We are not wise, nor rightous nor noble - we simply have the most influence and the greatest ability to influence world events. You can read anything you want into that, but this country has been the dominant force since the cold war. We can claim until we are blue in the face that we ARE those three things you mentioned...but in the end we are not because those ideas are unique to individual assigning them. Osama believes he is rightous crusader against evil america. America believes she is rightous crusader against evil Osama. Who is 'right'? Actually, Saddam had his Kuwait invasion Oked by the then US ambassador to Iraq. I am not defending the US invasion of Iraq on moral grounds because we are not a moral country (pretend to be, of course - just like all other countries). We give the go ahead for Iraq to invade Kuwait...hmm, he took it MUCH farther than we have thought - we gotta stop him else we will lose our oil supply. What is wrong with that scenerio? We were protecting our countries way of life and severe dependency on oil. I am not familiar with your countries largest dependant import...but if a heavy percent of it came from one country and that country was about to become 'annexed' by another - you would 'come to defend the people of CountryX in a heartbeat. We gave Saddam weapons to Iran, yes. Why not? Iran was at the time a bigger problem so help his attackers. Again, I see no fault here. Trying to paint US as a hypocritical nation? I thought it was obvious. Nothing I see to defend here...we helped a guy likely to bite us beat the Soviets. Now he DID bite us so we are out to get him back. Where is the problem? Without untimely deaths earth would be an overpopulated, disease ridden, perpetually starved planet. Human death is necessary. Even untimely ones. From the infant who took one breath and had a heartattack to the 115 year old who died in their sleep. Death is ALWAYS necessary. And who said its a bad thing? Bad for the one who died? How do we know that...maybe there is an afterlife and it's so great no one bothers to tell the ones stilll living. Humans are selfish so we cry when a loved one dies because WE will miss them. Heartbreaking when a parent has a stillborn, this I know... I accept it because its necessary. When did I say we were attacked by Iraq? Did you think I implied Iraq declared was on the US iin "The result of war is not worth the lives lost in it".? I was speaking of the Iraqis defending their country and their president - the ones WE killed. They lost the war, but their deaths were not meaningless or worthless because of it. Whether your 'reason for war' is correct or not, I see no fault of either party...both were acting in their own best interests. Actually Russia has stated their intelligence officers had many times informed the US of Saddams plans to attack American interests after 911 and before the invasion. Russia said these plans were gathered by their own intelligence, but despite them...did not agree on the invasion. I have never been dictator nor do I own WMD, so I cannot relate to what I would do in Saddam situation. By respected I only meant when we say something or do something, taking notice is prudent. Not taking notice would be disrepecting us. Maybe that word is incorrect, but thats what I meant by it. If you want to argue that most of the worlds leaders do not care what the US says or does then fine..state it. You don't have to like someone to respect them. I don't think we gratuitously bombed the crap out of anyone. We used very accurate laser guided bombs to limit collateral damage and to avoid the political windfall it would have created. As i said before...I don't remeber any political figure saying we were trying 'be the Wise One'. But why is WISE always associated with peace? There exists no instance in history where violence was the wise choice? Suppose, for a moment someone a group of people had kidnapped your only child. What lengths would you go, if you captured one of the kidnappers, to get information that could save your childs life. What if showing them a photo of others like them in degrading pictures would make them speak? Would you do it? By what moral code is your choice right or wrong? Yes, by any means necessary. I don't know anyone named Kohlberg or their reasoning. But quoting some name does not discount the fact that there exists no ONE moral code for all to abide by. People grow out of it? I grew into it. More sophisticated moral reasoning...you mean more complex with bigger words and stuff from more Kohlberg-types? People who love one another, are truthful to one another have compassion for one another all follow the same moral standard. And they take their justice out on people NOT following that standard. If you want world peace, love and all that ...eliminate religion and unite us under one government and make sure everyone agrees on its laws. Good luck. Until you accomplish that...then your quote is better stated: THERE IS NO TRUTH BUT MINE. THERE IS NO JUSTICE BUT MINE. THERE IS NO FAIRNESS, COMPASSION, REDEMPTION, ETERNAL LIFE. THERE IS JUST ME.
They're both wrong. Certain truths are universal. Certain moral codes, values, or philosophies, or whatever you want to call them apply universally. This is why most religions and philosophies, no matter what country, culture or era they come from, whether it is Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Tao, Shinto, Zen or whatever, when you get down to the bottom of it, all fundamentally say the same thing. "Altruism is better than selfishness". "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you". "Life matters". "Everybody matters (everybody's equal)". "Everybody is free to pursue life, liberty and happiness". "Each man is defined by his actions". You know, that stuff. Children as young as two spontaneously display altruism and compassion. All the world over. It's a basic human concept (they also display selfishness and mindless aggression at times, true. That too is basically human. But we don't have to stop there. We can exceed ourselves. That, also, is human). What? Saddam Hussain taking things a bit far? Well, we certainly didn't see that one coming... I mean, is the US government run by morons? No wait, don't answer that one... So what you are saying is that there is nothing wrong with taking a completely egocentric, pragmatic amoral stance, i.e. there's nothing wrong with being a psychopath. Ok... a brief lesson in psychopathy. The thing about psychopaths is that they feel so fundamentally worthless in their being that every human relationship (or rather, other peoples possible feelings or opinions about them) becomes a huge threat to their fragile ego. As such they find it too threatening to interact with people as people; they have to relate to them like objects, to be manipulated for their own personal gains (like you'd drink a can of coke, crumple it and toss it in the bin). I mean, you don't have to worry about a thing's feelings or opinions right? A thing can't hurt you (psychologically). This, predictably, makes them rather lonely, tragic individuals, although they themselves will not see that --they can't. Too threatening, you see? In fact they would argue they're great, better, stronger and more powerful than those weak, stupid humans with morality, feelings etc. But underneath it all, they are all deeply lonely, deeply terrified of disappearing into nothingness, and deeply suspicious and paranoid of others, thinking the whole world is out to get them and you better get them first! While human beings have the potential to become more than what they are, to exceed their nature, and grow, psychopaths remain stuck forever. To be a psychopath is to live in isolation and fear. Permanently. If this reminds you of the behaviour of certain dictators, nations, or countries, you're free to make that association... No. I'm trying to paint the US as a slightly psychopathic nation. Well, sociopathic, really, to be technical. Not its people, but its government, its current culture. As I was saying above... As for the guy biting you back, the problem is (again), that the US willingly equiped an obvious psychopath to further their immediate goals, whilst dismissing the risk of future backfire. The problem, inmate909, is two smoking holes in the ground where the World Trade Center used to be. The problem is 3000 innocent people, like hardworking office personel, policemen, firemen, lost their lives through the callous actions of a government sworn to lead and protect them. ...and again... as I said above... The planet wouldn't be starving, by the way, if there were a more equitable distribution of resources. Far from it. But a priviliged few nations are sucking the rest of the world dry for all it's worth. I could argue for hours about foreign trade policies, IMF policies and thirld World debt but frankly, I like to assume you're a bright guy and can work all this out for yourself. But hey, that sort of death isn't personal, right? As you said, you're just sitting at your PC, surfing the net. Who are you to judge what your government does on the other side of the planet. And that's the problem. Politics are never personal. As in Up Close And. It's not Saddam's children who suffered, not the President's son who got killed on a landmine in Iraq. Not your sibling who died on 9/11. Not your home that is buldozed on the Gaza strip. What I would like you to do, dude, is explain to little Ali why he lost his parents and both his arms. "Sorry kid, but it was necessary". The reason I mention his example is not for some cheap pathos, but to remind you that. Everything. We. Do. Is. Personal. And defines who we are. You implied it here: Of course you can. Apply a bit of psychology. He's a dictator. He has no WMD, but enemies are breathing down his neck everywhere. He has to appear powerful, invulnerable, fearless, brazen, defiant. "Mess with me and you will SUFFER!". He postures for all it's worth (even now, in Court). Anyone could see that. Why couldn't US/UK Intelligence? Don't they employ psychologists? Not that I can think of, but feel free to correct me... And "respect" is incorrect. You're looking for the word "fear". Problem is, the flipside of fear is anger (Fight-Flight Response --Google it up), so one day those who cowered from you, can suddenly turn around and attack you. I don't have time to explain Abuser - Abuse Victim dynamics here now (maybe later), but invariably, people sooner or later end up getting back at the bully. And you'll be surpised at how good they will be at it. After all, they had a lot of time to watch and learn from the abuser.
Continued... Poor analogy. More accurate would be: Someone kidnaps your child. You don't know where they are, but you know they happen to be Asian. Probably something to do with running over that Asian kid last week because he got in the way of your car. Your neighbour, who you don't like anyway (disputes over borders, not returning lawn mowers, he has a bigger car, noisier stereo, whatever), is Asian too. So you torch his house and scream triumphantly: "There you b*st*rd, that's for my child!!!". Then you start driving around and harassing any other Asians you come across because they might just be in cahoots with the kidnappers (after all, man, they're the same race!), and know where your child is. Perhaps you even kidnap some of them, to torture some information out of them, or because you fear they might kidnap your other children, or just to get even. And if Asians in general then start saying: hey, he's a bigot who's got it in for us, let's teach him a lesson! you shout triumphantly: "You see! I knew they were out to get me!". Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning. Again, Google it up. It's a research based model, by the way, just a decription/classification of how people reason, not his own opinion. And people can indeed grow into psychopathy. But I refer back to my first statement: certain moral values, ideas, are universal to all humans. His research suggests that also. What you are alluding to is ingroup-outgroup dynamics. Nothing to do with morals but with societal and cultural values, which are often confused with them. I don't have time to go into group behaviour now, but it has nothing to do with morals. Didn't several dictatorial and autocratic regimes in history try that? Didn't work. Wonder why... oh right, it was too simplistic. People can't be told to do the right thing, or cajoled, threatened or bribed. They have to believe that it is the right thing to do, of their own free will. They have to feel responsibility for their own actions. Because. Everything. You. Do. Is. Personal. And everything. You. Do. Defines. You. Actually Death speaks in the royal plural. And he did mean US, not OURS. Ask yourself why. OK: give you a hint. Death (not death, but Death, as in the Grim Reaper) is an anthropomorphic personification of a human concept.
Religion is less about moral code than about control, I thought this was generally recognized. Your list of universal ‘themes’ are all designed to control human behavior, not expose our core existence…but I shall go through each. Altruism is better than selfishness. If being altruistic makes you feel good, then it is essentially a selfish act that happens to benefit another. People are innately driven by love of self. People like to feel good, people like when other people like them (self love is easier when others love you). Don’t fool yourself into thinking people ever perform an act that is not at some level selfish. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Sounds good and is the basis of modern Christianity as far as I know…but in the end it doesn’t work. Humans love themselves more than others and that is not going to change, nor is there any logical reason it should. It’s not like humans, at one time were a peaceful creature. Never in our history were we not at odds with another species for control of food and/or shelter. Now is no different, we just fight for different things. A person would be deluding themselves to think humans will ever be at peace. Life matters...everybody matters. Your own life matters supremely. After this the lives that matter are those who love you. After this those you love matter. The rest are here. Life does matter…but each person has their own scale. You prove this when you pass a homeless person to go home and feed your children. However, where do you draw the line on life? Whose life? Human life only…that seems selfish of humans to only care about themselves. Anything with mental capacity…again, seems speciesist (that a word?). Everybody’s equal. No we aren’t. Not mentally, not physically, not genetically…what logical reason makes us equal morally. Everybody is free to pursue life, liberty and happiness. (as long as you don’t infringe on someone elses pursuits) I added that last part since I presume you implied it (altruistic sounding and all) It’s impossible to NOT infringe on another persons pursuits while in pursuit of yours. You can accomplish this though…simply restrict life, liberty and happiness. But then everyone is not free…hmmm. Those three assumed rights have been the cause of every war in history. Each man is defined by his own actions. True: they are defined individually by anyone witnessing those actions. Osama has been defined as a hero and a terrorist. What is he depends on who you side with…if you claim to side with no one what do you call him, based on his own actions? This is basically why there can be no universal good or evil act…I think therefore I am. To call something someone else does an altruistic act you must assume they had no selfish motive. Only the person performing that act can truly know this. A million observational studies will still only ever produce one man’s theory. Some we chose to accept, others we alter to better fit new observations as we become more technologically advanced. US government is run by people with their own interests first and the interests of the nation second. This is the same for every nation. Everything you think you know about someone else is just conjecture. Just because someone has a degree and 50 years of studying a single subject does not make their particular conjecture any more right…just more studied. This doesn’t mean I discount your short lesson…in fact, thanks. There is nothing wrong with your definition of a psychopath…but as long as they don’t interfere with my personal pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, I can care less about them or what they do…I’m oblivious to their existence until that time they do interfere. Soon as they do that, they become ‘evil’ to me. Until then they are just John Doe who lives in Anywhere, Earth. If this same psychopath interferes with your pursuit of life liberty and happiness, then by all means, take any action you see fit to continue your pursuit. I will not judge you unless that action interferes with my LLH. I don’t think we outright dismissed that risk…we weighed it a determined the immediate goal was worth that weighted risk. Even now, maybe there are those in government who think it was still not a great risk after all…I can’t say, I don’t work there. 3000 people were innocent of what? They were never charged with any crime, or alleged to have done anything wrong…what were they innocent of? They were just killed, allegedly by men following a man who had years before declared war on the US. If you were part of Al-Qaeda it would be 3000 infidels of the terrorist nation were given their due justice. All point of view. Their point of view is wrong? Says what all-knowing intelligence. It’s not wrong, it’s just not mine. I knew two of those who died so it impacted my LLH…still I don’t call their POV wrong – it’s opposed to mine, and opposed in such a way (they want me dead) that I must fight to protect my LLH. Sadly, I was disallowed from joining the military due to a medical condition. Keyword is IF there were a more equitable…but you and I both know this will never come to pass. So if tomorrow we cured all the worlds disease, the end of the human race would soon follow. Without a utopian existence, death is necessary. Personal to each individual, yes. Defines us yes…but that definition can vary depending on who you ask for it. I don’t know the circumstances surrounding little Ali’s loss of limbs or his parents death, so I couldn’t possibly explain. However, his existence is not in my LLH, so deep down I have no real desire to explain that to him…let someone who DOES have little Ali in their LLH explain it…at least then it will actually mean something to little Ali. I’ll try this psychology stuff…however, I think yours is flawed. You are attempting to show the US/UK intel was bad because they couldn’t figure out Saddam had no WMD by his own actions. To do that, you must make the assumption that he DOES have them since US/UK did think he did…. By your definition earlier, Hitler was a psychopath. Hitler had what we would call WMD and did not use them before his death, despite the ability to use them. Why didn’t he..? anyway… Here is my psychoanalysis of Saddam’s choice to not use WMD. Premises: We thought he had WMD. Most of the world is against the US invasion…most of the world is against the use of WMD. US military far exceeds what the Iraqi can withstand. Conjecture: His ONLY hope is that world pressure will stop the US. Uh ohh… enemies (read US military) are breathing down his neck and trying to kill him…he really, really wants to use that sarin gas on American troops, but that will just legitimize the war. If he does, US will be vindicated and he will be shamed (sociopaths don’t like this right?) …so he does as Hitler strangely did…chose not to use them.
Fair enough… Every countries soldier that has fired a gun with intent to kill, maim or injure an opposing force who’s intent was to kill, maim or injure them. If you count every bullet fired in a war in self defense, it would far exceed one billion ‘wise’ choices. If attempting to defend one’s life is not wise, then I don’t wish to be wise. Other countries fear us as much as we fear them. No civilization has stood the test of time. I do not doubt the US will fall at the hands of another nation at some point, but that other nation will have to eventually fight. I have no problem with a person or country who feels the need to attack us, but at the same time, I have no problem with however we respond. Remember, I don’t consider any single act as evil or good…only opposed to my personal LLH or not opposed. I was not making an analogy. I was presenting a hypothetical situation. Any similarity to actual persons, places or events is purely coincidental. Ok, read his six stages to see where you where your coming from. He basically states we are taught morals, which I believe because love of self is primary. However, his observations of persons in stages 3 – 6 can just as easily be explained by stage 1 and 2. 3- Pleasing important others like parents teachers and friends. I don’t believe people do this out of a desire to ‘be good’ they do it for selfish reasons, those reasons are just less obvious to mister Kolberg…or he doesn’t want to acknowledge they may exist. 4- Obligation to conform…obligation sounds a lot like against own free will. It’s not natural to be moral, we must be trained. 5-A law ceases to serve a good purpose…get rid of it. HA…when it ceases to serve their purpose they get rid of it. Best serves the most people is incorrect, best serves my people is more correct here...but you might give that a fancy name like ingroup-outgroup dynamics… 6-actually think I am close to this, except the basic principle I’ve chosen to guide my life is that there is no good or evil. I respect every living creatures ability to make their own choices, I make a conscious effort not to judge and I am strong enough to act on my values, such as defending my LLH when threatened. Am I one of those rare people in the 6th stage? Ohh, wait…my guiding principle was not on mister Kohler’s list so I must be the anti-6th, or a sociopath. There is plenty of observation evidence to support my claims as well…especially stages 4 and 5. Googled this and read some stuff that basically supports in a nutshell there exists no moral standards. There only exists your ingroup and the rest of the outgroups. Your ingroup love does not preclude you from loving an outgroup. I simply apply this to philosophy to everything, I suppose. I still don’t see how other morals play no role in how the groups interact. Morals are a set of standards that are deemed good and just…if two groups have different set of standards how does their interaction not involve morals. Tribe A has no moral standard against taking women because their god says they were created for man (as in an aluminum can to be crushed and tossed when empty). Tribe B considers women equal. Member of Tribe A takes female from Tribe B who was left behind from a late night Tribe A ‘cumbaya’ campfire session. Who’s moral standard are we going to judge the member of Tribe A? You can argue Tribe A should respect Tribe B women, or you can argue Tribe B women should respect the ideals of Tribe A’s god. You can call it ingroup-outgroup dynamics, but I call it a fundamental problem with proving there exists a single moral standard by which all people and groups must abide. Saying a certain entity deserves or has the right to anything is an opinion. …cont… the woman from Tribe B kills the man from Tribe A with a rock blow to the head. This is self defense if you are from Tribe B, but blasphemous from Tribe A point of view. Instead of a woman, what if it was an animal pet. What about food. What about land. What about access to a river that can only support one tribe. It wasn’t too simplistic, it’s problem was it was run by selfish man. Man can never be unselfish, that is the inherent reason why there will never be peace, never be love of all…never. I just accept it. I’ve no desire to change into something nature had no intent on. We were not intended to be selfless, else we would be. We are evolved, here and now, as selfish, self-serving people…over time, if enough people make an effort to change this, then maybe nature will slowly evolve us into golden people who follow the golden rule. But here and now and 100 years from now…it.does.not.work. Feel free to ‘exceed’ natures purpose for your existence (self love) and become whoever you want to be, I will cease taking up your free time, that no doubt many soldiers died for you to have. p.s. LLH was an acronym I used instead of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. LLH represents my personal needs and wants as an individual and nothing more. I did enjoy this discussion and I will read any and all responses you have to this, but will probably refrain from replying since I feel I have said what I have to say on this subject.
(I hope other readers are still keeping up here...) Religion became a means of control. Let's look at it as Form vs Content. Content is a philosophy, ideals, whatever, a way of exploring the Meaning of Life (42?). It's about ideas. But people, being those black-and-white thinking beings that we tend to be, soon turn these into beliefs, then absolute truths: certainty is more reassuring. Rituals emerge... It has to be just so. Form takes the place of Content. It becomes an ingroup-outgroup thing, and a means of gaining control and structure in an anarchic society. Occasionally someone comes along who points out how Form has lost substance, meaning, and advocates Content, free from the shackes of empty Form. We call them prophets, and they meet great resistance from those who have invested in Form, as a way to power and control, or certainty and comfort in anxious times (anxiety breeds ritual --hence OCD symptoms in generalised anxiety and depression). But I was talking about philosophy, the Content. And it's the same everywhere... I agree with you on the points of altruism etc., but it is possible for people to genuinely do the right thing purely because they believe it's the right thing to do. Of course we can reduce everything to self-serving personal interest and I am not saying that people ever will get over themselves. As was said about Marxism: "Right philosophy, wrong species". I am just saying that they can. Let's get our focus back. You're saying (if I understand correctly): "There's no Good or Evil, it's all about people's individual perceptions". I say: "True, but just because there's no Good and Evil in the absolute sense, doesn't mean there isn't Good and Bad (as in Right and Wrong, Functional and Dysfunctional, or Sensible and Stupid --> I refer to "stupid" in the sense of its definition (Oxford, or Websters) as: "numbed with grief" or more generally: "Overcome by emotion"). It is about human perception, but also about what works out best for humanity as a whole. Remember, in the end, THERE IS JUST US, so it's down to us to make things work out well for humanity". You say: "Yes, but people are inherently egocentric. That's how nature works. So this Good vs Bad, Right vs Wrong, Functional vs Dysfunctional, Sensible vs Stupid is invalid. And what is wrong with people acting the way they are wired, i.e. for self-preservation? I say: "Just because people stuggle to do the right thing (naturally, it isn't exactly the easy option), doesn't make the principle invalid. It is valid because in the long term, it benefits humanity as a whole. So it is a sort of pragmatic viewpoint, like your own. Philosophy (good philosophy, anyway) is often pragmatic. As with a lot of long-term investments however, there's are big payments to make and lots of gratifications to defer before the payoff. Most people can't think that far (I mean, chimps can't plan more than a few hours ahead, so we're doing ratehr well, really). Humans generally can't go further than sixth-order thinking (i.e. thinking six stages deep in terms of consequence of an action, unless you're a really good chess player). So, take for example the issue of all people being equal (as in of equal value, sorry, didn't make that very clear). You say: "who gets to determine that?". I say: "Who get's to determine that they're not?". In the end, if we go with the idea that all people are not equal in value, we soon have slavery, concentration camps etc. Now, no matter how much we are predisposed to go with that by our nature, you have to admit that in terms of everyone involved, it's a bad thing. In the end, history teaches us that humanity as a whole suffers. I'm also saying that it is a universal idea that it is a bad thing when one person deliberately infringes on another's pursuit of LLH (if that pursuit does not deliberately infringe on others' LLH), etc., etc. because they are ideas that are found all over the world. Why's that? Because it makes sense. It makes life with one another liveable. It benefits the whole of humanity in the long term. They're good ideas to live by. (yes it is). True, we all try to aspire to doing the right thing to different extents at different times. Sometimes however, we are just "stupid", or it is really hard to work out the long-term consequences. Doesn't make the principle invalid though. When I prioritise my kids over the homeless person, btw, it's not because I think of him as of lesser value, but because my primary obligation/responsibility is towards the children I put in this world. And there are a lot of complications to really helping a homeless person... sometimes as individuals, or even together, we are just helpless. Still, doesn't change the principle's validity and it's still worthy to strive for as an ideal. True. We're reasonably good at making guesses about other people (Theory of Mind) because as group animals we're wired to do so. Still, psychological study increases the probability of getting it right. That's the problem. Somewhere down the line, the ill-considered, selfish, "stupid" actions of those in power will affect everybody's LLH (including their own). As I said, both sides are wrong. They are wrong (or stupid, or dysfunctional) in that their POV and resulting actions do nothing to resolve the situation; it just results in more suffering for everyone. Of course I don't know what each of the 3000 were up to. There may have been a child molester amongst them, or a bigot, or a murderer, or whatever, but generally it makes sense not to judge people if you don't know them (baseline assumption: everyone's equal in value). What I can judge, though, is people's actions, in terms of intentions and consequences. I'm saying the POV of both sides is wrong, because acting and thinking that way does not resolve the situation, but results in the suffering of more people in the long term. Why should we care about other people than myself? Well, as John Donne put it (Meditation 17, from Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions, 1624. Below is the passage with modern spelling, which is good, because I just can't read that ancient stuff...). "All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated... No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." because, in the end, it's a big, cold universe out there, and we're just a speck floating in it. It makes sense for humanity to stick together. THERE IS JUST US... No, death is inevitable. As I said, just because it's hard, doesn't mean it's not a valid principle, or not worth the effort.
Wow, this thread really has got peoples blood boiling! I just watched the film, and thought as a documentary it was good, obviously its going to be biased, just like all government propoghanda is biased, so why cant a documentary opposing that be biased? The film was done well, and its a good informative watch and some very good points, no matter wether there slightly twisted or not, but overall its worth seeing!! And shouldn't be banned, as everyone has the right to there own point of view. - M@
Continued... How do you feel about yourself as a person? Do you feel OK with who you are? Do you feel your values have something to do with that? Of course they do. If you act against your values, do you feel bothered by that? Regardless of what others say? Each man is defined by his actions. Little Ali, btw, had the cr@p bombed out of him by an accurate laser-guided missile, it appears. 10 days into the war, the US had to suspend the launch of Tomahawk missiles (and they're pretty smart --they practically stop at red lights and indicate as they turn corners) because they kept ending up in Iran, Kuwait, Turkey, Saudi Arabia. To miss a target is one thing, but to miss a country?!? But I digress. Unless you don't give a rats @ss about little Ali's plight (in which case you're a psychopath, and this discussion is moot as we lack the same frame of reference), of course it impacts on your LLH even if a little. Helpless as I am to change anything about his situation, it bothers me... On a more pragmatic note, his plight may be one image on the mind of some misguided terrorist as he walks into your Starbucks and detonates at the table besides yours. Who knows? It's a small world... THERE IS JUST US... That's a decent hypothesis. But it assumes that Saddam Hussain realised that his army, even with WMD, cannot withstand what might the US can throw at it (not surprisingly). But the US/UK presented him as a real, serious threat. "He will destroy us!" How can that be true if Saddam Hussain knows that he would subsequently be crushed by the US/UN with the whole world cheering them on? Wouldn't that knowledge have been enough to keep him in check before the invasion? Hitler, by the way, didn't have that many WMD. And when the end came, it came so quick that he had lost command before he could do anything drastic. All that was left then, was to take the bitter pill... It's not as simple as that. People join the army for the noblest reasons: to protect and serve their country, defend what is good etc. (although a minority also like the career structure, military discipline or the big guns and the opportunity to kill people). Spurred on by jingoistic slogans they sign up (as they did in WWI). But soon you find yourself on a foreign battlefield for reasons only vaguely related, or mostly irrelevant to those you signed up for, pointing a gun at a stranger pointing a gun at you, and you notice how he looks just as young and scared as you do, and you have to do some serious cognitive dissonance reduction. Waitaminute, why am I doing this? Both of you stand there, frozen. Most soldiers, history shows, do not want to fight with each other (most poignantly illustrated one Christmass Eve in the trenches of WWI). Army training knows this. So right from the start, you are trained to follow orders, to stop listening to what you think, what you feel, what you need or want. You march when you are tired. Stay awake when you are sleepy. Stay put when you are scared and want to run (being shot as a deserter is an added deterrent). Forget pain. Forget hunger. Forget thirst. Forget fear. Forget principles. Forget you. You are taught to ACT NOW, SOLDIER!, to depersonalise the enemy, to get them before they get you. When you are on the battlefield, bullets whizzing past, it's suddenly quite personal. You're not thinking about why you singed up, you're just hanging on for psychological and physical survival. You're scared and just running on instinct. Back to to the freeze-frame: As you stand there pointing the gun at him pointing the gun at you, frightened, confused, army training sits on your shoulder like a little demon, whispering in your ear: "Kill him! Get him before he gets you! What does it matter? They forced you to be here! They asked for it! They're not even human... rape their women, burn their homes, humiliate them, torture them! They're nothing! You are Might and Right! Kill them all!". A little black flame of certainty to cradle in the darkness of confusion... You want to sign up for that, have your noble intentions cynically corrupted by a selfish government, your mind suppressed, your courage turned to cruelty, be my guest. The wise decision, in this case, is not to. I think it wouldn't have worked out for you anyway, Inmate909, you're intelligent and opinionated, and the Army likes neither. I know. I was just illustrating the two scenarios aren't comparable. If my child were kidnapped, I would be a dad first, and wise, well, a distant second. Doesn't make it right. I would be the wrath of God raining down on the kidnapper, no doubt, but as Lawrence Fishburne says in Pulp Fiction: "...but I'm trying to be the shepherd, boy". Kohlberg's model has many flaws. It's simplistic, rather culture biased, and later stages seem to me a re-hash of the earlier (no-one has produced anything better since, however, neatly illustrating how tricky this area is, and how unfcomfortable for some). But it does suggest that at stage 5, 6 there's a shift from consideration of personal consequences (impact on one's own LLH, if you will) to a more abstract idea(l), benefitting the whole of humanity. This corresponds with children's cognitive ability shifting from Concrete Operational thinking to more abstract Hypothetical Deductive thinking (Piaget). I'm happy to buy you're a stage 6 (not even an anti-6), but you seem to consider everything from the here-and-now situation (humans just are how they are) and how things affect you personally. That sounds more like stages 1-4 to me. You keep arguing that the idea(l) is invalid because it doesn't work because people don't adhere to it. I say: well, duh! It's hard for people to; life is complex and we are flawed in many ways, causing us to do stupid things sometimes. But that doesn't make the idea(l)s invalid. What it suggests is that it is not about morals per se. It's about different points of view, standards, values, whatever. Sometimes group conflict is about morals, sometimes it's about dress or custom or other socio-cultural factors. But whatever it is, it's about Them vs Us. A good idea(l) would be to get out of that thinking.
As was said about Marxism: "Right ideal, wrong species"... One natural trait humans also have, is the ability to exceed their own nature. We may not get there all the time, but we can strive. Small steps... The longest journey starts with only one. And many soldiers did not die for my free time, they died for whatever political ambitions of whoever instigated whatever wars, to defend their territory, to conquer other, for money, for the love of killing, whatever. But either way even if they had, they would not have had to die for my free time, if humanity as a whole would have stopped thinking "why bother? It's how we are" a long time ago and started looking beyond their immediate LLH and themselves.
My 2 cents You Killed my friend! Now to show you Killing is wrong I will kill you! Im not sure, but i think its still Illegal for me to plan and carry out an exicution on my neighbours for any reason. But the man Im supposed to look up to does it. Which is were i have been confused my entire life, how is killing people still some how/way justitfied. We obviously have differences with the poeple from the middle east that are apparently so strong that they will kill themselfs to hurt us; why are we still feeling the need to go to war? I thought we were trying to be a country were we all ate off of fine china in our white fenced homes. I thought we were supposed to be civalized. Yet we have Never spent the money or time to try and talk to these countries and groups of people and figure a way to be friends. Instead of spending time, money and silly amounts of energy diviesing ways to kill them, why not try saying "hey Your peeved at us, whats up? why what do you want us to do?". If my America had even tried that i would be comfortable with the war. Sure thats the most heterosexualy impared way of resolving this, but it just might work; it certainly hasn't been tried yet! Thats just the way i would do it, I wouldn't look very tough and maybe, just maybe seem like im conceding to "them". But i would have a couple BILLION dollars still in my pocket and 1000 men and women still alive and 5000 people that i won't have to spend at least a 500 million in workers comp. Don't get me wrong, cause I love America and my lifestyle. I Mod at night and play in the day, and if im hungry I get in my Chevy Yukon and drive a couple blocks to subway! Im living the American dream. My family is by no means rich, but we're well off and enjoy it. But I would personaly pay another 2 dollars at the pump to keep a war in Iraq from happening. Convince me killing people is the right thing to do and i would support the war. I can only see this feeding a new generation of hate against me when im older and the kid my age over thier is older. On the tough guy style Im not to keen, To try and save the world I will plot and scheme - Beastie Boys Intergalactic Planetary
Just to juice things up a bit and I don't know if this has been posted yet, but there is another documentary film maker named Michael Wilson who is currently in production of a documentary Michael Moore Hates America.. Oh, also, did anyone here realize that Michael Moore pretty much stole the title of the film? Ray Bradbury wrote a book in the 60's titled Fahrenheit 421 about the future..
Yes, but accoding to a channel 6 news from south Florida, he never received permission from Bradbury to use it - irony or not
It's "Farenheit 451". The temperature at which paper catches fire (as you no doubt know). I'm not sure the Mikester can't use a variation on that title, as long as he doesn't use the exact title --it's not a brand name after all. The book behind the original title is a story about a world in which books are forbidden --although the use of pictures and TV is not, of course. The reason is that books (words) cause people to think, experience emotions, different perspectives and to communicate ideas. It's basically about the ultimate in censorship and thought control, a theme also explored in Orwell's 1984; there, the main character works on a government sanctioned (controlled) dictionary which actually aims to remove as many words as possible from the English language, therefore limiting people's ability to think and convey ideas. Doubleplusgood... By the way, for those who don't like to read, there's a movie of Farenheit 451 made in 1967 and of course y'all know the movie 1984, made in, guess what year... ). Farenheit 451 is a bit contrived, but somehow it works because it is basically just the extension of a process that is happening today everywhere: distortion of facts by the media and politics, dumbing down of literature, movies and TV, oversimplification of complex life issues, and I guess the reader can relate to that. The reason Michael Moore borrowed the title no doubt is because of the afore mentioned themes. Biased or not, distorting or not, at least he offers another perspective on the whole enchilada. If you don't buy it, that's good. It shows you're critical and think about the stuff you're told. But trust me, just because he's biased, doesn't make the other side a paragon of truth.
Oh, believe me .. I don't believe much of anything that the govt throws at me, but on the other hand, I don't believe much of anything that Moore thows at me either In all honestly, I think the "truth" is somewhere in the middle of the two. I'm thinking that this other producer is making this documentary about Michael Moore because most (not all) Americans are sick and tired of one side bashing the other side for whatever reason is the flavor of the month. America and American's aren't like what Moore portray's (that I've seen at least) nor is our government a valid representation of the typical American citizen.
I wish Moore would have made a documentery on Bill Clinton, Moore would have had to pull his head out of clintons a$$ first. He could have called it Farenhiet In Bill's Pants.
It's well made, and interesting. The thing that i dislike about it is the patronising voice over by Moore. He presents the "facts" through pictures, documents, recordings, etc he's uncovered which are shocking and make an impact and then he insists on going over them and telling you the obvious and what they were/you should be thinking about them. Other than that it's deffinately worth a watch i'd say.
That's scarily accurate. Well done! Dude, this is the bT discussion forums, those kind of assumptions just aren't valid here Sam
