|
On March 26 2012 20:30 zocktol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 20:19 Azera wrote:On March 26 2012 20:17 zocktol wrote:On March 26 2012 20:07 Potling wrote:
Naming the Jewish role in communism is not "anti-semitic". You know, it's funny if we argue long enough the amount of conspiracies that "the jews" partook in will just increase. I am content with you not having anything to say to refute the arguments i made and hope you will one day see, that the sources you are using, are blinded by a agenda that is inhumane and based in hatred. Please don't let this be another debate. Not going to :D Just can't stand things that are wrong and not based on any hard evidence  Humanity evolved to be a lot of things, that are not pretty to look at. We are xenophobic, violent and not able to care for more than around 150 people and only have a intimate clique of around 12 people. So if we would live by these "standards" set in evolution we would basically all start killing each other at some point. However we have the gift of rationallity and complex abstract concepts. Using these we are able to overcome our primitve roots and at some point achieve a state in whiche we will know what it means to be happy, without hurting or abusing other humans. But there is still some time we have to spend until we come to that point.
Now THAT is going down in my book of thoughts.
|
On March 26 2012 20:32 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 20:30 zocktol wrote:On March 26 2012 20:19 Azera wrote:On March 26 2012 20:17 zocktol wrote:On March 26 2012 20:07 Potling wrote:
Naming the Jewish role in communism is not "anti-semitic". You know, it's funny if we argue long enough the amount of conspiracies that "the jews" partook in will just increase. I am content with you not having anything to say to refute the arguments i made and hope you will one day see, that the sources you are using, are blinded by a agenda that is inhumane and based in hatred. Please don't let this be another debate. Not going to :D Just can't stand things that are wrong and not based on any hard evidence Humanity evolved to be a lot of things, that are not pretty to look at. We are xenophobic, violent and not able to care for more than around 150 people and only have a intimate clique of around 12 people. So if we would live by these "standards" set in evolution we would basically all start killing each other at some point. However we have the gift of rationallity and complex abstract concepts. Using these we are able to overcome our primitve roots and at some point achieve a state in whiche we will know what it means to be happy, without hurting or abusing other humans. But there is still some time we have to spend until we come to that point. Now THAT is going down in my book of thoughts.
If you are intrested in actuall research that is going on in the area that explores, what parts of our behaviour are founded in our evolutionary path, like our habit of preferring sweet, salty and fatty over salad, you might want to research a bit of Sociobiology. Pretty intresting and WIDE topic :D
|
In my mind the speech is intended to inspire and not to instruct. There are no universal truths in what he is saying, so don't look to this for wisdom. Chaplin is asking us to look inside ourselves for right and wrong, and not to blindly follow others who have sinister intentions. I think you are focusing too much on the part where he is talking about modern life inspiring evil. He is only saying that modern methods have created wealth, but instead of this benefiting everyone, greed has made it so that some people get rich whilst others are still in unnecessary poverty.
|
I will concede that my knowledge about WW2 is limited. Your rebuttals may be right.
There are really two extremes in this issue. One is too scared to discuss the elephant in the room.
I get the impression you belong to this group. You will reject all arguments showing Jews in a non-praising light as "blinded by an agenda that is inhumane and based in hatred". You deem being labeled a "Nazi" as a fate worse than death.
And of course we have the other extreme, who could get a flat tire and blame a Jewish conspiracy. It's really just silly.
Debating with ideologues is generally pointless - they will attack and ignore arguments that violate their comfort zone. This applies to both ends of the spectrum. That's one of the reasons we have so little honest discussion about Jewish issues.
The reasonable medium recognizes that Jews are a powerful group with a lot of influence. They also generally have a keen sense of their group identity and some Jews view their work as advancing Jewish interests, sometimes at the expense of non-Jews, such as their involvement in the communist movement.
|
On March 26 2012 20:13 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 20:10 Drunken.Jedi wrote:
What is this mystical age that you speak of where people were kind and gentle and greed did not exist?
Most older belief systems include the belief in some sort of golden age, some paradise from which we have fallen. However, we now know that such an era never existed. For most of human history so far, most people have lived short and often violent lives were they fought against starvation, desease, predators and neighboring tribes.
Humans were never as kind and gentle and compassionate as in modern times and barring some kind of global catastrophy or a nuclear war, people in the future will most likely be even more kind and gentle and compassionate than people are today. The golden age lies not in our past but is something we may one day in the future achieve. I guess I was being a little foggy with that part. I did not mean that greed did not exist.
Then what did you mean?
|
Chaplin's words are poetic and moving but I don't think he really brings anything substantial to light. It is noble to aim for such high intentions, but they only get you so far. One of the things that made the movie Dark Knight amazing was how it tackled the idea of protecting something by being the villain. Chaplin lays out what we should aim to achieve, but he doesn't discuss how, and that is the difficult part. It's great to walk the high road, but there will be moments when there isn't a right answer, there will be no "good guy" or "bad guy" and we still have to make a decision. Where 10,000 dead is better than 1,000,000 dead, and no magnitude of good intentions will make it so that you save everyone.
Trigun, the anime, does an interesting job of exploring that idea as well, how far you can push the concept that you should get out of any situation without hurting ANY party involved, no matter what. And when you run out of options, when you have to kill to live, how that changes you. And you see it from both sides, people that learn to shoot first to protect themselves, and those still willing to put themselves at risk to save a stranger and what it all means.
|
On March 26 2012 22:52 Drunken.Jedi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 20:13 Azera wrote:On March 26 2012 20:10 Drunken.Jedi wrote:
What is this mystical age that you speak of where people were kind and gentle and greed did not exist?
Most older belief systems include the belief in some sort of golden age, some paradise from which we have fallen. However, we now know that such an era never existed. For most of human history so far, most people have lived short and often violent lives were they fought against starvation, desease, predators and neighboring tribes.
Humans were never as kind and gentle and compassionate as in modern times and barring some kind of global catastrophy or a nuclear war, people in the future will most likely be even more kind and gentle and compassionate than people are today. The golden age lies not in our past but is something we may one day in the future achieve. I guess I was being a little foggy with that part. I did not mean that greed did not exist. Then what did you mean?
Maybe something along the lines of that the Sun was there,.but it wasn't.strong enough.
|
Azera - I would recommend to you a book by Ken Wilber called Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. He has some answers to some of the questions you raise in the OP. I recommend with the caveat that I think Wilber makes some critical errors starting in chapter 8 - but until then, he is right about nearly everything and I think you will find it enlightening.
It particular, you will find some more sophisticated versions of the graph you sketched with "interior" and "exterior."
Cheers.
|
On March 27 2012 09:28 sam!zdat wrote:
Azera - I would recommend to you a book by Ken Wilber called Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. He has some answers to some of the questions you raise in the OP. I recommend with the caveat that I think Wilber makes some critical errors starting in chapter 8 - but until then, he is right about nearly everything and I think you will find it enlightening.
It particular, you will find some more sophisticated versions of the graph you sketched with "interior" and "exterior."
Cheers.
Thanks for the recommendation, but I reading list is max'd out at the moment =( I'll keep the title somewhere though
Thanks!
|
On March 27 2012 16:17 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 09:28 sam!zdat wrote:
Azera - I would recommend to you a book by Ken Wilber called Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. He has some answers to some of the questions you raise in the OP. I recommend with the caveat that I think Wilber makes some critical errors starting in chapter 8 - but until then, he is right about nearly everything and I think you will find it enlightening.
It particular, you will find some more sophisticated versions of the graph you sketched with "interior" and "exterior."
Cheers. Thanks for the recommendation, but I reading list is max'd out at the moment =( I'll keep the title somewhere though Thanks!
Bro, I know the feeling.
|
On March 27 2012 16:34 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 16:17 Azera wrote:On March 27 2012 09:28 sam!zdat wrote:
Azera - I would recommend to you a book by Ken Wilber called Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. He has some answers to some of the questions you raise in the OP. I recommend with the caveat that I think Wilber makes some critical errors starting in chapter 8 - but until then, he is right about nearly everything and I think you will find it enlightening.
It particular, you will find some more sophisticated versions of the graph you sketched with "interior" and "exterior."
Cheers. Thanks for the recommendation, but I reading list is max'd out at the moment =( I'll keep the title somewhere though Thanks! Bro, I know the feeling.
Reading "The History of Love" by Nicole Krauss atm, going to read the 4th edition of the Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy. Haven't read the first 3 though >.<
|
On March 27 2012 06:47 Azera wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 22:52 Drunken.Jedi wrote:On March 26 2012 20:13 Azera wrote:On March 26 2012 20:10 Drunken.Jedi wrote:
What is this mystical age that you speak of where people were kind and gentle and greed did not exist?
Most older belief systems include the belief in some sort of golden age, some paradise from which we have fallen. However, we now know that such an era never existed. For most of human history so far, most people have lived short and often violent lives were they fought against starvation, desease, predators and neighboring tribes.
Humans were never as kind and gentle and compassionate as in modern times and barring some kind of global catastrophy or a nuclear war, people in the future will most likely be even more kind and gentle and compassionate than people are today. The golden age lies not in our past but is something we may one day in the future achieve. I guess I was being a little foggy with that part. I did not mean that greed did not exist. Then what did you mean? Maybe something along the lines of that the Sun was there,.but it wasn't.strong enough.
What does that mean?
|
On March 27 2012 18:47 Drunken.Jedi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 06:47 Azera wrote:On March 26 2012 22:52 Drunken.Jedi wrote:On March 26 2012 20:13 Azera wrote:On March 26 2012 20:10 Drunken.Jedi wrote:
What is this mystical age that you speak of where people were kind and gentle and greed did not exist?
Most older belief systems include the belief in some sort of golden age, some paradise from which we have fallen. However, we now know that such an era never existed. For most of human history so far, most people have lived short and often violent lives were they fought against starvation, desease, predators and neighboring tribes.
Humans were never as kind and gentle and compassionate as in modern times and barring some kind of global catastrophy or a nuclear war, people in the future will most likely be even more kind and gentle and compassionate than people are today. The golden age lies not in our past but is something we may one day in the future achieve. I guess I was being a little foggy with that part. I did not mean that greed did not exist. Then what did you mean? Maybe something along the lines of that the Sun was there,.but it wasn't.strong enough. What does that mean?
Something like how the Sun shines in the Antarctic from time to time but yet it doesn't melt completely. Come to think of it, should have used ice instead of water.
|
Could you use plain language instead of confusing metaphors?
|
On March 27 2012 18:58 Drunken.Jedi wrote:
Could you use plain language instead of confusing metaphors?
Yeah well... I meant that there was some/very little greed to put it bluntly.
|
What's your evidence for people being less greedy in the past?
Besides, greed is just one of the aspects you mentioned in the OP, you also wrote ths
It seems that we, as an entire species were once 'pure' in a sense. Kindness and gentleness once flooded the world
This seems to me to be a gross misrepresentation of human history.
|
On March 27 2012 19:41 Drunken.Jedi wrote:What's your evidence for people being less greedy in the past? Besides, greed is just one of the aspects you mentioned in the OP, you also wrote ths Show nested quote +It seems that we, as an entire species were once 'pure' in a sense. Kindness and gentleness once flooded the world This seems to me to be a gross misrepresentation of human history.
It seems that we, as an entire species were once 'pure' in a sense. Kindness and gentleness once flooded the world
|
So you've bolded one word of that statement, but that's not an explanation for that statement.
|
|
|
Thank you, I know what the word means, but putting the word to seem into a statement does not mean that I should be exempt from any criticism.
Putting the word "seems" in there indicates that you're not quite sure whether your statement is true, but what I'm pointing out is that it is false. As far as I see it, you now have two viable options: you can either retract your statement or give reasons why you think it is true after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0ouHI.png)
