certainly not murdering their civillians, devastating their homeland, poisoning their land....and certainly not support them w/ aid or businesses
oh, and NOT selling the thug/dictators/crazy ppl guns would be a reeeeaaaally good step in the right direction
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
this statement proves you live in a free society. all wars do NOT have to be sold to the people. are the people of darfur supporting their own extermination? did the people of iraq support saddam's invasion of kuwait
i'm sure some did...the military didn't seem to say no
or all the internal killing? i'm sure there are plenty more examples of strongmen who took control of their countries by coup or other military force, and then used their positions to make war on their neighbors. dictators don't need the approval of their populace, only their fear.
and guns...they definitely need guns...did ya know under clinton more than 1/2 of the arms sold to the 3rd world were sold by the US?
and if their own people can't stop them, shouldn't somebody else try?
take a look at our past 5 wars
panama
iraq
kosovo
afghanistan
iraq
except for kosovo those were situations we created. maybe if we thought our foreign policy and who we arm a little better we wouldn't have to start wars over it.
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
or perhaops you dont give a shit because they are africans?
if 1 milliom mexicans were being slaughtered in california bases strictly on their ethnicity what do you propose should be done? it would HAVE to be stopped, right? you would want law enforcement to step into to stop it right? the guys wiot hthe guns right? and if they could not stop it or were overwhelmed by force and could not handle the threat, what do you propose then? hold up signs and "pressure" them? of course you do not murder them all in a "killing spree" (why do people on here deal with such absolutes constantly?) but you do what is needed to stop the killing and protect the innocents and the people
yeah, that must be it :rolleyes:
so are you gonna define military intervention? what would be acceptable? what wouldn't?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
the only way that the "violence doesn't solve problems" philosophy works, is if no one in the world views violence as an option. There are myriad examples of violence causing problems, so clearly the utopic view of people are peaceful and will be peaceful if we just pressure them and show them their ignorance is unattainable and is wishful thinking. There will always be people who can use size (guns, muscle, etc...) to gain control. Some humans are very greedy and very power hungry; i'm pretty sure history will back me up on this one. Violence shouldn't be the first option, but it sure as hell has to be an option if someone is using violence to gain control to hurt people. Barring a sudden change of heart, that (violence) is the language some people use to get what they want. The average person does view war as a terrible act to engage in...the average person doesn't have to use violence (and probably doesn't WANT to); however, there are times when the average person sometimes must use violence in order to protect his ability to remain "average".
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
This in an unfair analogy. Are you suggesting that the immediacy of the situation you're describing is akin to any of the atrocities you've mentioned? Do these atrocities happen overnight, with no foreknowledge of rising tensions or conditions that preceed the violence? If the hero in your fable knew the woman was in danger well in advance and failed to do anything to stop the attack peacefully, but showed up just in time to crack some skulls, is he still a hero?
I agree with the thread title, but not the premise that these atrocities were unavoidable, and military action was/is the only answer.
The Bosnian and Rwandan situations were reaching critical mass while the world focused on bombing the shit out of Iraq the first time. Darfur was the Gulf War II equivalent. Imagine if, in the early days leading up to those genocides, the effort and resources being used to wage war had been used toward a diplomatic solution to those situations? The same can be said about almost any war...it's a cycle that won't be broken until we stop being reactive and get proactive. Reaction seems to be the theme with some here.
You've illustrated some key points given the topic of this thread. When people are perpetuating the cycles of war, they are reactive. They don't seem to understand what being proactive is.
They are making their decisions based on the past and based on their conditioning and ideologies rather than being awake to the wealth of possibilities in the situation before them in the now. Due to their preconceptions, they cloud making actual responses to the real situation and instead react based on cycles from the past.
And people don't realize that problem solving and resolution happens long before the situation comes to a head. As a matter of fact, in situations where peace is being created, the situation often doesn't come to a head because solutions and resolution to conflict are found long before the situation reaches a crisis.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Angelica, peace isnt my ultimate goal. a peaceful life as a slave is not desirable for me. the protection of the innocent should be the goal. liberty should be the goal.
as i've already said a million times, i feel that the vast majority of the time these goals are best attained through peaceful means, but on rare occasions these goals can only be accomplished through the use of force. That is why i dont compromise anything when making the decision that force is the only option, because the unyielding determination for peace at all costs is not the ultimate goal. Peace at the expense of continued suffering of the weak or great loss of freedom is simply not worth the price.
You may disagree with me and believe that peaceful means to prevent suffering are always possible, but i've already given plenty of examples where i believe that is false, and i certainly dont have to compromise any ideals by making the decision to use force in the rare situation that warrants it..
Liberty is a key goal for myself. That is why I expect that all people have the liberty to live their lives, given the circumstances of their lives, as they see fit. It sounds like you want liberty for some, and are willing to get it with the death of others. That is selective liberty. It's one thing if you advocate self-defense in order to protect your liberty. That way, the person coming for you is jeopardizing their own liberty, given humans defend themselves. You advocate stepping into other countries and imposing your ideology on them using killing. Killing people is the opposite of respecting their liberty.
As long as you continue to sacrifice the liberty of others, for your own ideology that's not liberty you seek. That's a seemingly nice - though obviously skewed - justification for taking the liberty of others. You will continue to create negative consequences with this conflict you project on the world.
You don't have to compromise ideals...you just have compromised them. You've compromised, for example here, the concept of liberty. Therefore you will continue to perpetuate war and the usual mediocrity, rather than aspire to greatness and rising above mediocrity and perpetuation.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
In all fairness to M2H... I suppose the question should be how do you enable another nation of people to stand up for themselves against oppression?
edit:: oops ...Peacefully that is.
This is exactly it. When you are looking to solve the problem, and when you recognize that overt force and power is destructive and perpetuates the problem, you look for ways to RESOLVE the problem. And you've written this in a way that solutions will stem from your question.
my2hands, albeit well intended, was not able to generate healthy solutions due to being reactive, and lacking focus on resolution.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
the only way that the "violence doesn't solve problems" philosophy works, is if no one in the world views violence as an option. There are myriad examples of violence causing problems, so clearly the utopic view of people are peaceful and will be peaceful if we just pressure them and show them their ignorance is unattainable and is wishful thinking. There will always be people who can use size (guns, muscle, etc...) to gain control. Some humans are very greedy and very power hungry; i'm pretty sure history will back me up on this one. Violence shouldn't be the first option, but it sure as hell has to be an option if someone is using violence to gain control to hurt people. Barring a sudden change of heart, that (violence) is the language some people use to get what they want. The average person does view war as a terrible act to engage in...the average person doesn't have to use violence (and probably doesn't WANT to); however, there are times when the average person sometimes must use violence in order to protect his ability to remain "average".
Of course there will always be people looking to take control. For example, the US who continues to justify imposing it's ways on others worldwide.
I don't think anyone rules out necessary force in terms of self-defense. At the least, anyone can understand that, even if they would not advocate for it themselves.
The problem comes in when we try to "rescue" others, and claim there are no other solutions. It's an imbalanced action and creates imbalanced consequences. There are a whole bunch of natural laws we violate. And, for example, we show ignorance of nature and principles such as base evolution. We're so out of touch with natural law, and so egotistically sure of our man-made laws that we continue to act out our conditioning, rather than learn to discern information in the present. When we have a vast majority of people coming from this place, the consequences continue to be skewed.
I'm well aware this goes on in the world. To act from a place of high principles with logic in ways that are resolution based, and that do not perpetuate the problem, one is being realistic and coming from a place of awareness and integrity.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Of course there will always be people looking to take control. For example, the US who continues to justify imposing it's ways on others worldwide.
I don't think anyone rules out necessary force in terms of self-defense. At the least, anyone can understand that, even if they would not advocate for it themselves.
The problem comes in when we try to "rescue" others, and claim there are no other solutions. It's an imbalanced action and creates imbalanced consequences. There are a whole bunch of natural laws we violate. And, for example, we show ignorance of nature and principles such as base evolution. We're so out of touch with natural law, and so egotistically sure of our man-made laws that we continue to act out our conditioning, rather than learn to discern information in the present. When we have a vast majority of people coming from this place, the consequences continue to be skewed.
I'm well aware this goes on in the world. To act from a place of high principles with logic in ways that are resolution based, and that do not perpetuate the problem, one is being realistic and coming from a place of awareness and integrity.
following an evolutionary survival of the fittest concept (to the extreme) we shouldn't help people at all b/c that is nature weeding out the weak and eliminating undesirable traits necessary for survival.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
following an evolutionary survival of the fittest concept (to the extreme) we shouldn't help people at all b/c that is nature weeding out the weak and eliminating undesirable traits necessary for survival.
That's an interpretation of natural law. And a shallow, ignorant one at that (which I'm not attributing to you, but to the going general mindset). Again, our manmade "ideas" of what nature is about is different than nature, herself.
When we can get past our ideas which are based on conditioning, and learn to experience life based directly on our senses (beyond interpretations), then we become aware of what is before us.
Since the vast majority in north america has been trained to be "objective", they are detached of the intelligence around us. We've been trained away from acute awareness in our environment, and to instead buy into ideologies. Therefore people don't know how to live each moment fully, aware of the possibilities and of the information we are given. That is the nature and evolution I refer to. Becoming aware of the intelligence we are immersed within and one with, I learned to solve all kinds of problems that people do not in general believe is possible.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
That's an interpretation of natural law. And a shallow, ignorant one at that (which I'm not attributing to you, but to the going general mindset). Again, our manmade "ideas" of what nature is about is different than nature, herself.
When we can get past our ideas which are based on conditioning, and learn to experience life based directly on our senses (beyond interpretations), then we become aware of what is before us.
Since the vast majority in north america has been trained to be "objective", they are detached of the intelligence around us. We've been trained away from acute awareness in our environment, and to instead buy into ideologies. Therefore people don't know how to live each moment fully, aware of the possibilities and of the information we are given. That is the nature and evolution I refer to. Becoming aware of the intelligence we are immersed within and one with, I learned to solve all kinds of problems that people do not in general believe is possible.
i would think that it's impossible to base life on senses beyond interpretations...not to go all ahnimus on you but senses are just that, interpretations of stimuli and the degree of stimulation is subjective. I agree that we have been trained to be objective and not think globally, but that's not always a bad thing. I agree that we need to be in tune with nature and we need to be respectful of it and everyone that makes up nature; however, the question remains...how do you take someone from such an extreme view (i.e. might is right) to a view totally contrary to their present world view? Again, the idea and thoughts are very powerful, but I don't think that we'll ever get to a point where that [the philosophy you present] will be universal. I do have prob a slightly more pessimistic / cynical view of humanity and I dare say people like you will always be the (pleasant) exception to the general rule.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
You and my2hands are saying "we" like you will be participating. That's not fair to those who will actually die when you impose your morals upon them. If you want to help, then go help.
Did you NOT read what I typed there? So let me get this straight, if someone walks into your local mall and starts shooting, then you're going to go stop them yourself? Or would you call the police for assistance?
When innocent people are being murdered, does that mean everyone should just stand by and let it happen? Do you not understand my analogy? Geesh.
Did you NOT read what I typed there? So let me get this straight, if someone walks into your local mall and starts shooting, then you're going to go stop them yourself? Or would you call the police for assistance?
When innocent people are being murdered, does that mean everyone should just stand by and let it happen? Do you not understand my analogy? Geesh.
If you had a chance to stop the person from shooting more people would you not take it?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Why do you keep answering questions with a question?
Are you guys really unable to comprehend a very simple analogy.
Let's try this one more time:
You, Abook, look outside your window and see a guy in the streets with a machine gun and he is killing innocent people on the street. Do you:
a) Hold up a sign and pressure him to stop the violence?
b) Go outside unarmed and try to stop him yourself
c) Call the police
Please ANSWER the question.
Because you're using an incorrect analogy to try to make a point.
You guys CAN join up and help fight these wars you believe need to be fought. You think wars can stop what you see as the problem. There is nothing getting in the way of you joining the war effort and helping to achieve the military goals you wish to see.
If I COULD stop the guy, I would. I wouldn't wait for someone else to do it when I could do it myself because he might kill someone in the meantime.
That's the difference.
Now answer my question. If you COULD stop the guy from killing more people, would you take that opportunity or would you sit there and call the police while he continues to kill more?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
i would think that it's impossible to base life on senses beyond interpretations...not to go all ahnimus on you but senses are just that, interpretations of stimuli and the degree of stimulation is subjective. I agree that we have been trained to be objective and not think globally, but that's not always a bad thing. I agree that we need to be in tune with nature and we need to be respectful of it and everyone that makes up nature; however, the question remains...how do you take someone from such an extreme view (i.e. might is right) to a view totally contrary to their present world view? Again, the idea and thoughts are very powerful, but I don't think that we'll ever get to a point where that [the philosophy you present] will be universal. I do have prob a slightly more pessimistic / cynical view of humanity and I dare say people like you will always be the (pleasant) exception to the general rule.
Speaking of Ahnimus, he and I are email friends, and we've recently had some surprising meetings of our minds on our one-time fundamental differences.
If you think your thoughts act independent of your senses, you are inaccurate. Our thoughts are created based on our sensory awareness. It's merely one step further distorting what our senses already distort! The great thinkers, what they advocate is insight and intuitive awareness as the key to getting beyond our subjective awareness. (one great thinker that immediately comes to mind is Einstein on that!)
Human developmental stages studied chart human evolution through varying phases. People are evolving.
Despite the ideals I speak of and to, I also very much realize the reality that exists all around me at all time. It reminds me of the saying "be in the world and not of it". I choose to respond based on ideals and from the potential to create a better way. That is how we truly create what we'd like to see, or create change. Many don't even understand their basic power to do so! And they perpetuate old cycles, again and again.
Ultimately, people from all developmental stages make mistakes, given we're all human, so I'm not talking about evolving into states of perfection. I merely advocate owning and learning from mistakes and not perpetuating them at great cost to ourselves!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Despite the ideals I speak of and to, I also very much realize the reality that exists all around me at all time. It reminds me of the saying "be in the world and not of it". I choose to respond based on ideals and from the potential to create a better way. That is how we truly create what we'd like to see, or create change. Many don't even understand their basic power to do so! And they perpetuate old cycles, again and again.
Because you're using an incorrect analogy to try to make a point.
You guys CAN join up and help fight these wars you believe need to be fought. You think wars can stop what you see as the problem. There is nothing getting in the way of you joining the war effort and helping to achieve the military goals you wish to see.
If I COULD stop the guy, I would. I wouldn't wait for someone else to do it when I could do it myself because he might kill someone in the meantime.
That's the difference.
Now answer my question. If you COULD stop the guy from killing more people, would you take that opportunity or would you sit there and call the police while he continues to kill more?
Abook, you really should be a politican because you have an uncanny knack for not answering questions...."Well let me answer that by asking you this" :rolleyes:
Can you please just answer this question? The situation is YOU are unarmed and you see someone outside killing people with a machine gun, what do you do? Would you call the police?
Now, I understand where you're going with the distrust of American government to quell the violence in Darfur by not killing other innocent people. But the analogy is accurate. How do you stand by and let innocent people die? You might say well the cops in Philly just beat those 3 guys, so therefore all cops are bad and we should never call them when needed. Is that logical? That's why my2hands suggestion UN involvement for possible military intervention. If you disagree with that, then I'm sure you can agree that not enough has been done to stop the genocide in Darfur, yes?
Also, I don't know why you keep saying things like I should join up and fight the wars I want to fight. We've debated here for some time now and it's like you just started talking to me today for the first time. You have no idea who I am, what I stand for, or what I believe in. Every analogy and comment is based on assumptions and not fact. I am an extremely peaceful person and I do not support war or violence, however I'm a realist. If a rogue group is terrorizing my neighborhood and killing my friends and family, I sure as hell want someone to intervene and help stop the bloodshed. Wouldn't you?
Abook, you really should be a politican because you have an uncanny knack for not answering questions...."Well let me answer that by asking you this" :rolleyes:
Can you please just answer this question? The situation is YOU are unarmed and you see someone outside killing people with a machine gun, what do you do? Would you call the police?
Now, I understand where you're going with the distrust of American government to quell the violence in Darfur by not killing other innocent people. But the analogy is accurate. How do you stand by and let innocent people die? You might say well the cops in Philly just beat those 3 guys, so therefore all cops are bad and we should never call them when needed. Is that logical? That's why my2hands suggestion UN involvement for possible military intervention. If you disagree with that, then I'm sure you can agree that not enough has been done to stop the genocide in Darfur, yes?
Also, I don't know why you keep saying things like I should join up and fight the wars I want to fight. We've debated here for some time now and it's like you just started talking to me today for the first time. You have no idea who I am, what I stand for, or what I believe in. Every analogy and comment is based on assumptions and not fact. I am an extremely peaceful person and I do not support war or violence, however I'm a realist. If a rogue group is terrorizing my neighborhood and killing my friends and family, I sure as hell want someone to intervene and help stop the bloodshed. Wouldn't you?
If I could stop the guy I would choose to stop the guy AND I'd call the police. I've already answered you.
I don't know. How are you standing by and letting innocent people die? What do you feel could be done to stop it and why aren't you doing it then? If you could help stop the the guy with the machine gun outside your window, would you or would you wait while others could be killed and call upon someone else to do all the work for you?
You may be an extremely peaceful person, however...you are defending war here and that is what I'm replying to.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
If I could stop the guy I would choose to stop the guy AND I'd call the police. I've already answered you.
I don't know. How are you standing by and letting innocent people die? What do you feel could be done to stop it and why aren't you doing it then? If you could help stop the the guy with the machine gun outside your window, would you or would you wait while others could be killed and call upon someone else to do all the work for you?
You may be an extremely peaceful person, however...you are defending war here and that is what I'm replying to.
To answer your question...I would stop the guy with the machine gun if I could. If I had a weapon, I'd try to stop him. If I could sneak up on him and try to wrestle the gun away, I would do that (it's impossible to accurately say what you would do in a situation like this until you're actually in one, but in my heart I can say I would try to help save lives and do whatever possible). But if I don't have a weapon or if I don't have a feasible way to get the weapon from the attacker, or do something positive instead of making the situation worse, then no, I'd simply wait for sufficient help to arrive.
You said you would call the police to help, despite knowing that the police may need to use violence to stop the violence. That's my point. I'm not supporting a war; I'm supporting military intervention (as a last resort) to stop a genocide. If anyone does not agree with this, then please feel free to offer your own peaceful solution. This thread is now several pages long and not one person has offered a viable solution to the genocide in lieu of miltary intervention. I guarantee all of the same people who are advocating a peaceful solution to this problem would want some police or military intervention if the same thing was happening in their backyard and their friends and family were being slaughtered.
But if I don't have a weapon or if I don't have a feasible way to get the weapon from the attacker, or do something positive instead of making the situation worse, then no, I'd simply wait for sufficient help to arrive.
You said you would call the police to help, despite knowing that the police may need to use violence to stop the violence. That's my point. I'm not supporting a war; I'm supporting military intervention (as a last resort) to stop a genocide. If anyone does not agree with this, then please feel free to offer your own peaceful solution. This thread is now several pages long and not one person has offered a viable solution to the genocide in lieu of miltary intervention. I guarantee all of the same people who are advocating a peaceful solution to this problem would want some police or military intervention if the same thing was happening in their backyard and their friends and family were being slaughtered.
I don't support police in killing people. I know that they are supposed to use all other measures first before using guns and shooting them down. There are ways to apprehend an attacker with resorting to murder and I support those such as stun guns, rubber bullets or tear gas, perhaps.
What kind of military intervention do you support being used in Darfur? And at what point would you no longer support the amount of force they used?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
you would call the police to help, despite knowing that the police may need to use violence to stop the violence. That's my point. I'm not supporting a war; I'm supporting military intervention (as a last resort) to stop a genocide. If anyone does not agree with this, then please feel free to offer your own peaceful solution. This thread is now several pages long and not one person has offered a viable solution to the genocide in lieu of miltary intervention. I guarantee all of the same people who are advocating a peaceful solution to this problem would want some police or military intervention if the same thing was happening in their backyard and their friends and family were being slaughtered.
thank you
damn jd sal, i didnt know you were a war monger that wanted to sign up and fight in iraq? :rolleyes:
Comments
oh, and NOT selling the thug/dictators/crazy ppl guns would be a reeeeaaaally good step in the right direction
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
i'm sure some did...the military didn't seem to say no
and guns...they definitely need guns...did ya know under clinton more than 1/2 of the arms sold to the 3rd world were sold by the US?
take a look at our past 5 wars
panama
iraq
kosovo
afghanistan
iraq
except for kosovo those were situations we created. maybe if we thought our foreign policy and who we arm a little better we wouldn't have to start wars over it.
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
yeah, that must be it :rolleyes:
so are you gonna define military intervention? what would be acceptable? what wouldn't?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
They are making their decisions based on the past and based on their conditioning and ideologies rather than being awake to the wealth of possibilities in the situation before them in the now. Due to their preconceptions, they cloud making actual responses to the real situation and instead react based on cycles from the past.
And people don't realize that problem solving and resolution happens long before the situation comes to a head. As a matter of fact, in situations where peace is being created, the situation often doesn't come to a head because solutions and resolution to conflict are found long before the situation reaches a crisis.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
As long as you continue to sacrifice the liberty of others, for your own ideology that's not liberty you seek. That's a seemingly nice - though obviously skewed - justification for taking the liberty of others. You will continue to create negative consequences with this conflict you project on the world.
You don't have to compromise ideals...you just have compromised them. You've compromised, for example here, the concept of liberty. Therefore you will continue to perpetuate war and the usual mediocrity, rather than aspire to greatness and rising above mediocrity and perpetuation.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
my2hands, albeit well intended, was not able to generate healthy solutions due to being reactive, and lacking focus on resolution.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I don't think anyone rules out necessary force in terms of self-defense. At the least, anyone can understand that, even if they would not advocate for it themselves.
The problem comes in when we try to "rescue" others, and claim there are no other solutions. It's an imbalanced action and creates imbalanced consequences. There are a whole bunch of natural laws we violate. And, for example, we show ignorance of nature and principles such as base evolution. We're so out of touch with natural law, and so egotistically sure of our man-made laws that we continue to act out our conditioning, rather than learn to discern information in the present. When we have a vast majority of people coming from this place, the consequences continue to be skewed.
I'm well aware this goes on in the world. To act from a place of high principles with logic in ways that are resolution based, and that do not perpetuate the problem, one is being realistic and coming from a place of awareness and integrity.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
following an evolutionary survival of the fittest concept (to the extreme) we shouldn't help people at all b/c that is nature weeding out the weak and eliminating undesirable traits necessary for survival.
When we can get past our ideas which are based on conditioning, and learn to experience life based directly on our senses (beyond interpretations), then we become aware of what is before us.
Since the vast majority in north america has been trained to be "objective", they are detached of the intelligence around us. We've been trained away from acute awareness in our environment, and to instead buy into ideologies. Therefore people don't know how to live each moment fully, aware of the possibilities and of the information we are given. That is the nature and evolution I refer to. Becoming aware of the intelligence we are immersed within and one with, I learned to solve all kinds of problems that people do not in general believe is possible.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
i would think that it's impossible to base life on senses beyond interpretations...not to go all ahnimus on you but senses are just that, interpretations of stimuli and the degree of stimulation is subjective. I agree that we have been trained to be objective and not think globally, but that's not always a bad thing. I agree that we need to be in tune with nature and we need to be respectful of it and everyone that makes up nature; however, the question remains...how do you take someone from such an extreme view (i.e. might is right) to a view totally contrary to their present world view? Again, the idea and thoughts are very powerful, but I don't think that we'll ever get to a point where that [the philosophy you present] will be universal. I do have prob a slightly more pessimistic / cynical view of humanity and I dare say people like you will always be the (pleasant) exception to the general rule.
Did you NOT read what I typed there? So let me get this straight, if someone walks into your local mall and starts shooting, then you're going to go stop them yourself? Or would you call the police for assistance?
When innocent people are being murdered, does that mean everyone should just stand by and let it happen? Do you not understand my analogy? Geesh.
If you had a chance to stop the person from shooting more people would you not take it?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Why do you keep answering questions with a question?
Are you guys really unable to comprehend a very simple analogy.
Let's try this one more time:
You, Abook, look outside your window and see a guy in the streets with a machine gun and he is killing innocent people on the street. Do you:
a) Hold up a sign and pressure him to stop the violence?
b) Go outside unarmed and try to stop him yourself
c) Call the police
Please ANSWER the question.
I'm sorry but I'm going to have to answer your question with another question.
Do the police officers deliberately kill several innocent bystanders while they try and rescue the innocent bystanders?
If not, then I don't see how this is a good analogy.
naděje umírá poslední
**bangs head on desk**
Because you're using an incorrect analogy to try to make a point.
You guys CAN join up and help fight these wars you believe need to be fought. You think wars can stop what you see as the problem. There is nothing getting in the way of you joining the war effort and helping to achieve the military goals you wish to see.
If I COULD stop the guy, I would. I wouldn't wait for someone else to do it when I could do it myself because he might kill someone in the meantime.
That's the difference.
Now answer my question. If you COULD stop the guy from killing more people, would you take that opportunity or would you sit there and call the police while he continues to kill more?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Do you have a problem with my question? I can answer your question but since your analogy doesn't work, I fail to see the point.
naděje umírá poslední
If you think your thoughts act independent of your senses, you are inaccurate. Our thoughts are created based on our sensory awareness. It's merely one step further distorting what our senses already distort! The great thinkers, what they advocate is insight and intuitive awareness as the key to getting beyond our subjective awareness. (one great thinker that immediately comes to mind is Einstein on that!)
Human developmental stages studied chart human evolution through varying phases. People are evolving.
Despite the ideals I speak of and to, I also very much realize the reality that exists all around me at all time. It reminds me of the saying "be in the world and not of it". I choose to respond based on ideals and from the potential to create a better way. That is how we truly create what we'd like to see, or create change. Many don't even understand their basic power to do so! And they perpetuate old cycles, again and again.
Ultimately, people from all developmental stages make mistakes, given we're all human, so I'm not talking about evolving into states of perfection. I merely advocate owning and learning from mistakes and not perpetuating them at great cost to ourselves!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Exactly!
naděje umírá poslední
Abook, you really should be a politican because you have an uncanny knack for not answering questions...."Well let me answer that by asking you this" :rolleyes:
Can you please just answer this question? The situation is YOU are unarmed and you see someone outside killing people with a machine gun, what do you do? Would you call the police?
Now, I understand where you're going with the distrust of American government to quell the violence in Darfur by not killing other innocent people. But the analogy is accurate. How do you stand by and let innocent people die? You might say well the cops in Philly just beat those 3 guys, so therefore all cops are bad and we should never call them when needed. Is that logical? That's why my2hands suggestion UN involvement for possible military intervention. If you disagree with that, then I'm sure you can agree that not enough has been done to stop the genocide in Darfur, yes?
Also, I don't know why you keep saying things like I should join up and fight the wars I want to fight. We've debated here for some time now and it's like you just started talking to me today for the first time. You have no idea who I am, what I stand for, or what I believe in. Every analogy and comment is based on assumptions and not fact. I am an extremely peaceful person and I do not support war or violence, however I'm a realist. If a rogue group is terrorizing my neighborhood and killing my friends and family, I sure as hell want someone to intervene and help stop the bloodshed. Wouldn't you?
If I could stop the guy I would choose to stop the guy AND I'd call the police. I've already answered you.
I don't know. How are you standing by and letting innocent people die? What do you feel could be done to stop it and why aren't you doing it then? If you could help stop the the guy with the machine gun outside your window, would you or would you wait while others could be killed and call upon someone else to do all the work for you?
You may be an extremely peaceful person, however...you are defending war here and that is what I'm replying to.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
To answer your question...I would stop the guy with the machine gun if I could. If I had a weapon, I'd try to stop him. If I could sneak up on him and try to wrestle the gun away, I would do that (it's impossible to accurately say what you would do in a situation like this until you're actually in one, but in my heart I can say I would try to help save lives and do whatever possible). But if I don't have a weapon or if I don't have a feasible way to get the weapon from the attacker, or do something positive instead of making the situation worse, then no, I'd simply wait for sufficient help to arrive.
You said you would call the police to help, despite knowing that the police may need to use violence to stop the violence. That's my point. I'm not supporting a war; I'm supporting military intervention (as a last resort) to stop a genocide. If anyone does not agree with this, then please feel free to offer your own peaceful solution. This thread is now several pages long and not one person has offered a viable solution to the genocide in lieu of miltary intervention. I guarantee all of the same people who are advocating a peaceful solution to this problem would want some police or military intervention if the same thing was happening in their backyard and their friends and family were being slaughtered.
That's my whole point about war.
I don't support police in killing people. I know that they are supposed to use all other measures first before using guns and shooting them down. There are ways to apprehend an attacker with resorting to murder and I support those such as stun guns, rubber bullets or tear gas, perhaps.
What kind of military intervention do you support being used in Darfur? And at what point would you no longer support the amount of force they used?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
thank you
damn jd sal, i didnt know you were a war monger that wanted to sign up and fight in iraq? :rolleyes:
self defense mode, whatever it took to nuetralize the threat and protect the innocents
it is almost comical isnt it?
That's a non-answer. where would you draw the line? at what point would you not go along with supporting the attempt to 'neutralize' the threat?
That's the real question here.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
What? The inability to understand people have differing viewpoints on this matter?
I think it's more sad.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!