I'm really sorry that you don't understand what I'm talking about. That you put it off as some religious BS is totally wrong. I'm talking about the mechanical action of a force. If you would like to ask me questions about what I know that you do not know, I'll be happy to answer them :-) The 'direction' of Society is something that you would classify as unknown. This is what stirs the fear in you to attempt to quiet me.
peace & Love - I know how to make it the way of the world, and you are afraid of me :-P & I Love you. On Jun 16, 10:08 pm, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > " The 'direction' of Society, 'rule overrules right', ... " > > Tinker, I have heard you bring up this ' mantra ' umpteen times, > especially to end an argument, if not to win it. I believe it is > misplaced, if not entirely. > > The direction of society includes the potential of ' change ' within > it. Feudalism is largely not evident anymore ; ask yourself why. > > Rules also include the learning society has accumulated over the > millenia. And, Right does not equal Truth ! > > I have nothing against the mantra per se, so long as it remains > yours ! > > Peace & Love ... don't mind this borrowing. > > On Jun 17, 7:29 am, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Rules from previous circumstances applied to similar present > > circumstances and enforced without consideration of the differences IS > > 'rule overrules right'. > > The 'direction' of Society, 'rule overrules right', is the root of > > every problem in the world and can be changed :-) > > > peace & Love > > > On Jun 16, 10:02 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > "The view behind is for retrospect in the hope that it will help us > > > turn the right way next > > > time to see it right." - sd > > > > Yes, looking at the past is often used as a method for making > > > decisions in the present. The main problem with this is that the past > > > is not the present. > > > > On Jun 16, 6:02 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Very well, it's all assumptive, either way there is no telling what > > > > the actual outcome would be. The probability seems equal given any > > > > choice. The trajectory of views are many, at least 360 and in > > > > between but we can only see one way at a time. The view behind is for > > > > retrospect in the hope that it will help us turn the right way next > > > > time to see it right. I just don't see it going anywhere except > > > > onward like a broken record, both sides bloodied grooves. Credibility > > > > and legitimization is hindsight, a crumpled ideal that once stood > > > > tall. Strategy has now become fear of upsetting the enemy. When > > > > sending a message of intolerance becomes damaging and destructive to a > > > > cause there is dilemma and stagnation. The agreement all around is on > > > > the uncertainty of outcome and the unsureness of the forward path. It > > > > is all out of my hands and out of my reach but in view, as spectator I > > > > can only watch and wait. > > > > > Thanks everyone for your participation, thoughts and opinions. > > > > > Dona Nobis Pachem! > > > > > On Jun 16, 2:17 am, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > You asked. > > > > > > Your idea about "just killing" the prisoners on Gitmo would undermine > > > > > our attempts to de-legitimize the Jihadist movement without any > > > > > significant compensatory benefit. The scale of the damage it would > > > > > cause at a critical time on the battlefield is enormous. You can try > > > > > to distract from this all you want but what you suggest is just crazy. > > > > > Earlier in my life I would have just let such "let's go kill um" cheer > > > > > leading lunacy pass without comment because I thought it too crazy for > > > > > serious people to consider. Unfortunately, given our recent history, I > > > > > think we all need to point out such errors before they take hold. I am > > > > > no longer convinced that we are beyond considering them seriously. > > > > > Ideas like yours have damaged the credibility of the United States of > > > > > America and we must now work to rehabilitate it. Hopefully that is > > > > > underway now but it is not certain. > > > > > > I am not "preaching" nor even suggesting civility. I have indeed > > > > > deliberately tried to avoid it. I am simply noting the strategic > > > > > consequences of your proposal. Its effect in Pakistan and Afganistan, > > > > > where we are asking soldiers to risk their own lives to protect > > > > > innocent life in order to discredit the fundamentalism and in order to > > > > > turn the situation around strategically, would be very destructive. > > > > > You take into account the effect that the consequent impact to our own > > > > > legitimacy would have on the order of battle that they will face in > > > > > those countries. Hundreds of thousands or even millions of committed > > > > > Jihadists is not a good outcome. Your ideas would contribute to that > > > > > scenario and we might then be indeed forced to kill many more of > > > > > "them" than "we" would like. Perhaps you trust Putin not to supply > > > > > shoulder armed missiles? > > > > > > Cheers. > > > > > > On Jun 15, 7:06 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I don't think you should be telling me what I should study. I'm > > > > > > sorry > > > > > > that you think I've been living in the dark. Chimpanzees? Jane > > > > > > Goodall? Maybe we should send the chimpanzees over to North Korea or > > > > > > Afghanistan and see if they can quell the festering quagmire of > > > > > > hostility. I'm sure Hillary or Gore can soothe their zeal for > > > > > > power. > > > > > > Most likely they would wind up in the same labor camp as Ling and > > > > > > Lee. So much for the passive approach. I have an idea, why don't we > > > > > > send you and the heretic over there to preach your civility. I'm > > > > > > sorry but I have spent way too much time wiping blood off my skin > > > > > > for > > > > > > a decision coming from an air conditioned office. > > > > > > > On Jun 15, 3:20 pm, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > The thread is about the psychology of war > > > > > > > > > concerning the line drawn between killing and caring. I was > > > > > > > > looking, > > > > > > > > still waiting, for the psychological mechanism that > > > > > > > > differentiates the > > > > > > > > enemy perspective. > > > > > > > > If you want to see the psychology of war take a look at chimpanzee > > > > > > > behavioral studies. War is a primate instinct. So is nurturing and > > > > > > > motherhood and caring for others. Unlike most species primates > > > > > > > "sub- > > > > > > > speciate" and form very different behavior patterns toward > > > > > > > members of > > > > > > > the own group and those outside it. Its a primate instinctual > > > > > > > pattern. > > > > > > > Show a picture of an Arab being killed to a group of Arabs and > > > > > > > Westerners and you will get different reactions. Show a picture > > > > > > > of a > > > > > > > Westerner being killed to similar groups and the reactions will > > > > > > > switch. People on average feel sympathy to those within their > > > > > > > group > > > > > > > more readily than to those outside of it. Humans sub-speciate > > > > > > > along > > > > > > > national, religious, racial and tribal and party lines. > > > > > > > See:http://www.janegoodall.org/jane/ > > > > > > > > > When I referred to the firing squad I'm eliminating the BS, > > > > > > > > No you are not, you are just making more of it. > > > > > > > > .... if we are going to engage in war then > > > > > > > > > let's not play silly games, let's engage and win. If we are > > > > > > > > not going > > > > > > > > to engage war then let's talk peace, utilize diplomacy and show > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > example that we don't have a war mentality. > > > > > > > > This is a classic example of the logical fallacy of the false > > > > > > > dilemma. > > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy > > > > > > > > I don't care how well you treat these prisoners, cater to > > > > > > > > > their needs, throw parties for them, no one is going to look at > > > > > > > > us and > > > > > > > > say "wow these people are really loving and caring" instead > > > > > > > > they will > > > > > > > > continue their "Death to America" chants, burn our flag and > > > > > > > > effigies. > > > > > > > > This is a classic example of the strawman fallacy, No one is > > > > > > > advocating throwing parties for the prisoners in Gitmo none are > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > saying that they will say "wow these people are really loving and > > > > > > > caring". Its a simple strawman. > > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man > > > > > > > > .....sold to these piss ant countries > > > > > > > > > Excuse me? What kind of countries? Showing your bigotry there for > > > > > > > sure.... > > > > > > > > We > > > > > > > > > should have planted seeds for peace not war. > > > > > > > > No kidding? So now what should we do? "Just kill them"? > > > > > > > > ... "you killed a > > > > > > > > > thousand of our people, now we are going to give you room and > > > > > > > > board > > > > > > > > and free medical care"? > > > > > > > > Its another simple strawman > > > > > > > > Why don't you just look at the strategic situation in Pakistan and > > > > > > > Afganistan and show how your approach will advance the interests > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > the ideals the US is supposed to represent? What will be the > > > > > > > reaction > > > > > > > of the world and the reaction in Afganistan and Pakistan in > > > > > > > particular > > > > > > > if we just executed all of the prisoners at Gitmo? That's the real > > > > > > > question. How do you conclude that it will advance our objectives? > > > > > > > What do you think will be the reaction? Everyone just gets afraid > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > falls in line? You should study the history of aerial bombardment > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > population centers. You should study what happened in Vietnam. You > > > > > > > should consider the potential order of battle that will occur if > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > fail to de-legitimize our opponents and instead de-legitimize our > > > > > > > own > > > > > > > efforts. > > > > > > > > With respect to the prisoners of Gitmo, "Just killing them" would > > > > > > > be a > > > > > > > tremendous strategic error significantly crippling our attempts > > > > > > > to de- > > > > > > > legitamize the Jihadist movement, degrading our effectiveness in > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > world, de-legitimizing our future attempts to end conflict and > > > > > > > crippling US foreign policy on a host of fronts. It would create > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > terrorists than it would kill. By far. I can think of nothing more > > > > > > > opposite to what should be done.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
