100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The politics of non-violence | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
In the Present times, it is violence that has surfaced as one of the most general causes of human suffering. The search of material benefits has resulted in growing controversies between individuals, groups and nations. New forms of violence have thus appeared. Highly sophisticated and deadly chemical and nuclear weapons have opened up ways to impose an utmost of devastation and damage. In truth, some blame the modern ways of living for the violent predispositions that have taken strong roots in mankind. There is less of tolerance, perseverance, true courage, commitment and absolutely no sense of values at all. Many of us today are lost; as wandering souls can be easily deceived in the name of anything. Violence has grown to such an extent today that it has almost acquired some kind of authenticity. One fears that the growing violent mind-set will eventually wipe out mankind as a whole.
Has politics help promote peace, solutions, and non-violence or do you believe it has gone in the wrong direction in the 21st century? Explain your reasons and what can be done to shift the change of politics to ensure a (more) non-violent community to our world. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the world has become far less violent and evil over the last 40 years.
what has been going on since 2000 is nothing compared to the world of the pre 1970's. Mao slaughtered 10's of millions. Stalin slaughtered 10's of millions. Khmer Rouge butchered a few million. Hitler 10's of millions. During the First World War Battle of the Somme the British had 30,000 killed and 75,000 wounded or missing in a SINGLE DAY. That is violence and human suffering on a scale anyone born after the mid 70s will never even come close to enduring. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, in all of human history, we are currently enjoying one of the more (if not, the most) peaceful periods on record.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone that says that the world is more violent should be beaten. Then see how they like it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, in all of human history, we are currently enjoying one of the more (if not, the most) peaceful periods on record. absolutely.. you can't even dream up a conspiracy theory to debate that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone that says that the world is more violent should be beaten. Then see how they like it. Death to the naysayers! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reason it "seems" more violent is due to technology and instataneous reporting of it. We are more aware.
In the 60s we were living under the constant threat of nuclear war. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the Present times, it is violence that has surfaced as one of the most general causes of human suffering. The search of material benefits has resulted in growing controversies between individuals, groups and nations. New forms of violence have thus appeared. Highly sophisticated and deadly chemical and nuclear weapons have opened up ways to impose an utmost of devastation and damage. In truth, some blame the modern ways of living for the violent predispositions that have taken strong roots in mankind. There is less of tolerance, perseverance, true courage, commitment and absolutely no sense of values at all. Many of us today are lost; as wandering souls can be easily deceived in the name of anything. Violence has grown to such an extent today that it has almost acquired some kind of authenticity. One fears that the growing violent mind-set will eventually wipe out mankind as a whole. Has politics help promote peace, solutions, and non-violence or do you believe it has gone in the wrong direction in the 21st century? Explain your reasons and what can be done to shift the change of politics to ensure a (more) non-violent community to our world. People want nothing more than the right to life, liberty (freedom) and the pursuit of happiness. These are rights given to man by God, (whatever you conceive that to be.) But the people have allowed government to take control of their money and their lives, and there are certain families who have seen an opportunity and the means to control the masses and the world. It is out of the control of most of the minion politicians who are being manipulated and bought (bribed) etc. Politics don't help promote peace. Corporations need war in order to grow. Only the people, the real human individuals can end war. We must begin by taking control of money which should be under the power of the merchants, not the government. Go back to freedom and civil law and abolish UCC and the Federal Reserve. Abolish the Central banking systems. Get rid of fiat money and paying interest on air. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
interesting to me when people quote the 'god given 'rights of life liberty and pursuit of happiness
I always wonder how any of those three things are actaully quanified in any measurable/attainable/maintainable way. once we are born, we have LIFE,,,so does that mean abortion should be illegal? is that denying a 'god given' right,,? what is 'liberty', in terms of anything that we 'have' ? and does pursuit of happiness have any actual descriptor that doesnt mean a chaotic world where everyone literally does whatever makes them happy? ,,,its a problem I have with 'founding' papers,, the language used in many parts sounds cliche and idealistic without really explaining anything CONCRETE that can be worked with,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 07/24/12 08:26 PM
|
|
interesting to me when people quote the 'god given 'rights of life liberty and pursuit of happiness I always wonder how any of those three things are actaully quanified in any measurable/attainable/maintainable way. once we are born, we have LIFE,,,so does that mean abortion should be illegal? is that denying a 'god given' right,,? what is 'liberty', in terms of anything that we 'have' ? and does pursuit of happiness have any actual descriptor that doesnt mean a chaotic world where everyone literally does whatever makes them happy? ,,,its a problem I have with 'founding' papers,, the language used in many parts sounds cliche and idealistic without really explaining anything CONCRETE that can be worked with,,,, People who have been born, do have a right to live. That can't really be extended to the subject of abortion. As for liberty, that means freedom. Freedom from bondage. Freedom to pursue life and happiness. As for happiness, that is what everyone wants. What other reason would there be to live? There is no need to complicate it. Its not complicated at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P.S.
"Freedom" does not mean the freedom to do anything you please unrestricted. It simply means the freedom to live and thrive as you were designed to do naturally. To live and be free and be happy. Very simple. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
interesting to me when people quote the 'god given 'rights of life liberty and pursuit of happiness I always wonder how any of those three things are actaully quanified in any measurable/attainable/maintainable way. once we are born, we have LIFE,,,so does that mean abortion should be illegal? is that denying a 'god given' right,,? what is 'liberty', in terms of anything that we 'have' ? and does pursuit of happiness have any actual descriptor that doesnt mean a chaotic world where everyone literally does whatever makes them happy? ,,,its a problem I have with 'founding' papers,, the language used in many parts sounds cliche and idealistic without really explaining anything CONCRETE that can be worked with,,,, People who have been born, do have a right to live. That can't really be extended to the subject of abortion. As for liberty, that means freedom. Freedom from bondage. Freedom to pursue life and happiness. As for happiness, that is what everyone wants. What other reason would there be to live? There is no need to complicate it. Its not complicated at all. this is where Im confused,, where is it DEFINED that LIFE is only a right of those already 'born'? who decided that? this : Freedom from bondage. Freedom to pursue life and happiness. uses more 'ideal' terms and no concrete explanation. what qualifies as 'bondage' and what qualifies as pursuing life or happiness? and 'happiness' for one person may be never working, for another it may be taking what isnt theres, for another it may be earning whatever they want which 'happiness' is applicable to such a vague description? all three examples? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P.S. "Freedom" does not mean the freedom to do anything you please unrestricted. It simply means the freedom to live and thrive as you were designed to do naturally. To live and be free and be happy. Very simple. start a discussion about what we were 'natually' designed to do and Im sure it wont be as simple as you say,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
interesting to me when people quote the 'god given 'rights of life liberty and pursuit of happiness I always wonder how any of those three things are actaully quanified in any measurable/attainable/maintainable way. once we are born, we have LIFE,,,so does that mean abortion should be illegal? is that denying a 'god given' right,,? what is 'liberty', in terms of anything that we 'have' ? and does pursuit of happiness have any actual descriptor that doesnt mean a chaotic world where everyone literally does whatever makes them happy? ,,,its a problem I have with 'founding' papers,, the language used in many parts sounds cliche and idealistic without really explaining anything CONCRETE that can be worked with,,,, People who have been born, do have a right to live. That can't really be extended to the subject of abortion. As for liberty, that means freedom. Freedom from bondage. Freedom to pursue life and happiness. As for happiness, that is what everyone wants. What other reason would there be to live? There is no need to complicate it. Its not complicated at all. this is where Im confused,, where is it DEFINED that LIFE is only a right of those already 'born'? who decided that? this : Freedom from bondage. Freedom to pursue life and happiness. uses more 'ideal' terms and no concrete explanation. what qualifies as 'bondage' and what qualifies as pursuing life or happiness? and 'happiness' for one person may be never working, for another it may be taking what isnt theres, for another it may be earning whatever they want which 'happiness' is applicable to such a vague description? all three examples? Those things, my dear, are what you, as an individual, have to decide for yourself. That is part of what being free is all about. You decide. Now if you will excuse me, I have to go now, for I have summoned my Valley girl psyche and she doesn't talk about such deep or important issues or concepts. She's very shallow. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 07/25/12 09:09 AM
|
|
P.S. "Freedom" does not mean the freedom to do anything you please unrestricted. It simply means the freedom to live and thrive as you were designed to do naturally. To live and be free and be happy. Very simple. start a discussion about what we were 'natually' designed to do and Im sure it wont be as simple as you say,,, Probably not for you, as you tend to over think a lot of things. But you are now talking to the Valley girl. To her, life is simple. Now excuse me I have to go do my nails. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think what Jenn is trying to say is God didnt give stillborn children the rigjt to live
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reason it "seems" more violent is due to technology and instataneous reporting of it. We are more aware. In the 60s we were living under the constant threat of nuclear war. That's it exactly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think what Jenn is trying to say is God didnt give stillborn children the rigjt to live No, let me explain it to you this way. When you have sex with a woman, millions upon millions of sperm fight their way towards an egg. The winner gets to the first part of the journey towards life in this world, but the journey is not over. The other sperm cells lost the race. They do not have the right to reach the egg if they lost the race. Now if the fetus grows to term and is delivered alive, that fetus has won the race. He or she from that day forward has a right to life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think what Jenn is trying to say is God didnt give stillborn children the rigjt to live No, let me explain it to you this way. When you have sex with a woman, millions upon millions of sperm fight their way towards an egg. The winner gets to the first part of the journey towards life in this world, but the journey is not over. The other sperm cells lost the race. They do not have the right to reach the egg if they lost the race. Now if the fetus grows to term and is delivered alive, that fetus has won the race. He or she from that day forward has a right to life. And thus you believe stillborns don't have the right to live. I already understood that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 07/25/12 11:05 AM
|
|
I think what Jenn is trying to say is God didnt give stillborn children the rigjt to live No, let me explain it to you this way. When you have sex with a woman, millions upon millions of sperm fight their way towards an egg. The winner gets to the first part of the journey towards life in this world, but the journey is not over. The other sperm cells lost the race. They do not have the right to reach the egg if they lost the race. Now if the fetus grows to term and is delivered alive, that fetus has won the race. He or she from that day forward has a right to life. And thus you believe stillborns don't have the right to live. I already understood that. Only people who are alive have the right to live. You first have to succeed at being alive. For whatever reason, Stillborns are not alive. |
|
|
|
|
