With so many people feeling that government and religion are ( take your pick ): 1) dangerous, 2) out-moded, 3) wrong &/or 4) silly, it reminded me of the old John Lennon song,"Imagine", about how life would be like without either. Just wondering how all the atheists, agnostics, Wiccans, rationalists, other Christians & etc. would respond to the following:

What system would they put in the place of the current Western Judeo-Christian legal & social system that would not offend anyone, hurt anyone in any way, but would protect, encourage, and just nourish the maximum amount of people; without brain-washing, ridicule, killing or imprisoning, but with honest, truthful dialog & learning? Just wondering.

Peace and love.

The human population is too large and too diverse, for any one system to work properly. All systems, by their very nature, must cater to the lowest common denominator, therefore they are always flawed and can never be ideal for all.

But if we could create a Utopia, then I would base everything on love. What is love?
Love, is patient. Love is kind, it does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud, it is not rude, it, is not self-seeking. Love is not easily angered, it keeps no records of wrongs, it always forgives, it does not lie, does not steal and it does not kill. Love is perfection.. (from the New Testament)

If a society could harness the above sentiments and really put them into practice, we could have this Utopia. But we don't, because we can't, so we won't!

I think love would be going too far.

A simpler approach is to develop tolerance for the ideas of others and enforce my signature phrase - freedom to do as we please unless the actions interfere with the freedom of others.

Cris,
how would you develop this 'tolerance' as you put it, without some form of overriding ethic or moral? A ship needs an anchor! And humans also need discipline, but discipline without love can only be achieved by force or some form of religion, which doesn't sound correct or appealing.
But anyway, we're talking about a Utopia which could never exist in any way or form, so we're just pissing in the wind. Thank God for Zippo's.

<font size=7><b><u>Tribalism</u></b></font>

Originally posted by tablariddim

But anyway, we're talking about a Utopia which could never exist in any way or form, so we're just pissing in the wind.


So, there's no way for people to get together & work out a system for living, culture, etc. that would not offend anyone? I would think that with 'modern, rational man', we could lessen the differences. I know communism claimed to be one of the answers, creating a 'new man', but as we saw at the fall of the Soviet Union & Yugoslavia, old hatreds remained right by the surface. Here in the U.S., we still have problems but I hope that at least in cyberspace we can live in harmony. Live long and prosper!

I repeat...this so-called "utopia" has existed for 3 million years in tribes across the world.

Randolfo,
in short, no!
But waddaya mean cyberspace? I'm talking about flesh and blood humans living in the physical world.

Sorry, I didn't catch that as your answer, when you underlined it, it looked like a hyperlink that wasn't working, I clicked my mouse & it wouldn't open. And I'm not used to one-word answers, sorry.

Originally posted by Corp.Hudson
I repeat...this so-called "utopia" has existed for 3 million years in tribes across the world.

But why does tribalism only seem to work for the tribe? They come in contact with others & it's the same, fighting, stealing, killing of the 'other', "they are not like us, they are different"?

it is truely sad to see that in this era of technology and advanced learning techniques that some people just keep the old thought of
"THE WORLD IS FUCKED... SO LETS TAKE AS MUCH AS WE CAN AS FAST AS WE CAN BEFORE IT ALL BLOWS UP"

IT SEEMS SOO OBVIOUSE THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO LIVE ALONGSIDE OTHER PEOPLE AND NOT TRY TO RIP THEM OFF AND FESTER HATE!
WHY DONT WE MERELY make a simple law-
if you go out of your way to upset someone you are placed in a re-education camp.
locking people in a cell wont make them learn or understand WE NEED TO RE-EDUCATE PEOPLE
but most people think...well i wouldnt like to have someone tell me what to do ... so
i wont vote for it
and then they buy nike shoes or pay for private health care and vote for the greed mungers.
OOHHHH WHEN WILL THEY LEARN?????????????????
*************************************
MAYBE HOLLICOST IS THE ONLY WAY
BECAUSE ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ARE REALY BAD WILL FORM ESEALY IDENTIFIABLE GROUPS AND THEN THEY CAN BE ERRADICATED...?
IF THATS WHAT OTHERS SAY ...IS THE ONLY WAY AHEAD,
BY SAYING "we will never change"
SO PLEASE...
think ahead
think for your self
think for your friend
think for your world
THINK!

Who's world d'you want to change exactly?
Do you realise that most of the world's population is still uneducated, lives in poverty and is governed by antiquated religions? Grow up will you!
You will not change the world with ill considered, half baked ideas that may only be understood by, or would only be relevant to, a tiny segment of the world's people.
I was going to say that the only philosophy which might stand a chance would be one based on unconditional love (there, I've said it now), but philosophies are like powerful cars. On a clear road, in experienced hands, they may take you to your destination quickly, safely and efficiently, but if the driver's bad or inexperienced, or if there are obstacles in the way (and there will be), you'll probably end up dead, in a multiple car pile up!

AND WHY ARNT THEY EDUCATED?????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????
DUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
WE HAVE ENOUGH FOOD TO FEED THE STARVING.
WE HAVE ENOUGH RESOURCES TO LIVE IN A EXTREEMLY LOW POLUTION LEVEL.
WHOS CART ARE YOU PUSHING?
HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD BE ALIVE TODAY IF
WE GAVE ECCESS FOOD TO THE STARVING ...ALONG WITH CONTRACEPTION
and built houses instead of churches...for the home-less
PEOPLE ARE STUPID.....?

or am i in the wrong time period?
maybe ???????????????????????
THE ROAD TOLL CREATES INDUSTRY
and most people dont know how to drive a normal car(life) properly so we the enlightened as you attempt to sound need to activate change.

there ive stopped shouting now and im off to bed
i have been studying socioligy for 15 years now and some things just gain more contrast
and others morph and some complimented and some
stated in galvanising express terms.
but i have the advantage of the abillity to learn if i choose...
so i choose to help where i see the biggest need

How do you help?

define help...?please
as to be your understanding of what would help because anything i do is meaningles compared to someone who does not PERCIEVE a problem.not directing that at you as to say you are a problem...by the way.

Originally posted by ripleofdeath
but i have the advantage of the abillity to learn if i choose...
so i choose to help where i see the biggest need


Your statement, so my question again,
'How do you help?'

Help: To assist, To alleviate, To contribute, To improve, To serve, To provide etc. (Vis a vis the uneducated, the starving, the inequality etc)

the other night i read a girl and guy in a night club and told the girl to get it on with the guy
my words
"dont be afraid to go there but be honest"
i hope she got the point of the honesty thing
:D
i also hope that i helped not hindered
might not ever know
but i tried
:)

the full story is longer
:D
and im off
so later gator
keep groovin and keep inproovin
:D

Originally posted by ripleofdeath

WE HAVE ENOUGH FOOD TO FEED THE STARVING.
WE HAVE ENOUGH RESOURCES TO LIVE IN A EXTREEMLY LOW POLUTION LEVEL.
WHOS CART ARE YOU PUSHING?
HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD BE ALIVE TODAY IF
WE GAVE ECCESS FOOD TO THE STARVING ...ALONG WITH CONTRACEPTION
and built houses instead of churches...for the home-less
PEOPLE ARE STUPID.....?




But how can we share, without violence or threats? What system, would help others to share? To think & live in non-polluting ways? That will remind people we are on a small little blue & white marble that is hurling through space, with what may be the only life in the universe. Which, if we are not careful, we may blow up?

:D
cool concept radolfo
i personaly belive we are not the only life / intellegent beings in this solar system...let-alone the universe.
you have raised the great question of all humanity :D
one i have been pondering since i was about 14 years old
SHITE...! and im not nessesarily any closer to the answer.
:D
well i think it starts with the leaders/government
they are the ultimate role models.
and we need someone (like my self... :D )
to be in power to make the hard decisions and thus risking my life(maybe J.F.K S' prediccament).
i belive it is the only way.
people in genral dont want to think about these issues
because they cant handle the way it makes them feel.
...in my opinion!!!
and i must admit that i am starting to form a new hypothesis... which is...
only (mostly) those who have gone through terrific hardship and abuse are able to deal with these things out in open discusion...why you ask?
well to start with through my exp mostly... and
if they cant deal with the extreem nature of emotional
and mostly psychological abuse they commit suicide and therefore they are not around...!
hows that for a thought or ... none...?
:)
groove on all
peace ... love ... and missery to all greed merchants

LOL - this should be good

But how can we share, without violence or threats?

It is quite simple. We stop teaching our children comparative and superlative moral standards. We stop teaching people that their worth is only evident when compared to another. Sure, parts of subsequent generations will be slaughtered along the way to progress, but no greater numbers will die arbitrarily by such a process than in the same period of constant, hopeless attrition. Yet with a growing body politic of trusting pacifists, two things will occur to aggressors: 1) that it just isn't fun to arbitrarily kill people who aren't scared or fighting back; 2) that there's suddenly a whole lot more pacifists than wardogs.

People would rather obey cruelty than challenge it. Why? Because, "That's the way it is." There is no excuse, once we are capable of recognizing arbitrary cruelty, for perpetuating, exploiting, or endorsing such madness. That nature or God demands it is an excuse for cruelty posited only by the stupid. It is much easier to act blindly than to consider what one is actually doing. We humans challenge many "natural" conditions of the Universe; why is it that cruelty is the one "natural" thing that we accept wholeheartedly? Does it really feel that good to treat people poorly? Is the greater part of society actually so ill-prepared for the living experience that they think hatefulness is the point?

Yet right out of the gate, we teach children moral superiority, and right and wrong as an arbitrary function.

* Because I say so. (The dumbest authoritarian excuse ever given.)
* Because God says so. (This is a calculation that reduces infinitessimally the stupidity of such arbitrary declarations; at least here the aggressor is deflecting the sense of blame to God; Hey, don't blame me, idiot; it's God's mysterious way!)
* Because the neighbors will think ....
* I didn't work all these years so you could ....
* Because I'm your father/mother (circle one) and deserve respect ....

I've been trying to recall my first black/white racism notions, and it's quite hard. After getting beat up on the playground repeatedly for having slanted eyes, it might well have blown right by me that I was supposed to be comprehending a "new" concept being presented to me when issues of black and white were put before me. I also recall being impressed at various points in my life by arguments supporting white supremacy and slavery; deeper recollection advises me that the fault of all such statements lies in their narrow view of what's important. Surely if the color of one's skin is important, such issues will present themselves. Like the other day when Ricky, one cubicle over, said of our Fat Tuesday killing, "That's what happens when a lot of Them get together." (Them refers to people with dark skin in this case; it has also stood for people of Asian descent, who are apparently all unnecessarily paranoid; I believe it has also, in Ricky's time at my office, referred to people of indigenous American descent; after all, They are all just lazy and drunk.)

But where does one learn to base all their future perspectives on such a dichotomy as Us vs. Them? My cat does dumb stuff a couple of times before figuring it out; in this case, I would assert that generations upon generations of children brought up to fight wars and be proud of it generally support the idea that such stupidity as we find in the cruel or hateful can be maintained with the simple introduction of the idea that one person (the self) is so much more important (and therefore moral, and therefore deserving) than another (any other).

The Lutherans taught us, "God first, others second, self third," though I'm quite sure this concept existed before my generation of Lutheran. I do not believe this idea exists anymore among Americans. One only thinks of others when the newspaper, ballot box, or other social mass-malady incites them to; furthermore, it would seem that a loud voice of many has shouted God to the appropriate forefront, and made God the mechanism justifying considerations of the self first. Of course, the humble believers are left tongue-tied; either to betray God by denouncing a fellow believer, or to betray God by not. It's generally a lose-lose situation that can only be solved by a well-placed bolt of lightning from the heavens.

But the idea of comparative existence permeates the American culture; we are only in comparison to others. In Oregon, it's "forcing" a lifestyle on someone if the law doesn't make that lifestyle illegal. How is it that every law designed to help the "little guy" results first in an increase of wealth among the most wealthy, a decrease of wealth among the least wealthy? It isn't just, in this case, that one is wealthy, but that one must be just so wealthy in comparison to another person. (The $100,000 concept ... it's in another post, I'll get back to that if we need to.)

But it's rambling, and I've just been ordered to clear the office for the sake of ... well, when HR's leaving ....

But the first thing we need to do is to eliminate this silly need to establish comparative morality, birthright, and other stupid ideas that lead people to behave a priori that they are inherently more deserving than another.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

fantasticly awsome post tiassa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
groove on
:)

and when asking the person who earns 500,000 $ a year
"is not, teaching your children the most important thing to you"?
yes they would reply (mostly, althought they would miss the double negative in the question :D)
and what should that teacher recieve for there task
"the plesure in the job is why they do it" the rich person would say-
"dont pay them 'big money' or they will only teach for the money"!
ha hahha ha ah ah ah ahahahahahah ah ah ah ah a ah
LOL
and so be the mentality of the rich
DOUBLE STANDARDS ABOUND

*next step-
why not pay teachers the same as politicians
do you not value your children as much?

something to think about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
groove on all

Hmm.. I wonder if it is because the politicians determine their own salaries, while teacher salaries are determined by a bunch of moronic beauracrats who are on the school board...????

Also, as someone who is currently in the United States public school system, let me say that most teachers dont teach because they love teaching, or genuinely care about anything. They teach because they are immature dicks that cant do anything well, and they know that if they become teachers they have great job security.

yo corp
i get ya point
also gives a certain level of power
i do find it amazing how teaching used to have so much
honour to the trade and now its seen as something that would be an alternative to a previouse goal for some people.
i live in new zealand, and so... i heard we used to lead the world in teaching pre school
and
usa teachers used to come hear to learn
just a few months ago i heard that they are now coming
to teach
LOL
groove on

Originally posted by tiassa


Sure, parts of subsequent generations will be slaughtered along the way to progress, but no greater numbers will die arbitrarily by such a process than in the same period of constant, hopeless attrition. Yet with a growing body politic of trusting pacifists, two things will occur to aggressors: 1) that it just isn't fun to arbitrarily kill people who aren't scared or fighting back; 2) that there's suddenly a whole lot more pacifists than wardogs.



Hey, don't get me wrong. I am a pacifist and would go out of my way or even stand to lose something of mine, in order to avoid hurting some other person, but I'm afraid that I just cannot agree with the above sentiments.

1) I think that the vast majority of people who are sent into war, would rather not have to and I'm sure that most of them don't really think it's fun to kill people.
If they do happen to, it's because they may have a genuine grievance (if their country had been invaded, raped and pillaged etc and they'd lost family, friends, homes and businesses due to the aggressor for example) or it's because they happen to live in a fundamentalistic religious or racist country, which has indoctrinated its society into hating another.

2) A whole lot more pacifists would just mean a whole lot more sheep ready for slaughter. I mean, have you heard of, 'taking candy from a baby'? Well, it's a maxim and I'm sure every aggressors dream. For them, it would be great fun to take the pacifists candy, while meeting no opposition. And in this case, the aggressor can be your own government, your boss, your church, you name it.

Sure, Jesus was supposed to have said, 'turn the other cheek' and 'love your enemy', but is this something that 'Christian' governments have ever done? Or is it more likely the complete opposite?
Ghandi also preached non-violence but whatever he achieved by his stance was only very short lived; a bubble rising out of a steaming cauldron.

If the Palestinians stopped their attacks on the Israelis, will the Israelis stop stealing their land and return the land already stolen?

Would Turkey ever even consider returning the land they stole from the Greek Cypriots (up to now they haven't), even with the knowledge that if they don't, they may never get to join the European Union, which they desperately want to? No, in fact they are now threatening that if Cyprus is allowed to join the EU then they will simply annexe the Northern part which they invaded, occupied, ethnically cleansed and filled with mainland Turks since 1974. The US btw, has been continually funding Turkey and supplying them with arms, (apparently) because of her very strategic position on the map and does nothing to right the wrong.
Would Turkey be so intransigent if Cyprus was as powerful and had the same friends as her? And if the Greek Cypriots pacifistically just said "Oh well, it's a shame we lost half our country. Let's forget about it and go drink some ouzo!" Would Cyprus ever be able to even contemplate the idea that one day she would be a whole democratic country again, if it wasn't for the (token) leverage of the UN resolutions in her favour and her 'guarantors' Britain and Greece?
No!

Pacifism is a great ideal, perhaps it's right for some of the people, some of the time, in certain contexts, but it's probably something that actually goes against fundamental human nature; survival of the fittest and all that. Which leads me to another concept, which will need a new thread. And that is:
1) that racism is indeed fundamental to human nature and that it is a ploy for survival.
2) Probably everybody, is, or has been, racist or ethnically prejudiced at some point.
I'll call it, 'Is racism natural?'

I would like to respond to the following:

Originally posted by tablariddim

1) A whole lot more pacifists would just mean a whole lot more sheep ready for slaughter.
2) that racism is indeed fundamental to human nature and that it is a ploy for survival.
3) Probably everybody, is, or has been, racist or ethnically prejudiced at some point.


1) At this time & place, unfortunately, this would be so true, that to disarm our military would be to invite all the wolves. Let's wait for more Star Trek-like people & countries first.
2) I think this is learned behavior, probably tied to our bonding response to our mothers & those familiar to us. Just look at how quickly infants cry, when in the arms of others.
3) If you grew up in a racially mixed neighborhood, would that still be true? As a teen I had black, Asian, white & of course, Mexican friends, but I don't remember racism raising it's ugly head until at 14 some friends joined gangs, others became preppies, jocks, stoners and I was just an average joe, so everybody went their way.

Live long and prosper!

and so hence the misguided search for self actualisation
perverted by big business to promote a state of extreem consumerism tightly controlled by police who have access to all information they desire.
thus is earth...at the moment
with pockets of ressistance who are labeld the conspiracy theorists and in the usa as communists.
LOL
why can only so few see the many issues that dictate reality of the mass perverted thinking person....
sigh
:)
groove on all

Just a few thoughts on.............

Originally posted by ripleofdeath

1) tightly controlled by police who have access to all information they desire.

2)with pockets of ressistance who are labeld the conspiracy theorists and in the usa as communists.

3) that dictate reality of the mass perverted thinking person....



1) police may not have all the info, otherwise they would catch & nail all the criminals. Now the CIA or some other secret agency might really do this, sort of like "Enemy of the State"

2) it's good to see all sides of an issue, that's were thinking comes in I hope?!

3) our worldview may be 'colored' so much by programming, that we may be blind or brainwashed to certain things?? I know that we in the West live in a house of cards; the Stock Market, real estate prices, comodities, banks, TV & movies, fashion, etc.

too true
more specificaly i mean(in regard to the police)
is that they respond to interference in busness father than personel situations...
like... i.e. someone who steals 10 million dollars from a company #(note without coming into contact with a person such like fraud)
will get a longer jail sentence than someone who goes out and rapes an old lady and then her granchildren and then beats the whole lot of them.#EGSADURATION...i hope!!!
but it seems all too often this senario is the rule of law.
yes i think it is the nsa and cia type people but they are more like parking wardens compared to the real shakers and movers!
if only they had some honour and humility and compasion and...
ill stop it there i could list the dictionary.
groove on all :)

1) I think that the vast majority of people who are sent into war, would rather not have to and I'm sure that most of them don't really think it's fun to kill people. True. But at some point, someone has to make the decision that this is worth it. In the case of an American president calling troops to war, there's a host of interests begging at his ear, and those, too, must choose to use their privilege of the president's ear to advocate human slaughter. People must make wars. As a nation disrespects its government's reasons for warfare, then warefare will become less frequent. This process can snowball by determined effort the same way a small incident can bring about war through willful idiocy. What just happened in the Palestine? At some point, the warriors have got to realize that it just isn't working. Even religious blinders cannot conquer the will for peace; when the world stands opposed to war, nobody will go to church in order to learn to kill.
2) A whole lot more pacifists would just mean a whole lot more sheep ready for slaughter. I mean, have you heard of, 'taking candy from a baby'? Hmm. Is there any one person you would die for?

From there I would suggest the idea that some people will give their lives in the faith that it's the right thing to do for now and the future. Should the police state I fear ever become the instrument of my passing, I can guarantee you that it is because I will not fear a bullet. On the one hand, there are people whose wellbeing I would defend while accepting the possibility of killing the aggressor. To the other, I have no conscious will to kill in order to save my own life. Killing is pointless enough to me that I'll have none of it on my own behalf.

To extend that to a collective: If it came right down to it and the armies of any nation dared march through my streets to enforce the law, I will be damned if I will permit that. Shoot me. I don't care. You don't do this here as long as I live to stop you. (This is, of course, easy to say if you live in a nation whose greatest threat is itself. I realize this.) But I will not reduce myself to the level of killing a human being. Of course, I hate guns so it's not like I can "wing 'em" on purpose, so shooting to wound is a happy coincidence. But that's the point: I might not kill even for others. I'd rather never find out.

Therein lies a tragedy of an event like Tiananmen Square: nobody cares anymore. A whole lot of people died for something many of my acquaintances cuss out every day: simple freedom. That disturbs me. Yet nobody really seems to care. The more care and compassion each person gives, the less lambs we will have to slaughter to reach that point from here.

If humanity in general gave half the effort to just getting on with life that it gives to destroying itself ....
Sure, Jesus was supposed to have said, 'turn the other cheek' and 'love your enemy', but is this something that 'Christian' governments have ever done?I don't wish to sound flippant, but that's kind of the point. Such is the result of assuming the worst of people: they give it to you. You'd think Christianity would figure that out, but something about being born into sin ...
If the Palestinians stopped their attacks on the Israelis, will the Israelis stop stealing their land and return the land already stolen? No.

I don't mean to sound flat or terse, but I happen to live in a stolen country, and there's really no sign of us giving it back. I tend to think of the British in Ireland, too ... hell, the British lost, and they still won't give it back. Americans had the good fortune, at the stage of their victory, to have a massive ocean in the way of further meddling by the crown. But who are we to celebrate? The first 50 years of European contact destroyed a massive portion of the population, estimated as high as 95%, but to be honest, I can't presently locate that textbook to cite my source. Would it suffice to say, then, that the next years would find Americans doing their damnedest to finish the job?

My best advocacy to find a solution to the Cypriot issue is to give money to the Irish Republican Army. The sooner the British are off the island, the sooner the world will stop watching that sad tale play out. The sooner that happens, the sooner they can find a new crisis to micromanage, and to be honest, they're only watching the Northern Irish conflict at all because all of the other ones are either too ugly for TV ratings, or too "remote" (read, too complex and involving too small of territories for Americans to give a damn).

But consider that Pol Pot was arrested when he was an impoent geezer. That the world let Pinochet get away with it, and said nothing after he was done, until he was 82 years old and sick. But Americans have money in most human conflicts on this planet; for that I'm truly sorry. Our president dared remind us, speaking before the Texas legislative assembly, that we were "at peace with our international neighbors." Of course, we've also declared war on just about everyone inside our borders. It's kind of weird, though. You have to have dark skin, be gay, be a woman, or be on drugs for the war to really become a problem. And this is all about money, dominion, and strategy, too. I'm sorry our people don't care about certain conflicts, and I'm not using that as a pathetic but well-timed apology. Rather, we're not interested because we're soulless.
Pacifism is a great ideal, perhaps it's right for some of the people, some of the time, in certain contexts, but it's probably something that actually goes against fundamental human nature; survival of the fittest and all that. Two possibilities that I will assert here: A) that peace is part of human evolution, and B) we humans are self-aware, and that sort of changes things, in my opinion. Just because it's how the bats and the wildabeest behave doesn't mean humans must necessarily be the same way. Standing before God, some faithful are capable of believing the exact opposite. To excuse oneself by the excuse of nature contradicts the reasons for society in the first place. I don't see what the point was: we climb out of the trees just to start throwing more crap at each other. What was the point, if we're still just acting out the same silly parts over and over again?

I'm giving thought to the racism question ...

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

1) Is anything that humans do, simple? The basic functions of life are just that: basic. And therefore simple. Sure, we've got a lot of human friction taking place about simple decisions of whether to order out for pizza or Chinese food, but the simplest fact is that it is still humans engaging their environment in quest of food.

Thus, the idea is simple. Execution, I admit, is more complex; as a vegan. When we pare away the extraneous considerations, do you eat or not? I quote Lisa Simpson: There's enough slime here for everyone! Style, taste, and considerations of social comfort (I hear it's the place to go if you like chimichungas!) are the things that make basic living functions complex.

Something a little more challenging? Mating/adultery: Your simplest duty in all the Universe is to reproduce. Considerations of attraction, commitment, and comparative superiority (trophy wives) make the reproductive function more complex.

The challenge is to peel away the layers of excess and arbitrary greed associated with these functions.2) I supervise a clerical unit in our local jail, and I hope that we all try to teach our kids to not do criminal acts or behavior. A lot of them come back so often, that it's literally a revolving door. We need to teach some sort of standards, how will we function as a society, if everyone does their own thing, if we are individualists foremost to the detriment of our communities?That's why I wrote comparative and superlative moral standards. Laws are a convention of society; Anarchists have not escaped this conundrum yet. But moral standards arise from something more personal than civic convention. As a child, even I heard the admonition to not play with certain kids: You don't need friends like that. Friends like what? I never found out. It had something to do with moral perceptions, honesty, and the assumptions of a parent toward another person's child. In the end, what I learned as a child and then adult is that You don't need friends like that unless they sign your paycheck.

But more directly, why does a person need to avoid people "like that"? What qualifies as "like that"? Well, for some it's skin color, or the shape of the eyes. For others, it's how many parents live in the home with the child, and for still others it's the genders of those parents. It's often the religion of the parents, or the method of economic support. (I figured out when I was in high school that my parents wanted me surrounded by white-collar people; I graduated high school with a very poor notion of the morality of the working class.)

Recently, at my office, one of my coworkers commented on a tragedy in which a young man was struck in the head with a bottle and died during our Mardi Gras celebration. My coworker acknowledged that, "Well, that's what you expect when you get a bunch of them together." Them, in this case, refers to people with dark skin and whose descendancy originates in Africa. Where does an idea like this come from? Upon what basis can we establish that a group of people is more or less dangerous, more or less useful, more or less moral, or more or less anything based solely on their skin color?

Superlative and comparative morality are massive factors in the generational prolonging of civil fights such as we see in Israel or Northern Ireland. Superlative and comparative morality ensure a healthy roster for the KKK or OCA, or other such hate-oriented groups.

The idea that someone is better than the next for arbitrary reasons is what I would hope to move society past. When the Anarchists take care of the need for laws, though, somebody wake me--I'll be long to dust by then.

You noted: . Also, I’m not sure, but I would guess that you all would be uncomfortable if a drug pusher, neo-nazi, an armed militiaman or total gangster moved right next door? Well, in the case of militiaman or neo-nazi, the elimination of comparative and superlative morality would solve the problem over the course of generations. (cf--#4, which you have so casually brushed aside in favor of a, Well, would you ...? argument. The answer is that we fight for what is right until we can fight no more. Sheep is what religions make, via the encouragement of superlative morality.) Of the drug pusher ... well, that depends entirely on his business practices, doesn't it? Or am I to assume the superlative morality of those who don't sell controlled substances? (Here we enter considerations of the superlative morality of the law, and whether or not that morality is a product of its own, or inspired by the superlative morality taught to the many individuals comprising the state that declares the law.)3) Hopefully, we have high enough self-esteem that we don’t need to bring anybody down, that we know that as individuals we count for something. I guess that only role models would be the exception that we could emulate; sports, science, politics & power.My first question regarding self-esteem, and the necessity thereof, then, would be to wonder what we hope when a majority of the population operates from the a priori postulate that human beings are inherently bad people--e.g. born into sin? On the one hand, I fully advocate the assumption of responsibility of a role model; to the other, I ask what our role models inspire us to transcend? If we are constantly striving to transcend what we consider "normal", then is not "normal" something worth transcending in general? If the normal condition requires advancement modeled after those who came before us, what is it that prevents that "model" behavior from being the standard?

We are, I submit, imperfectly educated; I do not think this is particularly a controversial assumption. However, what degree of that imperfection is absolutely necessary remains an important question. For instance ... to hear it from Dr King apparently did me no good the first time, for I am an ardent supporter of Irish independence, inasmuch as a non-Irish-American can be. However, it was upon reading the reflections of John Hume (SDLP) when I came to understand a phrase of Dr King's. An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. Certes, this spells poorly for the Irish, as everyone knows that the British never apologize. But what is a victim of systematic oppression supposed to think? That inaction and complicity work best? Yet we might look to any number of people like me who are educated to believe that war is OK if you're the "good guys". The role model of a man who has been amid warring times, who has striven for peace, who has worked within the machinery that makes peace impossible: for him to say it, I have no idea why it set this time. Perhaps if I had been twenty-six during Dr King's day, American race issues would crumble beneath the same rhetoric, which was its intent. Yet it took a situation removed enough from me that I watched it academically (and therefore conceptually) to present me with a simple idea that transcends the whole of the nasty fight I'd been watching.

But our fundamental self-esteem is low: we our taught out of the gate that humans are evil and dark, that we are born into sin. As individuals, we often do not count for anything, and that's the problem. Our a priori reality describes us as being nothing, as being tools of God, servants and sheep (the sheep again). We achieve the way other animals do: by climbing over the destruction of another in the preservation of the self. In fact, self-esteem right now seems more centered in a person's ability to defeat another than it is to stand on their own two feet. And this is a large part of why I assert that we teach people that their worth is only evident when compared to another.4) Would you willingly go to your death, if the ‘New Future Committee' decided that you were part of the problem? That you were to anti-this or that for the future. And this attrition you speak of, is that the starving, AIDS infected masses of the Third World? Should we withhold resources now? Since most of the Third World also has what many consider outmoded, backwards thinking societies and morals?
You ask as if I would allow myself to be led to execution. A million people in the streets would not be willingly. A thousand, or a hundred, would not be willingly. But what's the point of killing in the name of saving life? What's the point of war for peace?

Presently, yes, the attrition I speak of manifests itself in the form of the third world. I mean, I realize that someone's gotta pay for it, but we have individuals in this country who are worth more than entire nations. That the attrition comes in the form of starving children is only the choice of the so-called just ones of society, who presently lead it. Those who make the final decisions, and sign their names to the laws, are the ones who make those decisions. Those who write the checks get to have a say in it. You and I? We just vote, and hope the law- and check-signers get it straight.

However, it would be more direct to say that in order to effect any change, the willingly proactive masses must sacrifice themselves. A hundred-thousand in the street with cans and rocks and chanting and stick-waving, against an armored force of thousands content to lay into them with military force. The protesters will stand for right, the soldiers for the status quo. When the hour comes that the soldiers shoot, the people fighting back must know enough to take it, and martyr themselves; the bloodshed will stop before too long if nobody's fighting back: the world can't stand lambs at slaughter. But if the hundred-thousand let their mighty rage loose all over their military opponents, the world is shocked, and supports "civil order" and brute force. (An arbitrator in Seattle has ruled that the King County Sheriff's Department must reinstate a deputy fired after WTO when he A) stopped a car, asked the driver to roll down the window, and then peppered the two women inside, and B) was videotaped beating a medical worker tending to wounded in the street. "Combat circumstances" warrant this militarization of our police departments, apparently.)

But for change to come, the people must speak their voices. They must be prepared to play by the sucky rules that exist, and they must be ready to find a way to win among those rules. They can riot all they want; nobody's listening.5) I would prefer informed and empowered pacifists, people that are not ‘trusting’ sheep.Informed and empowered persons trust each other. It's like anything else: do you ever work on your car? Now, is the other guy leaning in your hood capable? Or do you constantly worry about whether or not he's going to botch your repair work? If everyone's educated in how to work on cars, and educated enough to know that the other guy is educated, then they can work on the cars in harmony, without having to double-check each other's work and seek out faults by which to demean one another by that uneducated method in which we raise our opinion of ourselves by finding fault in others. Think about when you go to war: Does the soldier next to you know what to do? Is everyone on the same plan? Funny--for all the sheep talk in the world, I never thought of those who wanted to do something better with the world than just follow the leaders down the hole would be considered sheep. I thought sheep were stupid, unassuming, and docile. You know, kind of like that religion with the shepherd and the flock? Where the sheep are never supposed to question the shepherd, just fear him? 6) I’m not sure that would have deterred Hitler, or Mao, since they had little value for humans, except as a means to an end. Yes, and we live in an amazing age. I think that it may not have been possible to get over some of our social hang-ups without some sort of resolution. I mean, Hitler killed six-million people for the crime of being Jewish, and it seems that the uncreative, dead-eyed, obedient sheep of neo-nazidom don't find that a thorough enough job. Think about the (possible) headlines:

* 10 protesters shot in Seattle demonstration: Chief vows inquiry
* 100 hurt, 20 killed as riot police fire on crowd in DC
* Thousands killed in protest-suppression disaster: police firebomb Los Angeles
* Marijuana protesters killed in NYC; Mayor says, "It's not enough."

At what point will the masses wake up? When the people read the detail, and find that the dead were merely protesting--that the rioting didn't exist, or that it really was Because He Was Black--what happens then? Sure, we lose some to sacrifice, but I live in a town where the mayor's office routinely lies to the citizens during times of crisis or emergency. Not misinforms, mind you, but outright calculates a fat ol' lie. (E.g.--Informed: Seattle Police will not be using rubber or wooden bullets; we do not even have those tools available to us. Reality: The rubber and wooden bullets are in transit from Boise and we should be able to start shooting the hell out of people within the next two hours.)

Realizing that fighting fire with fire will no longer work, the people will take to the streets in an undeniable show of pacifism: Go around us, go over us, go under us. Kill us if you have to. But we are not moving until peace is upon us. Would you like a nearly-puerile example? Amazing Grace and Chuck. What happens if one day every child in America stops speaking until peace is achieved?

In the modern day, would we accept another Tianinmen? Would the living mass of the American people accept a repeat performance of such arbitrary idiocy against human dignity?

Watch an 80 year-old man stand down a column of tanks in China: this, uh ... sheep ... did not go willingly. And I, for one, shall always remember. Such a silly sentiment, eh? But it is such sentiments that people are so unwilling to experience that keeps them from effecting any useful change.7) I hope you are right, I feel that the more we know other people that are different than us, the more cosmopolitan we will become, knowing that one of these days we will be one people, one planet. I will leave this one on such a wish. I will only suggest that, while we all seem to know that on the one hand all people are different, and on the other, that all are the same--it is, I believe, education which will teach us what is what, and tell our consciences exactly what to do about it.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

It is society itself that leads to self destruction. Even tribal groups will turn in upon themselves when resources become too low and the need arises to say "hey guys, I need this more than you because...".Resources and space. Though while these are key elements that lead to any social problems, the real problem is psychological of course. This is a capitalistic society;you work hard you receive rewards. Communism works ok for in theory but you still have those few who manipulate to take over for themselves to be the one who decides who gets what.
So...how does one become less selfish? How do you shape a human being into thinking of the group, for it is only in the reshaping of the human being individually that will change the world from power groups being in charge because they were the toughest and most manipulative.
I'm just as quilty as everyone else because I place my children before everyone else. I am unselfish with them, but selfish with everyone else to get for and take care of them. If I could trust to receive fully and equally for my contribution, I could probably give just as fully and equally because it wouldn't take from my children. That's as unselfish as I can be at this time.

hey jhon :)
one question inpart of that re motivation
do you aknoledge good and bad/benevolent vs evil ?
or do you lean to it as being a sickness?

groove on all
:)

Several people have mentioned tribal organization as a possible answer, but how do you get millions to think as a tribal group? I have heard that several cultures have group mind-think, but that it's enforced by societal pressure. To paraphrase a Japanese saying, "The nail that sticks out, is hammered down", that is not the way I want to be coaxed into agreeing to do things for the greater good. I want to be convinced that we all will benefit; to maybe feel a little bit patriotic, fanatical (sports-type), zealot (religious), concerned (environmental), idealistic (utopian)
or brotherhood of man (egalitarian)???

we all are tribal by our nature but strive to be the best in the tribe so therefor feel reduced in value from ill taught morals and ideals
i think the key is education
we cannot have a good anything without a good education and it hasnt happed yet
but even capitolism would work if people wernt self fish but that is seen as a envieble quality innthe current capitalistic world
:/
:confused:
the trueth is that sick people already control most of the resources so you have to kill them first!
timothy mc veagh had the rite idea but the wrong people :D
as if he was the one that did it :mad:
bloody freaks
how could a fertiliser bomb fit into a small wagon like that?
its all bulshit and he is just a bit of a sick person who was used like harvey lee oswald
when will people wake up?
that is the real prob!
its not the idea its the people pretending to help you!
groove on all :)

I'm not sure that violence ever solves problems, it leaves more victims & more people that want to exact revenge, ad infinum, until they just kill each other because they've always killed each other. Is that an answer? I hope not!!!
The people of Oklahoma probably can answer that better than I ever can.
As for all the rich controlling everything, they won't give up any power, control, because they have always kept a tight grip of power. Whether they are raised that way or brainwashed, doesn't matter, they react with force because that is the way they have always done things. And since people want money, the rich have others that will do their dirty work for them. From politicians, police, army, thugs, etc.. How we change ancient, ingrained ways of thinking is the whole idea of this thread, how do we make things better for all (or most) of our swirling little blue dot's population without resorting to violence? Can modern thinking beings reason things out or are we hopelessly bound to repeat everything? Just wondering?

hey all
yo randolfo... i agree with the sentiment but!....
do you think they will allow the change?
if they wont what then?

groove on all :)

Hey Rip ... ever heard the word: REVOLUTION ?

So, is there anyway that people can come to an agreement before revolution or violence? Since how we view things, is really a mindgame, why can't we agree to work together for the betterment of all? Or is that wishful thinking?:confused:

the rich wont give in!
so what do you want to do?
sit back and let them continue to use the poor as slaves?

you gotta wonder when it will change?

but the fight is very big cos all is setup for the rich and the power crazzed!
so resistance is futile!
submit and be a slave!
take drugs and eat food that will make you stupid!
it hurts less that way :/

if you do what they want ... they win!
if you openly opose them they make you a criminal
and they use innocents as a defensive wall...like oklahoma thing
bloody stupid place to put a bomb and kill all those poor saps who think they were making a difference!
anyone who thinks that the level of control comes from that is being a little bit short sighted i think :/
now he's(tim mc v) dead he cant tell the trueth!!!!
kinda closes the circle!
like oswald!

maybeee.... one day.... they will be hit by lightning and change into nice people! :D
groove on all :)

[i]
maybeee.... one day.... they will be hit by lightning and change into nice people! :D
groove on all :) [/B]
Now I think that's wishfull thinking, but is there anyway that we can work for the betterment of all the people? Or is that wishfull thinking? We are stuck on this little pale blue dot, stuck until someone can figure out how to get us out into space.

I want to thank everybody for responding to this thread, but except for a few long, well thought-out statements, most were short & sweet. Which may be good for slogans, but to paraphrase 'Carl' in 'Starship Troopers', "we're in it for the species, boys and girls".
Here's our problem; 6 billion people, 120 mediocre national governments, several pathetic international organizations, thousands of competing ideologies, and an unknown time limit for life on this pale blue dot. How do we help each other get beyond mere survival? How do we progress to a more equitable system, minus the bloodshed? Otherwise, what will make this or any other system work for the majority of people? Not just the few?
What I would like somebody to do, if at all possible, is write a plan that you think will work, then maybe debate it on this thread or some other one? What do you all think? :confused:

Here's our problem; 6 billion people, 120 mediocre national governments, several pathetic international organizations, thousands of competing ideologies, and an unknown time limit for life on this pale blue dot.
Just wondering if our time is up? Looks like one '-ism' just can't see past the blood in their eyes?? Now we find out what stuff we're made up of, sorry to all, but it's blood and guts. In both senses, can mean 'tough warrior' or 'body parts'. :( :(

Removing God from society would do no good as religion is used to falsly justy violence not the cause of it. Repeat that 1000 times or until you understand it.

If there were no religion people would still cut you off. Still Steal. Still cheat on their wives, still murder...ect ect ect. In otherwords...nothing would change.

It's a nice song but face it. We only go to war to get things others won't let us have peacully whether we should have them or not. Remove the coveting nature of man and then we'll stop having wars.

Course you probably don't understand that. Any opportunity you have to accuse religion of being a bad thing you'll take despite how rediculous your claim is. God forbid you should blame yourselves.

It's Islam's turn this time to try to beat it into your thick skull that the islamic religion had NOTHING to do with this attack. It was just used to FALSLY JUSTIFY the act. But you won't listen. We've got what, 5 or 6 threads blaming religion?

Learn to use your head. Otherwise you're just as intolerant as you accuse us of being.

Way to go.

Ben

Originally posted by KalvinB
Removing God from society would do no good as religion is used to falsly justy violence not the cause of it. Repeat that 1000 times or until you understand it.

If there were no religion people would still cut you off. Still Steal. Still cheat on their wives, still murder...ect ect ect. In otherwords...nothing would change.

It's a nice song but face it. We only go to war to get things others won't let us have peacully whether we should have them or not. Remove the coveting nature of man and then we'll stop having wars.

Course you probably don't understand that. Any opportunity you have to accuse religion of being a bad thing you'll take despite how rediculous your claim is. God forbid you should blame yourselves.

It's Islam's turn this time to try to beat it into your thick skull that the islamic religion had NOTHING to do with this attack. It was just used to FALSLY JUSTIFY the act. But you won't listen. We've got what, 5 or 6 threads blaming religion?

Learn to use your head. Otherwise you're just as intolerant as you accuse us of being.

Way to go.

Ben
Ben, I understand a lot of things. I don't need anyone to so-call 'beat me over the head', my skull is not that thick. I try to use logic, understanding & history to make my judgements.

You may want to read the original post that started this thread & the last two(I was attempting to end this thread & go from there). It seems that events of Sept 11th are imposing themselves so that we have to change our thinking from the theoretical to the application of real solutions.

I'm not sure who you are asking to listen? I don't remember ever making a blanket statement blaming religion for our problems? I did use John Lennon's song as the title of this thread, but more as a challenge to come up with something better that the present Western society. I know that there can be better, but so far we have not achieved that, which is too bad. As a Christian, I think people's interpretation of things & their response are the problems. And as a Christian, I feel that at least islam, which started it's foundation by killing & overthrowing Mecca, & took the sword to half the then known world. Some people claim that those that did not convert, were put to the sword, which is why Syria, Jordan, Egypt & North Africa are muslim now. That I would like to research better before I truely believe it.
I think that since this is such a terrible act, many people will try to put both islam & terrorists as one & the same, I have met & befriended muslims, they are a generous, friendly people no matter what country they come from. But until they can articulate their anger over our support of Israel & ground forces in Saudi Arabia in a better way that previously, they will be frustrated for a long time.

What I would like somebody to do, if at all possible, is write a plan that you think will work, then maybe debate it on this thread or some other one? What do you all think? :confused:
Like most, or just some, I've spent alot of time trying to think of the "Utopian Society" and have a fairly decent idea of where I want to be but not how to get there. Here's just a few highlights:
1) End mandatory Obsolescence - stop making things that break just so we have to buy more. (Everyone's heard of the Infinite light bulb right?)
2) Pollution control is mandatory - no acceptable levels, screw that! As close to 0 as we can get.
3) Eliminate production caps on agriculture and use the excess to feed the hungry - for free. Gratis. Your welcome.
4) Figure out where in the world has the best educational sys in the world and implement it. (Also schooling year round, to train for the "real' world.)
5) ... nah I'll stop now. I'm sure I've given enough to discuss.

You all write and think so cleverly. I heard a cry, yet
All of this is due to INJUSTICE.
How come you ae able to think and write so nicely, when three quartes of the world's population - either only think of scratching some food out of the earth, or dreams of revenge on us ? (I said "us" all those who enjoy the luxury of being able to think).
As we say in French " Ventre affamé n'a pas d'oreilles". Who starved three quarters of the world's population ? Who are the guilty ones ? Who the accomplices ? How dare you keep on with all this "pseudo-philosophical" stuff ?
WHO on earth emphasized the "values" of individualism ? Here you have the results, just before your eyes.
Why didn't you, or your parents, rebel against McCarthy ?
Did you support your leaders wen they gave money to the Moujahidins, only for the hatred of your "brainwashed" version of the so-called horrors of the Soviets ?
Let me tell you : you might regret those enemies, because in order to destroy them, you fed far more dangerous and monstruous ones

I heard a cry.
All of this is due to INJUSTICE.
How come you ae able to think and write so nicely, when three quartes of the world's population - either only think of scratching some food out of the earth, or dreams of revenge on us ? (I said "us" all those who enjoy the luxury of being able to think).
As we say in French " Ventre affamé n'a pas d'oreilles". Who starved three quarters of the world's population ? Who are the guilty ones ? Who the accomplices ? How dare you keep on with all this "pseudo-philosophical" stuff ?
WHO on earth emphasized the "values" of individualism ? Here you have the results, just before your eyes.
Why didn't you, or your parents, rebel against McCarthy ?
Did you support your leaders wen they gave money to the Moujahidins, only for the hatred of your "brainwashed" version of the so-called horrors of the Soviets ?
Let me tell you : you might regret those enemies, because in order to destroy them, you fed far more dangerous and monstruous ones

"A violent start"

What system of beliefs didn't have some violence at the beginning? How does that make them wrong? It just points out you'll never have 100% acceptance of any system. Someone will always break the rules of the cause to further the cause.

"western society"

We're not dealing with a society. We're dealing with human nature. When you can fix human nature you can fix all our problems. You can't do that by simply writing a new rule book. That's never worked. Out of the thousands of religions and societies there is not one that lives perfectly. There is always evil. We are constantly trying to better our society. Every society is.

"There is something better"

Define 'better'

Until you can convince people there is such thing as absolute moral truths you'll always have a bit of relativism. What you feel is better may not be 'better' to someone else. What better is, is usually defined by whose in charge.

If you don't like western society...there are plenty others to choose from. Your best option may just be a deserted Island.

Ben

Thanks, Kalvin, for answering me. I was quite provocative. But it is also due to the lengthe of the messages alowed.... couldn't be more explicit (I had to cross out whole sentences).
However, you didn't really answer my question : I admit it is a very difficult one. As we say here "anyone should sweep before his frontdoor". Perhaps I am not o the right forum : my question is : don't you think that you, (noy you particularly of course) but your nation, should start thinking seriously about their responsibilities ? I say that because I teach English, and I DO know a lot about your culture. In the last scholl year, we made a dossier with our students about "death penalty" in the US.
I am really sorry, but your country is one of the last ones -along with Saudi Arabia, China, Iran and so on- to practise this barbarous "custom".
(By the way - you didn't answer my questions about you, the citizens of the most powerful country in the world).
DEMOCRACY ? Are the actual Americans real democrats ? That is MY question (maybe I should go to the "political forum").
However : I do love you and you people. Fran.

Originally posted by Paca Huesca
I heard a cry.
All of this is due to INJUSTICE.
How come you ae able to think and write so nicely, when three quartes of the world's population - either only think of scratching some food out of the earth, or dreams of revenge on us ? If I understand it right, at least for the US, we have had the Peace Corps, some missionaries help build infrastructure, Greenpeace, we support U.N.I.C.E.F. & the W.H.O., etc. Sure it’s a small effort compared to the ravenous Western appetite for raw materials. But sorry, I don't remember the French supporting any large-scale effort except for 'Doctors sans frontieres'(which we support as 'Doctors without Borders'), are there more?


(I said "us" all those who enjoy the luxury of being able to think).
As we say in French " Ventre affamé n'a pas d'oreilles". Who starved three quarters of the world's population ? Who are the guilty ones ? Who the accomplices ?
If I remember right, the French left a nice legacy too; in Africa, the Caribbean, North & South America, Indochina & the Pacific. And for Europe, does the name Napoleon ring a bell?

How dare you keep on with all this "pseudo-philosophical" stuff ?
Sorry, we are not Sartre, this is the best that average people like me can do. If you need deeper stuff, then you may need to meet more intellectual friends.



WHO on earth emphasized the "values" of individualism ? Here you have the results, just before your eyes.
We are a creature of the West, one of whose mothers happens to be French; philosophically, religiously, economically, martially, politically, intellectually, artistically, etc. And, oh yes, even our snobs & elites like to speak French, go to France on vacation & eat French foods & wines.


Why didn't you, or your parents, rebel against McCarthy ?So, what happened when your country was in Algeria & Vietnam?

Did you support your leaders wen they gave money to the Moujahidins, only for the hatred of your "brainwashed" version of the so-called horrors of the Soviets ?
We are all 'brainwashed' by our society to believe in our culture, it's values & ideas, it's point of reference. Why? Are you saying that you are a neutral, unbiased observer?


Let me tell you : you might regret those enemies, because in order to destroy them, you fed far more dangerous and monstruous ones !touche!

I understand your reaction. However, even when you can strike back, why strike back with such pity weapons ? Napoleon, Sartre....and the Vietnam ! Yes, we had colonies, like Algeria for exemple..... the British had colonies too, in North America.... Why not talk about La Fayette ?
And for one thing : we French people never pretended to be the "leaders of the free world".... that is why, for instance, we didn't intervened in Chile in order to defend our "values".
Let me remind you that during the sinister times of McCarthy, the censorship was so hard that all your best writers had to come over here to be published . (Faulkner/Henry Miller and such and such....)
Let me remind you too that your country is one of the last ones -together with Saudi Arabia, Iran and China- to practise the death penalty, which is contrary to all the rules of democracy; (see the official texts).
Sorry if I sound unpleasant .
And as you acknowledged : touché ! (I am sorry for being right).

hey all

LOL :D

Paca Huesca...
you touch the issue quite nicely :)
all want to be GOD!
BUT
All know they are not and can not be!
SO
They want to be treated as though they are just as important as GOD!
YET
they want to be treated better than anyone else!

LOL :D

the sickness deepens with the greater the merchandising :D
its soo obviouse yet soo many seem to miss it completely!
the particular system is irrelavant because the basic nature of the people who ACTUALY run "the show" does not and will not change!!!!!

groove on all :)

hello

I haven't been here long.
In fact, I was a bit afraid of you people's reactions.!!!!
I was misunderstood, and I thought "gosh ! this is going to turn into q quarrel between the "froggies" and "uncle Sam".
Thanks for your answer.
Just I don't understand it all what does it mean , "groove it all" ?
Can you explain ?
Friendship from a "froggy".

I didn't see that you, Ripleofdeath, were from New Zealand : I am curious too about "oxymoron earthling".
Are there kangaroos in New Zealand too ? THAT is the question.
Bye, from the teacher.

groove on all is the same as 'keep on trucking' or 'keep on keeping on', I hope that's cleared it up for you.:D

The only way for us to create an ideal society is to find something more fun than war, and the only place that that might be is in space.

The only way for us to create an ideal society is to find something more fun than warWe already have it: SEX

Am I the only one around old enough to remember "Make Love, not War"

Unfortunately, 'Family Values' did a real number on that wonderful thought.

Are ther really such things as "American revolutionaries"????
(Sory, I haven't been her long, so I didn't follow - and didn't understand your explanation about "groove it all", since you used slang to explain slang !
Bye, friendship from France (cocorico!!!!)

KEEP ON DOING WHAT MAKES YOU HAPPY!!!
C'EST COMPRENDE?:rolleyes: :)

Getting back to the original topic... "Utopia"?
I think that humanity has gone fundamentally wrong a long time ago. We have invented concepts which have only served to isolate one way of thinking from another. There have been several posts already which have identified and discussed some of these concepts... religion, nationalism, the "western world" and the "eastern world"... all of these are merely dividing lines between people. We cant simply address one of these or another. the point is that ALL of these have contributed in differing ways to the fact that we ARE divided.
We cant enforce one of these over another anymore, because nobody knows anymore what the truth is. Its too late to "wipe the slate clean" and start again.
Having already made the mistake of evolving concepts that divide us, its too late to find out which ones are "true". education cant help because we would only be enforcing one "set" of ideas which we have or will decide is "true". the same is true for enforcement by any other means.

what is "true" has been lost in a welter of IDEAS.

If we see the things which have divided us, ie religion, politics, geographic lines, RACES, as being TOOLS which we have developed in order to reach the point we are at NOW, then we're on the right track. We need to discard them all now, now that we KNOW they were only tools, and start again with the ideas which they have led to.

But wait..... who are "we"? who ARE the people who understand the lessons which have been taught by all of the above dividing influences?

"we".... these are the people who can read and understand everything which has been written here, in this forum, and elsewhere.

"we" are the people who read books written by others, and can honestly say, "yes... i understand that."

"we" are the people who can think about anothers point of view.

"we" are the ones who can see what difficulties others DO have in understanding our point of view, and can understand the fact they they might not be able to.

"we" are the ones who write the music which makes us FEEL one idea at a time.

"we" are the ones who have the means, the know how, and the motivation to set up THIS FORUM, and others, which enable us to talk about how we feel without fear of retribution.

most people here reading this know who "we" are.

"we" is my utopia.

post it to 'Utopia' thread