thats fine. i think thats wrong, but youre beliefs are no threat to me, so have a great life.
however, some people may suffer at the hands of others because of your failure to act against your own strictly rigid moral code.
and MANY more suffer b/c of tyrants we prop up and still do...we give aid to a country that made the ballet illegal!! countries where their military has a lot of murder and rape charges against it (threatening women w/ us made and sold weapons)....i guess that's the capitalist pacifist approach
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 one that fails to act to prevent one's suffering is also responsible, even if the only way to prevent that suffering is through the use of violence..
When you say "fail to act" what kinds of actions are you referring to that they are "failing" to act out? It sounds like:
Abook is advocating acting in a diplomatic way and doing what it takes to solve problems and create peace.
You and my2hands are talking about acting in violent ways, using killing to "end" suffering.
Given these two options, it sounds like you are creating suffering. Acting to solve problems and create peace is the only way one can effectively act to prevent suffering.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
and my2hands and mr smith, you never answered, do you think the gulf war syndrome/ DU poisoning of our troops and the populace was handled excellently???
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
When you say "fail to act" what kinds of actions are you referring to that they are "failing" to act out? It sounds like:
Abook is advocating acting in a diplomatic way and doing what it takes to solve problems and create peace.
You and my2hands are talking about acting in violent ways, using killing to "end" suffering.
Given these two options, it sounds like you are creating suffering. Acting to solve problems and create peace is the only way one can effectively act to prevent suffering.
and the situation could've been prevented w/o any bloodshed from anybody, but instead....we sat and did nothing....opportunistic
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 one that fails to act to prevent one's suffering is also responsible, even if the only way to prevent that suffering is through the use of violence..
What it sounds like you are saying is that:
1)given Abook's method is about creating peace and resolving conflict
2)she can only prevent suffering through causing suffering.
Considering you are justifying creating suffering for some people in order to "end" suffering for others, it sounds like what you are really saying is that Abook should choose the same ideology of your "group", "side" or what have you, insinuating that the suffering of one is more important than the suffering of another. If you really want to end suffering you will find there is only one way to act against it. Anything else is exchanging the suffering of one, for another, based on who you've decided is more "worthy" to live, or who fits more nicely within your ideology or the ideology of your country.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
she can do what she wants. its a free country and she isnt hurting me. she seems nice enough to me. But i would. i dont know how else one changes one's mind on anything except through taking in new information.
So is it fair that we ask you to take in new information and consider your own ethical foundation? Is it based on firm logic? Does the logic add up? Does the logic of taking a life to end suffering ( or to otherwise contribute to others doing so) in order to serve your own personal ideology or the ideology of your country still make sense to you? If so, please explain how it does.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
When you say "fail to act" what kinds of actions are you referring to that they are "failing" to act out? It sounds like:
Abook is advocating acting in a diplomatic way and doing what it takes to solve problems and create peace.
You and my2hands are talking about acting in violent ways, using killing to "end" suffering.
Given these two options, it sounds like you are creating suffering. Acting to solve problems and create peace is the only way one can effectively act to prevent suffering.
"diplomatic ways" can be exausted! in most cases there is a time limit. when a threat becomes imminent, your options are severely limited and less than perfect. at some point one must act with whatever means he has available, including, in rare cases when it is worth it, violence. In certain situations, and because we are fallable beings who can't always be preventative, war can be the only logical means to solve a problem.
In one way or another every conflict in the history of man could have been averted through peaceful means if we knew exactly what to do to prevent it and had enough time to prevent it. In the real world we dont have that luxury. Hell, sometimes we do have that luxury and we fail to act early anyway, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt act once we do realize whats happening just because we fucked up once already, even if the only way we can act isnt the best possible way.
"diplomatic ways" can be exausted! in most cases there is a time limit. when a threat becomes imminent, your options are severely limited and less than perfect. at some point one must act with whatever means he has available, including, in rare cases when it is worth it, violence.
In one way or another every conflict in the history of man could have been averted through peaceful means if we knew exactly what to do to prevent it and had enough time to prevent it. In the real world we dont have that luxury. Hell, sometimes we do have that luxury and we fail to act early anyway, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt act once we do realize whats happening just because we fucked up once already, even if the only way we can act isnt the best possible act.
Do you admit that you are advocating creating and perpetuating war and suffering?
Do you understand what creating peace is? Do you understand what resolving problems is?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
and MANY more suffer b/c of tyrants we prop up and still do...we give aid to a country that made the ballet illegal!! countries where their military has a lot of murder and rape charges against it (threatening women w/ us made and sold weapons)....i guess that's the capitalist pacifist approach
we shouldnt do that. whats this got to do with the price of tea in CHina? were we propping up Saddam when we demanded Saddam leave Kuwait?
and my2hands and mr smith, you never answered, do you think the gulf war syndrome/ DU poisoning of our troops and the populace was handled excellently???
Do you admit that you are advocating creating and perpetuating war and suffering?
Do you understand what creating peace is? Do you understand what resolving problems is?
you see all the world's conflicts as one big related cycle, but i dont think it is (though in many cases can grow from another). Conflicts can arise completely independent of each other and can be ended without spawning more conflicts of its own. Warfare existed on lush, remote tropical islands in the middle of nowhere. why? not because some cycle followed people there, but because some people were selfish and aggressive. these traits dont leave the human race just because a few people pretend it doesnt exist.
you see all the world's conflicts as one big related cycle, but i dont think it is (though in many cases can grow from another). Conflicts can arise completely independent of each other and can be ended without spawning more conflicts of its own. Warfare existed on lush, remote tropical islands in the middle of nowhere. why? not because some cycle followed people there, but because some people were selfish and aggressive. these traits dont leave the human race just because a few people pretend it doesnt exist.
I'll ask again: Do you understand what creating peace and solving problems is? Do you understand how that's the ultimate power in all these situations?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Do you admit that you are advocating creating and perpetuating war and suffering?
you see all the world's conflicts as one big related cycle, but i dont think it is (though in many cases can grow from another). Conflicts can arise completely independent of each other and can be ended without spawning more conflicts of its own. Warfare existed on lush, remote tropical islands in the middle of nowhere. why? not because some cycle followed people there, but because some people were selfish and aggressive. these traits dont leave the human race just because a few people pretend it doesnt exist.
What I see is that when you are violent and killing and creating suffering for your ideology, you are being what you suggest others should act against. Therefore your suggestions hold no power for others, and you undermine your own argument. Plain and simple.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
What I see is that when you are violent and killing and creating suffering for your ideology, you are being what you suggest others should act against. Therefore your suggestions hold no power for others, and you undermine your own argument. Plain and simple.
the violence and suffering already exist. i am only transferring it back to the person who created it and preventing that suffering on the one who didnt, and all of the others who would be subject to that suffering if the originator is left unchecked.
my only idealogy is that life and liberty are sacred. Liberty slightly more than life.
I'll ask again: Do you understand what creating peace and solving problems is? Do you understand how that's the ultimate power in all these situations?
eh i'll read your reply later, but if you dont accept that, through, human fallability and time constraints, violence can become the only option to prevent suffering of innocents, we are at an impasse.
the violence and suffering already exist. i am only transferring it back to the person who created it and preventing that suffering on the one who didnt, and all of the others who would be subject to that suffering if the originator is left unchecked.
my only idealogy is that life and liberty are sacred. Liberty slightly more than life.
Again, your logic doesn't add up. You've made it clear that life and liberty are only sacred for some people, and that you give yourself permission to make other people expendable.
Giving yourself the power to make the distinction is purely ego. That's far from sacred.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
we shouldnt do that. whats this got to do with the price of tea in CHina? were we propping up Saddam when we demanded Saddam leave Kuwait?
not particularly no.
you said "the one that fails to act to prevent one's suffering is also responsible", that's what it has to do w/ the price of tea in china
we were helping prop him up until he went into kuwait, while he was putting troops on the kuwait border
the point you 2 seem to be missing is it's not like it was some big secret saddam was gonna invade kuwait, we knew it, congress knew it....and we did nothing. as you said we failed to act to prevent suffering. we could've easily have defused the situation or at least TRIED. but, instead, we sat back and waited for him to invade and THEN acted. it was a win-win situation for us. bigger defense budget compared to what congress passed earlier in the year, it allowed us to put bases in kuwait....
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
a neccesary evil in this case... no one likes war, no one embraces it, definitely not me by any stretch... but on occasion a time does arise that some wicked things have to be dealt with, usually with wicked force and the horros of war...
as far as the road of death thing. tragic beyond beleief. however, when you hop into a tank and cross into another country aggressively and without provocation, you understand that you could be killed and are risking your life. you are knowingly commiting an act of war which immediately puts your life at risk. tragic, yes... avoidable, yes... the horros of war, yes... so maybe the human race can learn as a whole from situations liek that over the years and in the coming years to move beyond war and move towards a more peaceful time. but until that happens there will be occasional threats that will have ti be dealt with BY THE WORLD
As long as people like you justify wars and believe that slaughtering people, innocent or not, is necessary there won't be a peaceful time.
a burlgar comes into my home, he gets shot. i hate guns, i hate violence, but when a bad guy threatens me or my family i will not hesitate to use force. perhaps you would invite him to join you in a yoga session?
Yes, but you don't just kill him. You kill him and his little children, his brother and his parents too. That's the reality of war and you support it and say it's justified and even necessary. And you can hide behind those excuses but we all know that killing innocent people is never right.
I don't know it's seems a bit contradictory to say you hate violence while you support the deliberate slaughter of innocent people.
and my2hands and mr smith, you never answered, do you think the gulf war syndrome/ DU poisoning of our troops and the populace was handled excellently???
i didn't see anyone answer this question, but if an ally were amassing troops on the border of israel do ya think we'd just sit be and do nothing or do something, like talk to them and tell them we'd have to react if they invaded?
that has happened several times in the past and america has not stepped in... israel has fought many of her own wars... with us picking up the tab, but not boots on the ground
the violence and suffering already exist. i am only transferring it back to the person who created it and preventing that suffering on the one who didnt, and all of the others who would be subject to that suffering if the originator is left unchecked.
Do you realize that when you kill, even when you tell yourself you are only "transferring it back to the person who created it ... " what you are actually doing is creating killing, yourself?
You create killing that did not exist except for your willful intent to kill. In your effort to "end suffering", you create killing, and in your effort to prevent suffering for those who are innocent you create suffering for others who are innocent.
This is clearly nonsensical, which is why I say such "reasons" and "rationales" are illusions. You are advocating killing based on an illusory mindset for creating peace that is absolutely ineffective because it creates war and death instead. Sure, you might eventually create peace, after you are responsible for killing and creating suffering for innocent people. You can tell yourself you're "transferring" something rather than killing people and creating war. It doesn't make it true, and you are still responsible for the consquences of the death, killing, horror and suffering you perpetuate. I am not talking about some future cycle. I am talking about exactly when you create death, that you are responsible for that death you create. And when you create mindsets that support creating death, you are also responsible for doing so. Not in the future, but now.
You are demonstrating the very mindsets that those who are caught up in rationales of violence are about. Such mindsets that justify creating killing and horror cannot understand what creating peace really is and therefore will be ineffective in creating the peace they say they want. This is why the "diplomatic efforts" stemming from such mindsets will not work and why war becomes 'necessary' for those who justify war.
As I said earlier: "...by standing for peace and solutions ON ALL LEVELS, we communicate that in our thoughts, words and deeds." We show this in our actions. Those who justify war show they are not dedicated to peace in their thoughts/words/deeds. All aggressors justify their violence, and give themselves reasons and license to be violent as you have done yourself.
Those who are dedicated to creating peace continue to do so all over the world, in peaceful ways. Creating peace is happening everywhere. Those who are creating this peace recognize how powerful changing illusory mindsets is (in themselves and others) because one then eliminates the roots of violence. The few aggressors who identify themselves on the world stage identify their own inner conflict of creating war to create peace, and they show their inner violence externally with ugly, horrible inhumane consequences. Those who create peace and solve problems show their inner resolution of conflict, and externalize this, too, creating peace externally.
You suggest that we consider changing our view when faced with reality. When faced with the reality that to end suffering, you advocate creating suffering, and when faced with the nonsensical nature of this view, do you plan to change it in order to be realistic? Or will you continue to minimize the suffering you stand for to justify your illusory ideology?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Do you realize that when you kill, even when you tell yourself you are only "transferring it back to the person who created it ... " what you are actually doing is creating killing, yourself?
You create killing that did not exist except for your willful intent to kill. In your effort to "end suffering", you create killing, and in your effort to prevent suffering for those who are innocent you create suffering for others who are innocent.
This is clearly nonsensical, which is why I say such "reasons" and "rationales" are illusions. You are advocating killing based on an illusory mindset for creating peace that is absolutely ineffective because it creates war and death instead. Sure, you might eventually create peace, after you are responsible for killing and creating suffering for innocent people. You can tell yourself you're "transferring" something rather than killing people and creating war. It doesn't make it true, and you are still responsible for the consquences of the death, killing, horror and suffering you perpetuate. I am not talking about some future cycle. I am talking about exactly when you create death, that you are responsible for that death you create. And when you create mindsets that support creating death, you are also responsible for doing so. Not in the future, but now.
You are demonstrating the very mindsets that those who are caught up in rationales of violence are about. Such mindsets that justify creating killing and horror cannot understand what creating peace really is and therefore will be ineffective in creating the peace they say they want. This is why the "diplomatic efforts" stemming from such mindsets will not work and why war becomes 'necessary' for those who justify war.
As I said earlier: "...by standing for peace and solutions ON ALL LEVELS, we communicate that in our thoughts, words and deeds." We show this in our actions. Those who justify war show they are not dedicated to peace in their thoughts/words/deeds. All aggressors justify their violence, and give themselves reasons and license to be violent as you have done yourself.
Those who are dedicated to creating peace continue to do so all over the world, in peaceful ways. Creating peace is happening everywhere. Those who are creating this peace recognize how powerful changing illusory mindsets is (in themselves and others) because one then eliminates the roots of violence. The few aggressors who identify themselves on the world stage identify their own inner conflict of creating war to create peace, and they show their inner violence externally with ugly, horrible inhumane consequences. Those who create peace and solve problems show their inner resolution of conflict, and externalize this, too, creating peace externally.
You suggest that we consider changing our view when faced with reality. When faced with the reality that to end suffering, you advocate creating suffering, and when faced with the nonsensical nature of this view, do you plan to change it in order to be realistic? Or will you continue to minimize the suffering you stand for to justify your illusory ideology?
you act like your spouting off some divine law. its just your opinion. Where are you getting this? Who says i am creating suffering? I say i'm ending suffering (its simple math, see my second to last post)). what is your basis for this crap you are saying? its certainly not logic
Again, your logic doesn't add up. You've made it clear that life and liberty are only sacred for some people, and that you give yourself permission to make other people expendable.
Giving yourself the power to make the distinction is purely ego. That's far from sacred.
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.
you act like your spouting off some divine law. its just your opinion. Where are you getting this? Who says i am creating suffering? I say i'm ending suffering (its simple math). what is your basis for this crap you are saying? its certainly not logic
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.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
you said "the one that fails to act to prevent one's suffering is also responsible", that's what it has to do w/ the price of tea in china
we were helping prop him up until he went into kuwait, while he was putting troops on the kuwait border
the point you 2 seem to be missing is it's not like it was some big secret saddam was gonna invade kuwait, we knew it, congress knew it....and we did nothing. as you said we failed to act to prevent suffering. we could've easily have defused the situation or at least TRIED. but, instead, we sat back and waited for him to invade and THEN acted. it was a win-win situation for us. bigger defense budget compared to what congress passed earlier in the year, it allowed us to put bases in kuwait....
i believe we knew he MAY invade Kuwait, but even granting what we knew, and granting that we failed to act, what should we have done once he invaded? as i said before, after the invasion we went through all the proper channels of diplomacy to work it out peacefully. the war still could have been averted! We even gave him months to leave. Regardless of our past dealing with him, There was no doubt that we were not his ally after the invasion. You cant say that we didnt try to resolve this peacefully even after the invasion. yet Saddam refused to budge. so what should we do then?
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.
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.
Comments
and MANY more suffer b/c of tyrants we prop up and still do...we give aid to a country that made the ballet illegal!! countries where their military has a lot of murder and rape charges against it (threatening women w/ us made and sold weapons)....i guess that's the capitalist pacifist approach
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
Abook is advocating acting in a diplomatic way and doing what it takes to solve problems and create peace.
You and my2hands are talking about acting in violent ways, using killing to "end" suffering.
Given these two options, it sounds like you are creating suffering. Acting to solve problems and create peace is the only way one can effectively act to prevent suffering.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
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
and the situation could've been prevented w/o any bloodshed from anybody, but instead....we sat and did nothing....opportunistic
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
1)given Abook's method is about creating peace and resolving conflict
2)she can only prevent suffering through causing suffering.
Considering you are justifying creating suffering for some people in order to "end" suffering for others, it sounds like what you are really saying is that Abook should choose the same ideology of your "group", "side" or what have you, insinuating that the suffering of one is more important than the suffering of another. If you really want to end suffering you will find there is only one way to act against it. Anything else is exchanging the suffering of one, for another, based on who you've decided is more "worthy" to live, or who fits more nicely within your ideology or the ideology of your country.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
"diplomatic ways" can be exausted! in most cases there is a time limit. when a threat becomes imminent, your options are severely limited and less than perfect. at some point one must act with whatever means he has available, including, in rare cases when it is worth it, violence. In certain situations, and because we are fallable beings who can't always be preventative, war can be the only logical means to solve a problem.
In one way or another every conflict in the history of man could have been averted through peaceful means if we knew exactly what to do to prevent it and had enough time to prevent it. In the real world we dont have that luxury. Hell, sometimes we do have that luxury and we fail to act early anyway, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt act once we do realize whats happening just because we fucked up once already, even if the only way we can act isnt the best possible way.
Do you understand what creating peace is? Do you understand what resolving problems is?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
you see all the world's conflicts as one big related cycle, but i dont think it is (though in many cases can grow from another). Conflicts can arise completely independent of each other and can be ended without spawning more conflicts of its own. Warfare existed on lush, remote tropical islands in the middle of nowhere. why? not because some cycle followed people there, but because some people were selfish and aggressive. these traits dont leave the human race just because a few people pretend it doesnt exist.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
the violence and suffering already exist. i am only transferring it back to the person who created it and preventing that suffering on the one who didnt, and all of the others who would be subject to that suffering if the originator is left unchecked.
my only idealogy is that life and liberty are sacred. Liberty slightly more than life.
enlighten me.
Giving yourself the power to make the distinction is purely ego. That's far from sacred.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
you said "the one that fails to act to prevent one's suffering is also responsible", that's what it has to do w/ the price of tea in china
we were helping prop him up until he went into kuwait, while he was putting troops on the kuwait border
the point you 2 seem to be missing is it's not like it was some big secret saddam was gonna invade kuwait, we knew it, congress knew it....and we did nothing. as you said we failed to act to prevent suffering. we could've easily have defused the situation or at least TRIED. but, instead, we sat back and waited for him to invade and THEN acted. it was a win-win situation for us. bigger defense budget compared to what congress passed earlier in the year, it allowed us to put bases in kuwait....
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
As long as people like you justify wars and believe that slaughtering people, innocent or not, is necessary there won't be a peaceful time.
naděje umírá poslední
Yes, but you don't just kill him. You kill him and his little children, his brother and his parents too. That's the reality of war and you support it and say it's justified and even necessary. And you can hide behind those excuses but we all know that killing innocent people is never right.
I don't know it's seems a bit contradictory to say you hate violence while you support the deliberate slaughter of innocent people.
naděje umírá poslední
By killing them?
naděje umírá poslední
You can't just make up numbers, you know.
naděje umírá poslední
no
that has happened several times in the past and america has not stepped in... israel has fought many of her own wars... with us picking up the tab, but not boots on the ground
You create killing that did not exist except for your willful intent to kill. In your effort to "end suffering", you create killing, and in your effort to prevent suffering for those who are innocent you create suffering for others who are innocent.
This is clearly nonsensical, which is why I say such "reasons" and "rationales" are illusions. You are advocating killing based on an illusory mindset for creating peace that is absolutely ineffective because it creates war and death instead. Sure, you might eventually create peace, after you are responsible for killing and creating suffering for innocent people. You can tell yourself you're "transferring" something rather than killing people and creating war. It doesn't make it true, and you are still responsible for the consquences of the death, killing, horror and suffering you perpetuate. I am not talking about some future cycle. I am talking about exactly when you create death, that you are responsible for that death you create. And when you create mindsets that support creating death, you are also responsible for doing so. Not in the future, but now.
You are demonstrating the very mindsets that those who are caught up in rationales of violence are about. Such mindsets that justify creating killing and horror cannot understand what creating peace really is and therefore will be ineffective in creating the peace they say they want. This is why the "diplomatic efforts" stemming from such mindsets will not work and why war becomes 'necessary' for those who justify war.
As I said earlier: "...by standing for peace and solutions ON ALL LEVELS, we communicate that in our thoughts, words and deeds." We show this in our actions. Those who justify war show they are not dedicated to peace in their thoughts/words/deeds. All aggressors justify their violence, and give themselves reasons and license to be violent as you have done yourself.
Those who are dedicated to creating peace continue to do so all over the world, in peaceful ways. Creating peace is happening everywhere. Those who are creating this peace recognize how powerful changing illusory mindsets is (in themselves and others) because one then eliminates the roots of violence. The few aggressors who identify themselves on the world stage identify their own inner conflict of creating war to create peace, and they show their inner violence externally with ugly, horrible inhumane consequences. Those who create peace and solve problems show their inner resolution of conflict, and externalize this, too, creating peace externally.
You suggest that we consider changing our view when faced with reality. When faced with the reality that to end suffering, you advocate creating suffering, and when faced with the nonsensical nature of this view, do you plan to change it in order to be realistic? Or will you continue to minimize the suffering you stand for to justify your illusory ideology?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
you act like your spouting off some divine law. its just your opinion. Where are you getting this? Who says i am creating suffering? I say i'm ending suffering (its simple math, see my second to last post)). what is your basis for this crap you are saying? its certainly not logic
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.
It's self-evident.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
i believe we knew he MAY invade Kuwait, but even granting what we knew, and granting that we failed to act, what should we have done once he invaded? as i said before, after the invasion we went through all the proper channels of diplomacy to work it out peacefully. the war still could have been averted! We even gave him months to leave. Regardless of our past dealing with him, There was no doubt that we were not his ally after the invasion. You cant say that we didnt try to resolve this peacefully even after the invasion. yet Saddam refused to budge. so what should we do then?
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.