| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  Spores for European Microscopy  North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies  Bulk Cannabis Seeds  All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
| |||||||
 Traveller enthusiast Registered: 04/13/01 Posts: 309 Last seen: 18 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
So what? It makes no difference to me if some predator I've never met hates me, loves me, or is indifferent to me. All that I care about is that he not harm me. His motivation for letting me go about my life without being harmed by him is a matter of supreme indifference to me.
i think a lot of americans would say something similar about the evil terrorists around the world, or whoever might attack, or be plotting to attack the united states or americans abroad. build a missile shield, guard all the borders super tight so no one can get in, crack down on all the dangerous types already inside the country....and just act like all those people that hate america don't exist, or they just hate because they are hateful people?
| |||||||
|
Traveller enthusiast Registered: 04/13/01 Posts: 309 Last seen: 18 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
i reckon both of you guys made a lot of sense earlier on, but this is degenerating into nonsense or something with misquotes and "you said this but when i said that i really meant this" shit which isn't getting anywhere.
if pink's plan with the vengeful god striking down those with violent thoughts was possible then sure it might create a nonviolent safe world, or people might get angry and start to hate god for taking away people close to them...but basically it is not a practical theory and therefore not useful in any way. Shroomalicious's's way of thinking is closer to my own, but I believe that non-violence as a grand plan to change the world is a dream. fear is the enemy! or one of them. I think non-violence without fear is powerful. I have stood up to extremely violent, drunken people on several occasions and calmed them - or made them think twice - by being strong and clearly unafraid without being aggressive. this is what Gandhi and King taught and believed in. I have also had the living shit kicked out of me and my friends by other violent drunken kids, and they certainly didn't care that we didn't fight back. concussions all round, black eyes, one side of my face swelled to twice its size. we found out who they were and were keen to retaliate for a while - but decided against it, realizing that if we retaliated (with friends help of course), they would have to retaliate against our retaliation, then would we have to retaliate again?....all for what? I don't have a solution for all the violence in the world. I choose to practice things which make me stronger, in mind and body, so that I am no longer afraid.
| |||||||
|
Shroomalicious You may say I'ma  Registered: 06/20/02 Posts: 319 Loc: The Shire Last seen: 23 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
i reckon both of you guys made a lot of sense earlier on, but this is degenerating into nonsense or something with misquotes and "you said this but when i said that i really meant this" shit which isn't getting anywhere.
Actually I thought this was turning into a classic debate with two common opposites (non-violence people and...how shall I say...violence-has-it's-merits-p I really like your post though...thanks for your input about everything that you did comment on. One love. 
-------------------- Shroomalicious - I love you and in doing so I love myself, because we ARE all one - "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and toothless". - Mahatma Ghandi
| |||||||
|
Traveller enthusiast Registered: 04/13/01 Posts: 309 Last seen: 18 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
yeah I think it's good too, both sides make sense to me...like I'm all for non-violence -- which I have to say does not necessarily mean pacifism -- but then i think i probably have my limits as well.
I had a really interesting dream last year which will fit in here if i can get my head together and sum it up without rambling too much: I was inside, went outside into what looked like the centre of a little village - my village. the other folks ("my" folks-no familiar faces of real life friends but all the same i knew they were "my" group) were gathered outside and lots of them were armed (with berimbaus! -if you don't know what a berimbau is it's a kind of musical instrument, looks like a bow) and scared because our village was going to be attacked. I didn't know what to do - in my dream i was standing there thinking "why are they going to attack us? i don't want to fight with anyone, i don't even know these people who are going to attack so i don't want to hurt anyone. i'm a pacifist..." etc but then they arrived! out of the forest they came, some wearing chainmail type stuff and helmets (this dream was "the past") and i was still totally confused thinking shit i don't want to fight anyone what's going on who why? and now there's fighting and suddenly this dude's coming straight at me and i'm still freaking and then he's here and he stabs me under my left arm and it HURTS!!! and i shout in pain, reach out with both hands and break his neck! full-on!! and now i'm fighting, no more thinking "im a pacifist", no more thinking anything, pure adrenaline, fear-driven survival instinct type stuff, hand to hand fighting for my life, used knives, got thrown a hammer by a friend, got a nice little single-edged curved sword, a wood-chopping axe, and finally used two of the swords which enabled me to kill lots of people very efficiently. it was one fucked up dream! really intense, blood, fighting, hacking into other humans with a fucking axe! stabbing and slicing with swords and loving it because i could use them well (i'm good with swords). the end of the dream was pretty weird but irrelevant to this topic. the point is that up until the last moment i was totally confused, but when the moment came and that guy stabbed me i no longer had to think, i wasn't confused AT ALL. i fought with everything i had for a long time (i was totally exhausted by the end, could hardly swing my axe!) and I killed many people i had never met before in order to survive. so i woke up, and still remember this dream today, vividly, and know that maybe i'm not such a pacifist after all. or maybe my rational self is, but the survival instinct is still there...i think i like that gotta go friends here. peace! (get it?)
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son   Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
Shroomalicious writes:
What I meant by someone's law is that your philosophy would include SOMEONE'S definition of violence. Of course. One cannot discuss a problem, much less solve it, without first defining it. You are in favor of NON-violence, correct? You therefore ALSO have a definition of violence. Our difference of opinion has nothing to do with the DEFINITION of violence, but on whether or not the overall level of violent human behavior is best reduced by dealing with it through the use of objective laws and objective punishment applied instantly and equally to ALL violent offenders, including heads of state. Some people think killing a killer is justice, others think it is violence, just for one example. And some people think that allowing a violent offender to continue harming others is INjustice. I guess what it comes down to is I trust the current system more than I trust a computer. I repeat for the third time, don't get hung up on the MECHANISM. Try to address the fundamental PRINCIPLE I am espousing here -- universal and instantaneous punishment for ALL who initiate the use of violence against humans. You say you trust the current system. What is the current system but a less efficient model of the same principle I just described? I say it is less efficient because it is not universal (many of the violent are never apprehended, much less punished) nor is it instantaneous (even once caught, possibly after many years of effort by the system, lengthy delays in trials are the norm). My opinion is irrelevant? Not your opinion that "the system still doesn't destroy the hate because this system is working without love", but the FACT that the system doesn't destroy hate. It doesn't HAVE to destroy hate in order to accomplish its goal. It is completely irrelevant to the system's function of protecting the prey from the predators. I think all those other crimes you speak of, grew out of hatred. Fine. If that is what you truly believe, then discard them completely then and focus only on the most serious of violent crimes, murder. Do you dispute my claim that many murders are motivated by emotions other than hate? My version of "Option 1" - Create a world, one by one meticulously with patience, in which there is no reason to hate. Where murders are kept watch on... How? How SPECIFICALLY can you identify a murderer? How SPECIFICALLY can you "keep a watch on" them once they are identified? ...but ultimately treated as humans. Kept from murdering... How? By what SPECIFIC non-violent method can you prevent a murderer from murdering? ...but being "rehabed", instead of murdered or just thrown into a cell and forgotten about. When crime happens it is learned about and understood and then steps are taken to see that those conditions that lead to the crime, namely hate... What about greed? Love? Jealousy? Lust for power? Delusions? It seems from your posts that you subscribe to "the devil made me do it" school of morality. "There is no such thing as a bad person, just bad conditions". "People do bad things to others not because they are bad, but because they can't HELP but hurt others due to the conditions around them". "I just HAD to whack that dude over the head and rip off his car stereo, man! It wasn't my fault, it's cuz the place where I live is infested with hoes and winos." ... are not duplicated. Disliking the sin, but not the commiter of sin. Not returning hate with hate, but creating a world in which hate has not place. IMO, there is no substantive difference between what I wrote and what you re-wrote. All flowery phrases and adjectives aside, IMO your version of Option 1) boils down to my version: allow the violent to perform violent acts, but in the meantime educate them and all others that hatred and violence is wrong and wait for people to stop acting violently. IMO, the government of such a society would be overthrown (at least it wouldn't have to be VIOLENTLY overthrown, I'll give you that) in about a week, maybe two weeks, depending on how tolerant the citizens were of being robbed, raped, beaten and murdered. Alternatively, IMO the government would simply be (correctly) ignored and individuals and/or groups of individuals would turn to vigilanteism as a means of self-protection. Hypothetically, if your system worked exactly the way you say it would, then aside from destroying freedom... WHAT freedom? The only freedom that would be destroyed is the "freedom" to destroy others. You are left free to do whatever the hell you want, as long as you don't mess with others. Unfortunely I find that technology to be unrealistic and subject to errors... Think "concept", not "details". ... meaning loss of human life, which I find unexceptable. So you find the loss of life of violent humans unacceptable, but not the loss of life of peaceful humans? I see. I do NOT think my opinion is right. We agree on at least one point, then. I believe it is, and that is not just some insignificant nick-nack choice of words in my opinion. Words reflect my mind, I believe in my opinion but I do not think it is right and everyone else is wrong because everyone else has a mind, body and spirit (or not, if you do not believe in that) so we are all even, and nobody's opinion is anymore creditable then the next guys, IMO. You've lost me. No one's opinion has any more validity than anyone else's opinion? If you really believe that, why are you making sly comparisons between me and Hitler? My opinion is just as right as yours, correct? How can that be? Since we believe in completely opposite things, one of our opinions must logically be erroneous. They cannot BOTH be correct. Once again, you are saying anyone who holds an opinion contrary to your beliefs is "incapable of thinking in fundamental principles". IMO, the fact that you make that statement shows that you either have not read what I wrote or have not grasped the fundamental principle I am expressing. There are MANY people who hold opinions different than mine who can think in principles. But anyone who equates my hypothetical "instant impartial violence eliminator" computer system with the mass INITIATION of violence against innocent, helpless, peaceful people instituted by Adolf Hitler has not grasped the fundamental principle being described. Not only accusing them of being stupid but of being immoral, simply because they do not share your opinions. Where did I say anything about them being either stupid or -- especially -- IMMORAL? Re-read my posts, please. Being a student of History I cannot remeber this working for long at all...however, that does NOT mean it didn't happen. Julius Caesar, King Canute, Theodoric the Great, Motecazuma, the Chiefs of countless North American native tribes, dozens of Egyptian Pharaohs, the Sultan of Brunei, etc., etc. Here's the bottom line (IMO, of course): The most effective way to end violence is to make the consequences of its initiation so draconian that only the most incorrigible will ever even ATTEMPT a violent act, and then only once. Take feudal Japan as an example. No prisons, virtually zero crimes against either people or property. Why? Instant execution of all offenders. The least effective way to end violence is to eschew the retaliatory use of violence. Note that it was not the non-violence of the millions of slaughtered Jews that toppled the Third Reich, it was the massive application of violence exerted by the Allies. pinky -------------------- 
Edited by pinksharkmark (11/01/02 08:25 PM)
| |||||||
 Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
why are you making sly comparisons between me and Hitler?
Because you consider killing people instantly the best way to solve a problem. So did Hitler. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
Shroomalicious You may say I'ma Registered: 06/20/02 Posts: 319 Loc: The Shire Last seen: 23 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
And some people think that allowing a violent offender to continue harming others is INjustice.
I never said I would allow killers to continue killing. I just said I wouldn't kill them. I repeat for the third time, don't get hung up on the MECHANISM. Try to address the fundamental PRINCIPLE I am espousing here -- universal and instantaneous punishment for ALL who initiate the use of violence against humans. Okay, actually....gotcha now. This again, though, comes down to a difference in values. If I understand correctly you are saying you would be glad to sacrifice personal freedom of not only yourself but of others in an effort to force people not to kill? (Forgive me if I am still caught up on the mechanism but I say you are willing to give up personal freedom because you said the mechanism would be implanted involuntarily in everyone's head at birth. You think that is a reasonable plan and that leads me to believe you wouldn't mind your freedoms infringed on, in other words chips forced into your brain, as long as you knew you could be safe. Right? Sorry, just trying to really understand.) I am saying I believe I have a way to end killing that enables us to keep our personal freedoms. Not your opinion that "the system still doesn't destroy the hate because this system is working without love", but the FACT that the system doesn't destroy hate. It doesn't HAVE to destroy hate in order to accomplish its goal. It is completely irrelevant to the system's function of protecting the prey from the predators. I see. Once again it comes down to a good old fashion difference of values. I think it is vital to distroy hate (in order to bring the world, as one, into a Utopian soceity) and you think it is not important as long as you can get everyone else to not murder. Correct? Fine. If that is what you truly believe, then discard them completely then and focus only on the most serious of violent crimes, murder. Do you dispute my claim that many murders are motivated by emotions other than hate? Actually I do. I think jealousy is hatred of what someone else has that you do not, thus hating the person too. I think Greed and lust for power are two in the same. I think Greed/lust for power come out of the idea that you (or at least your opinion) is better than anyone elses, and so you must rise above everyone else (whether it be in Government or in riches, etc) because ultimately you have no respect for everyone else, because they are inferior to you. Believing others are inferior is hating them, is it not? How? How SPECIFICALLY can you identify a murderer? As someone who murders. How SPECIFICALLY can you "keep a watch on" them once they are identified? I do believe that a certain amount of law and order is reasonable to keep people safe. I suppose this is my conservative parts talking. Even I have them...I see it as a worthy trade that if you kill someone you must be kept in a humane environment, namely my form of prison. Although I bang a gong about personal freedoms, I just can't get by letting murders lose. I still believe at their core they want to be good people, but regarless if they are a threat to someone's family than what alternative do we (society) have?It seems from your posts that you subscribe to "the devil made me do it" school of morality. "There is no such thing as a bad person, just bad conditions". "People do bad things to others not because they are bad, but because they can't HELP but hurt others due to the conditions around them". "I just HAD to whack that dude over the head and rip off his car stereo, man! It wasn't my fault, it's cuz the place where I live is infested with hoes and winos." To a large extent I would agree. I guess I would have to agree with Anne Frank when she said (jndirect qoute) deep down inside everyone is a good person. (Interesting coming from someone living under fear of the Nazi party, hardly a "jaded" perspective.) However, a responsible person has to realise that eventually society is no longer the cause of their problems. After you "grow up" you owe to everyone else, IMO, to get it together and stop messing up and blaming it on everyone else. However, I DO believe that if people had it right growing up that they would be decent people. In other words, society DOES have an effect on them and also, at the core they ARE decent people. In my opinion. In short, I believe you have to be responsible for your own decisions, yet at the same time its not like abusive parents didn't have their effect on you...know what I mean? So to those people who have not "got it together" enough to realise they are not just a victim of circumstances, they have to be in a situation where they cannot hurt others, IMO. Where they can be taught, helped to "get it together", not where they are just scolded. IMO, there is no substantive difference between what I wrote and what you re-wrote. All flowery phrases and adjectives aside, IMO your version of Option 1) boils down to my version: allow the violent to perform violent acts, but in the meantime educate them and all others that hatred and violence is wrong and wait for people to stop acting violently. I suppose it could be summed up as this...I would like to give criminals an education in love is better than hate and you would like to scare "would be" criminals into thinking crime doesn't pay, correct? I do think there is a major diffence in how each one would effect the world and how each one would be put into play...much more than "flowery phrases". IMO, the government of such a society would be overthrown (at least it wouldn't have to be VIOLENTLY overthrown, I'll give you that) in about a week, maybe two weeks, depending on how tolerant the citizens were of being robbed, raped, beaten and murdered. Alternatively, IMO the government would simply be (correctly) ignored and individuals and/or groups of individuals would turn to vigilanteism as a means of self-protection. Maybe I am getting lost again but you said in the previous paragraph that we had basically the same ideas...but now you say that mine would not work, and yours would. I don't believe in lawlessness, I believe in love. Another misconception about non-violent people is that they believe in hugging killers and then letting them carry on about their business. At least in my case I still believe that convicted murders and rapers must be imprisoned, although my prison would be much different (with a focus on rehabilitation rather than "locking them up and throwing away the key"). WHAT freedom? The only freedom that would be destroyed is the "freedom" to destroy others. I mean to say, your Government would have the power to put chips into babies heads, regardless of what the newborns parents might say. Putting computer chips with explosives into a childs brain, I would define that as walking upright into personal freedom territory. Know what I mean? So you find the loss of life of violent humans unacceptable, but not the loss of life of peaceful humans? I see. Seriously man...do you honestly think that is what I believe? All I am saying is I don't believe in the term "acceptable losses". I hope you understand that friend. You seem to be getting qiute irritated, and I am truly sorry for irritating you. I mean it, I do not wish you irritation. My opinion is just as right as yours, correct? How can that be? Since we believe in completely opposite things, one of our opinions must logically be erroneous. They cannot BOTH be correct. Like I said before...IMO, NEITHER is correct...because I don't believe in "correct". I believe in "unacceptable to me"(like the Holocaust), but that doesn't mean it is unacceptable to you. Who is to say you are wrong? Not me. Who's to say I am wrong? While you have the freedom to say it, it doesn't mean you are "right", IMO. As the elder Gallagher would say, "Who are you and me to say what's wrong and what's right?" I believe, in my soul, that killing is wrong...but I cannot prove it. I can show you tears, I can show you blood...but unlike 2 + 2 being 4 I cannot show you the "right" answer. I believe the right answer to killing and blood is to stop because it isn't right, but how can I prove this? Please don't misunderstand me as saying "killing isn't so bad", because I didn't say that and many people in the past have misunderstood me on that. IMO, the fact that you make that statement shows that you either have not read what I wrote or have not grasped the fundamental principle I am expressing. Is it, at all, possible that I HAVE read your post, I do understand the fundamental principal of what you are saying...I just do not agree? But anyone who equates my hypothetical "instant impartial violence eliminator" computer system with the mass INITIATION of violence against innocent, helpless, peaceful people instituted by Adolf Hitler has not grasped the fundamental principle being described. I would say the comparisons to Hitler are because you believe that your way is a way that must be forced onto all others, because you believe it works. Now regardless of Hitlers history, is that NOT in sync with his philosophy? My way or...there isn't an "or"? Where did I say anything about them being either stupid or -- especially -- IMMORAL? To qoute you - Only those people incapable of thinking in fundamental principles. The opinion of anyone who thinks advocating a plan to stop all violence at the source bears any relationship to Hitler's well-documented life of virtually unceasing initiation of violent acts is not worthy of consideration by anyone capable of rational thought. So you said they were stupid because they were "not worthy of consideration". You said they were immoral when you said they were "incapable of thinking in fundamental principals". Lacking fundanmental principals is lacking morality, is it not? Being unoworthy of consideration is being stupid, is it not? Julius Caesar He was not a dictator by definition. Rome was a democracy consisting of an executive branch with elected magistrates,a legislative branch consiting of three assemblies, lead by elected censors and magistrates and a Senate which was lead by two elected consules. Caesar was hardly a one man government is my point. King Canute It is nice to see someone else with a knowledge of Scandanavian History! All right man, I am excited! We should go out for a beer man! Me and you could talk history and philosophy all night! Oh yes, the serious rebuttle...(Serious tone)...It is funny you mention Canute as an example of a one man Government because he was a guy who didn't believe in the power of kings. There is the obvious famous qoute of "Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings." Canute himself was a believer in the opinion that a Dictatorship is hopeless. Theodoric the Great He was pretty much a dictator but he was a, relative to dictators, tolerant one, allowing all forms of Christianity and sharing power with the Pope for instance, very radical in those times. However, his plan to unite the people of the Mediterranean failed in a short period of time because ultimately anyone who did not agree with his plan of unity was put to death (the famous people being Boeththius and the Senator Symmachus, for example) and his the Ostrogoths (whom he was the King of to those who do not know) died out because of it, soon there after in 553, some 70 years after he took the title of King...so his system of Government worked...but not longer than 70 years. The USA's has worked for nearly 230 years. If you ask me he was just another well meaning guy, who ultimately was someone who believed his way was the only way and peace would come if everyone who he disagreed with was just murdered...not unlike the Fuhrer we have been speaking of, eh? Motecazuma Unless you mean Motazuma, I don't know who this is, so I am not educated enough to comment. Please supply some form of information on him. the Chiefs of countless North American native tribes If these were so successful how come there were so many of them? Non of them lasted because they all got toppled in short periods of time by each other. Eventually the Europeans came in, but that was later. If you examine Native American history they did plenty of fighting and dying off and rebuilding...and besides it was commonplace for chiefs to discuss policy at a sort of town meeting where tribes members could vote, not the sort of thing that comes from a dictator. dozens of Egyptian Pharaohs Egypt as a soceity (with Pharaohs) lasted a long time, about three thousand years. However, no one was in control for long. The average family was in power for about 100 years (notice I said family, as in family name, not one guy), and often the first Pharoh of a family was murdered so his power could be passed to his son and then ultimately over thrown by someone else, and so it went...Egypt was a successful enough soceity but each ruler could not hold onto power (never "voted off" either I might add) and ultimately they were easily defeated by the Persians. Also, they were not such dictators either...the Pharaohs appointed "reagional" authority to middle class individuals (not upper class because, in the Pharaohs mind they held to much power...not lower class because they were thought of as scum) who had to answer to the people of their region. the Sultan of Brunei Which one? ALL OF THE ABOVE, IS ONLY MY OPINION. Thanks so much for continuing to do this with me because I am really coming to understand things better, and I hope you are too. Not that either of us is being convinced our beliefs are "misguided" or whatever, but I know I am gaining a better understanding of your beliefs. This has been most educational, beneficial and ultimately fun! I hope it goes on... -------------------- Shroomalicious - I love you and in doing so I love myself, because we ARE all one - "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and toothless". - Mahatma Ghandi
Edited by Shroomalicious (11/02/02 06:08 AM)
| |||||||
|
Shroomalicious You may say I'ma Registered: 06/20/02 Posts: 319 Loc: The Shire Last seen: 23 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
I hope people read my last post (which included pinky's well written explanations as well) because I think I did a really good job of explaining myself and it also includes Pinky doing a really good job of explaning himself.
I think the last post wonderfully explains two men with very different philosophies yet with the same goal. Me and Pinky put a lot of thought into our sentences and I think there is a WHOLE HECK OF A LOT said by him and me. Sorry if I sound full of myself but I LOVE a good debate! Please read and comment, its not so long, just looks that way because lots of spaces and qoutes. It should take you 5 minutes, please comment on it...
-------------------- Shroomalicious - I love you and in doing so I love myself, because we ARE all one - "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and toothless". - Mahatma Ghandi
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
I never said I would allow killers to continue killing.
And *I* asked how, SPECIFICALLY, would you stop them non-violently? If I understand correctly you are saying you would be glad to sacrifice personal freedom of not only yourself but of others in an effort to force people not to kill? I would have given up exactly ZERO freedom. As you pointed out, under the current system in place I am subject to punishment anyway for violent acts IF apprehended and IF my lawyer doesn't manage to bamboozle the jury (Again, think "OJ Simpson"). I say you are willing to give up personal freedom because you said the mechanism would be implanted involuntarily in everyone's head at birth. You think that is a reasonable plan and that leads me to believe you wouldn't mind your freedoms infringed on, in other words chips forced into your brain, as long as you knew you could be safe. Right? WHAT freedom is being impinged upon? As a matter of fact, I GAIN freedom -- I am now free from the violent acts of others. Implanting a chip in me (and EVERYONE else) means I no longer have to worry about being killed by a violent human, just as vaccinating me (and everyone else) against diptheria, polio, tetanus, smallpox, etc. means I am free from being killed by those diseases. Note that mass vaccination programs are involuntary. I think it is vital to distroy hate (in order to bring the world, as one, into a Utopian soceity) and you think it is not important as long as you can get everyone else to not murder. Correct? You got it. First of all, the elimination of hatred is impossible. Secondly, from the point of view of everyone else, the fact that a hater feels hatred is IRRELEVANT to their lives as long as he doesn't ACT out that hatred through violent behavior. Your internal state has no direct impact on me. If we are both walking down the street, and you are in a state of ecstacy, or zonked to the eyeballs on ten grams of shrooms, or seething with hatred, and we pass each other by and continue on our way, how has my life been affected? Answer: not at all. But if you allow ANY of those emotions to rule your behavior towards me rather than continuing to walk on by, it's a different story. I think Greed/lust for power come out of the idea that you (or at least your opinion) is better than anyone elses, and so you must rise above everyone else (whether it be in Government or in riches, etc) because ultimately you have no respect for everyone else, because they are inferior to you. Wow. Interesting point of view. Bizarre, but interesting. Greed has nothing to do with hating people. A businessman hires a hit man to kill a business rival not because he hates him, but because he wants to take over his business so he can buy a Ferrari rather than a BMW. Believing others are inferior is hating them, is it not? Nope. I do believe that a certain amount of law and order is reasonable to keep people safe... I see it as a worthy trade that if you kill someone you must be kept in a humane environment, namely my form of prison. Although I bang a gong about personal freedoms, I just can't get by letting murders lose. I still believe at their core they want to be good people, but regarless if they are a threat to someone's family than what alternative do we (society) have? And how do you propose to non-violently capture them (against their will) and imprison them (against their will) if they resist? However, I DO believe that if people had it right growing up that they would be decent people. In other words, society DOES have an effect on them and also, at the core they ARE decent people. In my opinion. Like the Menendez brothers? Like Ted Bundy? Like OJ Simpson? Maybe I am getting lost again but you said in the previous paragraph that we had basically the same ideas... No. I said we both want the same end result. Another misconception about non-violent people is that they believe in hugging killers and then letting them carry on about their business. At least in my case I still believe that convicted murders and rapers must be imprisoned, although my prison would be much different (with a focus on rehabilitation rather than "locking them up and throwing away the key"). Again, HOW -- using non-violent methods -- will you imprison someone who doesn't agree to being imprisoned? So you find the loss of life of violent humans unacceptable, but not the loss of life of peaceful humans? Seriously man...do you honestly think that is what I believe? All I am saying is I don't believe in the term "acceptable losses". The only losses under Option 2 are predators, with the prey free to live a happy, peaceful life. The only losses under Option 1 are prey, with the predators free to continue destroying prey until they finally (if ever) "see the light". Like I said before...IMO, NEITHER is correct...because I don't believe in "correct". I believe in "unacceptable to me"(like the Holocaust), but that doesn't mean it is unacceptable to you. Who is to say you are wrong? Not me. Who's to say I am wrong? While you have the freedom to say it, it doesn't mean you are "right", IMO. As the elder Gallagher would say, "Who are you and me to say what's wrong and what's right?" Sorry. To me the above does not compute. Either water is wet or it is not. Either retaliatory violence as an ultimate response to the initiation of violence is acceptable or it is not. Is it, at all, possible that I HAVE read your post, I do understand the fundamental principal of what you are saying...I just do not agree? No, your response indicated not that you had "grasped the fundamental principle but happen to disagree with it", but that you had not grasped the fundamental principle at all. I have debated here and in other forums with many people who DO understand the principles, but draw different conclusions from them. I have no problem with that. I would say the comparisons to Hitler are because you believe that your way is a way that must be forced onto all others, because you believe it works. Now regardless of Hitlers history, is that NOT in sync with his philosophy? Sigh. That is the same as comparing all dog lovers to Hitler because Hitler loved dogs, or comparing all vegetarians to Hitler because Hitler was a vegetarian. Try to grasp the fundamental principle being discussed here -- the initiation of physical force in human affairs is wrong. The retaliatory application of physical force against the INITIATOR and ONLY the initiator is not wrong. That is about as far from Hitler's philosophy as one can get. To qoute you - Only those people incapable of thinking in fundamental principles. The opinion of anyone who thinks advocating a plan to stop all violence at the source bears any relationship to Hitler's well-documented life of virtually unceasing initiation of violent acts is not worthy of consideration by anyone capable of rational thought. So you said they were stupid because they were "not worthy of consideration". No, I did not say they were stupid. I didn't even say their OPINIONS were stupid. I said their OPINIONS were not worthy of CONSIDERATION, and I stand by that statement. Why bother even considering an opinion that does not address the fundamental principle being discussed? Such an opinion is, at best, irrelevant to the discussion. You said they were immoral when you said they were "incapable of thinking in fundamental principals". Lacking fundanmental principals is lacking morality, is it not? I didn't say they were "LACKING fundamental principles," I said they were incapable of THINKING in fundamental principles. That is not the same thing at all. Context is everything. Being unoworthy of consideration is being stupid, is it not? Not necessarily, but it IS irrelevant. See above. Motecazuma Unless you mean Motazuma, I don't know who this is, so I am not educated enough to comment. Please supply some form of information on him. The head honcho of the largest tribe of Aztecs at the time Cortez landed. the Sultan of Brunei Which one? The current one. Look, you originally stated: That is why a one man Government has yet to work. I provided a brief list of several one-man Governments that DID work. You are basically responding that they only worked while the head of the government was alive, which is EXACTLY what I had first said -- There have been many one-man governments in recorded history that worked just fine. Depends entirely on who the man was and what fundamental principles he chose to govern by. I could go on to comment one by one on your analyses of them, but that would be steering the thread off topic, and would best be continued in the Political Discussion forum. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Shroomalicious You may say I'ma Registered: 06/20/02 Posts: 319 Loc: The Shire Last seen: 23 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
And *I* asked how, SPECIFICALLY, would you stop them non-violently?
I believe in forceful imprisonment if that is what Democracy judges is needed. I believe in Democracy. I would have given up exactly ZERO freedom. Is having a chip with explosives FORCED into your brain, NOT giving up freedom? WHAT freedom is being impinged upon? Freedom to not have my newborns brain loaded with explosives. I know this is the mechanism again, but your idea says you are WILLING to give that up. No. I said we both want the same end result. Actually you said - IMO, there is no substantive difference between what I wrote and what you re-wrote. All flowery phrases and adjectives aside, IMO your version of Option 1) boils down to my version: allow the violent to perform violent acts, but in the meantime educate them and all others that hatred and violence is wrong and wait for people to stop acting violently. Greed has nothing to do with hating people. Well, in my opinion it does. Like the Menendez brothers? Like Ted Bundy? Like OJ Simpson? Is your point that these children all grew up in ideal lives? Either retaliatory violence as an ultimate response to the initiation of violence is acceptable or it is not. Acceptable to who? To you? Does that make it right? No, your response indicated not that you had "grasped the fundamental principle but happen to disagree with it", but that you had not grasped the fundamental principle at all. I am sorry I just disagree. I see what you are saying (IMO) and I have heard it before, I just think the principal is flawed. I said their OPINIONS were not worthy of CONSIDERATION, and I stand by that statement. So you are saying that believing someone is "stupid" and believing their opinions not worthy of consideration are NOT related? The head honcho of the largest tribe of Aztecs at the time Cortez landed. I could easily be wrong here but I believe you are mistaken in your spelling...it is Motazuma (whom I HAVE heard of) not Motecazuma. I provided a brief list of several one-man Governments that DID work. Well, here lies our difference of opinion, I believe I gave detailed information as to why they were NOT one man Governments. Having one man at the HEAD of a Government is not the same as a dictator, and I was asking for dictators. are basically responding that they only worked while the head of the government was alive No, I don't believe I said that at all. I did say the Ostrogoths failed AFTER Theodore died, but I didn't say it only worked well he was alive. I said the Ostrogoths didn't last long because, IMO, their government (Theodore's) didn't work. My enthusiasm for this post goes on! Much Love! -------------------- Shroomalicious - I love you and in doing so I love myself, because we ARE all one - "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and toothless". - Mahatma Ghandi
Edited by Shroomalicious (11/02/02 05:37 PM)
| |||||||
|
Evolving Resident Cynic  Registered: 10/01/02 Posts: 5,385 Loc: Apt #6, The Vill |
| ||||||
|
"They willingly traded everything they owned... They were well built, with good bodies and handsome features... They do not bear arms, and do not know them... They would make fine servants... With fifty men we could subjugate them and make them do whatever we want."
-- Christopher Columbus upon meeting the Arawak Indians when first "Discovering The Indies" I can imagine a society of pacifists, all refusing to bear arms to protect themselves or their loved ones. I can imagine a society devoted to loving their enemies and refusing to use force even if it means death. I can imagine such a society becoming overrun by aggressors, their property taken by those who have the will and the means, their women raped and beaten before having their throats cut, their progeny enslaved or massacred... a society doomed to the ash heap of history, their ideals snuffed out with their lives. I will choose peace whenever it can reasonably be kept, whenever it can reasonably be obtained. But to choose a peace that will result in the death of innocents, when it means that those I love will die, this is not peace, but suicide. I choose life and I will fight for life. To choose a peace that will result in me licking the boots of those that kick me is not peace, but slavery. I choose liberty and I will fight for liberty. Fear will not be my master and no man shall be my slave. -------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
Three cheers for Evolving!
Did you deliberately choose the example of the Arawaks because you know I live in the Dominican Republic? The Arawaks were wiped out in less than fifty years by the Spanish. I mean literally COMPLETELY wiped out. Not a single one left. A prime example of the fate (extinction) of societies who renounce the use of retaliatory force. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
Shroomalicious writes:
I believe in forceful imprisonment if that is what Democracy judges is needed. I believe in Democracy. So it is okay to resort to violence to subdue someone who resists imprisonment. Is having a chip with explosives FORCED into your brain, NOT giving up freedom? Is having a needle loaded with pathogens FORCED into your arm (smallpox vaccination) not giving up freedom? For the fifth time, don't get hung up on the MECHANISM. Try to think IN PRINCIPLES. Address the CONCEPT, not the details. If you don't like the idea of having it inside your body, let's change it to a tiny airborne drone that hovers a meter or two over your shoulder everywhere you go. Whenever you attempt to forcibly harm another, the drone zaps you. Let's go with that "zap" producing instantaneous UNCONSCIOUSNESS for an hour or so, rather than death. This is now the THIRD time I have mentioned unconsciousness rather than outright death -- I still don't understand why you haven't acknowledged my concession re the unconsciousness thing. Are you deliberately ignoring it in order to prolong an argument? Is your point that these children all grew up in ideal lives? Oh, now it isn't enough that their formative years be free from hate, they must be IDEAL? Fine. Go to the "True Crime" section of any bookstore and pick up a few books by Anne Rule or Joe McGinnis and read about murderers who came from wealthy or upper middle class white backgrounds who had everything they ever wanted and a stable, loving family. Have you ever read anything about Ted Bundy? Acceptable to who? To you? Does that make it right? Acceptable to society. Even YOU must admit that virtually every society in recorded history has considered the use of retaliatory violence in self-defense to be acceptable. Murderers were punished; those defending themselves (even VIOLENTLY defending themselves) from being murdered were NOT punished. So you are saying that believing someone is "stupid" and believing their opinions not worthy of consideration are NOT related? That's exactly what I am saying. Stupid people occasionally hold opinions worthy of consideration. Intelligent people occasionally hold opinions unworthy of consideration. Having one man at the HEAD of a Government is not the same as a dictator, and I was asking for dictators. No you weren't. Here is your comment that started the exchange: I know you believe your opinions are fact, but like me you are just one man and we are fallable people. That is why a one man Government has yet to work. As a courtesy to Traveller, let's review at least our OWN statements before responding so he won't accuse us of a "you said" - "no I didn't say" kind of exchange, shall we? Every case I mentioned (and I could have mentioned MANY more) was an example of a one man government. Your protest that some of these people had "advisors" and underlings in remote areas of their empires to carry out their decisions doesn't alter the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE that they were in absolute command of their societies -- each command they made carried the weight of absolute law, council or no council, provincial governor or no provincial governor. I repeat: if this subtopic is to be pursued further, it's best to do so in the Political Discussion forum. If you adopt the attitude of your opinion is fact and everyone else is wrong this is the textbook attitude that makes people reject totalitarianism, dictatorship and most organized religions. Everyone of those things simply believed that their way was the only way...that if other people did not agree with them they were idiots and WRONG. That is a preposterous statement. The Founding Fathers were unshakeably convinced that individual freedom (including freedom from majority rule) was the only correct thing on which to base a civilized society. They were hardly totalitarian dictators. Ghandi had unshakeable faith that his method of passive resistance was the only way. Ghandi was hardly a dictator. The fact that one rejects incorrect arguments does not make one a religious fanatic or a totalitarian or a dictator. If that were the case, I could call 95% of the posters to this forum totalitarian dictators. For the second time, I don't think you are an idiot. You are, however, wrong. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Shroomalicious You may say I'ma Registered: 06/20/02 Posts: 319 Loc: The Shire Last seen: 23 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
So it is okay to resort to violence to subdue someone who resists imprisonment.
I would say that it is crucial to imprison those who are deemed dangerous, I would not kill them though (nor hate them), but I would not let a murderer murder. That has been my point from the start. Address the CONCEPT, not the details. I did. The concept, to me, was that infringing on personal freedom in that sort of radical way is not my idea of a better world. Oh, now it isn't enough that their formative years be free from hate, they must be IDEAL? Fine. Go to the "True Crime" section of any bookstore and pick up a few books by Anne Rule or Joe McGinnis and read about murderers who came from wealthy or upper middle class white backgrounds who had everything they ever wanted and a stable, loving family. Have you ever read anything about Ted Bundy? Yes, I have read plenty on the topic. Ted Bundy was picked on feircly by his peirs, has this not been proven to make children violent? There is more to adverse background that social status and parental relationships. Acceptable to society. Even YOU must admit that virtually every society in recorded history has considered the use of retaliatory violence in self-defense to be acceptable. Murderers were punished; those defending themselves (even VIOLENTLY defending themselves) from being murdered were NOT punished. This is ture. My point is though, an idea is not a fact simply because a lot of people embrace it. That's exactly what I am saying. Stupid people occasionally hold opinions worthy of consideration. Intelligent people occasionally hold opinions unworthy of consideration. Okay then I understand. However, I still took it as an attempt to insult which is the point I am driving at. No you weren't. Here is your comment that started the exchange: I know you believe your opinions are fact, but like me you are just one man and we are fallable people. That is why a one man Government has yet to work. As a courtesy to Traveller, let's review at least our OWN statements before responding so he won't accuse us of a "you said" - "no I didn't say" kind of exchange, shall we? A one man Government IS a dictatorship. So when I ask for a one man Government I am asking for a dictatorship, none of the people you mentioned had a dictators power, except perhaps Theodore and his people didn't last. I think Democracy is the only long term Government that will work. Every case I mentioned (and I could have mentioned MANY more) was an example of a one man government. Perhaps we are working on different definitions of "one man Government". The people you mentioned (at least the way I see) were HEADS of Government, but they were not the end all be all of law and order, etc. in there regions. The Founding Fathers...were hardly totalitarian dictators. The slaves may not have agreed with you. Ghandi had unshakeable faith that his method of passive resistance was the only way. Ghandi was hardly a dictator. Yes, but the difference is Ghandi didn't FORCE anyone to believe what he believed or anyone to live by his law. The fact that one rejects incorrect arguments does not make one a religious fanatic or a totalitarian or a dictator. If that were the case, I could call 95% of the posters to this forum totalitarian dictators. I think that is a common characteristic of a totalitarian dictator. And who says arguments are incorrect? You? Is your opinion fact? You may think so but other may not be willing to agree. Everyone who believe there opinion is fact and desires to force it on everyone, IMO, does not do it because they desire people to be miserable, they do it because they think there way works. Just because you believe your opinion is the only way doesn't mean it is. It doesn't mean you have the right force others to believe you. -------------------- Shroomalicious - I love you and in doing so I love myself, because we ARE all one - "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and toothless". - Mahatma Ghandi
| |||||||
|
Shroomalicious You may say I'ma Registered: 06/20/02 Posts: 319 Loc: The Shire Last seen: 23 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
BTW, I am continuing the post in the political discussion forum. So find it there, if you wish.
-------------------- Shroomalicious - I love you and in doing so I love myself, because we ARE all one - "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and toothless". - Mahatma Ghandi
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
I would say that it is crucial to imprison those who are deemed dangerous, I would not kill them though (nor hate them), but I would not let a murderer murder. That has been my point from the start.
Ah. So your definition of "violence" is limited strictly to murder, not to beating the crap out of someone. Ted Bundy was picked on feircly by his peirs, has this not been proven to make children violent? No, it hasn't come even close to being proven. But if you want to eliminate Ted Bundy, that's okay by me. What about Christopher Pritchard? Patrica Krenwinkle? Denise Atkins? As I said, browse through the "True Crime" section of your nearest library and read about a few people who had IDEAL childhoods and ended up murdering out of greed or misplaced love or just out of sheer boredom. So now in order to fulfill Option 1 our task is not only to eliminate HATE (an impossible task), but to provide "ideal" childhoods for everyone on the planet (clearly an even MORE impossible task) even though there are countless well-documented cases of murderers who had wonderful childhoods. My point is though, an idea is not a fact simply because a lot of people embrace it. You are correct. This is one reason why pure democracy as a way of running a civilized society is such a disastrous idea. However, the fact that the vast majority of humanity since the dawn of recorded history (not just "a lot" of people -- virtually ALL the people) have independently come to the same conclusion about the permissibility of retaliatory violence in the case of self-defense means that in order to discredit it we need a lot more than just your BELIEF that it is wrong. We need more than just speculation that if we provide everyone with perfect conditions and bathe them in love they will refrain from harming us. So far, in my half century on this planet, I have seen no evidence that this is the case, and believe me, I have been looking pretty hard. I think that is a common characteristic of a totalitarian dictator. It is a common characteristic of MANY people, the vast majority of whom are not totalitarian dictators. Please allow me to offer some advice -- if you accuse everyone you meet who has strongly-held convictions of being a totalitarian dictator, you will have a difficult life. Not all of them will exhibit self restraint. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
FreezingPenguin member  Registered: 10/23/02 Posts: 161 Loc: Karl Densons Tin Last seen: 23 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
you are a tyrrant
| |||||||
|
Traveller enthusiast Registered: 04/13/01 Posts: 309 Last seen: 18 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
pinksharkmark is not a tyrant he is a realist.
my stance on this topic is closer to shroomalicious, but in this current debate I completely understand the point pinksharkmark is trying to make. he is not trying to say "if I ruled the world I would do this", he is saying "if it was like this there would be no violent crime". GOD doing the striking was the best way of showing the fundamental principle involved, i think, because once you start talking about computer chips implanted in the brain you are asking for trouble. that's just fucked up, like what if we were attacked by the evil insectoid aliens from starship troopers or something? try to retaliate and boom your implant turns your brains to mush. bad news, asking for trouble i say. i thought that was a good movie by the way, like I'm all for intergalactic love and stuff but man if we were attacked by some hardcore insects then we have to fight back! here is something important to me though: no fuckin way am I signing up to join the space army, or any other army, to fight against any "enemy" pointed out to me by some "superior" officer. if the evil monsters raided my home and tried to eat my mother however, i would grab the nearest katana and slice my way out of trouble - if i was unable to get my folks to safety and run away, that is. but then, what about the neighbours? they definately can't swing a katana like I can, so would it then be my responsibility to kill the monster and save them? maybe not, i'm coming round to the idea that it's not my responsibility to save the world, or to save anyone, and my neighbours are probably killing mosquitoes and other living beings at every available opportunity so i guess they get what's coming to them, just like everyone does in the end. what would you do, mr pacifist? In my opinion these are tough questions. and although this isn't exactly a realistic scenario I think it's relevant to this discussion.
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
Wow, I can't believe I read the whole thing!
 I guess basically I think you have good ideas but they will only work on paper. As we do not live in a paper world your ideas will not work. I find interesting and amusing that for a person so hung up on not defending oneself you have spent a heck of a lot of energy and bandwidth doing just that in this argument. That is inconsistent with your entire philosophy. If you truly believe in not defending yourself show us by example by not responding to this thread anymore. Cheers and love,
| |||||||
|
Shroomalicious You may say I'ma Registered: 06/20/02 Posts: 319 Loc: The Shire Last seen: 23 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Wow, I can't believe I read the whole thing!
LOL! I find interesting and amusing that for a person so hung up on not defending oneself you have spent a heck of a lot of energy and bandwidth doing just that in this argument. That is inconsistent with your entire philosophy. Not resorting to violence during a confrontation is a non-violent stance. How is explaining your philosophy (not even defending really) to someone who doesn't agree violate that? It is not inconsistance my friend. Being non-violent doesn't mean I am to afraid of being politcally correct and not willing to face "the hard facts of life". It simply means I see no point in hitting one another. I hope you understand.
-------------------- Shroomalicious - I love you and in doing so I love myself, because we ARE all one - "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and toothless". - Mahatma Ghandi
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Spores for European Microscopy North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies Bulk Cannabis Seeds All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
nonviolence and its violent consequences |  NiamhNyx |
1,925 | 9 | 08/08/04 11:59 PM by Mushmonkey |
|
|
the need for violence |  spewed 4th |
1,027 | 6 | 11/08/02 11:08 PM by Zero7a1 |
|
|
Why is the world a violent place? (  1 2 3 all ) |
 Droz |
2,607 | 43 | 12/06/03 03:56 PM by Shizpow |
|
 |
Tell-a-vision Programming! ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 Adamist |
3,991 | 57 | 03/02/06 09:15 PM by Ravus |
|
 |
violence or non-violence that is the question... | Anonymous |
1,216 | 12 | 02/14/03 12:18 AM by Anonymous |
|
 |
Jealous Rage - Pathology or Primal Programming? |  Swami |
1,197 | 8 | 01/28/04 06:51 PM by silversoul7 |
|
|
Sex, Violence and the search for Intimacy | NiamhNyx |
1,173 | 9 | 01/30/04 12:56 AM by NiamhNyx |
|
|
So Much Violence ( 1 2 all ) |
 Kiafi |
3,182 | 22 | 11/10/03 02:05 PM by Ped |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 12,144 topic views. 1 members, 89 guests and 35 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||