Different types of people, but all are human

by jm Fri Feb 07, 2003 17:27

i agree, in sentiment. the main problem that we face as people for peace is the overbearing tendency to de-humanise our adversaries by calling them evil, rather than realising that they are just the same as us, only after making bad decisions.
bad choices do not an evil person make. i mean, evil is sort of impossible to change, whereas human beings can understand the error of what they do. it doesn't mean that they will necessarily do anything about it, but it does mean that they can be dealt with as reasoning beings. and it also means that they need to be respected as fellow beings, not just tossed to the pit.
i don't believe any of that innate evil crap, it just doesn't wash. if we believe in that then anyone whom *we* deem to be evil can be executed at *our* whim. fuck that.

by Kathryn Fri Feb 07, 2003 18:04

I think "bad" choices is still a bit subjective.

Depending on where people are coming from they may not really have the kinds of choices that someone outside their frame of reference might think they have. I know soldiers for whom joining the Army was a safer and potentially less violent alternative than staying in the violence of American inner cities; it may have seemed their only way out and they may not have had any real insight into the larger political and ethical issues involved. Survival is a strong instinct, especially when it's combined with fear. It's the same with people who don't leave violent personal relationships - the view from their perspective is quite different to the view outside it (and, statistically speaking, those who leave violent relationships may be at greater risk of being murdered by their former partners by going than staying). And sometimes that is very very difficult to understand if you haven't experienced it yourself.

I believe most people make the best choices they can with the information available to them within the context of their lives, what needs are most urgent at any given time. If they don't see the choices, don't have awareness of them I feel their responsibility for "bad" choices is reduced. If all the choices are "bad" the same applies. And the values that they've been raised with and immersed in all their lives may create blinders that keep them from seeing other "better" options. And sometimes the choices are much more complex than the one issue that someone else might see in the decision making process. If they truly believe they don't have choices, in effect they don't.

Not a great starting point for making "good" decisions. So there is a lot to be said for educating people to the bigger picture, but I think to be effective it often (though maybe not always) helps to do so gently and patiently.

I don't think most people hear as clearly when they feel they are not being respected or heard themselves, when someone is shouting at them (which in itself can be quite violent and abusive) or lecturing them all the time. I think we need to break down stereotypes and polarity as much as possible by encouraging as much open communication as possible so that all voices can be heard without shouting, make war on things like poverty, ignorance and despair rather than people, and support humanity where ever and in whatever form we find it.

And I think that starts by modelling the kind of behavior we hope to see in others. Practice rather than (or at least more than) preach. Always harder to do than to say.

by Gaillimh Fri Feb 07, 2003 18:20

I agree, evil is not innate, or at least im sure no-one is born evil. But humans are an animal of choice, and as easily as one 'chooses' good, one can choose evil.
Bush and his cronies have chosen evil. They have chosen to thump a bible but ignore its contents, chosen to implement a police state on their own people, and to inflict a particularly cruel and inhuman war on another. Surely he who chooses to act in an evil fashion deserves to be called evil.
These guys know what theyre at.
Their own war plans have a figure of 500,000 deaths penciled in as 'to-be-expected' in the initial 'invasion' stage of their new war.
They Know 50% of the population are children.
They Know, and resist all inertia towards an alternative.
These men are not like you and I. These men (and women) have left behind their humanity and live only to rule, conquer, destroy, and shore up as much as they can get their vile hands on.
They are not like you and I.
What would i do with George and his buddies?
I am not like them. I know what they would do unto us, but we are not like them.

by Anonymous Fri Feb 07, 2003 18:36

Good analysis Depp, and I think I'm nearly totally in agreement.

Your comment:-

"I think we should devote even more energy to questioning the elites and their scheming, rather than questioning each other." and trying to prove ourselves more "right" than other groups.

I totally agree. Some of the bitching that goes on, on this site (though its improved a lot I can say thankfully) and in the grander political scene in Ireland, between individuals and parties who are all left wing really pisses me off.

We are leaving the right wing, capitalist, imperialists off the hook with our bitching.

And ya, regarding Bush etc., I've been thrown out of pubs waving bar stools in my fists at my anger at him, but in the end of the day we should forgive him and others, though I know some people will disagree with this.

I know its been said before if we were born into his circumstances whose to say we'd have turned out any different, we certainly cannot prove we'd have turned out any different.

If we anilate him as a person is to simply begin the path that brought him to his current destination.

A good weekend to all.....

by King Mob Fri Feb 07, 2003 19:07

I know you have no friends in real life, Mr/Ms "Humanitarian / Left-Wing", but do you really have to wish a good weekend to the people that you are rapidly pissing off?

You make Paul Kinsella's stuff look like meaningful political analysis....

If you want to get a sense of community going (for whatever dumb reason) here's a hint - maybe stop calling yourself "Anonymous", you dumb kid.

by iosaf Fri Feb 07, 2003 19:38

that is a self referetial phrase.
autonomy does indeed ebegin with auto which is self.
It is an anarchist thingy in that many who realise that aurtnonmy does begin with self havve seen the reification of others which results from the autonomy beginning with someone else.
Late Capitalism resulted in the reification of everything. Biotech and Intellectual property introduced ridiculous reified quantities.
The logic of Trade and Western Civilisation broke down. Adorno and many others had commented at length on the post holocaust "proto-existentialist" demise of all Art forms. Of the death of the late bourgoisie and all values ascribed them. Television and the develpoment of information cybernetics (telephone, telgram fax digital age) brought us yet another level to how the other was percieved ignored categorised reified and ultimately destroyed.
However the set of humans all individaul selves is so great it is truly one of the "effin large number sets" that previous Occidental discourse on the individual and society might need to be revisited.
But it is only in the last fifteen years that this planet has been planned for and accounted for globally as one unitary system. It is less than nine years since the genetic code of nature has been first opened to "interactive" scientific inquiry.
That development has been as a result of a system that has reduced all else to value in a meaningless equation of "want and supply"/"need and production".
It astounds me that less than a hundred thousand science graduates have the license to intefere with everything in my percieved world.
Others.
Trees.
& Chocolate biscuits.
reclaim the genome!
reclaim the Gnu/gnome! (free internet positive use of money)
reclaim the streets! (where you see others)

by iosaf Fri Feb 07, 2003 19:40

bush and all like him too
throw things in rage.

by Phuq Hedd Sat Feb 08, 2003 01:13

cover him with honey and then roll him in Euros and let him loose in the Dail. Even if he survived the arse-licking he got from the TDs then he'd pull the USAF out in case they suffered the same horrible fate.

by Anonymous Sat Feb 08, 2003 10:50

Iosaf, they sure do......

Nice thought there Phuq Hedd, though I suppose by my own philosophies I'm not supposed to entertain it!

Reading a piece on the Indo at the moment examining Bush, his own wife says of his intellect: "Geroge thinks a bibliographer is someone who wrote the bible". The guy is a madman and will kill us all if he is not ousted from power.

Anyone got any idea who the Democrat forerunner is going to be in the next election? Buchannan has thrown his hat into the ring hasn't he? He reminds me of the Dad in that series "Alf". Can't see him being powerful enuf to woo votes. If only Gore had allied himself with Clinton during his campaign instead of distancing himself from him, he'd have won comfortably I'd say. Instead we are left with this f**kin lunatic. If only.......

by jm Sat Feb 08, 2003 13:17

who can say? maybe gore's got it in him to be as big a bastard as bush.
ok, maybe not.
buchanan's first really big foray into the presidential race a coupla years ago was pretty scary. what i remember most is that he said that as part of his program (if he were elected) he would raise a 10 metre fence across the whole of the mexico/us border, with guards on shoot to kill orders.
and we all thought he was nuts.
this man is bush, but overt. or rather, more overt.
so the democratic contender for the might be joe lieberman. lieberman has publicly stated that he aligns himself firmly with israel in the war against so-called terror.
here's a mainstream american report.
http://wcbs880.com/mideast/mideast_story_356210559.html
here's a pro-palestine one.
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20030102063531153
the logical extension of joe's policies spell doom for iraq, too.
shit, that's really depressing.
as kang and kodos said: vote for either one of us, you still lose.

by Raymond McInerney Sat Feb 08, 2003 15:24

Can't believe if this is true, but if it is he'll certainly won't be nominated to be the Democratic Presidential candidate.

His probably running to increase the profile of the Christian Fundamental movement, much like what he did when he caused a split in the Reform Party during the 2000 Elections.

by Kathryn Sun Feb 09, 2003 11:52

...says that he would say the same thing to Bush as to bin Laden... "You are a child of God; behave like one."

by Anonymous Mon Feb 10, 2003 15:43

Ya I'm fairly sure Buchanan has already put his name forward. Shit that stuff you say about Buchanan is pretty scary alright! Don't know an awful lot about him, but from what I do know I certainly was not impressed by him and what you say does not surprise me.

And ya as you say no matter if Bush is replaced the replacements look fairly crap. But I think anyone would be better than Bush. I cannot think of U.S. president ever being as bad and lunny as he. Will left-wing politics in the U.S. ever develop!!??

Kathryn, he sure should......