Jump to content

What hope is there for mankind....


Jay
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am going to have to check out those vides when I am off work and have audio. I am excited.

 

yay !

 

(does the "you're excited, so I'm excited" dance)

 

 

 

I don't feel I know enough about WWII to participate in this current discussion. I have studied the American-Vietnamese Conflict quite a bit since high school, but my WWII knowledge is mostly high school B.S.

I may check out The Fog of War, I have been meaning to watch that.

 

I am much more skilled in the art of downloading than I am in the arts of debating the second world war, so I have opted to quietly refrain from comment on that theme of discussion, while in the meantime sticking Fog of War on to download via Bittorrent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That was awesome. I opened both videos in new tabs at once, so it was pure garbled craziness. I then played the first one alone and it was about as hard to understand as both playing at once. I like the first accent, I think mainly because of the difficulty in understanding it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inteja I agree with your point about there being complex reasons for war,

 

The Japanese & Chinese have a long history of tension going much further back (in medieval times) so that has to be considered.

 

As for the rest you guys have commented on, who really knows?

 

The fact is Germany had already started a war before that - WW1..

 

Then again they begin a war, only this time with even greater aspirations of killing & genocide.

 

Your simplistic assignment of blame to Germany for starting WWI is wrong and does not tally with your stated agreement that the reasons for war are complex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inteja..

 

I openly admit, I am not an expert on either WW's

 

My interest in history is on much older history, so Im not going to disagree with you, I still believe in most cases war has complex beginnings.

 

Sometimes however it doesnt.Sometimes its just a case of an aggressor with power or land in their sights, & a defender with survival in mind.

 

When the 2 biggest wars in the last 100 years both involve Germany one does kind of get the idea it was them who started it..

 

You wrote:

 

Your simplistic assignment of blame to Germany for starting WWI is wrong

 

Did someone attack them first or did they attack first? Its a simple question I am curious to hear your answer to it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No sole country was singly responsible for the outbreak of WWI, but I think Germany was to blame more so than other nations.

 

When the 2 biggest wars in the last 100 years both involve Germany one does kind of get the idea it was them who started it.

Thing is we (and the Empire) were also involved in both wars - uniquely the only country to be involved from Sept 1914 to Nov 1918, and also from Sept 1939 to August 1945 (VJ Day, not VE Day) - as were many other countries, so by that logic it could be argued that UK or France or any one of a host of countries involved in both wars could have also started it.

 

But yeah, Germany must bear greater responsibility than most - all? - other nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was awesome. I opened both videos in new tabs at once, so it was pure garbled craziness. I then played the first one alone and it was about as hard to understand as both playing at once. I like the first accent, I think mainly because of the difficulty in understanding it.

 

 

whoo, I'm glad that you enjoyed it !

That is an excellent description of the Orcadian dialect.

 

It's notoriously difficult to imitate, because it's so garbled and unique (that expression of your Yankdom probably all sounded like one word even, right ?)

 

One of the local goth-guys recently expressed that I'm too hick to hang out with while doing fantasy art , basically , due to me living in the country and all (even though I said I'd go into town to hang and stuff) say what ? Does he think hicks are all out here chewing straw or something, and being boring ? whaaaaa-?

 

... ironically, he speaks in that ludicrous Orcadian accent THE WHOLE TIME.... haaaahahahaha ! hick much !

 

it would have been ironic anyway since he's into Slipknot .... who are from Iowa.... which is pretty much about as hick as you can get, surely !

 

I suspect he may not have been the brightest of the bunch though anyway, to be honest - so I'm successfully not going off crying into my pillow over it, you'll be relieved to know.

 

 

Orcadians seem astonished if they ever try to start something about me "not really being Orcadian" , then I turn around and declare in broad orcadian "whit the hell ER ye oan aboot, I cad spik like this the howl time iffen i WANTit' to... but I down't want tae." ( translates : "What the hell are you on about ? I could speak like this all the time if i WANTED to, but I don't want to.") ... it's happened a few times before but I've only been in pubs a few times really, which is where it always seems to happen, and the last time I went into any of those was ages ago.

Some Orcadians can be a little bit... strange about the topic of nationality (or whatever you call it... islanderism or something)

 

I like going about challenging prejudices through my general existence.

It can be entertaining , and seems to completely baffle a lot of people.

 

I guess it's like if i was in a jungle or something and was this leopard going about changing their spots the whole time, and confusing the other animals ( ? )

 

Anyway, from there I think there can be hope for humankind and diminishment or total nullification of prejudice flare-up , etc .... like a gentle method of verbal self defence through assertivity la la la

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My hometown is right near the Iowa-Illinois border. It can be quite hickish there.

 

As far as I remember (and was possibly wrongly taught), the main cause of WWI was too many countries forming either behind Siberia or Hungary for really not much of a good reason and then having to fight along what side they were on. Just another reason why we shouldn't view the world as divided into alliances or countries, since it just causes conflict and we are all in it together anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every class, race, culture, orientation, type of human beings are like this. I used to think that way too. The fact is stereotypes, while usually founded in some truth are largely incorrect. The people you expected to be nice and compassionate can be complete self centered inconsiderate assholes, the people you were scared of or felt predjudice towards, can turn out to be the most endearing people you've ever met..

Edited by Anonymous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My hometown is right near the Iowa-Illinois border. It can be quite hickish there.

 

Aw, man... harsh !

 

I challenge you to an informal "How hick is your homespace" contest.

 

I'll go first....

 

Here, for a month or thereabouts before show day, the hardcore farmer hicks really DO go out into the fields, and stand there immobilised for ages like pillocks, holding cows on little bits of string....

I gather that this is in order to practice holding the aforementioned cows on bits of string, in preparation for the "exciting" big day (whooboy, how they contain their anticipation I have NO idea )

 

Seriously.... I'm not even making it up.... PRACTICING holding cows in fields on bits of string..... (shakes head) amazing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot even compete with that. You win.

 

Hehe, that reminds me of the small town of Cameron, West Virginia, about 15 miles from where I lived in Limestone. I had some business there one day and while sitting at a stoplight, two guys got out of their pick-up trucks to show each other their shotguns. They seemed happy enough to see each other, opening up their guns to look at the inside etc. When the light turned green, they got back in their trucks and left. Can you imagine what would happen in a big city if two guys at a stoplight got out of their veghicles with shotguns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hehe, that reminds me of the small town of Cameron, West Virginia, about 15 miles from where I lived in Limestone. I had some business there one day and while sitting at a stoplight, two guys got out of their pick-up trucks to show each other their shotguns. They seemed happy enough to see each other, opening up their guns to look at the inside etc. When the light turned green, they got back in their trucks and left. Can you imagine what would happen in a big city if two guys at a stoplight got out of their veghicles with shotguns.

 

That is hilarious. That wouldn't even go well in my hometown. I guess I am not as experienced in hick viewing as I thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the prevalence of psychopathy - and in particular sociopathy - is reckoned to be on the increase.

Often, the most brazen sociopaths are the epitome of charming in the beginning of a friendship or relationship, and even with extensive 'testing' of character before getting to know people, a lot of people end up exploited and used by sociopaths and conditional sociopaths anyway.

Negative traits are on the increase IMHO. Have you heard of Devo? (Devolution) 80's rock band. That was what their name stood for. (Yes, that's an improper term for what they're describing.) I agree with them though.

 

Yes, until recently i naively imagined that there was a correlation between veganism and an enhanced approach to ethics and compassion, respect for others' welfare etc.

After much contemplation, I think it was part of my futile struggle to try and discern who would be a likely sociopath, and who not....

I had figured that surely vegans were a safe enough bet, but now I know better than to just assume so by definition.

Yes.

 

Many people clearly do harm others, and make great displays out of not caring - sometimes over the course of years.

I think "evil" is an abstract term with atheistic connotations, but I'd certainly recognise that people are not all love and hugs down inside..... and more to the point, lots of them have no intention of being like that and work hard to fight against it.

 

If you factor in self-satisfaction, it makes a more rounded description i reckon.... lots of people know exactly what they are doing (far from ignorant) and are perfectly capable of understanding every facet of it (possessing adequate intelligence) and because they have both of these things, that is what makes a mindful effort at exploitation or abuse so devastatingly effective for so many of those kinds of people.

 

If they were all ignorant and stupid instead, then we would surely have little to fear from them.... oh, if only.

I define 'evil' as knowing that you're causing unnecessary harm and not caring. Evil at it's heart is about just not caring. IOW, indifference. What stands against evil usually is hate. One can't hate unless they believe in the existence of evil.

 

When someone is causing harm we can either try to reason with them or try to use force to stop them. We try to reason with them when we think they're just stupid/ignorant. When it appears that instead they're evil we turn to force. When we believe someone is evil, we feel hate. This hate makes us angry which physically makes us better able to apply force.

 

But I believe there is no such thing actually as evil. Instead I'm trying to use the term, "profound stupidity". Which is where a person is too stupid to understand why they should care about not causing harm. This means, at least in theory, never needing to turn to force; still trying to reason with people and make them understand why they shouldn't cause harm; never needing to feel anger/hate because I never believe in evil; always being openminded and optimistic enough to think that they can eventually understand and change.

 

In reality, the reasons for not causing harm aren't so well established. Does altruism actually exist? Or is it really just selfishness with very long term thinking? Or is what we call altruism actually a sort of pride? Is it people who've read sufficient books just making sure they're never going to be the Bad Guy in real life. Etc.

 

And that's the problem. If I just dismissed people as some kind of hopeless evil (like I've been dismissed) then I would have so much more piece of mind.

 

But you know that just aint so, right ?

The reason that socio/psychopaths get along so swimmingly seems to be because they have defective functioning of the cerebral cortex.... the area of the brain connected to empathy and remorse.

 

With a lack of conscience, people who wish to behave selfishly have a green card to do so from their brain.... but it's pretty obvious to me that you don;t have that.

 

I'd say that from what i can tell, you probably excercise your cerebral cortex regularly - examining situations and your own impact and effect upon and within them , rather than trying to deflect and defer emotional and mental responsibility onto others for yourself, your decisions and your own choices.

 

However many people mindfully and actively do the opposite.... and would be hostile towards those who would advocate that they do things any differently.

 

I'd say that the brain is like any other part of the body..... keep it in good shape and it will work well.... leave it to atrophy from laziness and there will be cobwebs there when you want to actually use the thing.

That goes for the front, just as much as the back or the sides.... or so I think, anyhow.

I do think it does very simply come down to people not bothering to think enough; being closeminded; dismissing others; using only (relatively) short term thinking. They assume evil where there isn't any (not good enough empathy) and the phantom evil just endlessly bounces around as people dismiss and hate one another. They're indifferent to others because they're thinking is too short term to understand the great benefit they themselves are missing out on. They haven't read/heard enough stories to understand they're being the Bad Guy, etc.

 

It comes down to being happy or being moral. I choose to be moral and miserable. While others choose to "surround themselves with "positive" energy".

 

Those who surround themselves with "positive" energy seem to be not entirely adverse to using that description as a pretty euphymism to describe their own mindful decision to be unsupportive towards those in a state of distress (because upset people are negative and must be avoided) , to behave as if they are always right (since positivity is the right way to go) , to maltreat others then trivialise and dismiss their response as "negative" , and to generally be prejudiced against anyone who has had a bag deal fortune out of life....

 

In short, I think a lot of people are superficial and have a twisted approach to positivity..... after all, embracing positive energy is only meaningful if someone has their interpretation of "positive" worked out meaningfully to begin with.

 

 

After all, when you think about it, a lot of fleshivores could say "I enjoy eating meat so it's positive... I avoid vegans because they make me feel bad about eating meat, giving out their bad vibe negative energy" , and they just make a mindful effort not to think about the animals because "that's negative, man, and I focus only on the positive things in life"

There , they appear to regard a positive approach to life to be the sort where they do things that make them feel good , and help them to avoid any uncomfortable confrontations or introspection which a more honest person might instead choose to face up to.

 

Many vegans appear to be perfectly capable of having - and deliberately cultivating - that sort of self-absorbed mindset, and they sometimes don't seem overly shy about applying it to humans rather than animals.

 

At least now I realise it.

It would seem the act of becoming vegan means daring to think about non-positive things... I wonder if it's that vegans have sacrificed some of their ability to empathize with their fellow humans in order to empathize better with animals. Seems unlikely but I wonder. Or it could just be a totally arbitrary focus of "positivity" on one thing while not at all on another.

 

The two last quotes i posted to the Quote a Day thread sum up my stance on positivity, pretty much.

 

I think that making a mindful and engaged effort to improve things, including our own efforts and ourselves, can only be a good thing and a great way to cultivate positivity.... and ultimately, to increased productivity and happiness....

It can involve change , or temporary discomfort, but things like that are typically outweighed many times by the benefits of such positive endeavour.

 

Astrocat

 

 

To manage our emotions is not to drug them or suppress them, but to understand them so that we can intelligently direct our emotional energies and intentions

 

Doc Childre

 

 

... but that's radically different from the stance of those who "only focus on the positive" , or whatever.... who opt to ongoingly suppress a huge chunk of emotional state, and maltreat or neglect entire situations or individuals for failing to be "positive" , thus choosing to limit or entirely nullify their potential to discuss reality in an intelligent and meaningful manner.

 

I believe that i have good foundation for my definition of positivity, and that it is anchored in a mature and productive philosophy of life.

 

I doubt that those who would disagree with me, would feel half as secure as I do if they tried to discuss this with me..... which I dersay that they wouldn't because that would be negative !

I think I'm afraid of getting a negative surprise. Thus I try to always think about negatives. But it's actually really hard to be happy when any given negative is on your mind...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe it or not, I am optimistic at times. Not so much online though. Very unhappy with what I've found online.

 

The way people communicate online is not indicative of the way they would communicate face to face, and therefore is not a fair representation of who or how good they are. Electronic communication like forums, email and instant messaging allow us to hide behind a certain degree of anonymity and lack the body language and human feedback that would normally moderate our language. I've heard of numerous scientific studies that have measured this phenomenon.

 

I'm sure everyone, at some time, has said things online that they would never say face to face, and now regret because it's recorded online potentially forever.

I think I disagree. In most ways at least it is an even better representation of who people are. People are less afraid to say what they really think online because they're less afraid of physical violence against them. The result being one can get online and quickly see that we really have a lot more in common with our more violent cousins than we like to pretend.

 

Of course people can also lie better online. Of course people can miscommunicate more often. But I think that is outweighed by increase in honesty that comes from feeling safer. It seems it's mostly negative though.

 

Thanks to the internet:

1. People can lie better.

2. They can miscommunicate more easily.

3. They can say potentially dangerous negative things more easily.

 

What are the benefits? Feh. I vaguely remember some.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should have guessed Astrocat, that you probably didn't have much accent really. I'm from West Virginia which is thought of as "hicksville" and some people have pretty southern accents but I have none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And although so far nukes have resulted in fewer Americans and Russians dying. The Cold War was awful for the third world. The US won that war. They installed repressive rightwing regimes in a ton of nations. The standard of living in South American and Africa has gone to crap since 1960. The end result are lower life expectancies and 3 billion living on the US purchasing power equivalent of 2 dollars a day or less. It has been disaster and I bet if you tried to somehow calculate total years of life lost, the number would be just as bad as if the Americans and Russians had gone against each other with guns and tanks. In fact just in Russia the life expectancy dropped by almost ten years after they lost and were forced into rightwing economic policies. I believe it went from 64 down to a low of 57. Not sure if it ever has risen back up at all.

 

Nukes have been good (so far) for America. Not so great otherwise, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nukes have been good (so far) for America. Not so great otherwise, really.

Not only great for the US.

 

Ironically they've been great for America's two former enemies - Germany and Japan (obviously post 1945 in the case of Japan) as they've benefitted probably most from the US nuclear shield.

 

Perhaps Western Europe too - who knows if not for the threat of nuclear retilation to keep the Red Army in check whether the Iron Curtain would of extended to the Atlantic?

 

Great for Russia too - it's huge nuclear arsenal ensures it punches above its weight in world affairs that it's economic and military situation no longer warrants.

 

Same for UK and France. Now just two post-imperial medium powers of 60million people, their nuclear weapons still ensure they have some clout on the world stage irrespective of their 20th century decline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Like others have said, vegans are human and humans are, well, human. Vegans are individuals with a wide variety of traits, quirks, and interests, and yes, some of us are (probably most of us sometimes are ) assholes.

 

That said, vegans aren't "just like everyone else." We're smart and open-minded enough to see through the b.s. that says eating meat and dairy products is "healthy" and whitewashes the ethical issues involved. We're informed at least about the ethical and health implications of humans' diets, which is something that can't be said about the vast majority of people. And those of us at least who are sincere about our veganism (which is the majority of us) rather than doing it to feel like we're superior to others or whatever care a lot more about animals than most people and don't think of them as "things" just because they're not people. That at least makes it more likely that we'll care about other stuff that matters (i.e., how humans treat other humans, both individually and on a societal level) than most people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think it does very simply come down to people not bothering to think enough; being closeminded; dismissing others; using only (relatively) short term thinking. They assume evil where there isn't any (not good enough empathy) and the phantom evil just endlessly bounces around as people dismiss and hate one another. They're indifferent to others because they're thinking is too short term to understand the great benefit they themselves are missing out on. They haven't read/heard enough stories to understand they're being the Bad Guy, etc.

I would agree. No good, No evil, No thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...