I completely agree that a lot of evil comes from the desire to possess, but is that an inherent human trait? Or simply taught to us as a child. Would it go against our nature if we were taught to live in harmony with the earth, and not desire to own material things rather than to simply enjoy them? Early first nations culture, and a lot of far eastern ways of thinking seem to contradict that to me.
I have no evidence either which way beyond my own opinion based on the histories that I've studied.
But crimes of possession for example go across almost every culture and throughout our history. I believe that its in our nature to both possess and dominate.
You look at our base instincts and we're all wired to need, want and take. Some just express our truer nature more clearly.
I don't think it can ever be filtered out, and even if it was it would still be there lurking below the surface until it saw opportunity to dominate or take.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Looking back at the societies of the first nations, there were some cultures that were rather violent, but the majority were peaceful and lived harmoniously without the rule of 'law' as we define it. Like I quoted earlier, their more primitive culture seemed to be far more fair and enlightened than the much more advanced Europeans. As Brant said, they had no prisons or dungeons.
Let's say that there is a significant difference between civilizations and non-civilized peoples. By attacking the notion of progress, I'm not saying there aren't higher ideals that we can obtain through civilized discourse. Trust me, I'm as lofty an idealist as they come.
The problem is this modern notion of history. That is, we are products of our times, not rational beings able to contemplate eternally beautiful things.
I'm surprised that after this horrifying century of all centuries, the historical idea of progress would be well and truly dead.
I think that civilization does progress because do not live in a perfect society, and we will always try to make our society perfect. We invented the idea of 'human rights' and we are still trying to understand what that means, and how important they are. Can 'human rights' trump 'cultural rights'?
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Some Islamic countries have criticised the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for its perceived failure to take into the account the cultural and religious context of Islamic countries. In 1982, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the position of his country regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by saying that the UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.[19] On 30 June 2000, Muslim nations that are members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference[20] officially resolved to support the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam,[21] an alternative document that says people have "freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah".[22] However, this document does not guarantee freedom of religion or gender equality, the root of many criticisms against its usage.
Goddammit, do you guys know how hard it is it to be a hardcore nerd and talk with real people!? Give me some slack here!
EDIT: Seriously, I'm not old enough to begin philosophizing for myself, so obviously most of my arguments are drawn from thinkers and writers that I personally admire.
Putting Iran on the UN's committee for the status of woman and giving them a four year term is a huge wallop in the face of the UN after this situation.
I have no doubt that this woman will be executed in a most horrible and bloody fashion because its going to make the UN look even more indecisive.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Putting Iran on the UN's committee for the status of woman and giving them a four year term is a huge wallop in the face of the UN after this situation.
I have no doubt that this woman will be executed in a most horrible and bloody fashion because its going to make the UN look even more indecisive.
To misquote Augustine, I would say that regimes, especially democratic ones, reflect their values in what citizens love. It's why the American constitution still stands strong as a genuine liberal document and the Nazi Decrees of 1933 burned along with the rest of Berlin in 1945.
How do you define it though? Some form of social contract?
Regardless I still see it as about amassing as much power and control over your own sphere of influence.
Law and nature are completely different concepts to people of different cultures.
Alan Watts:
Quote:
"It is natural for a Western child to say to its mother, "How was I made?" on the other hand, that would be quite an unnatural question for a Chinese child, because the Chinese do not think of nature as something that was made. Instead, they look upon it as something that grows, and the two processes are quite different"
Similarly they view the word law as if it were something rigid and unnatural. Something that cannot always be applied equally to all things, and people will always look for ways around them. Brant was saying that the Mohawk way was fair and suited always to the individual and the wrongdoing committed, and always aimed at healing the damage done.
I have started to think that the reason one out of every 100 Americans are imprisoned, is because of how unfair their society seems to be. Selling cannabis to other adults seems to yield a punishment far more harsh than crimes that actually deserve punishment. The first nation's method of healing seems to stop cycles of violence before they start, and prevent hatred from getting too far. Peace above revenge.
As for the UN, the Americans do a lot of the obstruction, but in the cases of Rwanda and Srebrenica, the UN utterly failed. That is why the Americans go over the UN to engage whom they see as enemies of global security. I am not for the second Iraq invasion, but I am certainly for the American intervention in places like Kosovo. I believe human rights trump all. In this case, this is one case of someone tried and convicted rather than a group being driven away in buses never to be seen again. But still, it is just an ugly grey area.
The Following User Says Thank You to starseed For This Useful Post:
Law and nature are completely different concepts to people of different cultures.
Alan Watts:
Similarly they view the word law as if it were something rigid and unnatural. Something that cannot always be applied equally to all things, and people will always look for ways around them. Brant was saying that the Mohawk way was fair and suited always to the individual and the wrongdoing committed, and always aimed at healing the damage done.
I have started to think that the reason one out of every 100 Americans are imprisoned, is because of how unfair their society seems to be. Selling cannabis to other adults seems to yield a punishment far more harsh than crimes that actually deserve punishment. The first nation's method of healing seems to stop cycles of violence before they start, and prevent hatred from getting too far. Peace above revenge.
As for the UN, the Americans do a lot of the obstruction, but in the cases of Rwanda and Srebrenica, the UN utterly failed. That is why the Americans go over the UN to engage whom they see as enemies of global security. I am not for the second Iraq invasion, but I am certainly for the American intervention in places like Kosovo. I believe human rights trump all. In this case, this is one case of someone tried and convicted rather than a group being driven away in buses never to be seen again. But still, it is just an ugly grey area.
Interesting point, but somewhat unfair given the global context. Regardless of everything else, the United States is still the beacon of a good liberal regime.
He's not taking responsibility. If he was, he wouldn't be bringing up the fact that he was 24, implying that 24 year olds are not capable of controlling their behaviour thus part of the reason for his adultery was that he was too young to know better.
Wow, just checked in as it got busy at work.... this thread got heated.
Anyhow, I make no excuses for what I did. I was caught, I asked for forgiveness, and when none was available I left with my tail between my legs. End of story.
Being 24 at the time is not an excuse, however, being so deeply involved at that time in my life was a definitely a mistake. At 35 I do not even remotely resemble the clubbing, bar star, testosterone factory I was back then, and my views on relationships and women in general have taken a complete 180. Should I have broken off a relationship with my high school sweetheart to go sew my oats first, and hope she was there when I felt I was done... absolutely. Do I deserve to go to prison or be executed for not taking that action?....no, and I feel like a complete moron having to type or justify that rationale to you, as it is so completely baffling you could support either scenario.
As it turns out, she and I have become the best of friends, after we both realized 5 or so years later, we had both made a mistake committing at such a young age. Not too long ago, I found out she was up to no good for a while in the relationship too, long before I was caught. In the end, we are both a million times happier than had we stuck together.
So I guess we both should be executed.
Quote:
Nice to know that you condone adultery. Your parents must be so proud of the morals they instilled in you.
As for that cheapshot, my parents have been married happily for 42 years. So leave them out of it.
Last edited by pylon; 07-06-2010 at 06:45 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to pylon For This Useful Post:
I always thought that it was a huge sin in the muslim world to see a naked women? I thought they were suppose to off them self if they saw a naked women...
__________________
Thank you for everything CP. Good memories and thankful for everything that has been done to help me out. I will no longer take part on these boards. Take care, Go Flames Go.
I agree with the Lawful Neutral stance. That's the way Iran wants to do things. We don't have to like it, but that's where we leave it.
Other than the shear numbers I fail to see this any differently than other crimes against humanity. It's barbaric, stupid and plain wrong. No religion should ever have to power to make it law to kill a human being for being "horny" even if guilty, which in this case isn't exactly true reality.
To emphasize the shear scope of this barbarism just look at who throws the stones! these are supposed to be "normal" citizens. A dump truck shows up and drops off a big pile of nice potato sized stones and these idiots line up to get them. To me they are far from normal and certainly not civilized. This act is pure MURDER...nothing less.
Acts like this just prove my point that God is imaginary and religion should be banned from the face of the earth for stupidity reasons alone.
I wish nothing but the best for Iran and other countrys with these ######ed views...a quick and painless nuke will do the trick. ...at least it would be civilized.
...at least it would be civilized.
