you give permission for the aggresor to kill indiscrimiinately through your NON ACTION.
This is flawed logic. I am never responsible for the actions of another and what they create. I am responsible for my own actions and what I create.
We all have to make decisions based on what we think to be true (its not ego). Are you any different? Just because you refuse to make a distinction between good and evil adn REFUSE TO MAKE A DIFFICULT CHOICE THAT MAY BE THE WRONG CHOICE, that doesnt let you aff the hook. YOU ARE JUST AS RESPONSIBLE AS THE GUY PULLING THE TRIGGER! you make people expendable through your refusal to admit you are part of this big ball of humanity we call Earth.
I see good and evil all over the place. What I refuse to do is justify being evil myself. I make these difficult decisions in each day, including merely posting here!
You are correct, we all make these decisions all the time. And we all must own our accountability for when we choose good or evil, in each moment.
The problem comes in when people accept mindsets for themselves that hide from their own selves their own evil deeds. That's fine by me, because they are accountable, anyway, and will pay largely. They just don't recognize it. America, for example, continues to hide it's eyes of the accountability of rampant ongoing aggression. The natural consequences play out, independent of what you or I think about them.
The blood is not on my hands, nor on the hands of Americans who create peace and problem resolution.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
you give permission for the aggresor to kill indiscrimiinately through your NON ACTION. We all have to make decisions based on what we think to be true (its not ego). Are you any different? Just because you refuse to make a distinction between good and evil adn REFUSE TO MAKE A DIFFICULT CHOICE THAT MAY BE THE WRONG CHOICE, that doesnt let you aff the hook. YOU ARE JUST AS RESPONSIBLE AS THE GUY PULLING THE TRIGGER! you make people expendable through your refusal to admit you are part of this big ball of humanity we call Earth.
I can't speak for Angelica, but this is how I feel about it. First of all, no, I'm not giving anyone permission to kill. Secondly, I'm not refusing to make a distinction between good and evil, I think killing people, making people suffer, bombing people... cannot be good no matter what the goal might be. And I'm certainly not as responsible as the guy who pulls the trigger, to quote you: "what is your basis for this crap you are saying? its certainly not logic"
i accept responsibility for resorting to violence in RARE situations that warrant it. i have no inner conflict. my conscience is clear.
You refuse to admit that passivity can be the same as aiding and abetting violence, and not only that, but by refusing to interfere, you are indeed responsible for continuing death and suffering that results.
Pacifism is not the same as non-action. It certainly isn't the same as aiding or abetting violence.
Have you ever heard about diplomacy and non-violent resistance?
Also, you accuse people who remain peaceful in their actions of continuing death and suffering. That's a bold statement for someone who supports more direct death and suffering.
The only way your conscience can be clear is if you've got your eyes closed. Or you have a total disregard for human life. It's the main problem with society today and it is this attitude that the anti-war people want to change. Every war has caused the death of thousands of innocent people and people continue justifying these wars in the name of peace, to end suffering and death. Innocent people are knowingly and deliberately slaughtered, murdered, bombed and maimed... this as a way to end suffering. People like you justify these actions, justify murder and somehow twist it so completely that it almost seems a noble cause. If anyone who justifies these wars really took responsibility they'd be in jail right now.
i accept responsibility for resorting to violence in RARE situations that warrant it. i have no inner conflict. my conscience is clear.
You refuse to admit that passivity can be the same as aiding and abetting violence, and not only that, but by refusing to interfere, you are indeed responsible for continuing death and suffering that results.
dude, I'm a very assertive person. You confuse the potency of creating peace with standing by and doing nothing.
This is the logical hierarchy for dealing with evil:
1)Do what it takes to solve the problem and create peace where "evil" is.
2)If unable to create peace and solve problems, work on one's problem solving abilities, and ability to create peace. This may entail bringing in resources for creating peace. This is working on the underlying dynamics of creating peace and thereby part of the process of creating peace. This is an active and potent process that leads to problems solving solving and the creation of peace. This is how evolution works...by adapting to what is at hand that is challenging.
3)at no time can I justify using violence to create peace. Because it creates violence and not peace. Therefore it's not a valid option for creating peace and not only is it not doing anything to create peace, it is actually doing worse than being neutral...it creates what one opposes.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I can't speak for Angelica, but this is how I feel about it. First of all, no, I'm not giving anyone permission to kill. Secondly, I'm not refusing to make a distinction between good and evil, I think killing people, making people suffer, bombing people... cannot be good no matter what the goal might be. And I'm certainly not as responsible as the guy who pulls the trigger, to quote you: "what is your basis for this crap you are saying? its certainly not logic"
you are indeed responsible if you have the ability to stop it and dont, just as we are all partly responsible for the deaths in Darfur because of our refusal to act (so maybe not AS responsible, but we do share the blame through inaction). as to the above quote, i generally have provided examples of how force can be used to end suffering, she simply says i am creating violence and suffering as if she were quoting scripture.
pacifism is the same as nonaction in the rare circumstance that violence is the only concievable option left to prevent the suffering of the innocent (when action of the aggressor is imminent .)
one should be pacifist 99.9% of the time (to put a number on it), but the other tiny percent of the time, one should resort to force, and to cling to passifism is IMMORAL in that cirumstance.
Your ideology here as you write it, is telling us that killing people (war) is valid in order to achieve the peace you claim you want. Killing creates suffering. You are advocating, right here in this thread, creating that killing/suffering. Therefore exactly that--the killing you justify, and the suffering you justify is on your hands when you back it. The theory you hold that attempts to justify doing so is certainly your own. You have revealed this inner conflict for all to see and you are living the consquences for holding that idea.
It's self-evident.
someone is holding a gun to your childs head and is going to kill them. you have a gun in your hand and therefore have the ability to stop it and you have a clear opportunity to stop this person from killing your child.
what do you do? the answer is "self evident"
(sorry for involving family and simplifying the matter, but i think it makes the point that people in a position to act and intervene to prevent a tragedy have an obligation to act)
someone is holding a gun to your childs head and is going to kill them. you have a gun in your hand and therefore have the ability to stop it and you have a clear opportunity to stop this person from killing your child.
one should be pacifist 99.9% of the time (to put a number on it), but the other tiny percent of the time, one should resort to force, and to cling to passifism is IMMORAL in that cirumstance.
I agree with this, but not with your last statement. It is not immoral, not even then.
someone is holding a gun to your childs head and is going to kill them. you have a gun in your hand and therefore have the ability to stop it and you have a clear opportunity to stop this person from killing your child.
what do you do? the answer is "self evident"
(sorry for involving family and simplifying the matter, but i think it makes the point that people in a position to act and intervene to prevent a tragedy have an obligation to act)
Justifying violence has no end, does it?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
someone is holding a gun to your childs head and is going to kill them. you have a gun in your hand and therefore have the ability to stop it and you have a clear opportunity to stop this person from killing your child.
what do you do? the answer is "self evident"
(sorry for involving family and simplifying the matter, but i think it makes the point that people in a position to act and intervene to prevent a tragedy have an obligation to act)
sorry, but..? That's not sorry anymore than "war creates peace".
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
someone is holding a gun to your childs head and is going to kill them. you have a gun in your hand and therefore have the ability to stop it and you have a clear opportunity to stop this person from killing your child.
what do you do? the answer is "self evident"
(sorry for involving family and simplifying the matter, but i think it makes the point that people in a position to act and intervene to prevent a tragedy have an obligation to act)
come on now. you know she wont answer this question.
why, because its never happened before? the only way its an invalid question is if its an impossible situation or a pacifist can admit violent force is ok in that situation.
why, because its never happened before? the only way its an invalid question is if its an impossible situation or a pacifist can admit violent force is ok in that situation.
Why? Good question. In fact, why is a very good question.
someone is holding a gun to your childs head and is going to kill them. you have a gun in your hand and therefore have the ability to stop it and you have a clear opportunity to stop this person from killing your child.
Let's start with why someone is holding a gun to my child's head. There is a reason why someone would do such a thing. If we can understand what pushed him to such desparate methods, we might be able to dissuade him from going through with his actions.
But let's just for the sake of the argument assume it's a black and white situation. What I'd do first is try to talk him out of it, or ask him if I can take my child's place. If he doesn't agree and doesn't listen to reason, I would indeed resort to force. I wouldn't kill him, though. At least not deliberately, I'd try to take him down without killing him.
What I wouldn't do, however, is kill him, take his wallet and while slipping his money into my pockets looking for his address so I can go kill his wife and their children.
Because in war it isn't just the enemy that is targeted, but thousands of innocent people are targeted as well. But it's justified because the enemy was killing innocent people. Just like killing this guy's children, his wife and parents and his neighbour is justified because after all, he held a gun to your child's head.
I think it's a stupid question and a very weak analogy.
someone is holding a gun to your childs head and is going to kill them. you have a gun in your hand and therefore have the ability to stop it and you have a clear opportunity to stop this person from killing your child.
what do you do? the answer is "self evident"
(sorry for involving family and simplifying the matter, but i think it makes the point that people in a position to act and intervene to prevent a tragedy have an obligation to act)
Please don't EVER be a hostage negotiator.
Those poor people would all die...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Why? Good question. In fact, why is a very good question.
Let's start with why someone is holding a gun to my child's head. There is a reason why someone would do such a thing. If we can understand what pushed him to such desparate methods, we might be able to dissuade him from going through with his actions.
But let's just for the sake of the argument assume it's a black and white situation. What I'd do first is try to talk him out of it, or ask him if I can take my child's place. If he doesn't agree and doesn't listen to reason, I would indeed resort to force. I wouldn't kill him, though. At least not deliberately, I'd try to take him down without killing him.
What I wouldn't do, however, is kill him, take his wallet and while slipping his money into my pockets looking for his address so I can go kill his wife and their children.
Because in war it isn't just the enemy that is targeted, but thousands of innocent people are targeted as well. But it's justified because the enemy was killing innocent people. Just like killing this guy's children, his wife and parents and his neighbour is justified because after all, he held a gun to your child's head.
I think it's a stupid question and a very weak analogy.
good. i probably wouldnt go out of my may to prevent his death (and probably put the kid in more danger), but other than that i mostly agree.
someone is holding a gun to your childs head and is going to kill them. you have a gun in your hand and therefore have the ability to stop it and you have a clear opportunity to stop this person from killing your child.
what do you do? the answer is "self evident"
(sorry for involving family and simplifying the matter, but i think it makes the point that people in a position to act and intervene to prevent a tragedy have an obligation to act)
come on now. you know she wont answer this question.
nice taunt.
Again, this "rationale" is an illusion. To imagine a nice clean ending, after I shoot the perpetrator...in the seeming "ideal" you or my2hands hold to is a logical fallacy, meant to justify the unjustifiable.
The one thing self-evident about this scenario is that there are numerous possibilities for any individual in such a situation and whatever one chooses in the spur of the moment will be based on all kinds of inner criteria that is unconscious. And that whatever one logically assumes they will do in such a situation is entirely different than what one would actually do in such a situation. Our behaviours are rarely logical. In actuality there are no pat, universal answers to this question. Being self-evident in the way my2hands used it is the opposite to that.
I actively create peace. And I'm a human and I err all the time, creating conflict rather than peace. When I do so, I maladapt rather than adapt. I learn the hard way like everyone else. The difference with you and I is that I am committed to resolving my inner maladaptation and conflicts. So while I don't justify maladaptation, I am not perfect.
Any situation of war, even though people cling to justifications for such, they really are acting based on unconscious issues and justifying their inner motivations. They will act based on unconscious criteria...it's the nature of the beast. And they will accept the consequences of doing so. I don't second guess what happens and how people respond. What I challenge is justifying wrongdoing after the fact when it's based on illusions.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If you have a clear opportunity to stop him, you can probably do it without killing him.
right... liek setting up military blocks to protect villages and civilain centers...
peopel here always take an inch and make it a mile... i say military intervention and people jumop to the conclusion that i am talking about pre emptive war and mass bombings :rolleyes:
right... liek setting up military blocks to protect villages and civilain centers...
peopel here always take an inch and make it a mile... i say military intervention and people jumop to the conclusion that i am talking about pre emptive war and mass bombings :rolleyes:
What about war? You've been supporting the first gulf war all throughout this thread and it most certainly contained mass bombings and indiscriminate death among civilians.
We could have overthrown their govt without needing to bomb the country like we did. And I don't like the sound of overthrowing govts either but it sure sounds a lot better than the death and destruction caused by war.
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
dude, I'm a very assertive person. You confuse the potency of creating peace with standing by and doing nothing.
This is the logical hierarchy for dealing with evil:
1)Do what it takes to solve the problem and create peace where "evil" is.
2)If unable to create peace and solve problems, work on one's problem solving abilities, and ability to create peace. This may entail bringing in resources for creating peace. This is working on the underlying dynamics of creating peace and thereby part of the process of creating peace. This is an active and potent process that leads to problems solving solving and the creation of peace. This is how evolution works...by adapting to what is at hand that is challenging.
3)at no time can I justify using violence to create peace. Because it creates violence and not peace. Therefore it's not a valid option for creating peace and not only is it not doing anything to create peace, it is actually doing worse than being neutral...it creates what one opposes.
while you are "making peace" or working on your "problem solving abilites" they are burning down villages and murdering everything ion sight
sometimes it comes across as though you act like this is a fairy tale in a book or a television show? or that you can respond by "wanting peace" or "creating peace"? these situations are real, and continue to happen
you dont think the tutsi's didnt try to "make peace" in Rwanda? you think the monks are not trying to "make peace" in Burma? that didnt stop their non peaceful murderers from hacking them with machetes and raping their daughter
you talk as if everything is decided by youme and what is inside of you/me... you dont control the next person, you are not them, they are irrational and do not have the same beliefs as you... otherwise they wopuld not be murdering people based strictly on ethnic background
What about war? You've been supporting the first gulf war all throughout this thread and it most certainly contained mass bombings and indiscriminate death among civilians.
We could have overthrown their govt without needing to bomb the country like we did. And I don't like the sound of overthrowing govts either but it sure sounds a lot better than the death and destruction caused by war.
i think we see the results of overthrowing a govenment... as colin powell said, you break it you own it
and i am not defending every action taken by the military in that war... and neither was obama... it is just another example of people around here taking an inch and making it a mile... i, as was he i believe, are refering to the overall big picture of the first gulf war... of course i dont suppprt DU weapons or the targeting of civilian locations and infrastructure... the broder picture is that the world stepped in when an aggresive nation invaded a peaceful neighbor, and then when they could have pressed on they did not because they understood the consequences if they did...
i think we see the results of overthrowing a govenment... as colin powell said, you break it you own it
and i am not defending every action taken by the military in that war... and neither was obama... it is just another example of people around here taking an inch and making it a mile... i, as was he i believe, are refering to the overall big picture of the first gulf war... of course i dont suppprt DU weapons or the targeting of civilian locations and infrastructure... the broder picture is that the world stepped in when an aggresive nation invaded a peaceful neighbor, and then when they could have pressed on they did not because they understood the consequences if they did...
Well all of those things you claim to be so against are very much what the reality of war is all about. I don't see anything about it that can be described as an 'Excellent job'. To me, this line of thought you're using sounds exactly like the line coming from proponents of this current war when they say how we've accomplished so much such by removing evil Saddam from power, brought Iraq democracy and made the world safer. People will always come up with these same kinds of rationalizations to continue supporting these hideous acts of war.
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
while you are "making peace" or working on your "problem solving abilites" they are burning down villages and murdering everything ion sight
sometimes it comes across as though you act like this is a fairy tale in a book or a television show? or that you can respond by "wanting peace" or "creating peace"? these situations are real, and continue to happen
you dont think the tutsi's didnt try to "make peace" in Rwanda? you think the monks are not trying to "make peace" in Burma? that didnt stop their non peaceful murderers from hacking them with machetes and raping their daughter
you talk as if everything is decided by youme and what is inside of you/me... you dont control the next person, you are not them, they are irrational and do not have the same beliefs as you... otherwise they wopuld not be murdering people based strictly on ethnic background
When people understand how to create peace, they create peace. When people perpetuate war and pain, it's because it's the best they can fathom. They are not saving their best methods for a rainy day...the suffering they perpetuate is the best they know given the circumstances.
Which brings me back to the cycles that people are caught up in, and that are self-perpetuating.
edit: The above post is directed towards you, my2hands, and to those who justify the unjustifiable.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
and i am not defending every action taken by the military in that war... and neither was obama... it is just another example of people around here taking an inch and making it a mile... i, as was he i believe, are refering to the overall big picture of the first gulf war... of course i dont suppprt DU weapons or the targeting of civilian locations and infrastructure... the broder picture is that the world stepped in when an aggresive nation invaded a peaceful neighbor, and then when they could have pressed on they did not because they understood the consequences if they did...
Well all of those things you claim to be so against are very much what the reality of war is all about. I don't see anything about it that can be described as an 'Excellent job'. To me, this line of thought your using sounds exactly like the line coming from proponents of this current war when they say how we've accomplished so much such as removing evil Saddam from power, brought Iraq democracy and made the world safer. People will always come up with these same kinds of rationalizations to continue supporting these hideaous acts of war.
Exactly. The overall big picture? What is that exactly? You take a war and you forget about all the atrocities that were committed? You forget how thousands of innocent people were slaughter, killed and maimed?
The overall big picture or the broader picture is these horrible crimes were committed in the name of bringing peace and people still justify them, forget them and actually call it an excellent job.
What is so excellent about the deaths of thousands of innocent people? Where are the people who committed these crimes? Are they being held accountable?
You can't just ignore the horrible things that happen in war and say you did an excellent job.
Exactly. The overall big picture? What is that exactly? You take a war and you forget about all the atrocities that were committed? You forget how thousands of innocent people were slaughter, killed and maimed?
The overall big picture or the broader picture is these horrible crimes were committed in the name of bringing peace and people still justify them, forget them and actually call it an excellent job.
What is so excellent about the deaths of thousands of innocent people? Where are the people who committed these crimes? Are they being held accountable?
You can't just ignore the horrible things that happen in war and say you did an excellent job.
where are they?? many of the key ones are in this administration
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
Comments
I see good and evil all over the place. What I refuse to do is justify being evil myself. I make these difficult decisions in each day, including merely posting here!
You are correct, we all make these decisions all the time. And we all must own our accountability for when we choose good or evil, in each moment.
The problem comes in when people accept mindsets for themselves that hide from their own selves their own evil deeds. That's fine by me, because they are accountable, anyway, and will pay largely. They just don't recognize it. America, for example, continues to hide it's eyes of the accountability of rampant ongoing aggression. The natural consequences play out, independent of what you or I think about them.
The blood is not on my hands, nor on the hands of Americans who create peace and problem resolution.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I can't speak for Angelica, but this is how I feel about it. First of all, no, I'm not giving anyone permission to kill. Secondly, I'm not refusing to make a distinction between good and evil, I think killing people, making people suffer, bombing people... cannot be good no matter what the goal might be. And I'm certainly not as responsible as the guy who pulls the trigger, to quote you: "what is your basis for this crap you are saying? its certainly not logic"
naděje umírá poslední
Pacifism is not the same as non-action. It certainly isn't the same as aiding or abetting violence.
Have you ever heard about diplomacy and non-violent resistance?
Also, you accuse people who remain peaceful in their actions of continuing death and suffering. That's a bold statement for someone who supports more direct death and suffering.
The only way your conscience can be clear is if you've got your eyes closed. Or you have a total disregard for human life. It's the main problem with society today and it is this attitude that the anti-war people want to change. Every war has caused the death of thousands of innocent people and people continue justifying these wars in the name of peace, to end suffering and death. Innocent people are knowingly and deliberately slaughtered, murdered, bombed and maimed... this as a way to end suffering. People like you justify these actions, justify murder and somehow twist it so completely that it almost seems a noble cause. If anyone who justifies these wars really took responsibility they'd be in jail right now.
naděje umírá poslední
This is the logical hierarchy for dealing with evil:
1)Do what it takes to solve the problem and create peace where "evil" is.
2)If unable to create peace and solve problems, work on one's problem solving abilities, and ability to create peace. This may entail bringing in resources for creating peace. This is working on the underlying dynamics of creating peace and thereby part of the process of creating peace. This is an active and potent process that leads to problems solving solving and the creation of peace. This is how evolution works...by adapting to what is at hand that is challenging.
3)at no time can I justify using violence to create peace. Because it creates violence and not peace. Therefore it's not a valid option for creating peace and not only is it not doing anything to create peace, it is actually doing worse than being neutral...it creates what one opposes.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
If the problems are not disappearing, it means resolution has not yet been found!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
you are indeed responsible if you have the ability to stop it and dont, just as we are all partly responsible for the deaths in Darfur because of our refusal to act (so maybe not AS responsible, but we do share the blame through inaction). as to the above quote, i generally have provided examples of how force can be used to end suffering, she simply says i am creating violence and suffering as if she were quoting scripture.
one should be pacifist 99.9% of the time (to put a number on it), but the other tiny percent of the time, one should resort to force, and to cling to passifism is IMMORAL in that cirumstance.
someone is holding a gun to your childs head and is going to kill them. you have a gun in your hand and therefore have the ability to stop it and you have a clear opportunity to stop this person from killing your child.
what do you do? the answer is "self evident"
(sorry for involving family and simplifying the matter, but i think it makes the point that people in a position to act and intervene to prevent a tragedy have an obligation to act)
That is a pretty ridiculous comparison.
naděje umírá poslední
I agree with this, but not with your last statement. It is not immoral, not even then.
naděje umírá poslední
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
come on now. you know she wont answer this question.
Because it's stupid question.
naděje umírá poslední
Why? Good question. In fact, why is a very good question.
Let's start with why someone is holding a gun to my child's head. There is a reason why someone would do such a thing. If we can understand what pushed him to such desparate methods, we might be able to dissuade him from going through with his actions.
But let's just for the sake of the argument assume it's a black and white situation. What I'd do first is try to talk him out of it, or ask him if I can take my child's place. If he doesn't agree and doesn't listen to reason, I would indeed resort to force. I wouldn't kill him, though. At least not deliberately, I'd try to take him down without killing him.
What I wouldn't do, however, is kill him, take his wallet and while slipping his money into my pockets looking for his address so I can go kill his wife and their children.
Because in war it isn't just the enemy that is targeted, but thousands of innocent people are targeted as well. But it's justified because the enemy was killing innocent people. Just like killing this guy's children, his wife and parents and his neighbour is justified because after all, he held a gun to your child's head.
I think it's a stupid question and a very weak analogy.
naděje umírá poslední
Please don't EVER be a hostage negotiator.
Those poor people would all die...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
good. i probably wouldnt go out of my may to prevent his death (and probably put the kid in more danger), but other than that i mostly agree.
edited.
If you have a clear opportunity to stop him, you can probably do it without killing him.
naděje umírá poslední
Again, this "rationale" is an illusion. To imagine a nice clean ending, after I shoot the perpetrator...in the seeming "ideal" you or my2hands hold to is a logical fallacy, meant to justify the unjustifiable.
The one thing self-evident about this scenario is that there are numerous possibilities for any individual in such a situation and whatever one chooses in the spur of the moment will be based on all kinds of inner criteria that is unconscious. And that whatever one logically assumes they will do in such a situation is entirely different than what one would actually do in such a situation. Our behaviours are rarely logical. In actuality there are no pat, universal answers to this question. Being self-evident in the way my2hands used it is the opposite to that.
I actively create peace. And I'm a human and I err all the time, creating conflict rather than peace. When I do so, I maladapt rather than adapt. I learn the hard way like everyone else. The difference with you and I is that I am committed to resolving my inner maladaptation and conflicts. So while I don't justify maladaptation, I am not perfect.
Any situation of war, even though people cling to justifications for such, they really are acting based on unconscious issues and justifying their inner motivations. They will act based on unconscious criteria...it's the nature of the beast. And they will accept the consequences of doing so. I don't second guess what happens and how people respond. What I challenge is justifying wrongdoing after the fact when it's based on illusions.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
right... liek setting up military blocks to protect villages and civilain centers...
peopel here always take an inch and make it a mile... i say military intervention and people jumop to the conclusion that i am talking about pre emptive war and mass bombings :rolleyes:
What about war? You've been supporting the first gulf war all throughout this thread and it most certainly contained mass bombings and indiscriminate death among civilians.
We could have overthrown their govt without needing to bomb the country like we did. And I don't like the sound of overthrowing govts either but it sure sounds a lot better than the death and destruction caused by war.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
while you are "making peace" or working on your "problem solving abilites" they are burning down villages and murdering everything ion sight
sometimes it comes across as though you act like this is a fairy tale in a book or a television show? or that you can respond by "wanting peace" or "creating peace"? these situations are real, and continue to happen
you dont think the tutsi's didnt try to "make peace" in Rwanda? you think the monks are not trying to "make peace" in Burma? that didnt stop their non peaceful murderers from hacking them with machetes and raping their daughter
you talk as if everything is decided by youme and what is inside of you/me... you dont control the next person, you are not them, they are irrational and do not have the same beliefs as you... otherwise they wopuld not be murdering people based strictly on ethnic background
i think we see the results of overthrowing a govenment... as colin powell said, you break it you own it
and i am not defending every action taken by the military in that war... and neither was obama... it is just another example of people around here taking an inch and making it a mile... i, as was he i believe, are refering to the overall big picture of the first gulf war... of course i dont suppprt DU weapons or the targeting of civilian locations and infrastructure... the broder picture is that the world stepped in when an aggresive nation invaded a peaceful neighbor, and then when they could have pressed on they did not because they understood the consequences if they did...
Well all of those things you claim to be so against are very much what the reality of war is all about. I don't see anything about it that can be described as an 'Excellent job'. To me, this line of thought you're using sounds exactly like the line coming from proponents of this current war when they say how we've accomplished so much such by removing evil Saddam from power, brought Iraq democracy and made the world safer. People will always come up with these same kinds of rationalizations to continue supporting these hideous acts of war.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
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://youtube.com/watch?v=VCGA9p2-jAo&feature=related
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Which brings me back to the cycles that people are caught up in, and that are self-perpetuating.
edit: The above post is directed towards you, my2hands, and to those who justify the unjustifiable.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Exactly. The overall big picture? What is that exactly? You take a war and you forget about all the atrocities that were committed? You forget how thousands of innocent people were slaughter, killed and maimed?
The overall big picture or the broader picture is these horrible crimes were committed in the name of bringing peace and people still justify them, forget them and actually call it an excellent job.
What is so excellent about the deaths of thousands of innocent people? Where are the people who committed these crimes? Are they being held accountable?
You can't just ignore the horrible things that happen in war and say you did an excellent job.
naděje umírá poslední
where are they?? many of the key ones are in this administration
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