View Full Version : The greatest human tragedy of all time
Dodge_272
09-06-2008, 14:48
What, in your opinion, is the greatest human tragedy of all time?
Did you post this on TWC too??
I will answer the same: The two World Wars.
Industrialisation, I should say.......men have been killing each other before they were men at all.......but it is this modern state of the environment that'll be the end of us all.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-06-2008, 17:00
Gulag and mass murder in and around the Soviet Union.
Innocentius
09-06-2008, 18:01
The invention of wireless broadband.
Serious answer? Religion.
Warmaster Horus
09-06-2008, 18:38
Mankind/humanity.
Honestly, who made all of the other proposals? The two World Wars, industrialisation, religion, the gulags, mass murders and wireless broadband are all products of man.
To quote a madman:
"Death solves all problems - no man, no problem." - Stalin
Marshal Murat
09-06-2008, 19:13
Invention of farming and agriculture.
Strike For The South
09-06-2008, 19:29
I don't believe in tragedy and thats the truth
Louis VI the Fat
09-06-2008, 19:58
This. (http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=MxN_pbMOFk0)
*warning*
Link contains chilling pictures of human tragedy. :shame:
Great death into XIV century. It killed much more men than any war (I mean proportion to whole population).
AggonyDuck
09-06-2008, 23:07
My opinion is that World War I is the greatest human tragedy. Not only was the war itself a tragic waste of lives and resources, but its effects were far-reaching and these were to a big majority tragedies in their own right.
The project that will kill us next Wednesday. Chernobyl, Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Any war since there were humans.
That pretty sums everything.
The Treaty of Versailles. One war was inevitable as the world did not understand the true horror of modern warfare. The second was entirely unnecessary.
The Toba eruption:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
Meneldil
09-09-2008, 02:49
Damn Louis, you beat me to it. I was going to post some Tecktonik-related crap.
Incongruous
09-09-2008, 08:11
The slide into the First World War.
Also, perhaps the death of Alexander.
Spartan198
09-09-2008, 11:26
The project that will kill us next Wednesday.
I agree with him. :wall:
Industrialization and with it the massive increase of world population/ polution.
No offence to anybody, but if i think about it it is sort of cause for lots of problems in our societies.
TevashSzat
09-10-2008, 20:51
Politicians
Veho Nex
09-10-2008, 20:58
Biggest tragedy huh... agreeing with Tevash on this one, politicians
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-10-2008, 23:34
Biggest tragedy huh... agreeing with Tevash on this one, politicians
I really have to disagree on this. Politicians or anarchy? I'd rather take the politicians (by the way, I'm including monarchs, despots, and indeed any leader as a "politician" in this case).
Mouzafphaerre
09-10-2008, 23:59
Probably atheism.
.
The organised one. :yes:
.
Sarmatian
09-11-2008, 01:42
Industrialization and with it the massive increase of world population/ polution.
No offence to anybody, but if i think about it it is sort of cause for lots of problems in our societies.
Yeah, people working only 8h per day instead of from dawn to dusk, having good medical care, education, enough money to fulfill their needs not just to sustain themselves is a real bummer.
When Eve ate the fruit :furious3: :wall:
Kekvit Irae
09-11-2008, 08:05
Christianity.
Xipe Totec
09-11-2008, 08:45
The destruction of the Meso-American civilizations by smallpox and chicken-pox caused by the arrival of the Spanish conquistadors, and the replacing of their rich and advanced culture with guilt-ridden conformist catholicism.
An enlightened master once asked this question of one of his students: "...what is the greatest suffering that a sentient being can ever encounter?"
The student answered: "hell"
The master replied: "the greatest suffering that a sentient being can ever encounter is to exist but not know what they actually are..."
..
The greatest human tragedy of all time is that so few of us ever attain the realization of what we actually are, and so many of us suffer unspeakabily pursuing the illusion of what we imagine ourselves to be. This is the root of all human tragedies, great and small.
CountArach
09-11-2008, 14:45
The Nation-State. Without a doubt.
The scramble for Africa, disgusting.
Mouzafphaerre
09-11-2008, 18:13
The Nation-State. Without a doubt.
.
Add me to this one too. Even better/worse: Nation!
.
Sarmatian
09-12-2008, 03:09
The Nation-State. Without a doubt.
Yes, it was much better when we were killing each other for our respective nobles and/or religion...
Knight of the Rose
09-12-2008, 08:11
Well, "greatest" is a difficult term when linked with tragedy. Every day, someone is killed in the traffic bringing the greatest tragedy to her nearest family. Their loss is just as "great" as any other loss.
Then, if you are positivistical in nature, you could argue, that the loss of two is greater than the loss of one. Then you will be looking for sums, perhaps even trying to put it into perspective as KrooK did in his post. When did there die a lot of people? If you are more philosophically inclined, then you would argue for things that changed the way humans treated eachother. When did we lose the most respect for our fellow human beings in one instant? And if you are ecologically aware, you would try to pin out the greatest loss to nature - when were the most species brought to extinction?
Different questions lead to different answers.
My answer? The concept of race.
/KotR
CountArach
09-12-2008, 09:42
Yes, it was much better when we were killing each other for our respective nobles and/or religion...
When we were under a nobility we were still in a nation-state, though in a different form to what we consider it today. As for religion - it is because of nation-states that it has achieved enough power to cause people to die for it.
Yeah, people working only 8h per day instead of from dawn to dusk, having good medical care, education, enough money to fulfill their needs not just to sustain themselves is a real bummer.
I guess everything has two sides.
Assuming you are living in a first world country I would state YOU have access to the medical care, job/money etc..
Well, think about the 70-90% of world population who don´t have the fortune you/ i have? Is it b/c they are all lazy? I don't think so.
Industrialization in it's current state has negative effects like robbery of commodities from 3rd world countries, unequal distribution of wealth, negative effects of the climate change esp. in 3rd world countires (lack of water, destruction of crops....) etc.
It has a lot of good sides, esp. for someone like me living in the EU. Go ask sombody in the Congo....
The positive effects faciliated by mankinds progress sure do affect a lot of people...but the lot of people become more and more and more....We have to think about a way to deal with this without further destruction of our own planet. This is one of our biggest challenges atm.
"preaching mode off"
:2cents:
Conqueror
09-12-2008, 11:50
The Manhattan Project.
Sarmatian
09-12-2008, 21:03
I guess everything has two sides.
Assuming you are living in a first world country I would state YOU have access to the medical care, job/money etc..
Well, think about the 70-90% of world population who don´t have the fortune you/ i have? Is it b/c they are all lazy? I don't think so.
Industrialization in it's current state has negative effects like robbery of commodities from 3rd world countries, unequal distribution of wealth, negative effects of the climate change esp. in 3rd world countires (lack of water, destruction of crops....) etc.
It has a lot of good sides, esp. for someone like me living in the EU. Go ask sombody in the Congo....
The positive effects faciliated by mankinds progress sure do affect a lot of people...but the lot of people become more and more and more....We have to think about a way to deal with this without further destruction of our own planet. This is one of our biggest challenges atm.
"preaching mode off"
:2cents:
One of the reasons, actually prime reason, why 3rd world countries are 3rd world countries is because they aren't industrialized countries, but pretty much agrarian...
The reasons why aren't they industrialized is another issue, complex and deserving of a thread of its own...
When we were under a nobility we were still in a nation-state, though in a different form to what we consider it today. As for religion - it is because of nation-states that it has achieved enough power to cause people to die for it.
That's debatable, but okay, let's say that it is so. Let me rephrase - It was so much better when we were killing each other for our respective tribes and chiefs?
CountArach
09-12-2008, 23:09
That's debatable, but okay, let's say that it is so. Let me rephrase - It was so much better when we were killing each other for our respective tribes and chiefs?
No it wasn't, but Nation States have allowed for the industrialisation of killing.
No it wasn't, but Nation States have allowed for the industrialisation of killing.
Dear god CountArach do they teach you anything but marxism at your university?
Big_John
09-13-2008, 06:49
letting women speak out of turn.
edit: :grin:
Meneldil
09-13-2008, 17:28
When we were under a nobility we were still in a nation-state, though in a different form to what we consider it today. As for religion - it is because of nation-states that it has achieved enough power to cause people to die for it.
Not true, and not true.
Nation-state is widely considered as a creation of the modern era, and as such, do not include feudal state, tribal groups and so on.
And we all know that people have been willing to kill themselves over a religious issue way before the modern era.
I think you're confusing state and nation here. Both are two really different notions.
No it wasn't, but Nation States have allowed for the industrialisation of killing.
I disagree aswell.
The Ottoman Empire was in 1917 all but a nation-state (Empire being almost the antithesis of nation-state), yet it's responsible for the first large-scall genocide of the 20th century.
Furthermore, the world has known large-scale genocide in the past aswell. The fact that Mongols or Conquistadores didn't have death camps doesn't make their slaughter less hideous.
Askthepizzaguy
09-13-2008, 18:41
The greatest human tragedy of all time is the deliberate, intentional, planned, institutionalized spreading of ignorance through the use of propaganda, lies, irrational arguments, misleading data, false assumptions, and superstitious belief.
What begins at childhood, people are indoctrinated to believe falsehoods or unproven opinions as fact. Examples of which include religious-based intolerance, racism, or faith-based mythology. A moral code is instructed to them which does not include humility, compassion, self-doubt, and non-aggression. Children are taught, in most societies (including mine in the United States) to fear, suspect, doubt, and hate others for their differing appearances, cultures, and philosophies.
Fear and suspicion of Muslims, of Communism, of Atheism, of Mormonism; in some societies, the fear and hatred of Jews, of Serbians, of Croatians, of Catholics, Protestants, and even Pagans. The hatred between Hindus and Muslims, Buddhists and Muslims, Christians and other faiths, begins at childhood. This is evident because if a person who was taught nothing of religion encounters a person of faith, they may be confused as to why that person believes in such ostensibly ridiculous things, but at the same time does not fear or hate them.
Fear and hate are taught, en masse, by religious extremists. This is not limited to those who believe, but also to some extent by those who do not believe. Militant atheism causes hatred of those with faith.
However, it is not merely ignorance and fear and hate which is taught about religion, but about race. Which is an absurdly stupid concept. At least with religion there may be an argument for it's abolishment, for some faiths teach rituals which are harmful to the human body, and teach abuse towards women and child abuse. However, a person's "race" never hurt anyone.
Much like fearing someone for having green eyes, racism is an irrational, ignorant fear of someone for their genetic diversity from one's self. At the same time, we do not fear dogs or cats, and they have a MUCH wider genetic diversity from ourselves. Yet we fear those with less than 1 tenth of 1 percent genetic deviation. Regardless where you live on earth or what genetic makeup you have, you are more than 99% the same as every other human being who ever lived.
Also consider European racism, for example. While one might fear black people, as an example, for looking different from a European (a silly reason to fear someone), Adolf Hitler looked exactly like an average European man, and he ended up killing far more Europeans than anyone else. Sounds like Europeans should fear themselves, if they have anyone to fear. And even so, there is no reason to judge someone for their genetics. If Adolf Hitler had a son or a grandson, can you guarantee that child would be an evil genocidal maniac?
Has anyone here ever been related to a criminal or a murderer? Somewhere down the line, I am afraid we are ALL related to someone who killed. Should we fear one another for the crimes of our ancestors? This is why current race relations between Muslims and Hindus, Whites and Blacks, etc, being as low as they are, are based upon crimes committed in the past, and which causes crimes to be committed in the present, and will inspire crimes to be committed in the future, because people refuse to let things go.
The cycle of revenge traps us in racism, when those old hatreds should have died with the people who caused the crimes, and the people who were victims thereof. But teaching our children ignorance, racism, and hate, allows that same wicked ignorance to proliferate to a new generation.
The indoctrination of children, in general, whether political, racial, religious, or secular, forces an ideology onto an unwilling minor who is not mature enough to make decisions for themselves. They are not at the age of consent.
Teaching political, religious, or any other kind of ideology to a child is a crime, in my view. When a person is old enough to make a rational choice for themselves, then offering to teach them your viewpoint is acceptable. Teaching a child to pray and worship and participate in rituals, teaching them who their "enemies" are, telling them of politics when it is none of their business, forcing your viewpoint, your hatreds, your ignorance, your superstitions, your faith (right or wrong) onto a child removes their ability to say no, removes their ability to make a choice, to choose to become who they are.
Because hatred and ignorance will disappear over time, forgotten by the mind, and killed off by the natural event of death, the only reason it exists today is because there is a concerted, intentional, organized and conscious effort to spread ignorance.
Religious institutions, political propaganda machines, and intolerant parents forcing false, unsubstantiated, and hateful doctrine onto a new generation, this is the machination which drives human ignorance from generation to generation to generation. This allows the religious superstitions to not only survive, but to grow and claim ever more people, convincing them they must give their wealth and their rational thought, their skepticism, their alternative viewpoints, their objections, their reasoning, and surrender them all to a religious institution. Or, it allows racist groups to spread their hatred to innocent children. Or it allows political machines to remain in power decades after they have continued to fail the people who elected them.
It all stems from conscious spreading of ignorance, fear, lies, and hatred.
Militancy, is irrational use of force to spread an irrational ideology. Any ideology which requires being spread by gunpoint is obviously being rejected by the people who wanted not to believe it, but are now forced to. Most major religions were spread by warfare and conquest, forced conversion, inquisition, crusade and jihad, or state-sponsored conversion. Most major prejudices, hatreds, and superstitions were spread by militants, by irresponsible parents threatening their children with punishment if they did not learn their scripture, or repeat their vile hatred of racial minorities.
Militant hatred, forced ignorance... we see how it spreads.
Now look; as the ignorance festers, there is only one outcome. An entire generation of minds poisoned by falsehoods, lies, fears, and superstitions, bending to the will of their controlling overlords, be they religious, political, or economic; Now they listen to their masters who control their ignorant minds, and they blame others for their problems.
They ignorantly blame their lot in life on people they have never met, who have done them no wrong. They become hungry, greedy, and they hate what others have, because they ignore the fact that they are living and breathing without that which others have. They are convinced that the only way that they can live a prosperous life, and provide for their children, is to take up arms and destroy their enemies, and take their lands, their possessions, their women, their natural resources.
And so begins war, where military propaganda machines churn out obedient and loyal followers of The Doctrine, be it political, religious, or racist. These otherwise fine human beings, programmed since birth to believe. To Believe, not to think. To Believe, not to study, to believe, not to rationalize. To believe, not to question. To believe, not to choose.
These obedient, loyal believers... indoctrinated by ignorance, motivated by desire, influenced by peer pressure and repeated lies by their puppet masters, fed the doctrine, and forced to believe it... these loyal obedient slaves of human ignorance are then taught only how to destroy, how to maim, how to kill, how to conquer, how to cause suffering.
Not how to resolve disputes. Not how to disarm without harming. Not how to coexist. Not how to feel compassion.
These slaves of human ignorance, who have been fed everything they need to believe and nothing they need to know, proceed to destroy humanity.
Thus the virus of ignorance has taken control of the human mind, the human body, the human race, and has wrought it's fatal consequences.
Racial wars, religious wars, political wars, territorial wars, resource wars, fear wars. Instead of enlightened cooperation, defense, and resolution of disputes, there is only death. Only killing, murder, and atrocity. And those who command the two sides of this battle all believe the same thing; In order to keep the power they have, they must write the history books, and indoctrinate another generation of innocent people, having annihilated one generation after another.
Now look at the death toll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_toll
World Wars, Chinese "civil" wars, wars of conquest and oppression. The Holocaust, The Great Leap Forward, the conquest of Native Americans, the Atlantic slave trade, the Arab slave trade. The Crusades, the Inquisitions, the spread of Islam and Christianity. The religious wars of China, the suppression of minorities and other faiths, the forced conversion of the Zoroastrians, the European conquests of Africa, possession of India and China...
All based upon the concept of concerted, intentional, indoctrination of human ignorance, lies, fears, and hatreds, forced upon young innocent children. Generation after generation destroyed through racism, through conquest, through slavery, through religious conversion, through holy war.
Conscious ignorance. This is the greatest plague against humanity that has ever been, or ever will be. If it caused death alone, it would be almost gentle and healing, for those who are ignorant or choose to be ignorant would be wiped out. But this plague, this virus of the mind, conscious ignorance, irrational fear, irrational belief, militancy and extremism, this spreads from one innocent mind to another, until the entire human race is destroyed in a final holocaust.
Askthepizzaguy:
:applause::applause::applause:
Meneldil
09-13-2008, 22:48
I beg to differ on a few different points :
Firstly, modern racism is IMO not ethnical, but cultural. ie. it's not aimed toward a specific race/skin color, but toward a specific culture.
Does it make it any less stupid ? No, but nonetheless, I don't think racism can be summarized as "I hate these guy 'cause he has green eyes".
Secondly, sure, none should impose its value to a child, at least till he can make a rational choice. Thing is, IMO, 80% of the population is simply not capable to make such a choice (that is, considering that rational choice even exist). That's why propaganda and endoctrinment won't disapear anytime in a near future.
Even if it was possible to educate the population (which would be contrary to the elite's interests), I think most people wouldn't care. Being educated and enlightened requires a lot of work and time, and is in a way, exhausting.
Askthepizzaguy
09-13-2008, 22:52
Friendly Rebuttal:
In some cases, you may be right. But the plain fact is, there are racist groups bent on hating black people for being black, not because they dislike gangsta rap or because they have a grudge against Africa for some reason.
I would say it's not always the case, but there is still plenty of RACE-based racism left. I wish I were wrong, but I'm not, unfortunately.
Your second point, to summarize: "ignorance is bliss", right?
I dunno. This world doesn't seem blissful to me. It's not actually blissful, but being ignorant is like being drunk, it incapacitates you and numbs your brain.
You never cease to amaze me, pizzaguy. :bow:
Xipe Totec
09-14-2008, 22:26
I think Askthepizzaguy has more or less hit the nail on the head. There has been a constant struggle between ideas and ideologies throughout human history. People have been kept divided to serve the ends of the elite who rule. Their most powerful tool has always been ignorance and falsehood. Their greatest fear is the spread of truth and knowledge. :book:
If enough people know enough about enough the big lies will crumble in the face of the realisation of what is really quite obvious to many of us now. :idea2: There is no such thing as a race and never was. Learning enough about anthropology and genetics makes that obvious. There is no logical reason to expect an afterlife, but it sure helps the few to cheat the many. Nations are simply arbitrary divisions thrown up by historical accidents, not some expression of a unique biological identity. Competition between economies is not some inevitable Darwinian process, rather it is some twisted game of roulette to amuse the ruling classes and ignores the misery and frustration heaped upon the majority of humanity.
However it is not inevitable that we will remain ignorant forever. They control as much of the media as possible and daily brainwash the masses with advertising and propaganda. That's why most people wish only to believe what they are told, do what they are told, buy what they are told, and reap the rich rewards of over-eating and over-borrowing.
Perhaps the internet will prove to be the greatest tool ever devised for spreading counter arguments which unite people and enrich their lives. People may one day comprehend what marvels they are and how much happier we all could be if we work together for the good of all rather than against one another for the benefit of a few. I'd like to hope that will be the future for humanity, because the alternative is escalating strife over dwindling resources and perhaps a holocaust of a world war we may not survive. :skull:
Askthepizzaguy
09-14-2008, 22:42
Bravo! :applause:
Bravissimo! I wish the internet were the tool of bringing people together, but I see it equally a method of tearing people apart. The information age is at odds with the propaganda age. Separating fiction from truth is the key which will unlock this chaotic knot of lies, and allow people to see things from a very similarly objective viewpoint.
That will unite us... objectivity. Skepticism. Reasonable doubt.
Think like a scientist who is unravelling the mysteries of the universe, and we may yet penetrate the eternal fog.
Togakure
09-15-2008, 00:38
I think it is a terrible tragedy that our own antiquated belief systems, and values and behaviors derived from them, inhibit the human race from evolving more rapidly. But it is pointless to rail against what is, really. It's simply the Way of things.
Askthepizzaguy
09-15-2008, 01:24
Good post! I disagree about one thing, Masamune:
Although I am a skeptic and a cynic and I also believe that ignorance is in the majority, in a strong fortified position within the upper eschelons of our society as well as dispersed within, I do not believe it is pointless to resist.
Slavery was worth resisting. Imperialism was worth resisting. Nazism was worth resisting. Totalitarianism is worth resisting. Surely ignorance is worth resisting, within ourselves, and through free exchange of ideas, battling of logic against unsupported assumption in others.
Through resistance and vigilance and curiosity and skepticism, we battle the ignorance within ourselves. Through the war of ideas, the wrong ideas will be burned within the fire, and the right ones will prevail. This battles the ignorance in others. What must ensure this victory is an objective mind. One cannot convince a stubborn mind that it is wrong, the stubborn mind must choose to open, and choose to believe that it can be wrong.
When everyone on Earth accepts the possibility of being wrong, peace becomes a real concept, something that can be achieved in time.
Togakure
09-15-2008, 02:02
Thank you, Askthepizzaguy. I didn't mean to suggest that it is pointless to resist such things as you describe, but that what is, is, what was, was, and what will be, will be, etc. Humanity will take its course. Choices and consequences will direct that course on micro and macro levels; we are all part of it and all that we think, say, do matters--and doesn't matter.
It's definitely not pointless to resist what we perceive to be counterproductive belief systems, values, behaviors, etc., but I question the effectiveness of railing with and against the masses in the ways we currently do, which leads to so much strife and violence. How we resist is significant. I think a better use of personal energy is to forward the evolution of ourselves as individuals. In doing so, we forward the evolution of our kind indirectly, but do not presume to subject others to our own beliefs and values. To share when others are receptive is good; to push, to force is not.
What is considered productive by some is considered counterproductive by others. Who decides? The majority? In statistics, the majority is average. By evolving ourselves, we address this issue of ignorance. It gets sticky when influence comes into play. There is no easy solution. The one thing we can, to an extent, control is ourselves--what we think, what we say, what we do. It begins and ends with the individual. Societies echo what individuals believe, say, do.
This is a very complicated subject. It's very difficult to explain these thoughts of mine using words. I hope I'm not getting in over my head here. I don't want to argue with anyone.
CountArach
09-15-2008, 12:35
Dear god CountArach do they teach you anything but marxism at your university?
Yes... I figured that myself. I do Ancient History - not much Marxism there.
Not true, and not true.
Nation-state is widely considered as a creation of the modern era, and as such, do not include feudal state, tribal groups and so on.
Alright then, how about the State in the sense of a person with authority ruling over others?
And we all know that people have been willing to kill themselves over a religious issue way before the modern era.
I think you're confusing state and nation here. Both are two really different notions.
I apologise. I know the difference, but often I use the term interchangably.
Strike For The South
09-15-2008, 17:28
Im changing my vote. Self richeousness
Xipe Totec
09-15-2008, 19:06
Good post! I disagree about one thing, Masamune:
Although I am a skeptic and a cynic and I also believe that ignorance is in the majority, in a strong fortified position within the upper eschelons of our society as well as dispersed within, I do not believe it is pointless to resist.
Slavery was worth resisting. Imperialism was worth resisting. Nazism was worth resisting. Totalitarianism is worth resisting. Surely ignorance is worth resisting, within ourselves, and through free exchange of ideas, battling of logic against unsupported assumption in others.
Through resistance and vigilance and curiosity and skepticism, we battle the ignorance within ourselves. Through the war of ideas, the wrong ideas will be burned within the fire, and the right ones will prevail. This battles the ignorance in others. What must ensure this victory is an objective mind. One cannot convince a stubborn mind that it is wrong, the stubborn mind must choose to open, and choose to believe that it can be wrong.
When everyone on Earth accepts the possibility of being wrong, peace becomes a real concept, something that can be achieved in time.
I think this reply is brilliant! Of course I may be wrong...:beam:
Mouzafphaerre
09-16-2008, 06:40
.
The Ottoman Empire was in 1917 all but a nation-state (Empire being almost the antithesis of nation-state), yet it's responsible for the first large-scall genocide of the 20th century.
You mean 1915, I guess, the Armenian Genocide. (That alone deserves a nomination for the thread title.)
The ruling oligarchs, namely the Ittihad-Terakki regime of what remained of the empire, who had absolute dictatorial power since 1913, with an old figurehead of an emperor signing the death warrant even of his own brother-in-law under the gunpoint of Enver, the chief of the oligarchs and the mind behind the genocide, was far into the process of transforming the ruin of the empire into an ethno-religious "nation state". In 1915, the Ottoman Empire was no more an empire than the Empire of Central Africa. The Balkan countries had already seceded or lost in war, Syria and Iraq already under invasion and the most important, populous and influential non-Muslim community being massacred or mass-expelled.
Indeed, the current regime of the "nation state" of Turkey is a direct continuation of the Ittihad-Terakki dictatorship and not of the empire, which had all but nominally gone down in 1908 when they had first taken over the rule.
Your point is moot. :bow:
.
Sarathos
09-16-2008, 08:56
Put me down for religion.
Adrian II
09-16-2008, 08:57
Yeah, people working only 8h per day instead of from dawn to dusk, having good medical care, education, enough money to fulfill their needs not just to sustain themselves is a real bummer.:laugh3:
The Manhattan Project.
given that Germany had their own atomic project i am jolly glad we got there first!
Askthepizzaguy
09-16-2008, 15:48
Put me down for religion.
Although I would suggest that belief (or hope) that there is a God or Gods is not in and of itself too destructive, what people add to those beliefs almost always is. If one presumes that there is a God, I suppose it gives people hope that if they do well in this life they will be rewarded by the eternal judge and be granted everlasting peace and harmony. While I think this is a bit too optimistic to believe wholeheartedly, as much as I'd like to believe it, I do not think that it can be disproven that there is a God, and so therefore it's even in the realm of legitimate theory. How did the universe get here, and why? God seems as good an explanation as any.
But what happens when people convince other people that they know God, they speak to God, they rub elbows with this God, and play Parcheesi with God? There are always going to be stupid people who believe it. (Part of that whole ignorance concept I describe above) Then they stand up and say the following things:
1. "There is only one written word of God, and it just so happens I have a copy of it, in my own handwriting no less."
2. "If you do not believe that this is the written word of God, he will burn you forever in a lake of fire where you will writhe in agony for all eternity, you worthless vile sinner... but he loves you."
3. "If you take up arms against the infidels, you will be rewarded by Allah by 72 virgin slave girls"
4. "It is right to mutilate your infant child's genitals, and if you refuse, he will not be allowed in God's special club for chosen people."
5. "It is perfectly acceptible for a man to divorce his wife by saying 'I divorce you'. Women, on the other hand, need the approval of their family."
6. "A woman's testimony is worth half what a man's testimony is."
7. "God is capable of destroying entire cities filled with innocent women and children because the city has homosexual men in it"
8. "God might ask you to kill your own son, and if you attempt to go through with it, he will reward you by making you his chosen messenger."
9. "Moses, the most pious man of them all in the eyes of God, killed an Egyptian when no one was looking. This means that murder is ok under certain circumstances." (Exodus 2:12)
10. "God can indiscriminately kill all the firstborn children in Egypt to prove a political point. He's such a nice guy."
11. "Only virgins are worthy of marriage. The younger, the better."
12. Exodus 2:20 says that it's "OK to kill the 4 billion people on Earth who do not believe in the Biblical God."
13. "I will bring evil unto all Flesh, sayeth the LORD" (Jer 45:5)
I could continue, but there isn't enough space for all the criticisms I have.
Oh yeah. These are the religions I want to follow. Let's make sure we always do the following:
1. Attend church and pay the nice holy men a tithe so that they can say how condemned to hellfire we are for being such nasty sinners. (What do they use our charity for? They build gold-encrusted churches and gilded Bibles and fancy cathedrals to convince more people to cough up money)
2. Trust pastors and preachers, for they would never lie, cheat, steal, or molest children. (Right!)
3. Elect an "infallible" man to take the place of Jesus, and wear offical robes and a pretty crown, and lay down even more edicts he received in a phone call he had with Jehovah this afternoon. (By the way, these certain infallible men have started Holy wars, killed men on the battlefield, and were defeated in battle. And later Popes contradicted earlier Popes, because they were ever more infallible. And some Popes had children out of wedlock, and committed sins. Hmmmm...)
4. Pray five times a day, because five is the magical number of the mighty Allah. Six would be too many, and four would make you an infidel worthy of being smoted.
5. If you meet an infidel, cut his throat.
You get the idea. There's far more, but I have something else I want to say.
It's not just the Abrahamic faiths that deserve to be shunned. The whole "untouchable" thing in Hindu culture is an abomination. The practice of female circumcision in African and Arabic culture, inspired by a mix of African tradition and Islamic law, is a horrendous travesty. The Aztec religion required the ritual human sacrifice of millions of people, a Holocaust in and of itself. Pagan, Wiccan, Vodun, you name it. There's enough criticism for everyone.
Don't get me wrong, anti-religious movements (See: Soviet Russia, China) have caused the deaths of millions too and provided the excuse for many horrendous crimes. It was the militant anti-theist philosophy, spread by mass murder, which was the cause of that. Of course, when you believe in something enough to kill for it, and believe your philosophy is the only true path, then one might say you're acting exactly like an intolerant religious fundamentalist, whose religion just happens to be "anti-religion".
Bottom line: Religion owes us an apology. Big time.
Bottom line: Religion owes us an apology. Big time.
Is it the religion itself or the people that run it? :inquisitive:
There's always two sides to the sword(or however that saying goes), and there are both good and bad sides to religion. Many of the time it is the moral basis for which society lives by nowadays, yet then there are those who :daisy::daisy::daisy::daisy: it up for the rest of us or misuse it for their own purposes which in turn would turn many away as I have witnessed. But unlike you saying Religion owes us an apology, I tend to see it as the crazy :daisy::daisy::daisy::daisy::daisy::daisy::daisy::daisy: that owe US an apology for messing with religion in the first place :whip:
Askthepizzaguy
09-16-2008, 21:37
Is it the religion itself or the people that run it? :inquisitive:
There's always two sides to the sword(or however that saying goes), and there are both good and bad sides to religion. Many of the time it is the moral basis for which society lives by nowadays, yet then there are those who :daisy::daisy::daisy::daisy: it up for the rest of us or misuse it for their own purposes which in turn would turn many away as I have witnessed. But unlike you saying Religion owes us an apology, I tend to see it as the crazy :daisy::daisy::daisy::daisy::daisy::daisy::daisy::daisy: that owe US an apology for messing with religion in the first place :whip:
Well I could make the distinction between organized religion and personal faith, but I didn't see the need. One person's personal faith is unlikely to change the world for the worse, unless he's a mass murderer or the owner of a nation. However, when someone's faith becomes the faith of the masses, that's when bad stuff starts to happen. It's organized religion which is the culprit.
When one has personal faith, one does not need people to "run" thier religion. However, when one subscribes to one of the major religions and believes that they need to have some guy wearing a dress telling them what to believe, how to act, how to pray, which passages of which book to read; that's when people start to worship what fallible men have come up with, rather than something genuinely spiritual.
One can have religious faith without having to attend some group. And if so, they tend not to cause trouble. It's the big organized faiths which start wars and condemn one another for being heretical.
Well I could make the distinction between organized religion and personal faith, but I didn't see the need. One person's personal faith is unlikely to change the world for the worse, unless he's a mass murderer or the owner of a nation. However, when someone's faith becomes the faith of the masses, that's when bad stuff starts to happen. It's organized religion which is the culprit.
When one has personal faith, one does not need people to "run" their religion. However, when one subscribes to one of the major religions and believes that they need to have some guy wearing a dress telling them what to believe, how to act, how to pray, which passages of which book to read; that's when people start to worship what fallible men have come up with, rather than something genuinely spiritual.
One can have religious faith without having to attend some group. And if so, they tend not to cause trouble. It's the big organized faiths which start wars and condemn one another for being heretical.
Ahhh.... okay. I see what you mean. I was a little confused with what you were saying.
Mouzafphaerre
09-17-2008, 03:51
.
The practice of female circumcision in African and Arabic culture, inspired by a mix of African tradition and Islamic law
It should be clearly known that the so called female circumcision (brutally cutting off the visible part of the clitoris) has absolutely nothing to do with Islamic law. I was outraged last Sunday to hear on an NGC documentary (not one of their best, btw) that a grizzled old sheikh at El-Ezher advocate the contrary. (He had absolutely no proof for his claim but his prideful and arrogant statement.) That man and his likes deserve being dismembered and left to death from bleeding! :rifle:
.
Askthepizzaguy
09-17-2008, 13:13
.
It should be clearly known that the so called female circumcision (brutally cutting off the visible part of the clitoris) has absolutely nothing to do with Islamic law. I was outraged last Sunday to hear on an NGC documentary (not one of their best, btw) that a grizzled old sheikh at El-Ezher advocate the contrary. (He had absolutely no proof for his claim but his prideful and arrogant statement.) That man and his likes deserve being dismembered and left to death from bleeding! :rifle:
.
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/438/viewall/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision#Cultural_and_religious_aspects
Female genital cutting predates Islam. In Saudi Arabia, in the area known as the Hijaz, where Islam originated, FGC was already being practiced during the lifetime of Muhammad. To call a man a "circumciser of women" was an insult among the pagan Arabs at the time. Female genital cutting is not commanded by the Qur'an and is not practiced by the majority of Muslims. In Egypt, mufti Sheikh Ali Gomaa stated: "The traditional form of excision is a practice totally banned by Islam because of the compelling evidence of the extensive damage it causes to women's bodies and minds."
I am delighted in the extreme to have been proven wrong about something I repeated in error.
Islam itself did not mandate or begin this practice.
However, Islam is not totally innocent, because although they did not originate this practice, at least one Sunni Muslim school mandates this barbarism.
One of the four Sunni schools of religious law, the Shafi'i school, rules that trimming of the clitoral hood is mandatory. Sheikh Faraz Rabbani states, "That which is wajib [obligatory] in the Shafi`i texts is merely slight 'trimming' of the tip of the clitoral hood - prepuce." Contrary to the WHO definition, he states that this practice is not "FGM, nor harmful to the woman or her ability to derive sexual pleasure." He states that "excision, FGM, or other harmful practices" are not permitted. In 1994, Egyptian Mufti Sheikh Jad Al-Hâqq argued that the procedure may not be banned simply on grounds of improper use. The Al-Azhar University in Cairo has issued several fatwas endorsing FGC, in 1949, 1951 and 1981.
So, as you can see, while the Quran does not specifically advocate for it in any way, certain religious Islamic schools do. But Mouzafphaerre is right, Islam itself is not the culprit here.
I even double checked my Quran, and double checked the Skeptics Annotated Quran. If I have overlooked anything, feel free to correct me again.
___________________________________
On a related note, female genital circumcision is among the most horrendous examples of the concept of ignorance I described earlier. Thankfully Mouzafphaerre was here to heal my ignorance regarding Islam as the culprit.
And that is how people are supposed to behave when confronted with their own ignorance. :7teacher:
I enjoy having my ignorance healed.
Good posts Askthepizzaguy. I'd have to say pride or as STFS put it:
Self richeousness
Askthepizzaguy
09-17-2008, 13:38
self-righteousness. :bow:
Indeed, people who believe their righteousness flows from within (self-righteous) are practicing a form of ignorance. Wisdom does not come from within, nor does righteousness, but from observation about the world, and studying the concepts of right and wrong with an open mind.
Mouzafphaerre
09-17-2008, 15:04
.
The majority of Kurds (about one fifth of the total population) and the whole of Arabs in TR follow the Shafī school, which I'm not totally ignorant of. Especially the Kurd mullas are extremely strict, dare I say fanatic, about the Shafi ways and none of them either practice or advocate the clit-cutting.
Your Wikipedia quote is apparently taken from the abominable mouth of one of the types of the Ezher professor I told about. It has nothing to do with any established Sunni or Shi'i system. I dislike bragging but I'm well learned enough in religious matters and I can back up my stance with solid reference if needed. They can't. They are simply the toys of damnable tradition and talking in religious disguise. :rtwno:
.
Askthepizzaguy
09-17-2008, 15:13
The Al-Azhar University in Cairo has issued several fatwas endorsing FGC, in 1949, 1951 and 1981.
Mouzafphaerre, do you know anything about these fatwas, or can you refute their existence?
I am only quoting from semi-reliable sources, so I would be happy to be proven wrong again. I have no real dog in this fight, I want the truth to prevail. Is it not true that some shieks and some religious universities advocate this practice, claiming it to be in the name of Islam?
Thank you for your patience in helping me unravel this mystery.
Togakure
09-17-2008, 17:36
self-righteousness. :bow:
Indeed, people who believe their righteousness flows from within (self-righteous) are practicing a form of ignorance. Wisdom does not come from within, nor does righteousness, but from observation about the world, and studying the concepts of right and wrong with an open mind.
I think Sufis and Zen Buddhists at least would wholeheartedly disagree with you on this, though perhaps the term enlightened would need to be substituted for righteous.
You rail against religions that use their powerful influence to forward agendas, yet you seem to be doing the same thing, albeit on a minute scale. Many of your statements seem rather self-righteous. Do you see any of this in yourself and how you present your agenda? How are you different? How are you wiser, more righteous, less ignorant?
Mouzafphaerre
09-17-2008, 17:54
Mouzafphaerre, do you know anything about these fatwas, or can you refute their existence?
I am only quoting from semi-reliable sources, so I would be happy to be proven wrong again. I have no real dog in this fight, I want the truth to prevail. Is it not true that some shieks and some religious universities advocate this practice, claiming it to be in the name of Islam?
Thank you for your patience in helping me unravel this mystery.
.
A fatwa is simply an answer to a question given by a supposedly knowing person. It's nothing like a papal verdict or something of sorts. You may take it granted (as the clit butchers do) or don't give a cr@p (as I do).
In most cases, the responders are surprisingly naïve scholars who have no interest whatsoever of the intentions of the questioner, who knows the cunning ways of providing a "religious reference" for whatever he's aiming to do, most of the time simple tax frauds or the like. However, in such an abominable and clearly un-Islamic act of violence, the issuers of the fatwas I deem equally responsible and guilty with those who do the vile act themselves. :rtwno:
As a side note, I don't necessarily care what El-Ezher has to say in most matters. It's been a long time since it lost its value as a pure school of knowledge and became a tool of dignifying the corrupt state and community of Egypt.
ADD. Apparently they are attempting to rest their case on the fact that Islam doesn't prohibit any act or habit, personal or traditional, which is not contradicting its own laws. However, the very preservation of human body, which is deemed a "temple", is one of the most important laws of the religion itself. The clit-cutting is carried on to rob the woman off her sexual pleasure and based on the delusion that her desire for sexual relation originated from the clit. (That delusion must have been semi-universal in some point in time. See the history of the word hysteria). That insolent and dishonourable man, apparently of the Ezher, I heard on the NGC documentary, advocated clit-cutting on that very basis, ie women without clits would be less willing and seductive and that "the western community wihout morals would take much advantage of the practice, if adopted, saving them from being seduced by their women" or some sort of nonsense.
Depriving a woman (or man, for that matter) from her/his potential of achieving sexual pleasure can only be called "Zulm ― ظلم" in Islamic terms and it's God's own word that لعنة الله علی الظالمين. Hth :bow:
.
Mangudai
09-17-2008, 18:24
Family Values
Family values have incited far more violence than religion. Think of all the wars of succession, all the revenge killings, etc.
It is not sufficient to abolish that opiate of the masses called religion. To create a better society we must abolish the institution of family. Children should address all proletarians as brother and sister, and have greater loyalty to the state than to their own parents. This is inevitable, the march of history is on our side comrades.
:inquisitive:
(for the sarcastically impaired, this is a joke)
Askthepizzaguy
09-17-2008, 18:30
I think Sufis and Zen Buddhists at least would wholeheartedly disagree with you on this, though perhaps the term enlightened would need to be substituted for righteous.
You rail against religions that use their powerful influence to forward agendas, yet you seem to be doing the same thing, albeit on a minute scale. Many of your statements seem rather self-righteous. Do you see any of this in yourself and how you present your agenda? How are you different? How are you wiser, more righteous, less ignorant?
You rail against religions that use their powerful influence to forward agendas, yet you seem to be doing the same thing, albeit on a minute scale
I do not criticize religions for forwarding an agenda. I criticize those who blindly accept everything that an organization dictates without applying critical thinking. I criticize those who purposefully put forth untested, unproven, and patently false information in the form of lies and propaganda. I criticize those who teach that even though they cannot prove it, their ideology is the only correct one, and all other ideologies are false and heretical. I criticize organized faith for hypocritically demanding that none question or debate their philosophies, yet over time they themselves change their own holy doctrine. (See the Catholic church and it's position on the concept of Limbo, Papal decrees being overturned by later Papal decrees)
If only those at the head of a religion are allowed to alter its message or criticize it, then it is an elitist organization. If rational people are not allowed to openly challenge the tenets of a faith, then the faith is unreasonable, closed, and intolerant of free speech. This can lead to violence against those who simply call things as they see them, and opine that certain faiths are unreasonable.
I have an agenda, it is true. However, I never once asked anyone to blindly accept what I believe. I do not fear being challenged in open debate. I do not knock on anyone's doors offering to convert them. I do not ask for tithes or charity or worship or ritual. I do not knowingly put forth false propaganda regarding my political adversaries, I invite others to challenge the veracity of my allegations, decide for themselves, and indeed correct me if I am wrong. I do not teach that only my ideology is the only correct one, and that everyone must convert to my belief system. I do not ask anyone to refrain from questioning me, debating me, and I allow everyone to contribute to the ideas I put forward. I do not hold secret meetings with elitists in order to change the tenets of my opinions, I allow rational minds of all people to have the oppurtunity to challenge my bad ideas and offer good ideas.
When I see that I have made an error, I correct it with an apology. And I welcome the idea that I am fallible, and that I am ignorant, and that I need improvement.
You cannot say any of these things about certain religious organizations. Indeed, I put forward my ideas in the public arena, however that is where the comparison between myself and organized religion ends.
Many of your statements seem rather self-righteous
Interesting. Can you point out which ones, and why you feel that way?
There is a difference in my mind between righteousness and self-righteousness; between being correct and merely thinking one is always correct. Although I do believe that the philosophy I subscribe to is more rational than the ones I criticize, I never once claimed to be a holy prophet, nor have I claimed to have all the answers.
I am not stubborn in belief that I am correct about things. Prove me wrong and I will change my mind. That is not self-righteousness, that is an honest attempt at rationalism. I am honestly attempting to be righteous, but I admit that I may fail at it. I do believe there is a clear difference between rational criticism and self-righteousness. You may feel free to disagree or debate the point.
Do you see any of this in yourself and how you present your agenda?
Yes, there was a time when I was younger when I was far more closed minded and stubborn, arrogant even when condemning those I disagreed with. Time and experience have shown me this is not the way.
However, passionately railing against blind trust and ignorance is something I will always do, even if I remove some of the errors of my thinking, it is still the kind of work that should be done. In my opinion, people must be more consciously aware of the dark side of ignorance, of untruths, of lies. In my nation and in modern culture ignorance, untruths, and lies are tolerated and even encouraged by the less scrupulous types who seek to appeal to the lowest common denominator in their quest for power, fame, and riches.
I still heavily criticize myself and the way I present my agenda, and invite criticism thereof. No one is a harsher critic of myself than I am. I also realise that I will never be perfect, and the message will always be spread by a fallible person. Yet the message itself is sound, in my opinion.
How are you wiser, more righteous, less ignorant?
I am not.
I am inexperienced, unjust, and ignorant, just as everyone else is. However, I am not the issue, nor do I present my agenda as a cult of personality, nor do I make myself the center of attention. The issue is whether or not ignorance, blind faith, superstition, unfounded hatreds, propaganda, lies, and other irrational practices have any place in the public discourse, whether these things should be the basis of religion, of government, of societal law.
The message is more important than the man, by leaps and bounds. I am nothing, truth is everything.
___________________
To rail against ignorance and blind obedience and blind faith is my cause. If I were to do so with blindness and ignorance of my own failings, that would be hypocritical.
I do not present myself as holier than thou, nor infallible, nor immune from my own criticism. That is why the message is more important than the man.
Askthepizzaguy
09-17-2008, 18:39
.
A fatwa is simply an answer to a question given by a supposedly knowing person. It's nothing like a papal verdict or something of sorts. You may take it granted (as the clit butchers do) or don't give a cr@p (as I do).
In most cases, the responders are surprisingly naïve scholars who have no interest whatsoever of the intentions of the questioner, who knows the cunning ways of providing a "religious reference" for whatever he's aiming to do, most of the time simple tax frauds or the like. However, in such an abominable and clearly un-Islamic act of violence, the issuers of the fatwas I deem equally responsible and guilty with those who do the vile act themselves. :rtwno:
As a side note, I don't necessarily care what El-Ezher has to say in most matters. It's been a long time since it lost its value as a pure school of knowledge and became a tool of dignifying the corrupt state and community of Egypt.
ADD. Apparently they are attempting to rest their case on the fact that Islam doesn't prohibit any act or habit, personal or traditional, which is not contradicting its own laws. However, the very preservation of human body, which is deemed a "temple", is one of the most important laws of the religion itself. The clit-cutting is carried on to rob the woman off her sexual pleasure and based on the delusion that her desire for sexual relation originated from the clit. (That delusion must have been semi-universal in some point in time. See the history of the word hysteria). That insolent and dishonourable man, apparently of the Ezher, I heard on the NGC documentary, advocated clit-cutting on that very basis, ie women without clits would be less willing and seductive and that "the western community wihout morals would take much advantage of the practice, if adopted, saving them from being seduced by their women" or some sort of nonsense.
Depriving a woman (or man, for that matter) from her/his potential of achieving sexual pleasure can only be called "Zulm ― ظلم" in Islamic terms and it's God's own word that لعنة الله علی الظالمين. Hth :bow:
.
I thank you for your insightful, and well-reasoned, response to this question regarding the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation, and how it does/not pertain to your faith.
In this case it seems a small minority or extremists have added this ancient pre-Islamic practice to the current religion, and that it is not the fault of Islam.
:bow:
Strike For The South
09-17-2008, 19:02
What is truth? You yourself was just corrected in this thread although earlier you put your argument forth as the goods honest truth when in fact it was not. The fact of the matter is there really are no absolute "truths" You can sit here and scream all you want about the ignorant and blind but at the end of the day you are just the same as them. One can blindly follow rational thought as well. Just because he has many other distinguished men agreeing with him does not make him right or his point more valid. He may think it does but it doesn't. There are 2 "truths" for everyone
We are born
We die
So one can rally against the injustices one sees real or not one can muse over the days news and propagate theories and thoughts but at the end of the day we all croak and that is why I love tragedy because for every death there is birth and for every heart broken there is another mended. So you may have your ideals of some type of perfect utopian society. Where everyone is rational (as if smart men don't make dumb choices) While I'll work with what I've got.
Askthepizzaguy
09-17-2008, 19:24
What is truth? You yourself was just corrected in this thread although earlier you put your argument forth as the goods honest truth when in fact it was not. The fact of the matter is there really are no absolute "truths" You can sit here and scream all you want about the ignorant and blind but at the end of the day you are just the same as them. One can blindly follow rational thought as well. Just because he has many other distinguished men agreeing with him does not make him right or his point more valid. He may think it does but it doesn't. There are 2 "truths" for everyone
We are born
We die
So one can rally against the injustices one sees real or not one can muse over the days news and propagate theories and thoughts but at the end of the day we all croak and that is why I love tragedy because for every death there is birth and for every heart broken there is another mended. So you may have your ideals of some type of perfect utopian society. Where everyone is rational (as if smart men don't make dumb choices) While I'll work with what I've got.
What is truth?
Truth is the condition or property of being real and verifiable. Something which is not merely opinion, and has objective value, whether you happen to agree with it or not.
You yourself was just corrected in this thread although earlier you put your argument forth as the goods honest truth when in fact it was not.
Incorrect, I put forth an opinion. My belief that ignorance and blind faith was the wrong path. When I was corrected about a bit of information I presented, I immediately corrected it and apologised. This is entirely consistent with what I preach.
If I claimed I was the fountain of truth, that would make me both a hypocrite and a baboon.
The fact of the matter is there really are no absolute "truths"
You put forward as fact, rather than opinion, that there is no such thing as truth. Which would make your claim to be an assertion of truth.
Therefore, you are contradicting yourself in one breath. It is much like saying "This statement is false." It's bad logic.
One can blindly follow rational thought as well.
One can blindly obey the traffic laws and not veer into a telephone pole. Of course, understanding why we have traffic laws would be better, but rational thought is not something we should be condemning.
That is like arguing that we should all jab ice picks into our brains and scramble them around, because irrational thought would be somehow superior to rational thought.
Just because he has many other distinguished men agreeing with him does not make him right or his point more valid.
No, argument from popularity is bad logic, I agree. That is why I never cite how many people agree with me when I argue. I also don't argue from authority, because no one is the ultimate authority on reasoning.
But just because I have people who agree with me, that does not make my points less valid either. The two concepts have nothing to do with one another.
So one can rally against the injustices one sees real or not one can muse over the days news and propagate theories and thoughts but at the end of the day we all croak and that is why I love tragedy because for every death there is birth and for every heart broken there is another mended.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you are basically arguing that it is pointless to argue. That railing against ignorance and injustice is futile, in spite of the historical facts of imperialism, of slavery, of dangerous cults, destructive superstitions, genocides, and holy wars. That in the end, we will all die anyway, so what is the point?
I disagree. I feel that minds are worth saving, and that if it is pointless to argue and present an opinion, it is equally pointless to tell people such a thing.
Where everyone is rational (as if smart men don't make dumb choices) While I'll work with what I've got.
I do not expect a world free of error or emotion or ignorance. Because the world can never be perfect, that is no reason why it cannot be improved.
I highly doubt that we can reach 100% literacy and 100% immunity from disease either, but isn't working towards that ideal better than sitting around waiting for death?
I will work with the knowledge I have, and by freely exchanging that knowledge with others, comparing ideas, and acknowledging my own errors, I will educate and enlighten myself and expand my mind, while contributing in my own small way to the advancement of society. I disagree that it is futile to do so, and I disagree that it is irrational to attempt to be rational. I don't believe in futility, in irrationalism, in nihilism.
At the same time, I don't begrudge you your disagreement with me. It's not out of hostility that I oppose your viewpoint, but out of what meager experience and reason that I have. And if you truly believe what you say, you'll acknowledge that it is pointless to debate the issue, because there is no truth greater than whatever you believe.
I oppose that entire concept, as politely as I can. But I appreciate the debate. :bow:
Strike For The South
09-17-2008, 19:37
Im talking more along the lines of social truths. Expecting everyone to act rational and let go of the ignorance will never happen because one mans rationality IS another mans ignorance . You debated Mouz about female circumcision you believed your position to be true you posted links backing your truth. Then Mouz posted links proving you wrong if he had never shown up that would've been taken by everyone who views this thread as true and be seen as a cornerstone of the war against ignorance. Am I saying there are no wrongs in the world? No. What I am saying is that we have to respect what we believe is ignorant because many times they view us same way.
I think therefore I am.
Togakure
09-17-2008, 20:00
An excellent reply, thank you. You "speak" forcefully. I cannot see you, cannot observe your body language as you speak, can't hear your tone or inflections, and have not "observed" you here over time. I find it inherently difficult to trust people who present themselves with such force and emphasis, who obviously have an agenda, under such circumstances. The smarter they seem, the more distrustful I tend to be--an unfortunate habit I've developed living in this time and space. I am not one to easily accept such presentations as fact, or even credible, until I alleviate that mistrust. Answering my questions as you did, and particularly, in the manner that you did, increases my ability to hear you and accept what you have to say, or at least seriously consider it. I need to assure myself of your sincerity, and the nature of your agenda. Kudos. :bow:
Indeed, people who believe their righteousness flows from within (self-righteous) are practicing a form of ignorance. Wisdom does not come from within, nor does righteousness, but from observation about the world, and studying the concepts of right and wrong with an open mind.
It was the manner in which you wrote, more that the statements themselves, that made you seem a bit self-righteous to me. You state emphatically that neither wisdom nor righteousness come from within. This is contrary to what some believe--some whom I have come to view as wise. It seems that you are saying these people are self-righteous and practicing a form of ignorance. My limited understanding of sufism and zen suggest that enlightenment is indeed to be discovered "within," not through cognitive observation and critical analysis of the outside world. In fact, cognition inhibits its attainment, hence why meditation and the "stilling" of one's mind is central to their disciplines.
A definition of "self-righteous" I found online: Piously sure of one's own righteousness; moralistic.
Moralistic: Marked by a narrow-minded morality.
This is what I meant when I wrote you sounded a bit self-righteous. This is the first time I've heard it suggested that the self-righteous believe their righteousness "flows from within." It seemed as if you were discrediting the beliefs of those who believe as the sufis and zen practitioners do. You seemed emphatically sure of your own correctness. You are of the school that believes the answers lie without, which is fine--they may indeed. But when you emphatically state that those who believe the answers lie within are self-righteous and ignorant ....
Askthepizzaguy
09-17-2008, 20:57
Im talking more along the lines of social truths. Expecting everyone to act rational and let go of the ignorance will never happen because one mans rationality IS another mans ignorance . You debated Mouz about female circumcision you believed your position to be true you posted links backing your truth. Then Mouz posted links proving you wrong if he had never shown up that would've been taken by everyone who views this thread as true and be seen as a cornerstone of the war against ignorance. Am I saying there are no wrongs in the world? No. What I am saying is that we have to respect what we believe is ignorant because many times they view us same way.
I think therefore I am.
Im talking more along the lines of social truths.
To what are you referring? Religious, philosophical, or cultural differences? Socially-constructed truths?
These are opinions, albeit held by the masses. One's opinion can accept truth, but cannot dictate it. The same is true for the masses. While a million people can hold an opinion and vote that a minority does not deserve basic human rights, that does not make it so. That could make it societal law, but law and truth are not equal. That is why societal opinions change over time, old traditions die out, and laws get overturned.
Socially constructed truths are not truths at all, in my opinion. They are merely common assumptions.
Expecting everyone to act rational and let go of the ignorance will never happen because one mans rationality IS another mans ignorance
You are correct that expecting everyone to behave rationally is too optimistic, however, a person's opinion does not dictate truth. If one persons' rationality is derived from scientific, observable, quantifiable, definable truth, and another person's rationality is derived from rumor or superstition or utter fabrication, one is more likely to be credible than the other.
I agree that one person may hold something to be rational truth and yet remain ignorant, but it is not so simple to just say that everyone has an opinion and none are more valid than the others.
Science is based on the idea that evidenciary support, observable, testable results, and predictability are good models for forming rational theories. It is better to construct one's argument based in logic and reason and observation than simply opine about a thing and declare one's opinion to be as valid as everyone else's.
Were that the case, there would be no such thing as laws, or science, or mathematics, or facts. Or knowledge in general, for that matter. Everything would be an opinion. There would be no societal progress whatsoever if everyone simply believed that everything is irrational opinion, and there are no greater truths.
You debated Mouz about female circumcision you believed your position to be true you posted links backing your truth. Then Mouz posted links proving you wrong if he had never shown up that would've been taken by everyone who views this thread as true and be seen as a cornerstone of the war against ignorance.
And through the exchange of information, my own ignorance about the subject was reversed, and for the betterment of everyone involved in the conversation, the truth was revealed. Through the fires of debate and public exchange, bad ideas and falsehoods are destroyed and better ideas and more verifiable data is forged.
This is an example of the very thing I advocate. I don't see my ignorance about a bit of knowledge to be an irreparable failure or a weakness in my ideology, unless I stubbornly chose to remain ignorant and refused to concede. That would be hypocritical.
One of the reasons I don't just sit down and publish a book of my opinions is because my opinions are constantly changing and being updated to reflect the facts, as I combat my own ignorance. Posting here publicly gives me safeguards against my own weaknesses, because I am tapping into the knowledge of others.
The combined might of the knowledge of all of us, together, can defeat most forms of ignorance. Rather than disproving my point, this exchange further reinforces the assumption that what I am doing is rational and correct, and that the system is working. Eventually someone would have corrected that error, and that is why I subscribe to the theory that sitting down and shutting up never got anyone anywhere. Free exchange of ideas and knowledge helps reverse ignorance, while not entirely eliminating it.
If your point was, the advocate for the elimination of ignorance is both ignorant and fighting a hopeless battle, then you are correct.
However, I am acting to combat mine and others' ignorance, and that is not a hopeless battle. We're making progress right here, right now. And coming close to our ideal is the goal, even if the ideal is unattainable. Therefore the war may never be over, but it can be won.
To vastly improve the public consciousness and elevate literacy and reason to it's very highest level, to stamp out most forms of prejudice, superstition, blind hatred, and irrationalism; that is a noble goal, and while not totally attainable, it is absolutely partially attainable. Every step forward we make is a victory.
Am I saying there are no wrongs in the world? No. What I am saying is that we have to respect what we believe is ignorant because many times they view us same way.
I respect people, but I do not respect ideas. Ideas prove their worth by being tested against what is real, and against other ideas. The ones which fail get thrown away. But an idea is not worthy of respect unless it becomes proven fact.
For example, the idea that Jews are an inferior sub-human race might be an "idea", but that does not deem it worthy of respect in my view. I do not automatically give respect to ideas. Ignorance in and of itself is not worthy of respect. People, in spite of their ignorance, are worth far more than ideas, and should have their human rights and dignity respected.
I may choose to be polite to those who hold an ideology I staunchly oppose, but my ideas will be at odds with theirs and the ideas will "fight to the death" until the strongest one wins. At the same time, I will respect my opponent for the oppurtunity to grow and learn.
So, in summary, I disagree that we have to respect bad ideas. We just should respect one another.
I think therefore I am
And as long as we all keep thinking, we all shall be. And we all shall be better, too.
Askthepizzaguy
09-17-2008, 21:00
Im talking more along the lines of social truths. Expecting everyone to act rational and let go of the ignorance will never happen because one mans rationality IS another mans ignorance . You debated Mouz about female circumcision you believed your position to be true you posted links backing your truth. Then Mouz posted links proving you wrong if he had never shown up that would've been taken by everyone who views this thread as true and be seen as a cornerstone of the war against ignorance. Am I saying there are no wrongs in the world? No. What I am saying is that we have to respect what we believe is ignorant because many times they view us same way.
I think therefore I am.
Im talking more along the lines of social truths.
To what are you referring? Religious, philosophical, or cultural differences? Socially-constructed truths?
These are opinions, albeit held by the masses. One's opinion can accept truth, but cannot dictate it. The same is true for the masses. While a million people can hold an opinion and vote that a minority does not deserve basic human rights, that does not make it so. That could make it societal law, but law and truth are not equal. That is why societal opinions change over time, old traditions die out, and laws get overturned.
Socially constructed truths are not truths at all, in my opinion. They are merely common assumptions.
Expecting everyone to act rational and let go of the ignorance will never happen because one mans rationality IS another mans ignorance
You are correct that expecting everyone to behave rationally is too optimistic, however, a person's opinion does not dictate truth. If one persons' rationality is derived from scientific, observable, quantifiable, definable truth, and another person's rationality is derived from rumor or superstition or utter fabrication, one is more likely to be credible than the other.
I agree that one person may hold something to be rational truth and yet remain ignorant, but it is not so simple to just say that everyone has an opinion and none are more valid than the others.
Science is based on the idea that evidenciary support, observable, testable results, and predictability are good models for forming rational theories. It is better to construct one's argument based in logic and reason and observation than simply opine about a thing and declare one's opinion to be as valid as everyone else's.
Were that the case, there would be no such thing as laws, or science, or mathematics, or facts. Or knowledge in general, for that matter. Everything would be an opinion. There would be no societal progress whatsoever if everyone simply believed that everything is irrational opinion, and there are no greater truths.
You debated Mouz about female circumcision you believed your position to be true you posted links backing your truth. Then Mouz posted links proving you wrong if he had never shown up that would've been taken by everyone who views this thread as true and be seen as a cornerstone of the war against ignorance.
And through the exchange of information, my own ignorance about the subject was reversed, and for the betterment of everyone involved in the conversation, the truth was revealed. Through the fires of debate and public exchange, bad ideas and falsehoods are destroyed and better ideas and more verifiable data is gained.
This is an example of the very thing I advocate. I don't see my ignorance about a bit of knowledge to be an irreparable failure or a weakness in my ideology, unless I stubbornly chose to remain ignorant and refused to concede. That would be hypocritical.
One of the reasons I don't just sit down and publish a book of my opinions is because my opinions are constantly changing and being updated to reflect the facts, as I combat my own ignorance. Posting here publicly gives me safeguards against my own weaknesses, because I am tapping into the knowledge of others.
The combined might of the knowledge of all of us, together, can defeat most forms of ignorance. Rather than disproving my point, this exchange further reinforces the assumption that what I am doing is rational and correct, and that the system is working. Eventually someone would have corrected that error, and that is why I subscribe to the theory that sitting down and shutting up never got anyone anywhere. Free exchange of ideas and knowledge helps reverse ignorance, while not entirely eliminating it.
If your point was, the advocate for the elimination of ignorance is both ignorant and fighting a hopeless battle, then you are correct.
However, I am acting to combat mine and others' ignorance, and that is not a hopeless battle. We're making progress right here, right now. And coming close to our ideal is the goal, even if the ideal is unattainable. Therefore the war may never be over, but it can be won.
Am I saying there are no wrongs in the world? No. What I am saying is that we have to respect what we believe is ignorant because many times they view us same way.
I respect people, but I do not respect ideas. Ideas prove their worth by being tested against what is real, and against other ideas. The ones which fail get thrown away. But an idea is not worthy of respect unless it becomes proven fact.
For example, the idea that Jews are an inferior sub-human race might be an "idea", but that does not deem it worthy of respect in my view. I do not automatically give respect to ideas. Ignorance in and of itself is not worthy of respect. People, in spite of their ignorance, are worth far more than ideas, and should have their human rights and dignity respected.
I may choose to be polite to those who hold an ideology I staunchly oppose, but my ideas will be at odds with theirs and the ideas will "fight to the death" until the strongest one wins. At the same time, I will respect my opponent for the oppurtunity to grow and learn.
So, in summary, I disagree that we have to respect bad ideas. We just should respect one another.
I think therefore I am
And as long as we all keep thinking, we all shall be. And we all shall be better, too.
Mouzafphaerre
09-17-2008, 21:08
.
This is becoming more and more Backroomish. :yes:
.
Askthepizzaguy
09-17-2008, 21:13
An excellent reply, thank you. You "speak" forcefully. I cannot see you, cannot observe your body language as you speak, can't hear your tone or inflections, and have not "observed" you here over time. I find it inherently difficult to trust people who present themselves with such force and emphasis, who obviously have an agenda, under such circumstances. The smarter they seem, the more distrustful I tend to be--an unfortunate habit I've developed living in this time and space. I am not one to easily accept such presentations as fact, or even credible, until I alleviate that mistrust. Answering my questions as you did, and particularly, in the manner that you did, increases my ability to hear you and accept what you have to say, or at least seriously consider it. I need to assure myself of your sincerity, and the nature of your agenda. Kudos. :bow:
Not a problem, and thank you as well.
Skepticism is one of the most admirable qualities a person can have, in my view. I have little respect for someone who blindly agrees with everything I say, even if I think I am correct, for they have shown that they did not critically consider my assumptions.
It was the manner in which you wrote, more that the statements themselves, that made you seem a bit self-righteous to me. You state emphatically that neither wisdom nor righteousness come from within. This is contrary to what some believe--some whom I have come to view as wise. It seems that you are saying these people are self-righteous and practicing a form of ignorance. My limited understanding of sufism and zen suggest that enlightenment is indeed to be discovered "within," not through cognitive observation and critical analysis of the outside world. In fact, cognition inhibits its attainment, hence why meditation and the "stilling" of one's mind is central to their disciplines.
A definition of "self-righteous" I found online: Piously sure of one's own righteousness; moralistic.
Moralistic: Marked by a narrow-minded morality.
This is what I meant when I wrote you sounded a bit self-righteous. This is the first time I've heard it suggested that the self-righteous believe their righteousness "flows from within." It seemed as if you were discrediting the beliefs of those who believe as the sufis and zen practitioners do. You seemed emphatically sure of your own correctness. You are of the school that believes the answers lie without, which is fine--they may indeed. But when you emphatically state that those who believe the answers lie within are self-righteous and ignorant ....
I do not know much about zen, and I apologize if the reading of my post led you to believe I am emphatically sure that I am correct and zen is not.
I personally have found no use for zen, but if it creates harmony and wisdom for others, then it has value for them. I do not believe practical wisdom can be obtained by emptying the mind of thoughts and not considering their value. In order to invent, for example, one needs to think, and that requires the kind of critical thought and consideration that cannot be found in meditation or zen.
Perhaps meditation allows one to relax, and then when one returns to the practical side of their mind, they are refreshed. But wisdom and knowledge are not obtained by not thinking, in my opinion. I repeat, I am no expert on zen, and maybe there is more to it.
I have to go eat now, and unfortunately I cannot give your post the more thorough examination it deserves right this moment. But I will return to contribute more soon.
:medievalcheers:
@Mouza: I do believe it is getting off topic, and a thread dedicated to this discussion would be useful.
If you want I can split it up and send this discussion to the backroom?
CBR
Togakure
09-17-2008, 21:48
For our little side discussion, Askthepizzaguy and I can continue via private message if he wishes. I will never set virtual foot in the Backroom again.
Mouzafphaerre
09-18-2008, 03:15
.
I will never set virtual foot in the Backroom again.
I don't remember how many times I made and broke that promise. :laugh4: Not that you are me...
.
CountArach
09-18-2008, 14:27
Family Values
Family values have incited far more violence than religion. Think of all the wars of succession, all the revenge killings, etc.
It is not sufficient to abolish that opiate of the masses called religion. To create a better society we must abolish the institution of family. Children should address all proletarians as brother and sister, and have greater loyalty to the state than to their own parents. This is inevitable, the march of history is on our side comrades.
:inquisitive:
(for the sarcastically impaired, this is a joke)
Awww :( I was bobbing my head excitedly :cry:
seireikhaan
09-19-2008, 07:22
I feel that arguing in favor of a flaw which humanity inherently is(aka, self-righteousness) a rather impractical answer to this question. If we as humans have a virtue or vice which is near universally uncontrollable, than I cannot call it a "tragedy" so much as a fact. Tragedy revolves around the idea that there should be a far more honest, appealing opportunity cost. In the case of a natural human vice, we should instead proclaim the few who conquer it, rather than lamenting the 99% who fail at it.
So, for me, I would say it is, in fact, not an event so much as a person.
I would say it is Pope Leo I, otherwise known as Pope Leo the Great. He is famous for having "peaceably coerced" Attila the Hun from attacking Rome. I am not going to debate what actual means he used to do so.
However, in a time of political upheaval, he showed the strength and courage to "turn back" the scourge of God, and so, singlehandedly placing the Papacy in a position to fill the power void that was soon to overtake much of western Europe. This would eventually lead to the loss of innumerable people to the wars and "evangelization" that would take place in the name of God. Religion taking centerpiece in World politics was disastrous, not only causing the loss of life, but the loss of the way of Christ in so many more.
Religion intermingling with politics doesn't just affect policy; its power corrupts religion, twisting and distorting it for its own gains.
Mouzafphaerre
09-21-2008, 23:27
.
Organized unreligion :end:
.
AlexanderSextus
09-28-2008, 11:49
i think the african slave trade was the greatest tragedy...is it true that more people died on those slave ships from either starvation or disease (and also because some of the ships sank) than in the holocaust??? I remember hearing that somewhere...
Oh, and i looked at that link about the Female Genital Mutilation~:eek: and i noticed that the type 1 (clitorodotomy) doesnt seem that inhumane at all... in fact, it seemed to be the exact parallel to male circumcision, and seems that it would infact be quite hygenic...because it is not the same as the horrible inhumane REMOVAL of the clitoris which is otherwise frikkin sickening.
CountArach
09-28-2008, 13:29
.
Organized unreligion :end:
.
Yes, damn that Atheist lobby!
The Wizard
09-28-2008, 16:30
The (perversion of the) state.
Strike For The South
09-28-2008, 17:44
i think the african slave trade was the greatest tragedy...is it true that more people died on those slave ships from either starvation or disease (and also because some of the ships sank) than in the holocaust??? I remember hearing that somewhere...
.
Do you know how the Africans got there in the first place?
Sarmatian
09-28-2008, 18:05
Do you know how the Africans got there in the first place?
Where? In Africa?
Conqueror
09-28-2008, 20:14
I think he means the ships.
Askthepizzaguy
09-29-2008, 00:29
Oh, and i looked at that link about the Female Genital Mutilation~:eek: and i noticed that the type 1 (clitorodotomy) doesnt seem that inhumane at all... in fact, it seemed to be the exact parallel to male circumcision, and seems that it would infact be quite hygenic...because it is not the same as the horrible inhumane REMOVAL of the clitoris which is otherwise frikkin sickening.
In my opinion,
1. The practice is barbaric, done by religious elders, not doctors, does not involve pain medication, and is totally unnecessary.
2. Hygiene is possible without removing body parts.
3. The practice is done on underage, unconsenting children against their will, for the purpose of removing sexual desire.
4. It's a horrible, traumatic event that is worse than rape.
i think the african slave trade was the greatest tragedy...is it true that more people died on those slave ships from either starvation or disease (and also because some of the ships sank) than in the holocaust??? I remember hearing that somewhere...
I wouldn't doubt it. However, I wouldn't necessarily count it as the Greatest human tragedy.
Tristuskhan
09-29-2008, 16:34
I think he means the ships.
I think he means the ships, yes, but I miss his point... Does the fact that slaves were caught during internal african wars mean that's no more an human tragedy? Thinking that way, US civil war was not a tragedy either, since it was americans killing americans, no?
Well, probably SFTS's sunday Bourbon makes him feel like whipped when one talks about whites harming blacks. A thing that definitely never happened.
Back on the topic: slave trade's numbers are very hard to figure, since the slaves often originated from deep Africa. Coastal kingdoms, knowing they could make much profit from slaves, became specialised in raiding their more continental neighbours. So you have: people dead from the wars themselves, people dying during the trip to the seashore, those dying in the transit camps and those who died during the ocean's crossing. Only a small ratio survived long enough to be sold on the New World's markets. And that lasted four centuries.
Rhyfelwyr
09-29-2008, 17:14
Well if you think that what makes a tragedy tragic is the fact it was unecessary, then that makes the question a lot tougher (or easier?) to answer.
For example WWI was necessary. Not because we had to have mass murder through modern warfare, but because it would take humanity into a new age, the end colonialism and into the age of ideological extremism (making serious generalisations but you know what I mean). Which was in turn necessary to get where we are to day. Perhaps necessary is the wrong word, maybe inevitable, but even still would that not rule WWI out as a tragedy?
Same for WWII, it was inevitable fascism and Nazism would have their go at glory, to an extent also the USSR and its version of communism.
Maybe the only real tragedies are relatively minor things, on a global scale. Things like an old woman stepping in front of a bus, or maybe on a larger scale an epidemic such as the Black Death.
Or was the Black Death even inevitable? Trade routes between Europe and India through the middle-east were always going to mean exposure to new diseases and the more widespread coverage of those diseases across the planet.
Maybe even the death of 90% of the native Mexican population was inevitable. Mostly it was caused by disease, out of the Conquistadores control. Could it have been avioded (since Colombus didn't know it would happen at the time)? Is it then a tragedy?
:juggle2:
Strike For The South
09-29-2008, 18:15
I think he means the ships, yes, but I miss his point... Does the fact that slaves were caught during internal african wars mean that's no more an human tragedy? Thinking that way, US civil war was not a tragedy either, since it was americans killing americans, no?
Well, probably SFTS's sunday Bourbon makes him feel like whipped when one talks about whites harming blacks. A thing that definitely never happened.
Back on the topic: slave trade's numbers are very hard to figure, since the slaves often originated from deep Africa. Coastal kingdoms, knowing they could make much profit from slaves, became specialised in raiding their more continental neighbours. So you have: people dead from the wars themselves, people dying during the trip to the seashore, those dying in the transit camps and those who died during the ocean's crossing. Only a small ratio survived long enough to be sold on the New World's markets. And that lasted four centuries.
Every race at one point or another has had slaves or been enslaved.
Is it the greatest human tragedy? no far from it. The history of race and ethnic relations in America is much more deep and complex than many people make it out to be. Did blacks get the shaft? Hell yes nobody here is denying that but to sit here and say whites=evil is stupid because there really wasn't a white identity like there is today. One could make the case that an irish factory worker was on the same standing as a black slave except he had it worse because his religion was looked down upon to while religion was one thing blacks were allowed to have. The civil war in America only became about abolition when it became politically prudent to do so and if had been for Eli Whitney slavery would've ended 60 years earlier. The cotton gin saved an unprofitable business. Not to mention that .5% of the population owned more than 90% of slave. This idea that every man had slaves and ran them into the ground is not only laughable but I am stunned at the absolute ignorance that abounds here in a place where I thought people, before spouting off on a topic would do there research on a topic and put it within context of the time and its place in history. To much to ask I guess
Tristuskhan
09-29-2008, 18:27
Did blacks get the shaft? Hell yes nobody here is denying that but to sit here and say whites=evil is stupid because there really wasn't a white identity like there is today.
Are you paranoïd or do you really want someone to say that white=evil? As far as I read this thread, none did yet. And has someone stated that every white american had slaves? I don't think so...
New european emigrants until US Independance often had to sell themselves as slaves, I read somewhere. Darn' whites, enslaving whites. Worse than blacks enslaving blacks. Because they were white, and white=evil, everyone knows that.
Edit: joking, of course.
Strike For The South
09-29-2008, 18:30
Are you paranoïd or do you really want someone to say that white=evil? As far as I read this thread, none did yet.
I meant in the connotation of the slave trade. Its funny you mention servants as they really are what sparked how the Americans felt about race. Early on there were many blacks indians and poor whites than rich whites so the rich had to find a way to get the other whites over to there side and propagating a racial higher-achy was one way to do it. Zinn gives a very good explanation of it.
King Jan III Sobieski
09-30-2008, 03:10
The rise of the Communists and Nazis are the greatest tragedies of all.
As I always like to say: Life Sucks, Then You Die.
CountArach
09-30-2008, 13:05
There has never been a Communist state. I'm just going to throw it out there...
Rhyfelwyr
09-30-2008, 16:17
There has never been a Communist state. I'm just going to throw it out there...
Very true. Also I'm glad to see I'm not the only one in the world who's suspicious of family values. They just seem to become almost cultish with the rhetoric conservatives give on them.
Strike For The South
09-30-2008, 19:41
There has never been a Communist state. I'm just going to throw it out there...
and as long as we are around there wont be one:smash:
Communism, Capitalism, Imperialism, Liberalism and Neoliberalism are the greatest human tragedies.
Askthepizzaguy
09-30-2008, 21:35
Caius, I challenge you to a debate on those points.
The gauntlet has been thrown down. Accept my challenge!
(friendly and respectful, of course. For fun!) :bow:
Askthepizzaguy
09-30-2008, 21:56
I believe since it's not appropriate to host the debate here, I would ask that we take this to the appropriate subforum.
Is the frontroom okay for something like this?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
09-30-2008, 22:02
Is the frontroom okay for something like this?
Every single one of those is political, so probably not.
Askthepizzaguy
09-30-2008, 22:03
backroom then? How do I set up a debate in the backroom?
Dont I need permission just to get in>?
backroom then? How do I set up a debate in the backroom?
Dont I need permission just to get in>?
Join the Backroom in groups in your UserCP. LEts start it here, then we ask the mods to move it to the apropiate Subfora.
Askthepizzaguy
09-30-2008, 22:10
Request sent. Shouldn't be too long before I can join.
Don Corleone
10-01-2008, 19:31
One of the tests for knowing when a child has reached a mental age capable of moral thought is to ask them whether it's worse to break a large glass by accident or a small one on purpose. The idea being 'greatest' in this sense should not refer to the magnitude of the tragedy itself, but the intent of the guilty parties.
Therfore, I select the genocide in Rwanda. There have been worse tragedies before, and there will be much, much worse after. And there have been instances, such as the Shoah, where the people of the day knowingly allowed the horrors to progress. But at least with the Shoah, you could argue that the USA didn't exactly know what it could do to make the Nazis stop.
In Rwanda, we knew exactly what needed to be done, and could have done it at any time. The only reason the genoicde transpired was because black Africans weren't considered worthy enough to die for, so we let it unfold.
Of all the tragedies that has befallen man, this one I believe is the worst. Not greed, not fear. Apathy stayed our hands. :shame:
Askthepizzaguy
10-02-2008, 00:47
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=2027527#post2027527
I have invited Caius to debate. Let's have some fun, my friend! :bow:
The Wizard
10-04-2008, 15:32
There has never been a Communist state. I'm just going to throw it out there...
That's because there can't be a communist state in the first place. The term is an oxymoron.
Kralizec
10-12-2008, 17:05
World War I. For a lot of reasons, including the birth of the Soviet Union, causing the rise of fascism and national socialism and more generally, WWII wich was in many ways a follow-up.
Meneldil
10-16-2008, 00:15
.
Indeed, the current regime of the "nation state" of Turkey is a direct continuation of the Ittihad-Terakki dictatorship and not of the empire, which had all but nominally gone down in 1908 when they had first taken over the rule.
Your point is moot. :bow:
.
Didn't know that. My knowledge of Turkish history is, I admit, pretty poor, and mostly comming from biased sources.
Organized unreligion
Is there such a thing as organized unreligion ? If you're talking about communism or socialism, or any other late 19th c. political/ideological movement that tried to get rid of religion (such as the French separation between the State and the Church), they're either
- not organized unreligion (communism and socialism weren't specifically thought as tool to fight religion, even though they fought religion in order to achieve their aim)
- not necessarily 'bad' (I'm glad the French governement decided to put and end to reactionary biggots' influence and plots in 1905).
I perfectly see where you're coming from, since religion-bashing is quite a trend nowadays, but even then, I have a hard time seeing what is organized unreligion.
The election of George W. Bush:dizzy2::help:
I’m somewhat surprised that no one has mentioned this, “the Patriarchy society”.
I seriously believe things would be a lot less violent if every leader in the world was a woman. Now not every woman is a saint, but in general things wouldn’t result in conflict so easily I believe.
(I’m not a woman)
Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-31-2008, 04:36
I’m somewhat surprised that no one has mentioned this, “the Patriarchy society”.
I seriously believe things would be a lot less violent if every leader in the world was a woman. Now not every woman is a saint, but in general things wouldn’t result in conflict so easily I believe.
If you're playing on stereotypes, then there would also be many more spies, assassinations, targeted strikes, and so on.
Kralizec
01-01-2009, 20:52
I’m somewhat surprised that no one has mentioned this, “the Patriarchy society”.
I seriously believe things would be a lot less violent if every leader in the world was a woman. Now not every woman is a saint, but in general things wouldn’t result in conflict so easily I believe.
(I’m not a woman)
Women in general may be less agressive then men, but I doubt the same applies for government leaders. Thatcher, Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi....
Askthepizzaguy
01-01-2009, 21:10
I actually believe that gender is less relevant than the state of maturity, open-mindedness, wisdom, self-awareness, and experience of a person when choosing a leader.
Neither men nor women have an inherent advantage in such areas.
In light of Fenring and pizzaguys response, I guess I was wrong :shame:(should have thought about it more) . I was thinking more along the lines of Benazir Bhutto, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf and Aung San Su Kyi, basically women in the third world.
(Thatcher is a women?:laugh4:)
Cambyses
01-04-2009, 20:19
Well, as the intention of the OP appears IMO to have been asking for an event or series of events rather than a universal concept I will throw out a couple of ideas. Otherwise we could eventually come to the conclusion that the greatest tragedy is that dinosaurs became extinct or that we evolved with opposable thumbs, or even that we evolved at all.
So, my ideas:
1. Various events throughout the 5th century BC that led to the failure of Athens as a democratic state. I say this not because I believe democracy is an intrinsically better form of government, but because at that time there was a rennaissance in art, philosophy/science and literature that was not equalled in one place at one time for over a millenium.
2. Similarly I would include the first collapse of the Mayan civilization. Possibly brought about by environmental reasons? who knows. Again, that civilization had the potential to deliver a lot of benefit to the himan race through developing their scientific and spiritual knowledge, and might even have expanded to dominate the continent - and then who knows how history would have occurred?
3. Hannibal losing the second Punic war. Not because the Carthaginians were "better" people, but more because IMO the Roman Empire was eventually responsible for destroying more cultures and possibilties than any other.
4. The crusades, notably the council of clermont that iniated the whole thing. A climate of hatred between the two powerful religions has existed more or less ever since and several genuinely multicultural societies were irrevocably changed as a consequence.
I dont believe the two "world wars" qualify as despite the massive loss of life, as a percentage of the population there have been far greater "tragedies" for example caused by european colonization or the Black Death. Moreover the WW have demonstrated the dangers of ideological extremism, something that the world appears to have learnt from. Whatever its faults, few would deny, I think, that the idea of the UN (a child of WWII) is a noble one.
Future tragedies, well the most obvious one would be that despite all the warnings and vast knowledge we have accumulated that we as a race continue to mistreat our planet, and failing to learn the lessons of the early Mayan civilization, we are doomed to repeat their tragedy and destroy ourselves.
Sir Beane
01-08-2009, 16:17
I would say that if you want an event then it would have to be WW2, the holocaust and associated tragedies.
If you want a concept I would have to say intolerance.
What causes war? Intolerance. Racism? Intolerance. Terrorism? Intolerance. Religious genocide and warfare? Intolerance.
If human beings could just learn to put up with each other and damn well work together then a hell of a lot of problems would disappear. And then we could band together and solve the rest of them (like disease, famine, poverty and global climate change)
The stupidity of the Human race, and the lack of back bone in policticans to do the right thing, instead of the vote grabing good thing.
For this will be the death of us all.
Sincerely
fenir
When people decided they wanted to explain their existence.... and invented religion :pirate2:
General Appo
01-18-2009, 22:59
Well, there have been many great tragedies throughout the ages. The early pre-science religion was a tragedy, but only understandable, as man has always wished to understand the world he lives in, and this is good. What is a tragedy is that even after man reached a stage where he could understand the world he lives in without illogical superstition and myths he has hang on to these.
The Romans conquest of Greece following 146 BC can also possibly be viewed as one of the greatest disasters in mankinds history. Many well respected historians and scientists seriously believe that the Greeks were one the verge of achieving a industrial revolution of sorts, and indeed in most regards they were technically as advanced as Europe was in the 15-17 century.
Had Greece remained free for another hundred years or more, then perhaps that great revolution that has so immensely improved the well being of every sort of man and woman could have been achieved 1500 years earlier.
Truly this must be viewed as a great tragedy.
The rise of Hitler was also an immense tragedy, not only because of the obvious, the millions that died and millions more that suffered as a direct result of his actions, but because of many more complex reasons. Hitlers rise pretty much forced the western world to accept Stalin as the ruler of Russia in order to defeat Hitler, and cemented beyond any doubt Stalins control over the Russian people, allowing not only Gulag but setting the stage for 40 more years of unnecessary oppression of all the people of the USSR and many other nations around the world, and directly stoping democracy from spreading to many corners of the globe.
KingKnudthebloodthirsty
01-22-2009, 02:50
World War II and all its aftermaths. The Holocaust killed 6 million Jews. All of Europe and Asia lied in ruins. The aftermaths act like a chain reaction and are even worse. We invented the nuclear bomb, which actually saved lives in WWII since it spared an American attack on Japan, which would've killed more Japs and Americans, but after the war, ignited the Cold War with Russia. And the cold war brought about the development WMDs at an alarming rate. With it, came the ICBM missiles, which means nowhere on the planet is safe from nukes. And if you think the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts were devastating, thanks to the COld war, U.S. and Russia invented nukes gazillions of times more powerful than Hiroshima. And with the nuke development, it is inevitable that smaller nations would acquire and might use them at will, such as close calls between India and Pakistan. US and russia are internation law abiding nations, so they never use the nukes. But after the collapse of the USSR, russia is in chaos which means terrorists and rogue nations can more easily access those russian nukes and rogue people lie kim jong il and bin laden can use them at will, if they ever get a hand on them.
Also is the development of biowepons. Terrorists can now might accesss them and destroy the world
Armageddon is coming. Humanity can escape one close call of doom (Cuban Missile Crisis) but it will not escape all of them.
The New Che Guevara
01-29-2009, 01:09
When I started reading this topic, I knew someone who eventually call upon communism.
I'd just like to point out that, communism as the idea leads to equality of all and thus how can it be a tragedy, what people think of is where you have dictatorships under the name of communism such as Stalin who despite economically being left wing, he was so far right, he was worse than Hitler with his Gulags... the soviet union was socialist anyway at that stage. Other examples... china and korea where they are one party states... if they weren't one party states, they wouldn't be totalitarian/dicatatorships as let's face, when did Hilter have an election after he got rid of the weimar republic? The idea of communism is perfect, when taken into practice, one mistake and it goes off the road...
But I deem the greatest tragedy, America and the American revolution.
Would we be in a war right now if the americans weren't so arrogant? for "the defender of capitalism and freedom" they seem to have so many bugs... Kennedy was working towards detente with the soviet union (which did last for a while) and he was shot... by an american none the less (not to slip off into conspiracies). Then we have the gulf war in the early 1990s which if finished and done with then, would not have led to the current iraq war. They led the way for the invention of the atomic bomb killing scores in hiroshima and nagasaki which were really pointless seeing as how japan had practically lost the war but used more to "scare" the soviets. Their arrogance led the way for the KKK with WASPs and immigration, and to touch on a conspiracy here,. 1973, a report was published saying that if africa become industralised, it would be competition against america. the year later, AIDS was discovered...
for a supposedly free country, they have a lot of secrets...:2cents:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
01-29-2009, 01:55
I'd just like to point out that, communism as the idea leads to equality of all and thus how can it be a tragedy, what people think of is where you have dictatorships under the name of communism such as Stalin who despite economically being left wing, he was so far right, he was worse than Hitler with his Gulags
In this respect, you are mistaken. Stalin was on the far left just as Hitler was on the far right. Just because someone is authoritarian does not mean they are on the far right. I would go further, but doubtless someone else will take up the point. Meanwhile, have some literature about your namesake. (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1535)
PanzerJaeger
01-29-2009, 02:08
Oh boy….
When I started reading this topic, I knew someone who eventually call upon communism.
I'd just like to point out that, communism as the idea leads to equality of all and thus how can it be a tragedy, what people think of is where you have dictatorships under the name of communism such as Stalin who despite economically being left wing, he was so far right, he was worse than Hitler with his Gulags... the soviet union was socialist anyway at that stage. Other examples... china and korea where they are one party states... if they weren't one party states, they wouldn't be totalitarian/dicatatorships as let's face, when did Hilter have an election after he got rid of the weimar republic? The idea of communism is perfect, when taken into practice, one mistake and it goes off the road...
Every time communism has been attempted – and it’s been attempted in many, many countries, both in the Soviet style and others – you end up with an economically stagnant nation ruled by a corrupt military dictatorship. At best, said dictatorship is fairly benevolent and only tortures and kills political opponents (Cuba); at worst, they torture and kill a fair chunk of the entire population (USSR). And we can’t forget the incredibly incompetent communist-inspired “land reforms” that killed millions by themselves (China). Sorry bud, but that is communism. Every ideology has a pie-in-the-sky ideal of itself, but practically applied, communism is disastrous. Even taking away the millions who died at the direct hands of communist governments, you’re still left with an internal management system that nukes GDP and leaves millions dead from gross neglect... err collectivization.
But I deem the greatest tragedy, America and the American revolution.
Would we be in a war right now if the americans weren't so arrogant? for "the defender of capitalism and freedom" they seem to have so many bugs... Kennedy was working towards detente with the soviet union (which did last for a while) and he was shot... by an american none the less (not to slip off into conspiracies). Then we have the gulf war in the early 1990s which if finished and done with then, would not have led to the current iraq war. They led the way for the invention of the atomic bomb killing scores in hiroshima and nagasaki which were really pointless seeing as how japan had practically lost the war but used more to "scare" the soviets. Their arrogance led the way for the KKK with WASPs and immigration, and to touch on a conspiracy here,. 1973, a report was published saying that if africa become industralised, it would be competition against america. the year later, AIDS was discovered...
for a supposedly free country, they have a lot of secrets...
Wow.
I think it’s generally accepted that America is certainly not a perfect country. As with any nation that ascends to such a level of power, it has abused it and in many cases acted in it’s own best interests at the expense of others.
But the greatest human tragedy of all time? Really?
And your rationale for your conclusion is a mish mash between general arrogance, Kennedy being shot, the Gulf War, nuclear weapons, and the KKK? Oh, and what I can only assume is a vague accusation of creating and distributing the AIDS virus to keep Africa from competing economically?
Does America act in its own best interest? Yep, every nation does. Has it screwed around in the affairs of tin-pot dictatorships around the world, at best to keep itself and the free world safe from dangerous ideologies and the ideologues that follow them, or at worst just to make some easy money? Definitely.
But if your nation is free, representative, and peaceful – you’ve never had anything to fear from the US. In fact, you’ve got yourself a powerful ally. That’s a lot more than can be said of other nations that have attained similar power, especially communist ones.
There are far, far, worse things that have happened to world than the United States. In fact, one could make a much stronger argument that the existence of the nation has had a net benefit to humanity.
Strike For The South
01-29-2009, 03:30
But I deem the greatest tragedy, America and the American revolution.
Would we be in a war right now if the americans weren't so arrogant? for "the defender of capitalism and freedom" they seem to have so many bugs... Kennedy was working towards detente with the soviet union (which did last for a while) and he was shot... by an american none the less (not to slip off into conspiracies). Then we have the gulf war in the early 1990s which if finished and done with then, would not have led to the current iraq war. They led the way for the invention of the atomic bomb killing scores in hiroshima and nagasaki which were really pointless seeing as how japan had practically lost the war but used more to "scare" the soviets. Their arrogance led the way for the KKK with WASPs and immigration, and to touch on a conspiracy here,. 1973, a report was published saying that if africa become industralised, it would be competition against america. the year later, AIDS was discovered...
for a supposedly free country, they have a lot of secrets...:2cents:
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Don't hate what you ain't
I could go on.
Sarmatian
01-29-2009, 04:32
Oh boy….
Every time communism has been attempted – and it’s been attempted in many, many countries, both in the Soviet style and others – you end up with an economically stagnant nation ruled by a corrupt military dictatorship. At best, said dictatorship is fairly benevolent and only tortures and kills political opponents (Cuba); at worst, they torture and kill a fair chunk of the entire population (USSR). And we can’t forget the incredibly incompetent communist-inspired “land reforms” that killed millions by themselves (China). Sorry bud, but that is communism. Every ideology has a pie-in-the-sky ideal of itself, but practically applied, communism is disastrous. Even taking away the millions who died at the direct hands of communist governments, you’re still left with an internal management system that nukes GDP and leaves millions dead from gross neglect... err collectivization.
Just where do you get information like this?
Yugoslavia, for example, during communism enjoyed unprecedented GDP growth for several decades. It was among the poorest countries before communism and in the top half during communism. Even USSR had a decent GDP growth from '45 onwards.
It doesn't look too great when you compare it with the West, but that wouldn't be really fair, now would it? Compare it with what they used to be. Compare communist regime with non-communist regime from the same country. How many km of roads and railroads were built? Ports, airports, hospitals, schools, universities... Compare literacy rates before and after, infant mortality rates, average life length, percentage of people with university degrees, number of people working in agriculture... Actually, choose a criteria and compare, before and after...
In most countries, communism actually brought an increase in human rights and civil liberties. Do you think that civil liberties were abundant in China before communism? Or in Russia or Yugoslavia, not to mention really backwater places like Turkmenistan or Kazakhstan? In those places, communism was a blessing, for the first time people had the chance to go to school and to see an actual doctor when they're ill. Women enjoyed some rights for the first time in history, they were encouraged to get jobs, to go to school, get an education... Villages and small towns got electricity for the first time, plumbing, radio whatever. H
Communism created middle class in many of those countries, the same middle class that is basis of democracy, that later asked "what about our rights". It simply didn't exist before communism in many instances.
I'm not a communist, never have been. I was born in communism but grew up in a different system. On the other hand, I can not ignore many good things it brought. Of course, no one can turn a blind eye to the many atrocities committed by various communist dictators, but to try to sum up communism as only that show either a great lack of knowledge or an irrational hate...
Apparently, The New Che Guevara wants to live in a world full of lies and collective poverty, privated from freedom. That is communism.
seireikhaan
01-29-2009, 07:08
But I deem the greatest tragedy, America and the American revolution.
Would we be in a war right now if the americans weren't so arrogant? for "the defender of capitalism and freedom" they seem to have so many bugs... Kennedy was working towards detente with the soviet union (which did last for a while) and he was shot... by an american none the less (not to slip off into conspiracies). Then we have the gulf war in the early 1990s which if finished and done with then, would not have led to the current iraq war. They led the way for the invention of the atomic bomb killing scores in hiroshima and nagasaki which were really pointless seeing as how japan had practically lost the war but used more to "scare" the soviets. Their arrogance led the way for the KKK with WASPs and immigration, and to touch on a conspiracy here,. 1973, a report was published saying that if africa become industralised, it would be competition against america. the year later, AIDS was discovered...
for a supposedly free country, they have a lot of secrets...:2cents:
I would advise you to re-evaluate your current position.
1) Bear in mind that what America broke away from was a monarchist empire. A government which only has to respond to a fraction of the people under its rule. Though America took far too long to get to universal suffrage, the path was laid in the creation of the Republic. Would the world have been better off with the British Empire ruling all?
2) America perceived communism to be a threat to its own interests. People tend to perceive an ideology as a threat when that ideology proclaims a great desire to overthrow them. Revolutionary Communism seems to be an inherently combative ideology. The odd thing about picking fights is that they tend to result in, well, fights.
3) Regarding Kennedy. One must realize that it was, in fact, Kennedy who first began United States operations in Vietnam. Further, the Cuban missile conflict was essentially a staring contest, except that if the wrong person blinked at the wrong time, the world would end. Fortunately, rational thought prevailed.
4) Regarding atomic weapons. I agree that dropping the second atomic weapon was likely completely unnecessary. However, I wish to point out a fact of history for you. Starting with the colonization of the New World, Europeans continued to claim more and more of the world. When Europe started to divide further as differences in religious affiliation, then nationalism, then economic and social philosophy began to make themselves pronounced. The 30 Years War. 7 Years War. The War of Spanish Succession. The Napoleonic Wars. The Franco-Prussian War. WWI. WWII. My point? Over the span of 300 years, Europe massacred itself over and over in senseless wars. How many do you think died in these wars?
The fact remains that since the atomic weapon was introduced, there has not been direct conflict between major powers, be they Europe, Russia, or the United States. True, proxy war has instead taken its place, and undoubtedly there has been suffering caused by it. But I believe that the atomic weapon has, as a whole, reduced human suffering by awakening the World to the realities of the course of history if things didn't change.
And since, of course, the topic is the "greatest" human tragedy- is a single, excessive atomic detonation "worse" than the holocaust? Worst than the Hutu-Tutsi genocide? Worse than the Gulags? Worse than the torture and cruelty inflicted by the Imperial Japanese? I urge you to think clearly and without prejudice on the matter? I believe you are allowing your apparent anti-capitalist ideology to predispose yourself to assign blame to America, rather than seeking the truth behind matters.
5) Regarding AIDS... If indeed such a report existed(I have honestly never heard of it), the simple fact of the matter is that creating a biological weapon out of this air, on demand, takes much longer than a year. Additionally, it is not as though it can be proven that AIDS existed prior to 1973. Identifying a virus who's only impact is rotting the immune system would have been nearly impossible. Remember, AIDS does not kill people directly. Doctors who would have been treating AIDS victims would have thought it simply a bad case of influenza or yellow fever or other such disease. Lastly, of course, correlation does not equal causation. Again, your anti-capitalist ideology seems to be predisposing you to blaming America instead of looking directly at prove-able facts.
6) Regarding the KKK and WASPS. Yes, unfortunately America's past is laced with racism. America has faults. Unfortunately, the early American economy relied upon labor-intensive operations such as cotton farming. The economic reality of this made slavery a very real and economic method of harvesting cotton, rice, and other goods. Of course, humanity is quite faulty and unfortunately this devolved into institutionalized racism, surviving far longer than it should have. Race relations are, in my view, America's greatest historical shame, whether it was the slaughter and subjugation of Native Americans, slavery and Jim Crow laws, or the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. Unfortunately, however, this sort of ethnic subjugation seems to happen all too common in diverse, non homogenous societies. Not that I attempt to justify it- I only say that they are all equally abominable.
LittleGrizzly
01-29-2009, 11:43
I would like to point out that Stalin is no more representative of Communism than Hitler is of capitalism, and also consider the sheer number of capitalist society's over the years and thier time in exsistence and then look at how long it took before a decent system of governance came into being along side it, infact if we were to ignore the greeks, you could go back a few hundred years and claim that capitalism always leads to authoritarianism and you would have countless examples to fall back on, far more than with communism, so maybe this teaches us that things aren't set in stone, capitalism went hand in hand with authoritarianism for countless years and managed to come out attached to democracys in the end, so that must mean the examples with ¨communist¨ states are meaningless as capitalism managed to become democratic.
Also as sam points out it wasn't exactly tried in what were developed states to begin with...
used more to "scare" the soviets.
Does "Joe 1" mean something to you? If you don't, Joe 1 was the first atomic bomb created by USSR cientists, err, I forgot that Commies spies stole that information from the US... Also, why on Earth would you like to put a lot of missiles in Cuba, aiming at the US? Is not that phsychological war, scaring US inhabitants? Or course if that happened in the USSR the inhabitants would know nothing, the Party would cover it all.
But I deem the greatest tragedy, America
Nazism and Facism were tragedies. America can be a war machine, but what if the USSR was that war machine? What if you fought a war in a country, win and leave the country?
I can't think a nation without thinkers. Making people stupid makes a stupid country. That also happened in the USSR.
PanzerJaeger
01-29-2009, 15:52
Just where do you get information like this?
Books.
It doesn't look too great when you compare it with the West, but that wouldn't be really fair, now would it?
Yes, it would. Why wouldn't it? Capitalism and its functions - including regulations - were well known long before communism ever came into being. Therefore, it is not as if communist nations had no other choice.
The cold war provided us with some very clear examples of the stark contrasts. East and West Germany. North and South Korea. Japan and China. Russia and the US. Even if we handicap Russia & China for their war damages, their collective GDPs never reached more than a fraction of America’s… until Russia fell and China moved towards the market.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b3/Prc1952-2005gdp.gif
Now it is wonderful that communism... err Russia & China... managed to turn some crapholes into slightly less crappy... holes, but when the money ran out they obviously could not stand on their own. If you're trying to argue that it is anything more than a failed economic system, my friends history and economy theory need to have a word with you. :yes:
Compare it with what they used to be. Compare communist regime with non-communist regime from the same country. How many km of roads and railroads were built? Ports, airports, hospitals, schools, universities... Compare literacy rates before and after, infant mortality rates, average life length, percentage of people with university degrees, number of people working in agriculture... Actually, choose a criteria and compare, before and after...
In most countries, communism actually brought an increase in human rights and civil liberties. Do you think that civil liberties were abundant in China before communism? Or in Russia or Yugoslavia, not to mention really backwater places like Turkmenistan or Kazakhstan? In those places, communism was a blessing, for the first time people had the chance to go to school and to see an actual doctor when they're ill. Women enjoyed some rights for the first time in history, they were encouraged to get jobs, to go to school, get an education... Villages and small towns got electricity for the first time, plumbing, radio whatever. H
Communism created middle class in many of those countries, the same middle class that is basis of democracy, that later asked "what about our rights". It simply didn't exist before communism in many instances.
That would be great if it all wasn't so hollow.
Human rights? Civil liberties? Only to a point... and that point was, of course, whatever the government felt it was on any given day.
Infrastructure? Hostpitals? Literacy rates? All wonderful, and all dependent on being propped up by two failing states. When Russia collapsed, what happened to all that great stuff? I believe all 15 Soviet Republics unburdened themselves of communism ASAP.
I'm not a communist, never have been. I was born in communism but grew up in a different system. On the other hand, I can not ignore many good things it brought. Of course, no one can turn a blind eye to the many atrocities committed by various communist dictators, but to try to sum up communism as only that show either a great lack of knowledge or an irrational hate...
It’s basically like this.
You've got a poor guy with a mule. Capitalism offers him a brand new - and sizzling btw - Audi R8. Communism offers him an 80's era Kia Krap. Add to that that the Kia's engine doesn't function correctly and will eventually fall apart. Oh, and in addition, if our poor guy brings his Kia to the dealership to complain about it, the salesman will drag him out back and shoot him in the head.
LittleGrizzly
01-29-2009, 16:23
Infrastructure? Hostpitals? Literacy rates? All wonderful, and all dependent on being propped up by two failing states. When Russia collapsed, what happened to all that great stuff?
Well Literacy rates in Cuba continue thier high standards to this day, also considering thier financial situation they have a pretty good medical system, to the point where a capitalist south american country used thier experienced medical staff to benefit its own country. All this is paticular impressive when you consider that thanks to american policy they are all but cut off from trade..
East and West Germany.
I wonder how foriegn investment vary's here... did russia have its own marshall plan for eastern europe ?
Russia and the US.
Well that seems like a fair comparison, don't forget that industry across europe was destroyed on a massive scale whereas american industry was relatively unaffected, this is one of the reasons it did so well after 1945, another reason is american industry was much quicker to convert back to producing consumer goods whereas capitalist and communist european countries were much slower to convert thier industry back... im not sure why....
If you're trying to argue that it is anything more than a failed economic system, my friends history and economy theory need to have a word with you.
History shows capitalism failing many times until more modern times... thankfully there weren't people around then who said look at all these examples from the past the system obviously doesn't work... whereas infact what the system needed was perfecting over the years...
You've got a poor guy with a mule. Capitalism offers him a brand new - and sizzling btw - Audi R8. Communism offers him an 80's era Kia Krap. Add to that that the Kia's engine doesn't function correctly and will eventually fall apart.
What you have there cannot be described as a poor guy... hell im a poor guy wheres capitalism with my sizzling audi r8!
Meneldil
01-29-2009, 18:11
No offense PJ, but your irrational hatred of communism doesn't really help you there.
Had the US been as plundered as USSR during WW2, I doubt capitalist states would have enjoyed such a growth between 1945 and the 70's. No Marshall plan, no investement from the US in Europe and Japan.
Add to that the fact that capitalism as an economic system failed quite a lot of times. It failed in the 30's, which is one of the main reason behind WW2, the rise of fascism and the spread of communism, and it's probably about to fail right now. It also failed numerous times in the 19th century, even though the outcomes were not nearly as bad because the world economy wasn't as global as it is now.
The very thing you forget is that socialism and communism were thought as an answer to capitalism's failures. Were they correct answers ? The history clearly shown that no, communism is not a possible alternative to capitalism. Does that make capitalism perfect, or great ? In no way it does. It is just the only somewhat effective system we have right now, but it's a bad one, by all standards.
Yet, saying that
Capitalism offers him a brand new - and sizzling btw - Audi R8
is a complete fallacy. Capitalism has created a huge amount of poverty in the world, sometimes worse than what happened in communist countries. Not only in the so-called third-world, but also in the western world, where relative poverty is becoming more and more of a problem.
I'm pretty sure I'd be better off living in Cuba than in failed African state in which every power is in the hands of a few western companies pillaging the country with the agreement of a corrupted ruling class.
As for the former SSR accepting capitalism as soon as they had a chance : yeah, so what ? Apart from a few of them (the 3 Baltic states, thanks to US and EU help, and Kazakhstan, thanks to its oil), they're all failed states, with little civil liberties and human rights. The former center of USSR, Russia, is not really what I'd call a heaven on earth, and despite all the crap we're repeatedly being told by liberal economists, I can't see China becoming a democracy anytime soon because they embraced capitalism.
That's why many people in these countries, Russia included, claim that they had better lives under communism.
The New Che Guevara
01-29-2009, 18:32
man that was fast...:help:
PanzerJaeger
01-29-2009, 19:26
Infrastructure? Hostpitals? Literacy rates? All wonderful, and all dependent on being propped up by two failing states. When Russia collapsed, what happened to all that great stuff?
Well Literacy rates in Cuba continue thier high standards to this day, also considering thier financial situation they have a pretty good medical system, to the point where a capitalist south american country used thier experienced medical staff to benefit its own country. All this is paticular impressive when you consider that thanks to american policy they are all but cut off from trade..
Ah Cuba! The great example of a communist state that hasn’t been run into the ground! Well, not really. Cuba is more like China than most communist apologists would like to admit.
Just like all the other communist nations in the Russian sphere, Cuba's economy collapsed after the USSR failed. So what did old Fidel do to prop up his communist social system at home? He went out into the world and played in the market. (Remember, Cuba is only barred from trading with the US) When that didn't quite work, he - too - had to break down and implement capitalist elements into the economy.
Via Wiki:
The Cuban economy is still recovering from a decline in gross domestic product of at least 35 percent between 1989 and 1993 due to the loss of 80 percent of its trading partners and Soviet subsidies. This era was referred to as the "Special Period in Peacetime" later shortened to "Special Period". The government has undertaken several reforms in recent years to stem excess liquidity, increase labour incentives, and alleviate serious shortages of food, consumer goods, and services. To alleviate the economic crisis, the government introduced a few market-oriented reforms including opening to tourism, allowing foreign investment, legalizing the U.S. dollar (although later partially reverted so that the US dollar is no longer accepted in businesses, it remains legal for Cubans to hold the currency), and authorizing self-employment for some 150 occupations. These measures resulted in modest economic growth. The liberalized agricultural markets introduced in October 1994, at which state and private farmers sell above-quota production at free market prices, have broadened legal consumption alternatives and reduced black market prices.
Government efforts to lower subsidies to unprofitable enterprises and to shrink the money supply caused the semi-official exchange rate for the Cuban peso to move from a peak of 120 to the dollar in the summer of 1994 to 21 to the dollar by yearend 1999. Living conditions in 1999 remained well below the 1989 level. New taxes introduced in 1996 have helped drive down the number of self-employed workers from 208,000 in January 1996.
Havana announced in 1995 that GDP declined by 35% during 1989-93, the result of lost Soviet aid and domestic inefficiencies. The drop in GDP apparently halted in 1994, when Cuba reported 0.7% growth, followed by increases of 2.5% in 1995 and 7.8% in 1996. Growth slowed again in 1997 and 1998 to 2.5% and 1.2% respectively. One of the key reasons given was the failure to notice that sugar production had become dramatically uneconomic. Reflecting on the Special period Cuban president Fidel Castro later admitted that many mistakes had been made, “The country had many economists and it is not my intention to criticize them, but I would like to ask why we hadn’t discovered earlier that maintaining our levels of sugar production would be impossible. The Soviet Union had collapsed, oil was costing $40 a barrel, sugar prices were at basement levels, so why did we not rationalize the industry.’’[4]’’
Due to the continued growth of tourism, growth began in 1999 with a 6.2% increase in GDP[citation needed]. Growth in recent years has picked up significantly, with a growth in GDP of 11.8% in 2005 according to official Cuban information[citation needed]. In 2007 the Cuban economy grew by 7.5 %, below the expected 10 %, but higher than the Latin American average rate of growth. Accordingly, the cumulative growth in GDP since 2004 stood at 42.5 %
East and West Germany.
I wonder how foriegn investment vary's here... did russia have its own marshall plan for eastern europe ?
Russia invested huge amounts of money and resources in its satellites. Well, investing is a poor description. More like sending lump sums of cash and supplies just to keep the communist governments propped up on life support. More importantly, Russia was forced to keep "investing" in its satellites just to keep them functioning, whereas America's allies developed fully functioning economies.
Russia and the US.
Well that seems like a fair comparison, don't forget that industry across europe was destroyed on a massive scale whereas american industry was relatively unaffected, this is one of the reasons it did so well after 1945, another reason is american industry was much quicker to convert back to producing consumer goods whereas capitalist and communist european countries were much slower to convert thier industry back... im not sure why....
As I said, no one would expect Russian GDP to match America's in 1955, but at some point if both systems were equally viable, you would expect growth, at least in terms of %, to be somewhat equal. That never happened. In fact, Russia watched even West Germany's free market economy soar beyond their own.
If you're trying to argue that it is anything more than a failed economic system, my friends history and economy theory need to have a word with you.
History shows capitalism failing many times until more modern times... thankfully there weren't people around then who said look at all these examples from the past the system obviously doesn't work... whereas infact what the system needed was perfecting over the years...
The balance of the free market and regulations was already well understood by the time of Lenin. Fairness, monopolies, etc…
Communism has always been about appealing to the vast poor and undereducated masses jealous of the wealthy - be they royalty or successful capitalists.
And as can be expected when you hand the lower classes the keys to the castle - chaos ensues, incompetence reigns supreme, and the bullies of the world rise to the top at the expense of the intelligent.
Stalin couldn’t run a successful corporation, Mao couldn’t manage a successful farm – but they were both good at manipulation, deceit, and death. And some of the first people they killed off were those smart enough to run things like… the economy.
You've got a poor guy with a mule. Capitalism offers him a brand new - and sizzling btw - Audi R8. Communism offers him an 80's era Kia Krap. Add to that that the Kia's engine doesn't function correctly and will eventually fall apart.
What you have there cannot be described as a poor guy... hell im a poor guy wheres capitalism with my sizzling audi r8!
Work hard, save, and it could be yours. In a communist system… eh… not so much. ~;)
PanzerJaeger
01-29-2009, 19:58
No offense PJ, but your irrational hatred of communism doesn't really help you there.
This is the monastery. As such, I don't allow my irrational hatreds to come into play. :beam:
Had the US been as plundered as USSR during WW2, I doubt capitalist states would have enjoyed such a growth between 1945 and the 70's. No Marshall plan, no investement from the US in Europe and Japan.
How about the 70s and beyond? As I said to Grizz, surely if both systems were equally successful, we could at least see that reflected in % GDP growth at some point. It never happened.
Add to that the fact that capitalism as an economic system failed quite a lot of times. It failed in the 30's, which is one of the main reason behind WW2, the rise of fascism and the spread of communism, and it's probably about to fail right now. It also failed numerous times in the 19th century, even though the outcomes were not nearly as bad because the world economy wasn't as global as it is now.
Recession and even depression do not equate to failure. For an accurate depiction of failure, see the USSR circa '91.
The very thing you forget is that socialism and communism were thought as an answer to capitalism's failures. Were they correct answers ? The history clearly shown that no, communism is not a possible alternative to capitalism. Does that make capitalism perfect, or great ? In no way it does. It is just the only somewhat effective system we have right now, but it's a bad one, by all standards.
I didn't say capitalism was perfect or great. It has been the greatest method of wealth generation the world has yet seen, but your standards may be different than mine. :yes:
Yet, saying that is a complete fallacy. Capitalism has created a huge amount of poverty in the world, sometimes worse than what happened in communist countries. Not only in the so-called third-world, but also in the western world, where relative poverty is becoming more and more of a problem.
Socialist policies have also grown throughout the Western World. It’s something to think about. :book:
I'm pretty sure I'd be better off living in Cuba than in failed African state in which every power is in the hands of a few western companies pillaging the country with the agreement of a corrupted ruling class.
You mean a failed state where the corrupted ruling class manipulates the economy to suit their agenda? Me too! But... what does that have to do with this discussion. :inquisitive:
As for the former SSR accepting capitalism as soon as they had a chance : yeah, so what ? Apart from a few of them (the 3 Baltic states, thanks to US and EU help, and Kazakhstan, thanks to its oil), they're all failed states, with little civil liberties and human rights. The former center of USSR, Russia, is not really what I'd call a heaven on earth, and despite all the crap we're repeatedly being told by liberal economists, I can't see China becoming a democracy anytime soon because they embraced capitalism.
As mentioned above, some basic fairness is critical to the capitalist system. Moving from a communist dictator to a nominally capitalist one who still manipulates the market is not exactly a valid comparison. Corruption is rife in such countries, including Russia - whose economy is essentially controlled by a cabal of Putin's cronies. That’s not really free market capitalism. Still, take a look at Russia's GDP since the collapse.
By contrast, look at Poland. True - not nominal - free market liberalization has given them the fastest growing economy in Central Europe.
As for China, I never claimed the free market leads to democracy, only a higher standard of living. How fast is China's middle class growing again? ~;)
That's why many people in these countries, Russia included, claim that they had better lives under communism.
Apart from what I mentioned above, these people were living on borrowed time. Even the extremely modest gains made under communism were not sustainable. Free health care is great I guess, but if the system can't afford it and you.. or your children.. end up worse off than you were before, have you really gained anything at all?
LittleGrizzly
01-29-2009, 20:26
Russia invested huge amounts of money and resources in its satellites. Well, investing is a poor description. More like sending lump sums of cash and supplies just to keep the communist governments propped up on life support
That pretty much makes my point for me, whilst west german money was spent on infrastructure and regrowing the economy, east german money was spent on keeping control with the puppet government....
Ah Cuba! The great example of a communist state that hasn’t been run into the ground! Well, not really. Cuba is more like China than most communist apologists would like to admit.
firstly, not that i want to get into this argument again but there has been no communist states, but anyway lets ignore this little bit of info and just get on with it...
So it is a semi communist country that has literacy rates well above any capitalist countries in its economic state and many of those above it, tbh im not sure how the medical system compares but i bet its a whole lot better than most countries in its economic state..
Just like all the other communist nations in the Russian sphere, Cuba's economy collapsed after the USSR failed.
I imagine that the effects of the US economy collapsing would cause alot of trouble for capitalist societies in the same way...
Remember, Cuba is only barred from trading with the US
Which considering its geographic placement and the size of the US economy is a pretty decisive impact...
The balance of the free market and regulations was already well understood by the time of Lenin. Fairness, monopolies, etc…
You seem to have missed my point, which is, going back a few hundred years and judging capitalism, by the same standards you judge communism, would result in it being declared a failure, which considering modern times is obviously wrong, thus either capitalism is a failure to this day (which we both don't think it is) or the system needed perfecting, and if its the latter who is to say the same is not true of communism ?
Communism has always been about appealing to the vast poor and undereducated masses jealous of the wealthy - be they royalty or successful capitalists.
*insert line about capitalism being about royalty or successful capitalists wanting to take every last resource of the vast poor uneducated masses for themselves here*
And as can be expected when you hand the lower classes the keys to the castle - chaos ensues, incompetence reigns supreme, and the bullies of the world rise to the top at the expense of the intelligent.
yes the damn working class need to kept down, they will bow to thier superior capitalist masters and be grateful for it!
Stalin couldn’t run a successful corporation, Mao couldn’t manage a successful farm
Bush couldn't run a successful oil company...
but they were both good at manipulation, deceit, and death.
Ok i couldn't give bush credit for the first two... he's dabbled in a good bit of death though...
Work hard, save, and it could be yours. In a communist system… eh… not so much.
Well looks like this poor guy's getting shafted by the capitalists... at least the communists were offering me a kia... ~;)
Sarmatian
01-30-2009, 00:57
Yes, it would. Why wouldn't it? Capitalism and its functions - including regulations - were well known long before communism ever came into being. Therefore, it is not as if communist nations had no other choice.
It isn't because eastern Europe was far behind western before communism. Save parts of Russia and very rarely some other relatively small places, East didn't have big cities, middle class, infrastructure, wasn't industrialized etc... Population was dispersed. Prior to WW2, Belgrade for example had several hundreds thousands people. West on the other hand, had all that.
The other reason why they shouldn't be compared is because eastern Europe witnessed much more destruction then western.
The cold war provided us with some very clear examples of the stark contrasts. East and West Germany. North and South Korea. Japan and China. Russia and the US. Even if we handicap Russia & China for their war damages, their collective GDPs never reached more than a fraction of America’s… until Russia fell and China moved towards the market.
True, true, although Japan, West Germany and South Korea had the financial aid of economic superpower, unlike East Germany that had to be rebuilt by USSR, which was almost completely destroyed and had no economy to speak of. My point wasn't that it was comparable but that the GDP of communist countries actually grew, in contrast with your statement that communist regimes nuked GDP. It grew even faster in percentages, but the basis was so much smaller. 3% of 1000 billions is still much more than 10% of 100 billions...
China was in even worse situation. Country has been raped for 150 years by Europeans and Japanese, most of the population illiterate and on the brink of starvation, no infrastructure, no factories, no schools, no hospitals, no nothing that you should find in a 20th century country. It wasn't really logical to expect some enormous economic growth before those basic issues were addressed.
Human rights? Civil liberties? Only to a point... and that point was, of course, whatever the government felt it was on any given day.
True, but in most cases it was still better than previous regimes. There were more civil liberties in communist Yugoslavia than in the monarchist Yugoslavia, and that royal government was oh, so well treated and given refuge in UK as a western ally...
Infrastructure? Hostpitals? Literacy rates? All wonderful, and all dependent on being propped up by two failing states. When Russia collapsed, what happened to all that great stuff? I believe all 15 Soviet Republics unburdened themselves of communism ASAP.
True, and most of them are in worse situation now that they were during communism. Most ex-USSR countries, most ex-Yugoslav countries... Serbia needs almost 10% GDP growth per year in the next five years to reach the level it was 1993. To reach the level of 1980's, decades are needed. Yes, I know, there was the war, the sanctions, the bombing in case of Serbia, but Macedonia didn't have any of that and it is even in worse situation....
You've got a poor guy with a mule. Capitalism offers him a brand new - and sizzling btw - Audi R8. Communism offers him an 80's era Kia Krap. Add to that that the Kia's engine doesn't function correctly and will eventually fall apart. Oh, and in addition, if our poor guy brings his Kia to the dealership to complain about it, the salesman will drag him out back and shoot him in the head.
Yeah, it was exactly like that. I applaud your ability to present most complex issues in so simple terms...
Don Esteban
02-05-2009, 17:22
i don't believe tradgedy is measured by numbers.
The greatest tradgedy one human can suffer is the death of their child.
Incongruous
02-09-2009, 05:00
When people decided they wanted to explain their existence.... and invented religion :pirate2:
As a Catholic I would say that no man invented my religion, it was a gift from God.
Back on topic, I have recently been thinking about the destruction of the ancient Alexandria and its library.
Askthepizzaguy
02-09-2009, 12:16
As a Catholic I would say that no man invented my religion, it was a gift from God
Not to start a religious war, because that's backroom material, for one, and I've no wish to offend you personally, for two, but; The Catholic religion has man's hands all over it. The meaning and character of the church has changed over the centuries, always in reaction to world events, and the bible itself was voted upon from candidate material. There were books placed within, and books left out, and some were altered.
I also don't think this God fellow is wishy-washy about things, and the Catholic church has waffled in it's positions and tone since it's inception, over time. It is at least partially man-made, if not totally. Otherwise the Pope would have nothing to do, and Catholic law and dogma would never change with the times.
If God's word is the basis of the Catholic church, God has no reason to change it. Man, however, does.
Because this may spawn a debate which is inappropriate for this subforum, I wish to make it clear I am not attacking you personally, Bopa, and that I'd be delighted to debate you, if you wanted to, elsewhere. But for now, I'm limiting my objection to a simple comment.
well, I guess I'll add:
I am divided between 3 tragedies:
1-unnatural death (i.e not from old age or related health complications)
2-extremism of any sort: be it religious, moral, political, ideological, etc.
3-when idiots judge others according to their standards, rather than the standards of the time, place, culture and circumstances of who they are judging. this is tied in to #2, and also because, in order to truely understand something, one must look into the mindset and times in which something happened. the EB logo is more than a pretty label-and we were created(/evolved) as tribes and peoples to know one another, not insult and provoke one another.
The break up of the Ottoman Empire following WWI.
It's been described as "the peace to end all peace."
coalition
04-15-2009, 02:40
Religion, when you look at it, it's so bloody.
Religion, when you look at it, it's so bloody.
then again, so is well...practically everything man has come up with.
actually, the biggest tragedy regarding religion is not that it exists, but that it can lead to a similar situation to this, if one throws out the spirit and goes only for the shell (i.e fundamentalism):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJUxHOTBHso&feature=channel_page
note that I am not trying to start a flame war, or backroom material. its just an extreme manifestation of religious fundamentalism/effects, with a humourous twist (note: there is only a voice, a camera, and a sprinkler, to give you an idea).
Askthepizzaguy
04-15-2009, 04:55
religion is fine.
Blind, unrelenting faith in anything, ignoring reason and evidence, and acting on it, is intentional ignorance of reality. Faith is destructive.
It is the greatest of human tragedies.
TheDruid
04-17-2009, 18:49
why would extremism and ideologism be that bad?
Humans died before, still die now and will die for as long as we exist.
The greatest tragedy of all time is the evolution to mankind.
Even to itself ; mankind destroys all the rest and even itself.
a last word about ww2 : Its not the one who is right or just that will win the war, but the one who won the war will always be the just one.
meaning : Auschwitz eo , if it even excisted as they say , is seen far more worse than the USSR gulags who inflictid MUCH more casualties (seen in numbers ).
another thing i read : so people understand that america is interfering in the rest of the world , but not that Germany wanted an important port, which was theirs before ww1 btw, back.
And about the jews : Poland at that time was more antisemitic than Germany. So Britain and France started the war cuz Germany attacked a more racist country? What makes them that.
(srr got carried away :embarassed: )
Askthepizzaguy
04-17-2009, 19:02
why would extremism and ideologism be that bad?
Humans died before, still die now and will die for as long as we exist.
The greatest tragedy of all time is the evolution to mankind.
Even to itself ; mankind destroys all the rest and even itself.
a last word about ww2 : Its not the one who is right or just that will win the war, but the one who won the war will always be the just one.
meaning : Auschwitz eo , if it even excisted as they say , is seen far more worse than the USSR gulags who inflictid MUCH more casualties (seen in numbers ).
another thing i read : so people understand that america is interfering in the rest of the world , but not that Germany wanted an important port, which was theirs before ww1 btw, back.
And about the jews : Poland at that time was more antisemitic than Germany. So Britain and France started the war cuz Germany attacked a more racist country? What makes them that.
(srr got carried away :embarassed: )
1. How do you define extremism? :shrug: if it is extreme, doesn't that make it inherently unbalanced? If something is unbalanced, unfair, intolerant, and extreme, it is unhealthy at best and destructive at worst.
2. Ideologies aren't necessarily bad, but intolerance of opposing ideologies, vis-a-vis violence and persecution, is wrong. I oppose Scientology, but I wouldn't harm or threaten anyone who is a Scientologist. That's part of being tolerant, and that is the only way civilization exists at all; lack of tolerance reverts humanity back to barbarism.
3. Humans die, but death by murder and war is inherently different from a peaceful, natural death. Otherwise you believe murder is not wrong.
4. The greatest tragedy is "the evolution to mankind"? I don't know what you mean. Do you mean evolving into homo sapiens? If that means you believe all human beings are inherently wrong, then you are a misanthrope by definition. What that means is you hate humanity itself. That's quite a charge and I don't toss it around lightly. Can you explain what you mean? Do you find anything redeeming about humanity, and if not, why would bad things that happen to us be a tragedy?
5. Are you suggesting the Nazis, the Fascists, or the Imperialists were better than the progressive democratic societies?
6. You deny that Auschwitz existed as "they" say? By that I mean, the billions of people who believe the holocaust existed and there's more proof that it existed than perhaps any other phenomenon in human history.
7. How would you know which had "much more casualties" unless you admit that the holocaust happened and you believe the evidence and the data which suggests a certain number of people died? What if you were right about the numbers... you'd have to admit that the holocaust happened as "they" say.
8. I didn't know that Poland came up with the idea of mass exterminations and carried them out. I was taught, and shown mountains of evidence, that Hitler and the Nazis were responsible. But if you have evidence that Poland was actually more antisemitic and killed more jewish people, I'd like to see it. Clearly we need to prosecute Poland for war crimes.
I strongly disagree with everything you said.
TheDruid
04-17-2009, 19:22
1. How do you define extremism? :shrug: if it is extreme, doesn't that make it inherently unbalanced? If something is unbalanced, unfair, intolerant, and extreme, it is unhealthy at best and destructive at worst.
2. Ideologies aren't necessarily bad, but intolerance of opposing ideologies, vis-a-vis violence and persecution, is wrong. I oppose Scientology, but I wouldn't harm or threaten anyone who is a Scientologist. That's part of being tolerant, and that is the only way civilization exists at all; lack of tolerance reverts humanity back to barbarism.
3. Humans die, but death by murder and war is inherently different from a peaceful, natural death. Otherwise you believe murder is not wrong.
4. The greatest tragedy is "the evolution to mankind"? I don't know what you mean. Do you mean evolving into homo sapiens? If that means you believe all human beings are inherently wrong, then you are a misanthrope by definition. What that means is you hate humanity itself. That's quite a charge and I don't toss it around lightly. Can you explain what you mean? Do you find anything redeeming about humanity, and if not, why would bad things that happen to us be a tragedy?
5. Are you suggesting the Nazis, the Fascists, or the Imperialists were better than the progressive democratic societies?
6. You deny that Auschwitz existed as "they" say? By that I mean, the billions of people who believe the holocaust existed and there's more proof that it existed than perhaps any other phenomenon in human history.
7. How would you know which had "much more casualties" unless you admit that the holocaust happened and you believe the evidence and the data which suggests a certain number of people died? What if you were right about the numbers... you'd have to admit that the holocaust happened as "they" say.
8. I didn't know that Poland came up with the idea of mass exterminations and carried them out. I was taught, and shown mountains of evidence, that Hitler and the Nazis were responsible. But if you have evidence that Poland was actually more antisemitic and killed more jewish people, I'd like to see it. Clearly we need to prosecute Poland for war crimes.
I strongly disagree with everything you said.
finally a discussion with you :)
1. you may be right
2. no response either
3. murder is ok with me in some instances. In belgium recently we had a nutcase starting to kill children : for me one off the greatest 'sins". so dont blindly think i agree with all murderers.
4. Dunno how its called, but thats exactly what i mean. Humanity kills everything, including humans.
its makes sure other species extinct.
5. Yep. Nazism brought alot of Great things to the world , before they burnt half the world down offcourse. Even during the war they found great cures against diseases.
going to point 4 too : Its normal they test new drugs on animals, but testing them on enemies of your nation and people would be wrong?
6. Pretty sure i saw things really getting me to doubt that jews were gassed. I believe Hitler wasnt a liar. Not arguing that they died out of hunger offcourse. But AH said something like if there wasnt enough food, Germans would get the most. which is much more understandable.
7. As said, not discussing if holocaust existed or not. better make a new topic bout that. Just : it is said 6 million jews died in con.kamps. numbers i heard and saw said 10 times that amount of people died in USSR to sortlike things.
8.Not saying that Poland killed more :) they didnt have the chance. Nazism btw is not invented by Hitler btw. So you defend poland whilst agreeing that they probably hated the jews more?
srr was in a hurry :D
grtz
PanzerJaeger
04-17-2009, 19:42
5. Are you suggesting the Nazis, the Fascists, or the Imperialists were better than the progressive democratic societies?
They weren't much worse. :shrug:
Askthepizzaguy
04-18-2009, 01:43
Yep. Nazism brought alot of Great things to the world , before they burnt half the world down offcourse. Even during the war they found great cures against diseases.
going to point 4 too : Its normal they test new drugs on animals, but testing them on enemies of your nation and people would be wrong?
They weren't much worse.
Ouch.
This debate is over, and I'm unsubscribing to this thread. The torture and forced medical experimentation on the "enemies" of a "nation" was an offense to all mankind, and I won't discuss anything with anyone who supports it, no offense. But I am offended by pro-Nazi, pro-torture, holocaust deniers.
Have fun.
Strike For The South
04-18-2009, 02:00
Ouch.
This debate is over, and I'm unsubscribing to this thread. The torture and forced medical experimentation on the "enemies" of a "nation" was an offense to all mankind, and I won't discuss anything with anyone who supports it, no offense. But I am offended by pro-Nazi, pro-torture, holocaust deniers.
Have fun.
And we imprisoned citizens, massacred Japanese and ran openly racist war films. We firebombed Dresden and use teh nook to impress teh Soviets.
War is very gray. The Allies get a pass on many a warcrime. Not that I care mind you. Hitler could not be tolerated for the simple fact a strong Germany has always upset the Russians and British/Americans. He would've been a threat to hegemony. /Devils adovacate
As for my official position. I side with General Patton. Ground the hun into dust, destroy the japs and then on to Moscow to finish the job.
Although one can easily find bad stuff happening in the democracies during WW2, I'd say the fundamental elements of aggressive expansion (Lebensraum etc) dictatorship and political/racial persecution meant one hell of a difference between the two political systems.
I do think this thread has outlived its purpose though. Unless someone can give me a good reason to open it again this thread will remain closed.
CBR
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.