for evolution, it is just what works best for a particular species, at a particular time, in a particular environment. In short, you might as well ask why snakes don't have wings. having a big brain doesn't make you capable of doing calculus, of recognizing that A is A, of discerning right from wrong and choosing one. come on. you know you're not going to persuade me. stop trying ;)

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Daveman Deluxe
Here is an interesting point to bring up, however. The Hebrew word "yowm" (transliterated) is normally translated as "day". However, the word could also mean "a period of time". How long was that period of time? 24 hours? 24 years? 24 million years? That is how I reconcile the time frame of the Genesis account with the records dating back 4.6 billion years.

I would like to pose a question that may seem unrelated to the subject at hand, but could also be of extreme value to the discission: Why do humans create music?

One could argue that songbirds sing, crickets chirp, and sheep bleat. But they make their noises for reasons related to subsistence. Songbirds sing to mark their territory. Crickets chirp to attract a mate (I think), sheep bleat to let us know they want food (at least mine do when I walk to the shop to get my car with no intention of feeding them). But humans make music with the sole intention of entertaining.

So the question becomes: "Is the human creation of music deeply rooted in subsistence, or is it an invention purely related to a desire to create and entertain?"

Take the question for what you will.

We create music because we can. The evolutionary path our species history took gave us the ability to survive through the social adaption of culture. This gave us the ability to use our culture for more things than just subsistence. We have the ability to go beyond the everyday struggle for existence. There is, of course, the dialectical interaction as we change our environment and it in turn changes us. So in answer to your second question, IMO, it is both. It is rooted in our struggle to survive and therefore what makes us human and it is more than that because as humans we have a need to go beyond what is necessary for our subsistence.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by shadowfax
having a big brain doesn't make you capable of doing calculus, of recognizing that A is A, of discerning right from wrong and choosing one.

how do you know?

somewhere along the scale of brain size, smaller than human's, self-awareness happens. maybe the higher level thoughts occur naturally as brain size increases.

what would a brain 3x our size be able to accomplish or comprehend? the ability to move through time in more than one direction? telepathy? telekenisis? the ability to live in peace?

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by shadowfax
having a big brain doesn't make you capable of doing calculus, of recognizing that A is A, of discerning right from wrong and choosing one. come on. you know you're not going to persuade me. stop trying ;)

ok, but I'll still chime in once in a while to give a different perspective. And you're right, a big brain alone doesn't make you capable of those things. A brain capable of these things and a culture that transmits the intellectual history of logic, mathmatics, and ethics does. ;)

edit: for spelling

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Sayhey
We create music because we can. wow. i can kill myself. should i?

"because i can" is not a reason. it's a fact. "because i can" is not a causality because humans can also not create music. humans can choose to do one or the other. i choose the latter every day. i can take my life. i can also not take it. i choose the latter every day. show me any other animal that can do this.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Sayhey
ok, but I'll still chime in once in a while to give a different perspective. And your right a big brain alone doesn't make you capable of those things. A brain capable of these things and a culture that transmits the intellecual history of logic, mathmatics, and ethics does. ;) so culture creates human understanding? wait, i thought it was the other way around... :confused:

[zimv20]

Originally posted by shadowfax
show me any other animal that can do this.

how about a whale that beaches itself?

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by zimv20
how about a whale that beaches itself? is that a choice? i think it's contestable. lemmings kill themselves too, but it's not a choice, it's an instinct. a whale does not consider the consequences of living and dying and choose one or the other.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by zimv20
how do you know?

somewhere along the scale of brain size, smaller than human's, self-awareness happens. maybe the higher level thoughts occur naturally as brain size increases.

what would a brain 3x our size be able to accomplish or comprehend? the ability to move through time in more than one direction? telepathy? telekenisis? the ability to live in peace? A sperm whale's brain weighs about 9_kg and is the largest brain in the world. In comparison an average human brain is 1.35_kg. at 6 2/3 times our brain mass, the sperm whale is at least an animal that would, did humans not exist, effect world peace. but not rationally--more like a lack of enough rationality to produce the concept of a world without peace.

as an aside, guys, i am loving every minute of this. kudos :D

[mactastic]

Originally posted by shadowfax
you know you're not going to persuade me. stop trying ;)
as an aside, guys, i am loving every minute of this. kudos

Ok, now I'm confused! Do you want us to keep this debate going or not?:confused:

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by mactastic
Ok, now I'm confused! Do you want us to keep this debate going or not?:confused: eh, disregard that first one. i don't think we'll convince each other of anything, but it actually is pretty intriguig to debate. sorry ;)

[Rower_CPU]

There was nothing but world peace until our current culture took off and appointed ourselves masters of the planet.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by shadowfax
so culture creates human understanding? wait, i thought it was the other way around... :confused:

It is both. That is what I meant about the dialectical interaction. As a species our "unique" adaption is the degree we use culture to transmit the lessons of the past to the new generation. This in turn has an impact on the natural selection of individuals in our species and how we change our environment. The cycle goes on and on.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
There was nothing but world peace until our current culture took off and appointed ourselves masters of the planet.

So how do we get back to that state of world peace? With the billions of people on the planet a life of a band society is not going to work, even if everyone could be persuaded to give up all the comforts of what we call civilization. We took that fateful step into totalitarian agriculture and with it came many horrible and wonderful consequences. The question is how to get back to that harmony with nature and general peaceful existence from where we are now.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by shadowfax
a whale does not consider the consequences of living and dying and choose one or the other.

i think he does.

and i agree w/ your lemming assessment.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Sayhey
The question is how to get back to that harmony with nature and general peaceful existence from where we are now.

I think a tax cut would be just the thing to spur developement of world peace.

That's a pretty tall order. Now if only we hadn't been so efficient in destroying other civilizations and cultures, perhaps we could have a perspective from outside our own...

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
There was nothing but world peace until our current culture took off and appointed ourselves masters of the planet. so world peace is the lack of reason? humanity would be better off as simple, alogical animals with preprogrammed responses to everything?

no. humanity is the discernment of right and wrong and the ability to choose one or the other. as long as humans have known that, they have chosen wrong, at least some of the time.

as long as humanity has existed, there has not been peace. humans have been throughout their history as boisterous and violent as the means they have developed have allowed them to be. got a hand? you can strangle someone. make a sword, cut someone's head off. make a gun, shoot someone. make a bomb--

so the issue between us must be that you think the notion of right and wrong is a cultural contrivance, correct?

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by shadowfax
wow. i can kill myself. should i?

"because i can" is not a reason. it's a fact. "because i can" is not a causality because humans can also not create music. humans can choose to do one or the other. i choose the latter every day. i can take my life. i can also not take it. i choose the latter every day. show me any other animal that can do this.

shadowfax, play fair. read the whole quote. I did not say there was no choice or that it was based only on our ability to do so. I also said, "So in answer to your second question, IMO, it is both. It is rooted in our struggle to survive and therefore what makes us human and it is more than that because as humans we have a need to go beyond what is necessary for our subsistence."

Now I'm sorry I have to run to class. check back later.

[Rower_CPU]

Sayhey-

That's the conundrum. I haven't seen any one attempt to lay out a roadmap for turning our civilization around, and I'm still processing a lot of this stuff.

Short of there being a massive change in public opinion and giving up the control we've had for so long, it's hard to see it happening as something other than a catastrophic event of some kind.

I really can't see our culture saying: "Hey, we're going to let our population be dependent on Nature and leave each individual community to its own."

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by shadowfax
so world peace is the lack of reason? humanity would be better off as simple, alogical animals with preprogrammed responses to everything?

no. humanity is the discernment of right and wrong and the ability to choose one or the other. as long as humans have known that, they have chosen wrong, at least some of the time.

as long as humanity has existed, there has not been peace. humans have been throughout their history as boisterous and violent as the means they have developed have allowed them to be. got a hand? you can strangle someone. make a sword, cut someone's head off. make a gun, shoot someone. make a bomb--

so the issue between us must be that you think the notion of right and wrong is a cultural contrivance, correct?

No, world peace is the absence of war.

Modern humans = war
Aboriginal humans != war

Humanity is not the arbiter of good/bad in the universe. They are terms that we have made up to try to impose order on society. Animals and aboriginal peoples don't need moral absolutes to live in peace.

It is presumptuous to say that because our culture has always been at war that humanity has always been at war. We are not humanity, just a subset of it.

[Sayhey]

Rower_CPU,

Sorry, I have to run, so I can't answer you properly. It is indeed the conundrum we all face, but I don't think it is hopeless. I'll respond more later.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Sayhey
shadowfax, play fair. read the whole quote. I did not say there was no choice or that it was based only on our ability to do so. I also said, "So in answer to your second question, IMO, it is both. It is rooted in our struggle to survive and therefore what makes us human and it is more than that because as humans we have a need to go beyond what is necessary for our subsistence." cheating is so much more fun :D

but OK, i will agree with you about music. it's rooted in our struggle to survive as an important exercise of the mind that has applications in just about every other rational field of interest--which is why, for instance, mathematicians are often so good at producing and understanding classical (and other) music. and it's also to entertain and enrich experience.

but i don't agree with an assessment that it is an evolutionary development--that creatures incapable of producing music gradually became capable of doing so.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
No, world peace is the absence of war.

Modern humans = war
Aboriginal humans != war
....
It is presumptuous to say that because our culture has always been at war that humanity has always been at war. We are not humanity, just a subset of it. peace is not the absence of war. not true peace. if you are satisfied by the absence of war, then you're a devil of a different sort. suppose that all around the globe, war stopped. would things be better? now, dictators need not fear attack from other countries. they can torture their peoples with greatest free rein!

world peace is, as harrison ford quipped in Air Force One, not the the absence of international conflict but the presence of justice. definition by negatives (Peace is the opposite of war) is simplistic and inaccurate.

and it's not presumptuous to say that humans have always been at war. we have always been fighting one another. not every single person all the time, but people always have been.

it's not logical to assume that if you don't fix it on a small level you can just go tackle the big one--make all these big countries behave peacefully without having peace within the countries.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by shadowfax
cheating is so much more fun :D

but OK, i will agree with you about music. it's rooted in our struggle to survive as an important exercise of the mind that has applications in just about every other rational field of interest--which is why, for instance, mathematicians are often so good at producing and understanding classical (and other) music. and it's also to entertain and enrich experience.

but i don't agree with an assessment that it is an evolutionary development--that creatures incapable of producing music gradually became capable of doing so.

We get back to your assertion that I'm not going to convince you concerning evolution. If this is a faith based assertion, you're right, and I don't mean to be disrepectful of your beliefs. If you want to have a discussion about the scientific basis for human evolution, including our ability to make music then I'd be more than happy to obilge.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by shadowfax
peace is not the absence of war. not true peace. if you are satisfied by the absence of war, then you're a devil of a different sort. suppose that all around the globe, war stopped. would things be better? now, dictators need not fear attack from other countries. they can torture their peoples with greatest free rein!

world peace is, as harrison ford quipped in Air Force One, not the the absence of international conflict but the presence of justice. definition by negatives (Peace is the opposite of war) is simplistic and inaccurate.

and it's not presumptuous to say that humans have always been at war. we have always been fighting one another. not every single person all the time, but people always have been.

it's not logical to assume that if you don't fix it on a small level you can just go tackle the big one--make all these big countries behave peacefully without having peace within the countries.

What's good without evil, light without dark, truth without lies? Some things are opposite of each other and can be defined as negatives. Dictionary.com agrees with me. :p

To define "true peace" as the presence of justice is arbitrary. Whose justice is "right"? It's defined by each person, society, government, etc. You cannot say "we will achieve world peace through justice" and have that mean the same thing for every person on Earth. Ending war is a pretty unequivocal step towards peace.

Man has not always been at war, only our view of it through the lenses of our society. It's presumptuous to say that we are humanity and since we've always been at war, humanity has always been at war.

Is it logical to expect countries to be able to handle internal issues when external issues are still in question? ;)

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Sayhey-

That's the conundrum. I haven't seen any one attempt to lay out a roadmap for turning our civilization around, and I'm still processing a lot of this stuff.

Short of there being a massive change in public opinion and giving up the control we've had for so long, it's hard to see it happening as something other than a catastrophic event of some kind.

I really can't see our culture saying: "Hey, we're going to let our population be dependent on Nature and leave each individual community to its own."

Got back earlier than expected, because class was cancelled. To your point, I don't see our culture saying that either. We will never go back to the days were living in harmony with nature means being totally dependant on the whims of nature. Unless, we go ahead and destroy civilization the world over. A step I don't think any of us would take willingly.

I think that means we have to integrate into our culture and every culture in the world that doesn't have it a sense of stewardship toward nature. Is that the same as band societies view of nature - no, but it is a lot better than the view of nature as something to be pillaged. It means we have to look to the development of renewable resources and the efficient use of those resources. It means we have to win folks to a respect for other species and the role they play in the world. It means we have to learn to live in a way that we "step lightly" in our world. All this is of course highly political and if we don't get this nation, which consumes more than any nation on earth, to such a course change then perhaps we are doomed. I, however, think it is possible.

[Rower_CPU]

I'm an optimist, but the task still looks daunting. I'm not sure that the EPA or any sort of patchwork of regulations can bring about the fundamental change that needs to happen.

We need a philosophical revolution, not an imposed set of laws to keep us in line.

BTW, have you read any of Daniel Quinn's books? Great stuff that I'm rampantly repurposing for this discussion. ;)

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I'm an optimist, but the task still looks daunting. I'm not sure that the EPA or any sort of patchwork of regulations can bring about the fundamental change that needs to happen.

We need a philosophical revolution, not an imposed set of laws to keep us in line.

BTW, have you read any of Daniel Quinn's books? Great stuff that I'm rampantly repurposing for this discussion. ;)

Agreed on all counts. No, I haven't read his books. I up to my eyeballs in learning Latin and Attic Greek as well as way too much reading for the rest of my classes, but any suggestion of a good book is always welcome.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
What's good without evil, light without dark, truth without lies? Some things are opposite of each other and can be defined as negatives. Dictionary.com agrees with me. :p

To define "true peace" as the presence of justice is arbitrary. Whose justice is "right"? It's defined by each person, society, government, etc. You cannot say "we will achieve world peace through justice" and have that mean the same thing for every person on Earth. Ending war is a pretty unequivocal step towards peace.

Man has not always been at war, only our view of it through the lenses of our society. It's presumptuous to say that we are humanity and since we've always been at war, humanity has always been at war.

Is it logical to expect countries to be able to handle internal issues when external issues are still in question? ;) wait. you assume that "justice" is a loaded term, but "war" has a single meaning? not by any means. the fact that language is not interpreted the same by any two individuals is a fact of human existence. if you must talk about "whose justice" then we must also talk about "what is war?" war, in the terms i was using, refers to conflict--most directly between nation states, but in the absence of such entities, war can be between two tribes, two families... this kind of thing has been around, i believe, as long as man has. i don't think your aborigines were unfamiliar with the idea of conflict.

and none of this "the scale of war today is what makes it so bad, not the fact that people are willing to go to war." that's just not true. so we can destroy the face of the earth now. so what? that's not the problem, the fact that we would do it is, and that fact hasn't just arisen since nuclear weapons came around.

the way i see it, you're following one of those intangible ideals i was talking about--not god, but something like "the good of society." "world peace." ooh, ahh, it makes me warm and tingly all over. that's what would make this world a better place, that's the answer to our problems. we have to "get back to the basics, devolve into our former species."

i know i am being very interpretive, so do clarify where i have gone and caricatured you :p

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
What's good without evil, light without dark, truth without lies? Some things are opposite of each other and can be defined as negatives. Dictionary.com agrees with me. :p so. there can be no justice without injustice? there can be no right without wrong? no truth without lies? no light without dark?

you can cause understanding in people via these negatives, because they exist. but that does not mean that they are solely defined by antonymity, nor does it mean that light would have no meaning if there were no such thing as dark.

so i reiterate, peace = !war + ....

!war alone cannot define it. this isn't that simple. and again, what the hell is !war?

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by shadowfax
wait. you assume that "justice" is a loaded term, but "war" has a single meaning? not by any means. the fact that language is not interpreted the same by any two individuals is a fact of human existence. if you must talk about "whose justice" then we must also talk about "what is war?" war, in the terms i was using, refers to conflict--most directly between nation states, but in the absence of such entities, war can be between two tribes, two families... this kind of thing has been around, i believe, as long as man has. i don't think your aborigines were unfamiliar with the idea of conflict.

and none of this "the scale of war today is what makes it so bad, not the fact that people are willing to go to war." that's just not true. so we can destroy the face of the earth now. so what? that's not the problem, the fact that we would do it is, and that fact hasn't just arisen since nuclear weapons came around.

the way i see it, you're following one of those intangible ideals i was talking about--not god, but something like "the good of society." "world peace." ooh, ahh, it makes me warm and tingly all over. that's what would make this world a better place, that's the answer to our problems. we have to "get back to the basics, devolve into our former species."

i know i am being very interpretive, so do clarify where i have gone and caricatured you :p

Loaded terms and single meaning are two distinct things. Justice implies a judgment somewhere by someone of what/who is right or wrong. Now for a definition of war...

First off, what's the point/goal of war? To spread a government/philosophy/ideal/religion? To take someone else's land and/or means of survival? At it's ultimate, you can say that war is about eradicating a people or idea you disagree with. Aboriginal peoples don't do this.

Sure, there are skirmishes and small border disputes, but not the systematic wiping out of an enemy. Our society conducts war on each other as well as this planet. War is not conflict on a grander scale.

Interesting choice of words when you say "devolve into our former species". Who says we've evolved into something other than what we were 10,000 years ago? Aboriginal peoples are still Homo Sapiens Sapiens as we were back then and still are.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by shadowfax
so. there can be no justice without injustice? there can be no right without wrong? no truth without lies? no light without dark?

you can cause understanding in people via these negatives, because they exist. but that does not mean that they are solely defined by antonymity, nor does it mean that light would have no meaning if there were no such thing as dark.

so i reiterate, peace = !war + ....

!war alone cannot define it. this isn't that simple. and again, what the hell is !war?

These are concepts that have no meaning without a polar opposite to compare them to. How do you know what light is without dark, etc.?

Since you've already said that justice is subjective, how then do you define peace? Could you call it "world peace" if there was a "just" war going on? ;)

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
First off, what's the point/goal of war? To spread a government/philosophy/ideal/religion? To take someone else's land and/or means of survival? At it's ultimate, you can say that war is about eradicating a people or idea you disagree with. Aboriginal peoples don't do this. great. you doctored your definition of war to try and exclude them.
"War is a continuation of politics by other means." NO
War is wrong. YES
but, war is something that men drive others to. for instance, if a country is attacked, the logical, moral thing to do is to respond in kind. so from a defensive perspective, war is not wrong. it is wrong to think that you can get something from someone that's not rightfully yours by forcing them. that's what aggressive war is. and it's wrong.

so, why do you fight a war? to protect yourself, to protect your culture, to get something that has been taken from you by someone that won't give it back?Sure, there are skirmishes and small border disputes, but not the systematic wiping out of an enemy. Our society conducts war on each other as well as this planet. War is not conflict on a grander scale."war on this planet?" what does that mean? war on various ecosystems of this planet? the planet itself? believe you me, if we nuked the surface of this planet, it would still be fine, from a physical perspective. it might look more like venus, but it would still be this planet. you're introducing a really vague concept (to me) that i am not sure what to do with. as to the systematic wiping out of an enemy, that's not war at all, that's what we call genocide.Interesting choice of words when you say "devolve into our former species". Who says we've evolved into something other than what we were 10,000 years ago? Aboriginal peoples are still Homo Sapiens Sapiens as we were back then and still are. i thought you said it was PRESUMPTUOUS to assume that we were the same people now as we were then?

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
These are concepts that have no meaning without a polar opposite to compare them to. How do you know what light is without dark, etc.?

Since you've already said that justice is subjective, how then do you define peace? Could you call it "world peace" if there was a "just" war going on? ;) no. i don't disagree with you that peace is the absence of war, because a there is no such thing as just war, per se. you can respond to an attack justly, but that attack, for you to respond justly, has to be unjust. there is always at least one unjust party in a war, usually two.

my disagreement is that if we just stopped all the formal and informal wars, there would still not be peace. not world peace, not lasting peace. peace is also security--wouldn't you agree? you're not at peace if there is a threat of war. so i have found a situation where both !war and !peace are true. right? that's what i mean. it's not that simple.

light is light. it has it's own identity. you would still be able to have light without darkness. for something to actually exist it has to exist alone... so your negation does not work for something like light. peace, as i mentioned, is also autonomous.

[zimv20]

i agree that peace is more than the absence of war. a further component must be harmony between nations.

as my doctor says, health does not equal the absence as disease.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by zimv20
i agree that peace is more than the absence of war. a further component must be harmony between nations.

as my doctor says, health does not equal the absence as disease. yeah, i guess that's what i men, partially. i also don't think it's right for the international community at harmony to allow a renegade country to commit genocide and other "crimes against humanity." i don't think the world is really at peace when stuff like that is going on.

i like your disease analogy, that's perfect :)

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by shadowfax
great. you doctored your definition of war to try and exclude them.
"War is a continuation of politics by other means." NO
War is wrong. YES
but, war is something that men drive others to. for instance, if a country is attacked, the logical, moral thing to do is to respond in kind. so from a defensive perspective, war is not wrong. it is wrong to think that you can get something from someone that's not rightfully yours by forcing them. that's what aggressive war is. and it's wrong.

Au contraire, mon frère, I'm talking about the purpose of war here not the definition. Not doctoring a thing.

If by "exclude them" you mean people before our society, they are excluded by the nature of war, not by my definition of it and its purposes.

All war is aggressive. There's no such thing as a passive war.

Originally posted by shadowfax
so, why do you fight a war? to protect yourself, to protect your culture, to get something that has been taken from you by someone that won't give it back?

Protecting yourself at someone else's expense? Pre-emptive war? Slippery slope, dude.

Originally posted by shadowfax
"war on this planet?" what does that mean? war on various ecosystems of this planet? the planet itself? believe you me, if we nuked the surface of this planet, it would still be fine, from a physical perspective. it might look more like venus, but it would still be this planet. you're introducing a really vague concept (to me) that i am not sure what to do with.

If devoid of life is "fine" to you then I don't know what to say. We have systematically killed off species by hunting them to extinction. We destroy water supplies and pollute the air.

We have put ourselves in the position of deciding the fate of everything on this planet.

Originally posted by shadowfax
as to the systematic wiping out of an enemy, that's not war at all, that's what we call genocide. i thought you said it was PRESUMPTUOUS to assume that we were the same people now as we were then?

Enemy, not people. Killing out a people is genocide.

We are the same people physically, but not the same philosophically - hence my references to modern culture. Do try to keep up. :p

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by zimv20
i agree that peace is more than the absence of war. a further component must be harmony between nations.

as my doctor says, health does not equal the absence as disease.

OK, define harmony between nations.

edit: shadowfax, give me your definition of light as it is perceived, not the scientific one.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by shadowfax
i also don't think it's right for the international community at harmony to allow a renegade country to commit genocide and other "crimes against humanity." i don't think the world is really at peace when stuff like that is going on.


i agree.

i would love a world where the international community could agree on a position and what action to take, in a timely manner, on such affairs.

for starters, that would mean its member nations -- particularly the most powerful ones -- must recognize that the needs of the world outweigh its own needs (insert appropriate Spock comment here).

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
OK, define harmony between nations.


okay, Rower, if that is your real name and you're actually from CPU...

;-)

such things are always grey area, but i feel it would allow for:
- mutually beneficial trade
- similiar labor laws, human rights guarantees, standard of living
- low barriers to allowing each others' citizens to live, work, school in the other country
- respective laws that don't harm the other country
- cultures that can be mutually respected
- a well-defined (and followed) method of resolving disputes

the EU is an example of a good start at some of these things

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
All war is aggressive. There's no such thing as a passive war.no, there isn't. but there is such a thing as a responsive war. "passivity" is not the only possible state to be in if not "aggressive." that's very basic.Protecting yourself at someone else's expense? Pre-emptive war? Slippery slope, dude.yes, protecting yourself at someone else's expense. if someone attacks you, you have a responsibility to defend yourself, and if that means causing severe harm to your aggressor, so be it. that is the consequence of the use of force on other humans. as to preemptive war, i am not even going there. i never attempted to justify it.If devoid of life is "fine" to you then I don't know what to say. We have systematically killed off species by hunting them to extinction. We destroy water supplies and pollute the air. i never said it was fine, i was just questioning your conception of "Nature with a capital N" and what not. of course i believe in treating the world properly, but i still don't think we need to compare killing other people to killing off animals or oil spills. much of the damage we do to the planet is unintentional. granted, there are practices like cutting off shark fins and leaving them in the water to die slowly, hunting whales/dodo's to extinction, which are pretty atrocious, but i still think it is the mark of alogical extremism to categorize these as war.We have put ourselves in the position of deciding the fate of everything on this planet.you keep saying that...Enemy, not people. Killing out a people is genocide.true. but consider that most war is not a "systematic wiping out of an enemy." i'm having trouble really thinking of any wars where this happened. certainly not in recent history on any large scale. the US does not participate in such activities. neither do other NATO countries... Israel hasn't... We are the same people physically, but not the same philosophically - hence my references to modern culture. Do try to keep up. :p well, that's more or less meaningless. you and i are not the same people philosophically. nationally, the US, China, and Russia are not the same philosophically. and the aborigines weren't, allow me to make a supposition, all the same philosophically.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by zimv20
okay, Rower, if that is your real name and you're actually from CPU...

;-)

such things are always grey area, but i feel it would allow for:
- mutually beneficial trade
- similiar labor laws, human rights guarantees, standard of living
- low barriers to allowing each others' citizens to live, work, school in the other country
- respective laws that don't harm the other country
- cultures that can be mutually respected
- a well-defined (and followed) method of resolving disputes

the EU is an example of a good start at some of these things

Fair enough, zimv, if you are actually 20...:p

To me, none of these things can exist in the face of war and are by-products of, or corollaries to peace.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by zimv20
for starters, that would mean its member nations -- particularly the most powerful ones -- must recognize that the needs of the world outweigh its own needs (insert appropriate Spock comment here). i have to question this--what do you mean by "needs?" i mean, i don't think that a UN should be able to decide that it is the responsibility of more powerful nations to share their prosperity with other nations. i believe the UN should be to insure the safety of nations from eachother and see that human rights are respected within the nation. i don't think that the UN should be able to institute some kind of international socialism of sorts.

but if you meant, as i suspect, that the US (and others, let's be honest, the US isn't the only nation shy about this) should stand up for human rights even when its precious oil is not at stake, then yes, i think that powerful members should look more to the "needs" of other nations.
Originally posted by zimv20
the EU is an example of a good start at some of these things heartily agree :)

[Rower_CPU]

shadow-
We're just going 'round and 'round with semantics at this point and not getting much of anywhere. I'm just using common antonyms here to illustrate points.

You said "the planet would still be fine" if we nuked its surface, a pretty decisive statement.

I spell nature with an "N" to denote everything involved with life on this planet. Not just the forest over there, but every living thing in the planet's ecosystem.

I keep saying what I do to make a point you seem to ignore or not want to deal with.

As for systematically wiping out an enemy, you need look no further than the "War on Terror" or any of our civilizations attempts to kill off other species.

You're focusing too much on the small differences in philosophies and ignoring the big similarities. Our society the world over has a very distinct philosophy from that of aboriginal peoples. This is the philosophy I keep repeating and refer to: Man has appointed himself the conqueror of the planet.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Fair enough, zimv, if you are actually 20...:p


lol!

no, i'm not 20, not by a long shot. people call me "zim", v20 = v2.0 = i'm on my second career.

"zim" was taken on this site (and it FREAKS me out everytime i see him post something. i have this visceral reaction -- "hey! i didn't post that!" :-)


To me, none of these things can exist in the face of war and are by-products of, or corollaries to peace.

agreed.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by zimv20
lol!

no, i'm not 20, not by a long shot. people call me "zim", v20 = v2.0 = i'm on my second career.

"zim" was taken on this site (and it FREAKS me out everytime i see him post something. i have this visceral reaction -- "hey! i didn't post that!" :-)


Ha, I figured as much, but it seemed the most appropo comeback. ;)

[zimv20]

Originally posted by shadowfax
i have to question this--what do you mean by "needs?"


it's intentionally vague. what the world needs should be decided, collectively, by the countries (not necessarily pushed down throats by the UN).

your example of socialism, imo, would be violating the spirit of the international cooperation. environmental concerns, however, is a great example.

if the world decides it needs to cut global oil consumption by factor X, that benefits the entire world. of course, those countries that relied on it the most (either through consumption or producing it) would complain the loudest. it doesn't do anyone any good to force behavior. rather, it would be ideal if those two groups of countries could come up w/ a longterm plan of action w/ which everyone could agree.

in practice, it's well-nigh impossible these days. but achieving such a balance would be a noble goal, imo.


but if you meant, as i suspect, that the US (and others, let's be honest, the US isn't the only nation shy about this) should stand up for human rights even when its precious oil is not at stake, then yes, i think that powerful members should look more to the "needs" of other nations.
heartily agree :)

yes, another good example.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Ha, I figured as much, but it seemed the most appropo comeback. ;)

indeed. i truly did laugh out loud

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
You said "the planet would still be fine" if we nuked its surface, a pretty decisive statement.i meant that it would still be here. i was misinterpreting what you meant by "planet" (which is apparently "Nature")I keep saying what I do to make a point you seem to ignore or not want to deal with.cheap shot. it's not that i don't want to deal with it, it's that i think it's not true as you mean it.
As for systematically wiping out an enemy, you need look no further than the "War on Terror" or any of our civilizations attempts to kill off other species.i AM looking far beyond the war on terror. i know comparatively little about that anyway. let's talk about the Spanish American War, WW1, WW2, the Korean War, Vietnam. or we could go back to the Civil War, the War of 1812, how about the War for American Independence? which of these involves a "systematic killing off of enemies"?You're focusing too much on the small differences in philosophies and ignoring the big similarities. Our society the world over has a very distinct philosophy from that of aboriginal peoples. This is the philosophy I keep repeating and refer to: Man has appointed himself the conqueror of the planet. No. man has just spread himself out bigger and made tools that leave bigger messes. it's not that he thinks he is more a god than before. it's that he has increased his power to do harm to Nature, relatively, and failed to consider this adequately. man has not by and large become a god over the planet in his own eyes. he has, though, obviously, become a god in his own eyes, in your eyes. ;)

[Rower_CPU]

shadow-

Not gonna try to sort out the quotes in that one. ;)

It wasn't intended as a cheap shot, your comment just seemed like a throwaway. Sorry. If you don't think it's true, tell me why. :)

OK, here's where we might be getting confused on semantics again. Is everyone in a country you've declared war on an enemy? No. Is that soldier over there one? Yes. Our wars not only protect our borders/property/ideals/whatever, but actively seek out and destroy those who oppose them or get in our way. Look at the Spanish Conquistadors in South America, look at the Middle East conflict, look at the War on Terror, look at Genghis Khan...I can keep going.

And why, after thousands upon thousands of years living as aboriginal people did we spread? Aboriginal peoples don't attempt to convert other tribes to their way of life any more than they think themselves gods over their environment.

Our civilization that sprung up those 10,000 years ago felt we had the one right way to live and we actively sought to spread it to other people. Our society's cavalier attitude towards Nature will be our downfall. We say to ourselves "we are the chosen species on this planet" and point to God as the excuse.

[edit- Man and our civilization are not interchangeable. It's important to be very careful with the language here.]

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by zimv20
as my doctor says, health does not equal the absence as disease.

No, it's the continued absence of disease.

[michaello]

I love this thread.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by michaello
I love this thread.

You know you go out for dinner and you miss so much! ;) I'm going to have to practice my typing to keep up with you folks.

[Rower_CPU]

Heh, slow work day. :D :p

[shadowfax]

yeah. i should do an experiment to see how much mac rumors lowers my GPA... except i am too addicted to try school without MR...

[krossfyter]

best non computer debate in a long time here on macrumors.


good work shadowfax and rowercpu

[michaello]

Yeah, really great work

- so ... what should we talk about now? :)

[zimv20]

Originally posted by michaello

- so ... what should we talk about now? :)

god had a fight w/ mrs. god and kicked him out for the night. he came over. we had a couple beers, bitched about women. he crashed on my couch. when i woke up, god had left a 'thank you' note and let himself out. but i'm pretty sure he used my toothbrush. should i say anything?

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by zimv20
god had a fight w/ mrs. god and kicked him out for the night. he came over. we had a couple beers, bitched about women. he crashed on my couch. when i woke up, god had left a 'thank you' note and let himself out. but i'm pretty sure he used my toothbrush. should i say anything? does god have teeth?

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by michaello


- so ... what should we talk about now? :)


the residuum of social theory and hyper-reaility on contemporary culture.