Freedom of Speech, yea right....

There is always a non-violent alternative.  We didn't "have to" bomb Hiroshima, we didn't "have to" invade Iraq.

In both cases we viewed the non-violent alternatives as insufficient.  Many people around the world obviously disagree with our decisions in both cases.

Similarly, the insurgents in Iraq do not view the non-violent alternatives as viable.

WE think they have a great non-violent alternative; THEY don't.

Most of the world thought we had a great non-violent alternative to invading Iraq; we did not.

Perspective.

Clark Kent wrote: There is always a non-violent alternative.  We didn't "have to" bomb Hiroshima, we didn't "have to" invade Iraq.

   I disagree with your premise, your suggesting that if we didn't bomb Hiroshima that there would have been no violence. That is not accurate.

Edited by Barretm82

I am oversimplifying.  Of course.  These are complex issues.

But the central point remains.  Both sides here think they are the good guys, fighting for God/good, against the forces of evil.  Both sides are willing to die for their respective cause.  Both believe they are fighting to preserve something important to them.

It is quite possible that the moslems are right, Allah is on their side, we are the forces of darkness, the hijackers and martyrs are enjoying their virgins in heaven, and we will all burn in Islamic hell.  I am always amused when people ridicule these beliefs who themselves engage in ritual cannibalism on a regular basis.

Who's to say who is right?  Dismissing the enemy as religious cultists or sociopaths doesn't make their perspective any less real (for them) or any less valid.  Heck, I would describe half of the US population as religious cultists or sociopaths.

I see nothing inherent in either the tactics or ideologies on either side of this battle (or most other) that makes that side's tactics or ideologies "better" than those of the other side.

I see "closer to my worldview" and "further from my worldview", which translates into "good" and "evil", but those are entirely relative labels.

Clark Kent wrote: Who's to say who is right?

We can define crimes against humanity, therefore shouldn't the yard stick of good and evil be defined not by one's perspective but by humanity?

Clark Kent wrote: We can define crimes against humanity, but that yardstick is just as made up and fluid as all the others.  Today's crimes against humanity are yesterday's common and accepted practices. Slavery, "rule of thumb", capital punishment, debtors' prison, age of consent... All fluid.

Yes, this is all fluid and objective Clark, however you keep referring to historical references and comparing it to todays events. As humanity grows, as we grow, shouldn't we become "better" then what our history has shown us? IMHO that is our yardstick.

(What do we have left if we have lost our humanity... Lost our soul if you will...)

Edited by Barretm82

Barretm82 wrote: I can't understand what would be going through a persons mind who decapitates an Iraqi female aid worker? Just food for thought, Perspective should never be a substitue for humanity. Anyhoo, as always interesting disscussion Clark.

while i can see where you are coming from (decaptitating a human hostage is wrong no matter what in my book) it is a matter of perspective. I cant image what would be going through the mind of someone who could drop an atomic bomb on a city of millions of unsuspecting, innocent civilians.
Just like i cant understand someone who disagrees so strongly with the fact that two men or two women could love each other. in my perspective its right, in others its wrong. i find it inhumane to deny love to people, or slaughter cattle, others call it "God's word" and "dinner". who is right and who is wrong?

goodsmitty wrote: You need to read your bible! Jesus taught: 1. Forgive your neighbor (unless he's **edited**) 2. Thou shalt not kill (unless they have brown skin) 3. Give to the poor (unless you can prove they brought in upon themselves) 4. Adultery is sin (unless you are a conservative radio show host) *excerpts from the "new conservative make you feel righteous" version bible*

You need to read your Bible! The points you cite are all either horribly distorted from what the Bible actually says and taken out of context, or reflect individuals. Christians aren't perfect, never have been, never will be. The fact that some people are adulterers does not mean the Bible says that it's okay.

You, my good man, have absolutely no clue what you're talking about in this respect.

Statements like that destroy credibility. And Clark, if when you said 'ritualistic cannibalism' you were referring to Communion, I hope you realize that very few people actually believe that the food turns into flesh and blood. These are the same people who mounted the Crusades, who created a system of Indulgences, etc etc. These kinds of things are why there are two main groups of "Christians" - Catholic and Protestant.

Edited by AdmiralSenn

AdmiralSenn wrote: goodsmitty wrote: You need to read your bible! Jesus taught: 1. Forgive your neighbor (unless he's **edited**) 2. Thou shalt not kill (unless they have brown skin) 3. Give to the poor (unless you can prove they brought in upon themselves) 4. Adultery is sin (unless you are a conservative radio show host) *excerpts from the "new conservative make you feel righteous" version bible* You need to read your Bible! The points you cite are all either horribly distorted from what the Bible actually says and taken out of context, or reflect individuals. Christians aren't perfect, never have been, never will be. The fact that some people are adulterers does not mean the Bible says that it's okay. You, my good man, have absolutely no clue what you're talking about in this respect. Statements like that destroy credibility. And Clark, if when you said 'ritualistic cannibalism' you were referring to Communion, I hope you realize that very few people actually believe that the food turns into flesh and blood. These are the same people who mounted the Crusades, who created a system of Indulgences, etc etc. These kinds of things are why there are two main groups of "Christians" - Catholic and Protestant.

It is called cynicism. I was being cynical.

AdmiralSenn wrote: goodsmitty wrote: It is called cynicism. I was being cynical. Gah! That's what, twice now I've done that. Once again.. sorry. Curse the lack of vocal inflections on the Internet!

Senn, Gsmitty is my brother.  You have managed to wrong my entire family. 

Clark Kent wrote: but how do we know if we are "better"? That is itself a subjective standard. "Better" simply means closer to some ideal, and those ideals keep changing, and we can't even agree among ourselves. My "better" is OS' worse in many cases, for instance, because we have different ideals. People change, times change, goals change. Everything changes.

First let me start by saying, Yes, I agree that personal perspective is obviously very subjective.

Now, I am just putting this out as food for thought, not trying to make a point really. Just something I have thought about while on this thread.

Lets start with your question, "how do we know if we are "better"?

Lets look at your list, are we better for the,

Abolishment of slavery   (Better or worst) (I would say obviously better)
Are we better for not using nukes on nations as we did to Japan (Better or worst) (Again it seems better would be the choice)

Are your "insurgents" better for using medieval tactics of beheading women? (I would say Worst not better)
Is the medieval tactic of stoning women better? (I would say Worst not better)

When comparing to history, it is not subjective Clark, I think. (I could be wrong here, thats why this discussion)

   It is not subjective because we have seen first hand what the results are, we know factually what happens when you nuke a city in Japan. We factually know the results of slavery. This is historical recorded fact.

   By using this "Yardstick" we can judge humanity if we are "better" now then we were before. (Note you can't rush this, think in generations of humanity not years of life).

Now we (humanity) simply can not be "better" in all regards immediately, this takes time, generations of time.

Perhaps Someday, Certainly not in our life time but someday, it may even be possible to put war behind us, far off in the future a generation will be able to look at history and say, "yes" compared to the history yardstick humanity is doing "better" we've been able to tick another thing off the list.

(IMHO guys)
Steve


Edited by Barretm82