I supported the war in Iraq. I have cried... three times... for those who died. Sorry doesn't come close to saying it to the families and the people who are dead. Thousands ... Dead. Real people who i could have happily welcomed into my family are... Dead.
Would i support it again? Given a chance to go back to before the latest war?...
Yes... because we are only partly civilized at this stage of our evolution. IMMEDIATE GOAL = DEMOCRACY... LONG TERM GOAL = TOTAL PERSONAL FREEDOM. ( one thousand years... minimum)
What is the point of being civilized, sentient beings? To just get into tomorrow? To just accept that we must suffer? To accept that the mean spirit of silly people will rule us... to the destruction of the race?
I must confess that i cry... over and over. Drives those who love me nuts. I cry for the fact that we are such babies. We see only now. I believe that someday... maybe a thousand years... each person will develop the ability to pay attention to events that forge life for up to 5 minutes of continuous concentration. That will be more than a hundred fold increase in concentration power over our current ability as a race. At that point... maybe we will be able to view FREEDOM OF THE INDIVIDUAL over the silly notion of mass rights... Are two people better than one? If attributes of individuals are addative... how many killers and/or psychopaths does it take to equal one very good person? How many idiots equal one genius? The silly notion of majority rules is based on the notion that all people care and are conscious of the issue. Sad. Sad. Silly. Only a small percentage of people ever think about an issue, never mind develop a thoughtful opinion of it... for the most part we pick up our views from peer association. <PUBLIC RELATIONS <aka propaganda> Is the name of that game. Stupid. Idiotic. So ... bring on Disney , body piercing and tatoos, punks, and goths. Stupid peer pressures totally void of brain activity. Long live Humanity!
Originally posted by StarValleyWywas that not around when man fist came into being, so to speak? when we were "uncivilised"?
Yes... because we are only partly civilized at this stage of our evolution. IMMEDIATE GOAL = DEMOCRACY... LONG TERM GOAL = TOTAL PERSONAL FREEDOM. ( one thousand years... minimum)
Originally posted by geniusNo. "Absolute Freedom" requires thousands of years of development into technology, matematics, science, and social skills. All that was present when we were "uncivilized"... lets assume that 50,000 years ago was the starting point... was tribal loyalty, and canibalism. Absolutely no "personal freedom" existed at that point. Unless one considers the right to die at age 23 as absolute freedom. That's what the poor buggers did, on average.
was that not around when man fist came into being, so to speak? when we were "uncivilised"?
Absolute freedom requires technologies we have yet to develop. Mostly self replicating silicon devices and human independent "building" systems to provide "free of charge" the basics of life... food, water, sewerage... shelter.(Star Trek, Is a good metaphor) That is "Absolute Freedom". This must be applied to ALL HUMANS. This will require at least (i estimate) a thousand years of progress if we don't kill ourselves getting there from here.
Originally posted by geniuswhat was around then was not a lot of anything at all.Yet, when man first came into being he probably had exactly the same views of personnal freedom that we do now, just on a smaller scale. Its for this reason that I believe our interpratation of the term 'freedom' will evolve with us and will take far longer than a thousand years to achieve, if it ever is.
was that not around when man first came into being, so to speak? when we were "uncivilised"?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI strongly opposed said war, but the Quatnum Bumper has marshalled a powerful point here...If you have an opinion, then defend it in a logically sound manner, and in a rhetorically accepted format. This is why the one 'peace protest' I stood in made me feel like a total ASCII.
pick up our views from peer association. <PUBLIC RELATIONS <aka propaganda> Is the name of that game. Stupid. Idiotic. So ... bring on Disney , body piercing and tatoos, punks, and goths. Stupid peer pressures totally void of brain activity. Long live Humanity!
Originally posted by jimmi tYour'e probably right. I just didn't want to seem to be a defeatist.😳
what was around then was not a lot of anything at all.Yet, when man first came into being he probably had exactly the same views of personnal freedom that we do now, just on a smaller scale. Its for this reason that I believe our interpratation of the term 'freedom' will evolve with us and will take far longer than a thousand years to achieve, if it ever is.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyAbsolute freedom can only exist if the world is inhabited by one solitary individual. As soon as you add a second person, each will impinge upon the freedom of the other. Their freedom may be very great, but it is no longer absolute. As more people are added to a society, personal freedom will be increasingly regulated and constrained.
No. "Absolute Freedom" requires thousands of years of development into technology, matematics, science, and social skills. All that was present when we were "uncivilized"... lets assume that 50,000 years ago was the starting point... was tribal loyalty, and canibalism. Absolutely no "personal freedom" existed at that point. Unless one considers t ...[text shortened]... t (i estimate) a thousand years of progress if we don't kill ourselves getting there from here.
I disagree with you assertion that prehistoric man had no personal freedom. Their lives may have been short and filled with hardship, but within those limitations they were personally free. In an effort to increase his lifespan and lessen his hardship, mankind created civilization. He put restraints on his individual freedom so that the whole might prosper.
With each passing age, man has increased his material prosperity, while further constraining the freedom of the individual. Modern man has been increasingly compartmentalized into smaller and smaller confines. He has little control over the myriad events that impact his life. He has become a tiny cog in a complex and impersonal machine. He has lessened his material want and hardship to large degrees, but has become alienated from himself in the process.
The task for the new age will be to continue to lessen man's material hardship, while simultaneously reclaiming a measure of his lost prehistoric personal freedom. Only then will mankind be able to transcend his animal existence and become fully human.
Originally posted by rwingettIn my opinion if I was completely alone on this planet I wouldn't feel free, I'd feel incredibly alone. Without other people to communicate with I'd fall apart, What would be needed would be the space to get away from the other people if needed. But I can understand where your coming from and I've long held that ideals such as freedom are a matter of personnal opinion.
Absolute freedom can only exist if the world is inhabited by one solitary individual...
Jimmy
Originally posted by StarValleyWyyou seem to miss the point that freedom is not a material possesion, freedom does not requier fancy technological tools, it is not something that has to be gained through technelogical advances. you forget that star treck is the idealogical vision of its creator and i would also not consider them free as most are part of the federation and so have to conform to rank and rules.
No. "Absolute Freedom" requires thousands of years of development into technology, matematics, science, and social skills. All that was present when we were "uncivilized"... lets assume that 50,000 years ago was the starting point... was tribal loyalty, and canibalism. Absolutely no "personal freedom" existed at that point. Unless one considers t ...[text shortened]... t (i estimate) a thousand years of progress if we don't kill ourselves getting there from here.
you say how to die at 23 is not free, it is not how you die that denotes freedom but how you live you touched that these people might be free, they were in fact until leadership and religion and gods were thaught of the human race was as free as it ever was.
the only society i have seen where a leader and form of religion has stiil allowed complete freedom is the native american plains indians. the chief was chief because he was viewed to be the most up to the job, the most wise, he knew how to survive best on the plains. in fact they only had to introduce a word for law after the europeans started to alter there society, they were called uncivilised yet they were realy the most civilised people at the time.
you seem to ignore the fact that the so called aim of all our technelogical development is to be completely sustainable, the plains indians were, they did not take from the land what would not be replenished, in my view despite awareness we are as far away from this as we could ever be.
the war was not a streatch in to freedom as the people being "liberated" now only have a new Strangle Hold demanding oil. is this free?
bush and israle call the palistinian terrorists "enemys of freedom" when freedom for palistine is there one aim, they are victims of "zionism", i do not agree with some of their meathods (suicide bombings) but there cause is what everyone seeks.
I think you'll find that right from prehostoric times man has held some belief of a higher being, its only now that we're beginning to understand the world that that is fading out. The Mammoth was driven to extinction at some point in america and the only cause that can be found is human settlers, I realise that they weren't at the time considered plains indians but they were there ancestors. Also they plains indians may have lived in relative peace however I'm sure they had just as many scraps with the tribe over the hill as the various states do now.
In answer to your point on technology, I can see where your coming from however how would you feel if you were diagnosed with cancer but discovered that some technological gadget could save your life. Would you go without? I understand your point but I personnaly wouldn't feel free unless I knew I could lead a healthy life. Just my opinion.
Jimmy
Originally posted by jimmi tin a ten year war between two indian nations twice as many died in hunting accidents than in battle. the very nature of indian warfare values life more than the death, of both the enemy, and especially yourself, to get in to the midst of battle and close to your enemy is more hounerable than to die, dont wory the indians had a hard time explaining it to the european settlers as well.
Also they plains indians may have lived in relative peace however I'm sure they had just as many scraps with the tribe over the hill as the various states do now.