So now that Iran has clearly violated International Law...

Last Exodus

angelica wrote:

Hey, Rue. Thanks for the apology. I've been a little tense in this thread myself, and I also apologise if I've been harsh.
I think our basic difference here is with a pre-emptive strike. In terms of discernment, what you call clear and present danger, I do not see as clear and present danger. Whose interpretation do we go by? Which one is truthful?




I would like to clarify my view on fear/reason. I am BIG on emotional intelligence as not only being a valid type of intelligence, but a highly valid type of intelligence, and one that I value greatly. In North America this form of intelligence is under-rated and down-graded. When people block feeling their feelings, those feelings end up distorting the persons ability to reason. In order for us to utilize this valuable tool--our emotional system, being our only direct feedback on how the environment is affecting us--we need to feel our feelings. When we actually feel and process our feelings, they pass through us and contribute to our ability to activate our wisdom. People with a high emotional intelligence are very wise people. Therefore, I'm a huge proponent of integrated intelligence.

Unfortunately, in North America, we focus on being objective at the expense of the development of our emotional intelligence. Yes, fear is a very important indicator that there is something going on that is alarming to us for self-preservation. However our emotions have been wired in us based on our life experiences, and not on what is really happening in Iran. The key is we need to feel and process our fear in order to get the wisdom from the process. The way many of us do it is what you are talking about--"i shouldn't deal with my fear, which is a primal instinct whose reason for being is for my self-preservation, i should deal with he who seeks my demise." When we do not deal with our fear, we project it on the other guy and we distort our own process. The other guy may be dangerous, he may not. We can't know, because we've just distorted our intelligence. And this is why everyone is pointing the finger at someone else.

Yes, fear serves an amazing process when used in a healthy way. If we block our fear and blame the other guy for it, we cripple ourselves, our view, and our own arguments. You are correct, being afraid of the guy you think trying to kill you is not part of the problem. That step is the first healthy step....the problem happens when you act on your fear, without having processed it by feeling it, and working it through reasoning. If you give yourself permission to act on fear that has not been processed, that is like acting blindly, and that can be very dangerous.

Think of your example, where someone is threatening to kill you. One option you gave is to go to the police. You then say another option is to preemptively incapacitate or kill him. You do realize that in North America, were you to do so, YOU would go to jail? And if you planned to kill this person in advance, it would be considered premeditated? Like I said earlier, to strike first makes you the aggressor and the person to be feared. When all along, you tell yourself it's someone else.

But I think the analysis between you two can be broken down pretty simply. Rue lives within missile range of Iran and is surrounded by about a half a billion angry neighbors who really want to take his real estate. Angelica goes to sleep at night far far away where only reindeer and drunken eskimo threaten...Slightly different neighborhoods.

Last Exodus

RavennaSeattle1911 wrote:

youre the biggest prick ever ever met on line -liar

ive never seen such a forum and the moderator does nothing

My feelings exactly. Im not going to resort to name calling because I happen to like most of the people here, even the ones I disagree with. But this place is about honesty. And I can honestly say there is a good amount of evidence you could be a supremist. It's not an insult. Its just an observation. If it's not true, I cant imagine youd have your panties in such a bunch...

Last Exodus

gue_barium wrote:

I suggest you two take this to PM's. I, for one, haven't seen any evidence from you of this sort of White Supremist kind of thinking. I think you're learning as you go about a lot of things. You're being interactive in your own personal way.

did you actually read the thread he posted? i even had two other objective people read it and they asked if Ravenna was a supremist before I even said anything.

gue_barium

Last Exodus wrote:

did you actually read the thread he posted? i even had two other objective people read it and they asked if Ravenna was a supremist before I even said anything.

I know he's a little whacky with his posts. I don't like picking on anyone. You shouldn't either. Give him a chance.

Last Exodus

gue_barium wrote:

I know he's a little whacky with his posts. I don't like picking on anyone. You shouldn't either. Give him a chance.

sorry, i havent the stomach for the anti semitic and anti hispanic posts on this board that you have....

this sound like anyone we know?

http://whohijackedourcountry.blogspot.com/2007/02/white-supremacist-hate-groups-back-with.html

Rue D'Awakening

angelica wrote:

I would like to clarify my view on fear/reason. I am BIG on emotional intelligence as not only being a valid type of intelligence, but a highly valid type of intelligence, and one that I value greatly.

i too am a big fan of emotional intelligence and could spend hours discussing it with you. i wouldn't say your approach to the israel/iran dilemma is altogether invalid, i just don't think that it's the most realistic or analytically effective approach when talking about international relations. the individuals analogy has its limits; nation states are not perfectly parallel to individuals. they can have collective memory, collective emotions, but for the actual decision-making process of the leadership, there are many more considerations and obligations that the individual doesn't have.

Yes, fear is a very important indicator that there is something going on that is alarming to us for self-preservation. However our emotions have been wired in us based on our life experiences, and not on what is really happening in Iran.

this got me thinking of an example that could support what you're saying. you might agree (though i don't) that the holocaust in jewish collective memory fits this bill. a traumatic past experience now clouds present judgement. the argument falls apart however, as soon as you acknowledge the reality of the situation in the middle east. khomeinism is not an imagined fear, but a real and viable ideology. its principles, like national socialism, are clearly enumerated for anyone to see if they are curious enough to look. antisemitism is so pervasive and absolute, it is as much a cultural edifice in the middle east as it was in europe before and during wwii. if we were to say that israel's fear of this environment originates from collective memory rather than objective reason, we are doing israel a disservice by clouding reality. emotional self-reflection and objective reasoning is a two-way street. in the realm of international relations, i believe objective reasoning based upon empirical evidence is the better approach.

Think of your example, where someone is threatening to kill you. One option you gave is to go to the police. You then say another option is to preemptively incapacitate or kill him. You do realize that in North America, were you to do so, YOU would go to jail? And if you planned to kill this person in advance, it would be considered premeditated? Like I said earlier, to strike first makes you the aggressor and the person to be feared. When all along, you tell yourself it's someone else.

You forget that in the analogy of individuals, the world is in anarchy. there is no police, there is no jail. It leaves the one who is threatened with the choice of waiting to be attacked, or acting preemptively. When the weapon to be used in the potential attack is 100% fatal, waiting to be attacked is nothing but inviting suicide.

spiral out

Last Exodus wrote:

My feelings exactly. Im not going to resort to name calling because I happen to like most of the people here, even the ones I disagree with. But this place is about honesty. And I can honestly say there is a good amount of evidence you could be a supremist. It's not an insult. Its just an observation. If it's not true, I cant imagine youd have your panties in such a bunch...

You are being ridiculous and picking on the guy for no good reason. He sounds nothing like a supremicist or remotely anti semitic.

And don't you think that if he did that the mods would have banned him by now. The very fact that they haven't shows your wrong.

CaterinaA

gue_barium wrote:

By that criterion, every country on the planet is in violation, and so is a moot point in regard to this discusssion.

Well to you it may be a moot point. For me, since I work in a HHRR organization it is not...

I was just trying to state that cultural differences are not always to be accepted. There are limits to cultural relativism. NC Fan gave an example about gays being hanged in Iran and Angelica said that it was an ethnocentric view. Well, even if that is true, hanging a person just because of their sexual orientation excedes the field of cultural differences and it is just plain wrong because it is a human right violation.

Am I denying that human rights violations take place much more often than we'd like it. Nope, I just felt the need to express my disagreement with Angelica's statement.

angelica

CaterinaA wrote:

Well to you it may be a moot point. For me, since I work in a HHRR organization it is not...

I was just trying to state that cultural differences are not always to be accepted. There are limits to cultural relativism. NC Fan gave an example about gays being hanged in Iran and Angelica said that it was an ethnocentric view. Well, even if that is true, hanging a person just because of their sexual orientation excedes the field of cultural differences and it is just plain wrong because it is a human right violation.

Am I denying that human rights violations take place much more often than we'd like it. Nope, I just felt the need to express my disagreement with Angelica's statement.

And to me it is wrong to put someone to death because they have killed someone else. What is universally right or wrong is a matter of what natural law dictates, irrespective of what we decide is right for human law. Again, what you think is a human right violation, it seems Iran finds morally superior.

CaterinaA

angelica wrote:

And to me it is wrong to put someone to death because they have killed someone else. What is universally right or wrong is a matter of what natural law dictates, irrespective of what we decide is right for human law. Again, what you think is a human right violation, it seems Iran finds morally superior.

And we totally agree, it is wrong to put someone to death because they have killed someone else. Likewise, it is wrong to sell a woman or to beat her to death because she was adulteress. Of course there's the natural law, but since we're humans, allegedly capable of reasoning, through the years we've come to agree that some actions must never be condoned,regardless if such actions are morally correct (or superior) in other cultures. That's why I was referring to the Universal Human Rights Declaration.

Anyway, this is outside the scope of the discussion of the thread,so I'll end it here. Nice talking to you

Caterina

EDIT: forgot the smile

angelica

Rue D'Awakening wrote:

i too am a big fan of emotional intelligence and could spend hours discussing it with you. i wouldn't say your approach to the israel/iran dilemma is altogether invalid, i just don't think that it's the most realistic or analytically effective approach when talking about international relations. the individuals analogy has its limits; nation states are not perfectly parallel to individuals. they can have collective memory, collective emotions, but for the actual decision-making process of the leadership, there are many more considerations and obligations that the individual doesn't have.

My point of view is based on natural human interaction principles from the branch of psychology that deals with the subject. I can see the fallout of not aligning to these natural principles as it plays out on the world stage. I certainly understand that others are coming from differing perspectives based on their own criteria.

this got me thinking of an example that could support what you're saying. you might agree (though i don't) that the holocaust in jewish collective memory fits this bill. a traumatic past experience now clouds present judgement.

This is not what I'm talking about.

the argument falls apart however, as soon as you acknowledge the reality of the situation in the middle east. khomeinism is not an imagined fear, but a real and viable ideology. its principles, like national socialism, are clearly enumerated for anyone to see if they are curious enough to look. antisemitism is so pervasive and absolute, it is as much a cultural edifice in the middle east as it was in europe before and during wwii. if we were to say that israel's fear of this environment originates from collective memory rather than objective reason, we are doing israel a disservice by clouding reality. emotional self-reflection and objective reasoning is a two-way street. in the realm of international relations, i believe objective reasoning based upon empirical evidence is the better approach.

I'm very much for any people distinctly acknowledging, owning and living the fullness in their perspective. I feel this is all the more important when there is opposition to such a perspective. I suggest making sure that experience IS owned, processed and felt to as great a degree as is possible--hence my talk about feeling one's emotional experience in order to have as integrative and as wise a response as is possible. And once that is done, I support the most objective reasoning that is brought to the table. What that objective reasoning is then held to is to 'truth'. And if that 'objective reasoning' falls short and gets distorted with subjective experience, it will show and will be up for debate. In the end, the truth stands on it's own, regardless of what anyone says contrary to it.

You forget that in the analogy of individuals, the world is in anarchy. there is no police, there is no jail. It leaves the one who is threatened with the choice of waiting to be attacked, or acting preemptively. When the weapon to be used in the potential attack is 100% fatal, waiting to be attacked is nothing but inviting suicide.

I am pointing specifically to lines that I see being morphed together or glossed over. For example, your quotes. There is a very distinct line between making threats and taking action on those threats. Therefore the quotes to me may be an indicator of a problem, but are not proof of imminent danger. Acknowledging such fine lines constitutes the difference between perceiving what is actually happening and indicating a possible unresolved personal issue that may be clouding personal vision, in my opinion. I am not talking about a particular country or people here, or an analogy. I am talking about what your specific words and processes have indicated to me in this thread. Reasonableness is its own indicator. And again, when you say you need not process your feelings but rather you hold the agressor accountable for your experience, I notice that you are missing a crucial stage in there, and I must call out what I am seeing. I'm not saying that it's not perfectly natural that you would feel and act the way you would given the circumstances. I don't doubt you are doing the best you can given the context you are living in, as I am. I merely felt I had something to bring to this discussion. Although I will point out what I see as distortions, when all is said and done I support you completely, feeling and believing what you do given your own context.

angelica

CaterinaA wrote:

And we totally agree, it is wrong to put someone to death because they have killed someone else. Likewise, it is wrong to sell a woman or to beat her to death because she was adulteress. Of course there's the natural law, but since we're humans, allegedly capable of reasoning, through the years we've come to agree that some actions must never be condoned,regardless if such actions are morally correct (or superior) in other cultures. That's why I was referring to the Universal Human Rights Declaration.

Anyway, this is outside the scope of the discussion of the thread,so I'll end it here. Nice talking to you!

Caterina

We only agree when we agree. Apparently Iran does not agree or they would follow through on that. And I feel they are entitled to live the way they see fit--the same way I must accept when others are deliberately put to death. So while a universal human rights declaration works for some, apparently it does not work for others at this time, and therefore is not working universally. I certainly agree that gays are also entitled to live how they see fit. And I would do anything I could to effectively make those changes in Iran. In the end, I know effective change comes from within. And yes, I've enjoyed talking with you, too!

angelica

CaterinaA wrote:

And we totally agree, it is wrong to put someone to death because they have killed someone else. Likewise, it is wrong to sell a woman or to beat her to death because she was adulteress. Of course there's the natural law, but since we're humans, allegedly capable of reasoning, through the years we've come to agree that some actions must never be condoned,regardless if such actions are morally correct (or superior) in other cultures. That's why I was referring to the Universal Human Rights Declaration.

Anyway, this is outside the scope of the discussion of the thread,so I'll end it here. Nice talking to you

Caterina

EDIT: forgot the smile

One more thing. I do not in any way, shape or form condone mistreatment of gay people. If we were to truly focus on this issue, my concern would be how to effectively affect the Iranian people. Rather than doing any kind of condoning, my issue is clearly with any implication of the condoning of violence as a problem solver when we lack realistic problem solving ability.

Abuskedti

angelica wrote:

One more thing. I do not in any way, shape or form condone mistreatment of gay people. If we were to truly focus on this issue, my concern would be how to effectively affect the Iranian people. Rather than doing any kind of condoning, my issue is clearly with any implication of the condoning of violence as a problem solver when we lack realistic problem solving ability.

We can't affect them until we respect them.

angelica

Last Exodus wrote:

Dont confuse them with facts on this board. For some reason this board attracts a certain type of liberal, or more accurately radical type who deny any kind of misconduct against the United States or Israel or Jews. I dont know what it is, but facts dont seem to persuade anyone on this board when it comes to the United States, Israel, or Jews.

I would like to differ. I see that the certain "radical liberal" types on this board are seeking to present a lesser acknowledged perspective many times, and therefore are tying together a different set of facts. They are not responsible for proving your argument or anyone else's because that is not what they are setting out to do. When we can acknowledge and appreciate the contexts such "radical liberal" types are coming from, their arguments aren't quite so radical. Rather they come off more as the view of the lesser considered, and often marginalized minority. I usually find such arguments stand very much on their own, even when they conflict with what is a more commonly accepted view. And when they don't, in order to effectively dispute such points, one must address the points themselves in order to show that.

angelica

Abuskedti wrote:

We can't affect them until we respect them.

For sure. The basis to effective negotiation is accepting the base position of the other party. If we start out by minimizing the view of the opposition, we've begun by undermining the negotiation process. We can tell ourselves that the other guy's lack of readied, enthusiastic response is to his own fault, but that does not truly let us off the hook for what we actually set into play because of our own blind lack of skill and denial.