The Internet's authoritative role-playing game forum.
https://www.gamebanshee.com/forums/
LOLOriginally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
<STRONG>Originally posted by Lazarus:
[qb]I'm waiting your replys, Lazarus, as a child wait for Santa Claus.[there must be a word to to say how a child wait for Santa Claus, but I don't know it, so I write this horror].</STRONG>
Excitement tinged with the frivolity a child feels on Christmas morning. Any better? "Eagerly" may be the word you're looking for.Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
<STRONG>[there must be a word to to say how a child wait for Santa Claus, but I don't know it, so I write this horror].</STRONG>
Bingo. That's right on the button. ^_~Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>"Eagerly" may be the word you're looking for.
I don't mind your posts. Its a good discussion. Only at99 pisses me off.I guess what I am saying is this: I have at least three people to respond to (Ivan, Thorin, and Fable). If you all would like to continue this discussion, I would very much like to as well; but if you feel I am somehow being disruptive or disrespectful, I will no longer post on this subject.
It's not that simple. Aid offered by the U.S. government is often rejected in this part of the world, and when it is accepted, it is an endless source of frustration to us to see that aid misused and rarely sent to its intended destination. Many of us here feel that our government should stay out of the foreign aid business, and leave that to the various charities who can better cut through the political red-tape and get it where it's supposed to go.Originally posted by Fas:
<STRONG>@KramoR.
What about the refugees in Pakistan and Iran in the 90's?
The US never provided any food or money then?
Why do they do it now?
It is all PR.
We bomb the taliban but we provide food for the people.
Where was the US generosity in the past decade?
</STRONG>
</STRONG>Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
<STRONG>I'll never judge someone because of it's country.
</STRONG><STRONG>
I just ask for know in what kind of rights you are with.
What rights you are talking about. Humans Universal Rights? Constitution? Which?
PS: The Universal Declaration of Humam Rights have this name just because their creator wish this name. In fact it is not an universal humam rights, it is simply laws, conventions. I didn't sign it in the bottom.
</STRONG><STRONG>
This is the key I was looking for. "Taking actions against them." Take action against somethig you think is evil. Here, I think, is the real problem. I can say that all modern international conflict start from someone judging some other and making interference.
</STRONG><STRONG>
Inside the mid-east the USA is know(of course, not for everybody in the mid-east) as the Big Satan. They consider USA as evil. If their military power were bigger than USA military power, and they wish to make interference against the Evil?
</STRONG><STRONG>
Here in Brazil there is no death sentence in the constitution. Personaly I am against death sentence(but I don't judge the country where exist the death sentence). If I were the president, and Brazil military power were bigger than USA, and I consider the death sentence as an evil act, and start to interfere in this evil country(USA)?
</STRONG><STRONG>
As we all know USA in the Cold War give support and weapons to Taleban face the evil URSS. USA put his finger(in fact USA put his full arm) in the Palestina-Israel question. And now(11, september) all the things turn agaist USA. All the interference USA make in other States are turnig back.
</STRONG><STRONG>
What I want to show you is that, in my opinion, the path to a better world is not judging another and make actions against what we consider evil. We can speak our opinions, offer asilum to people who are against their own country, break diplomatic relationship, but never interfere in other culture way of living.
I’m not very good with South American history – sorry! – is that dictator that you refer to an American “puppet?” If so, I am sorry. Again, what I want to stress is that it is not enough for America to have a PRAGMATIC foreign policy – it must have a MORAL foreign policy, instead.<STRONG>
And I hope you agree if me.
If today I, as a brazilian, have few restriction of the USA International policy, cerntainly is because the scars of a Militrary Dictator govern still in this Brazil.
</STRONG>
I know what you mean! But, in some ways, I think it is important to take up those “side” issues when they arise. We live in a very, very complex world, and issues such as the ones we are discussing can not be taken out of context or dealt with solely in and of themselves. We have to look at broader principles, too; and sometimes this brings up new issues. I think that you see me as “simplifying” the world – looking at it as black and white – but the way I see it is that the world may appear very “gray” on the surface, but gray is only a mixture of black and white, and one has to look carefully to discern the two. So, yes, lets try to keep focused, but lets not use that focus as a reason for not actually dealing with the issues at hand. Does that make sense?Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>@Lazarus, I'm just going to focus on a few of the points you've touched upon in your last post to me. I've noticed a tendency in many discussions up here for the topics to expand into a whole galaxy of side issues, and this makes conversation very awkward, IMO, to maintain. If you want to focus on a particular point, please, feel free to bring it up again, here, or start a new topic, and I'll try to reply.
</STRONG>
A few points: one, if we are trying to focus, bringing up Iraq may not be the best way to do it!<STRONG>
I think this is because the US has a problem with admitting errors of judgment, which really can look bad when you're the largest kid on the block, living in the biggest house with all the best and newest toys. it really generates resentment. The US has never backed away from its embargos on Iraq, for example, despite the fact that the steps taken to limit Iraqi access to funding has demonstrably hit the Iraqi people much worse than its injured their leader. What began as a reasonable decision after the Gulf War has been mechanically followed through until it's become one of the worst diplomatic errors perpetrated by the US in the last half-century, IMO. It fosters an image of our government as a bunch of iron-fisted bullies ruthlessly picking on The Little Guy, and effectively creates a well of sympathy for a man who was nothing more than a mini-Stalin.
</STRONG>
Now, I disagree with sanctions on Iraq, but that is only because I think Iraq should have been fully dealt with during the Persian Gulf war. If we do not have the courage to deal with Saddam, then, you are right, we should not be punishing him (and his people) with sanctions. I would note that while these sanctions do indeed have a far more negative effect on his people than on him, please do not make the mistake that it is the US which is bringing about this pain. It is Saddam who is punishing his own people by refusing to allow weapons inspections, is it not? (IIRC, that is the one issue which still stands between Iraq and the lifting of the sanctions, but I may be wrong.) And in ANY event, it is not the US (unilaterally) which imposes these sanctions. IIRC, it is the UN. Also, you describe Saddam as “nothing more than a mini-Stalin” – isn’t that enough?! I mean, maybe he hasn’t gotten up to Stalin’s body count (around 30 million, last time I heard), but let’s not give Saddam the ol’ whitewash: he is an evil man, and he has no right to be ruling anybody, anywhere. I would hope that the US would take a more moral approach to foreign policy, and not have to admit any such errors. I know this is a non-starter for discussion purposes: the US has done things wrong, and shows no sign of taking a more ethical approach to foreign policy. But I wonder if admitting errors of judgment to a man like Saddam Hussein is the right approach - ? It would only serve to legitimate him, and that is not a desirable thing at all.Doesn’t this prove my point? I am not sure how you can say that “desegregation did not occur when the will of the people suddenly moved politicians,” and then in the next sentence say that desegregation occurred due to mass protests? The Democrats were wrong to try to reverse the laws in the first place, and it is a sad indictment of the Congress of the time that they did, but this poor decision was then REVERSED. Again, I brought this idea up as a comparison to China: do you think China will EVER admit the rights of Tibetans or the Fulon Gong, no matter how many of them set themselves on fire in Tienamen Square? Do you think that the people in power in China even remotely “represent” the people of China? No. China has a monolithic and repressive regime, which doesn’t give a hoot what it’s citizens think – excepting only that they wish to dictate what the people do think. The US system of government is inherently different, and inherently superior. We do respond to the will of the people – maybe the people are wrong for 100 years straight, but the freedom of the system, and its representational nature ensures that such errors may be perceived and rectified.<STRONG>
The history of the matter is that when the US decided racial segregation was wrong in schools, in jobs, and in voting, back in the mid-1860's, a law was based on the federal books requiring freedom and equality for blacks. Within ten years, one of the two main parties at the time, the Democrats, had formed a coalition with Southern regionalists creating a working majority that got these laws removed. This explains why for nearly 100 years, the South was solidly Democrat; why the Republicans couldn't take the Congress; and the use of the expression, "Yellog Dog Democrat" for Southerners, meaning "I'd rather vote in a yellow dog than a Republican."
Racial desegregation did not occur when the will of the people suddenly moved politicians; rather, black spokespersons literally invaded the voting booths, the schoools, and the job lines. Many were beaten, and a few were killed. Mass demonstrations amounting to hundreds of thousands of people marched on Washington DC, and at that point, some forward thinking Democrats decided this wasn't right, and effectively forged new coalitions.
</STRONG>
See above. I only broke your quote up above so I could get in on your train of thought at the right time, but my thoughts on this last statement are above.<STRONG>
They're political descendants are paying for it. The old Southerners who were Democratic at the time refused to jump party (for the most part) out of party patriotism, and just faded out in time. The new Southerners in Congress were almost Republican to a person.
From this, I arrive at what I think might be the following conclusions:
1) It took nearly 100 years to actually see through initial effects of racial desegregation in the United States.
2) The party that did it was rewarded eventually with the loss of Congress.
</STRONG>
Again, I see it another way. Don’t you think MLK and Bobby were part of what made America change? And don’t you think that the fact that MLK could get out and tell his message is an indication of our freedom? You, yourself, helped the change come, simply by standing up and judging the system, and making your voice heard.<STRONG>
I was a bit too young to take national active part in the protests against racism at the time, though I was extremely passionate on the subject in my high school. My views did not sit well with many of my peers or teachers; and this was in the Northeast of the US, traditionally the more accepting of areas to new ideas. I have very vivid memories of the details of the movement, including the day Martin Luther King made his famous I Have a Dream speech; his death; and Bobby Kennedy's remarkable reaction to seeing how blacks were living in an Alabaman ghetto. (He literally changed from what he had been. He tried to answer a reporter's questions, but kept glancing back at the hut he'd visited, then glancing down, then stuttered, then glanced back at the hut...and at that moment, he joined the movement.) And I also remember George Wallace's rant about meeting protesters with guns, and a few black children killed by nameless thugs on the streets.
So no, this is not an example, IMO, of America reacting responsively on the big issues to major problems as outlined by its people. By and large, I think the tendency in the US is to maintain the status quo, and shift a few pieces around to make things look better...which is standard operation procedure for many governments, really.
</STRONG>
Please don’t shape this into: you and the board on one side, and me on the other. As for the black/white issue, see above. I am fully cognizant of the complex nature of the world, and I wish to understand it. Does that mean I do not recognize good and evil when I see them? No.<STRONG>
I think that a little deeper reading of this forum would show just how many of us who refuse to judge lightly, nevertheless are very passionately committed to a variety of causes. This doesn't mean we necessarily see the world around us in terms of black and white, good and bad, but only that we accept the admirable quality of a given idea, and strive to follow it through, ourselves, in our daily lives.
</STRONG>
A few points: OF COURSE all people, from all backgrounds, are, in and of themselves, equal. Again, please do not put this in terms that make it appear that I disagree with this idea. I do not disagree, and I have never given you any reason to think so.<STRONG>
Thus, I have always been convinced that all people from all racial, ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds are equal, and that we have much to learn from the disagreement of views. I have followed this idea through quietly throughout my life. My friendships have been diverse, from Christian fundamentalists to Wiccans to Buddhist refugees from China. My more intimate relationships have been similar, and I was engaged for a couple of years to a very fine young black lady down in Dallas, Texas; but her parents objected to her moving (Southern black families in particular are extremely close), and the engagement was broken. As for job discrimination--when I worked as a Program Director for the new public radio station in Gainesville, Florida, at its university, our dean, a very powerful and assertive figure, demanded that we remove all foreign students from on-air positions, since the sound wasn't sufficiently professional, in his opinion. I refused. Fortunately, nothing came of my refusal, since several of the students (notably from Belgium, India, France, and several Scandanavian countries) had powerful families that and backing from the International Club; but the fact remains that I stood up in a quiet way for what I believed.
</STRONG>
But the Dean WAS bad. You tacitly KNEW that he was bad, and you sought to OPPOSE him. Whether you are honest enough to say to yourself (and the Dean) that he was bad is another issue, but you ACTED on the knowledge that he was. And I applaud you for it.<STRONG>
Mind, I never thought the Dean was evil, or even bad. He was simply expressing certain views according to facets in his personality. He was working for the best of the radio station. I could see this, even though I disagreed with him.
</STRONG>
Again, I talked about this above, but let me illustrate. I think you take this example of the Dean as a “gray” issue. (Let me know if I am wrong.) You seem to indicate that this issue has two sides (yours and the Dean’s), and that you can appreciate both sides, and that by this appreciation of both sides, you can gain more insights into complex issues. Is that an OK translation of your view?<STRONG>
In any case, my roundabout point is that refusing to see things in black and white terms hasn't meant I simply see ideas as intellectual games. It does let me appreciate the flow and intricacy of ideas I don't write off automatically, I think, and gain insights into character. But that's just my personal opinion.
</STRONG>
“Mistakes” - ? You must be joking. Did Stalin just make 30 million “mistakes?” That is the biggest whitewash job I have ever heard OUTSIDE of China. I mean, if you can’t see that you are giving China a moral sanction here, I don’t know that I will ever convince you. We are talking about pure, methodical murder on the part of a government against a helpless population who simply wish to express their own ideas and have some say in what happens to their minds and bodies.<STRONG>
On Tianamen, Tibet, the Falun Gong, the forced labor camps for dissidents, etc, I regard these as terrible mistakes, costly in human lives and misery.
</STRONG>
Ooops! I was wrong. THIS is the biggest whitewash job I have heard outside of China. OK, fable, you have just told China: “gosh, I really wish you would stop killing off all those monks, but, well, I guess they DO have better health care, so its OK.” You say they have done away with corruption? No, they have done away with one kind of corruption, and they have replaced it with another kind: the implacable corruption of fascism.<STRONG>
I remind others of these facts where it's reasonable to do so, and I've made a point over the years of buying products in stores that contribute to Tibetan relief groups in Nepal, rather than pay less in department stores for the same items. I've picketed the UN, and I've written pieces about China's actions.
But though I may condemn both individual actions of China and certain consistent views of the Chinese government, that doesn't mean I condemn that government itself, or regard as somehow morally bad. In fact, compared to its predecessor back in the 1940s and earlier, the Maoists were angels. In their zeal, they labelled everything that preceded themselves as "bad," and in throwing it all out, refused to keep what was good from the degenerate end of a once thriving and multi-layered culture. They did away with a hell out of a lot of corruption at all levels, and they did raise standards of living, education and health care significantly.
</STRONG>
We may actually agree on this. It may indeed be simpler to uphold the ideas of human rights when you are a secure and homogeneous population. BUT the reverse side of that same coin is that to maintain a heterogeneous and insecure nation, you need to accept and embrace human rights THAT MUCH MORE. They are the only way for a nation which is facing such difficulties to overcome those difficulties. Just because it may be “difficult” does not mean that it is impossible or invalid.<STRONG>
As to human rights--remember, this is a relatively recent concept in the world, and owes a lot in its acceptance in the West to economic security and largely stable, homogeneous population bases. It's much easier to support fair wages, for example, when you're one of the top ten producing nations in the world. It's easier, too, to support human rights for all cultures when, like Norway, you don't have to worry about Afghanistan's mixture of six major and nine minor cultural groups, all living in close promixity to one another.
</STRONG>
Sigh. On the one hand you discuss with me at great length, and then you finish by saying that we can never really, truly, KNOW anything. Well, if that’s the case, then I guess you may as well start walking into heavy traffic – after all, you don’t KNOW that you will get hit by a car. This is the same old subjectivist argument as usual. But the only response to it is: just try living your life without knowing and judging. Everything you have written argues AGAINST the idea that we cannot know or judge! You have done nothing here but bring up facts and information, and used them to argue against me – so which way will you have it? I think I asked you this before, but I’ll do it again: are facts and information and judging only valid when they are YOUR facts and information and judgment?<STRONG>
This doesn't mean the notion of human rights is wrong. It only means we need to understand our own backgrounds, and those of others who disagree, sometimes violently, like China. I won't condemn China's government, knowing the pressures it lives with and where it comes from, or its accomplishments. I will work against some of its actions that I deplore, but others may feel differently; and I have to accept that, knowing how limited the perceptions of any single person is, in evaluating so large a place as a teacup, much less a world.
</STRONG>
Nah! Not too long, and certainly not stupid!<STRONG>
Gods, this stupid reply is *still* too long. And here I thought I was going to get better by focusing.
</STRONG>
This is important stuff! As I mentioned in an earlier post, I don't want to get into the Israel/Palestine issue: it is too personal for too many people. I have opinions on the subject and they are neither pro-Israeli, nor pro-Palestinian.Originally posted by ThorinOakensfield:
<STRONG><snip>
Lazurus- Now the Israelies just killed a suspected Palestinian for the disco bombing a few months ago.
</STRONG>
You can certainly SAY that they are evil simply because they do not follow your viewpoints - but that will not make it TRUE. This is the same issue that I am trying to discuss with fable (take a look): the subjectivity of morality. I do NOT believe that morality is subjective. The moment that you say to yourself: "Well, I think murder is wrong, but I can understand why other people may disagree," you have legitimated and sanctioned murder. By saying that morals are subjective, you have annihilated the very concept of morality itself, and you have no basis from which to oppose any evil deeds - nor to ever praise any virtuous deeds.They killed him!
What idiots. The US told them not to do something like that cuz the Muslim nation may react, yet these fools did so.
And each time there is some Palestinian attack(not sucicide bombing) the Isralies react by bombing whole neighborhoods, with war helicopters, yet nobody cares.
So the Israelis are evil.
I guess i can say that because they don't follow my viewpoints.
</STRONG>
Well, now, on the one hand you seem to be saying (above) that morality is subjective, but in this statement you come out and condemn China and the US for immoral wars - ? I will not defend Vietnam nor Korea, but I would say that they are hardly a fair comparison to Tibet and Tienamen. But the overall point you seem to be making here is that: the US has a guilty past, so we better not go around judging. Wrong. If that were the case, again, we would have entirely ruined the concept of morality itself. Every nation has a barbaric past - the human race has a barbaric past. I hope things change for the better - but they will NEVER change for the better until and unless we agree that morality is universal and objective - NOT personal and subjective.@Lazarus- Sure China had Tianamen and Tibet problems and killings, which were both quite horrible.
But then the US screwed up Vietnam and Korea and 2 extremley pointless wars.
So they didn't kill too many Americans. Is that the reason those two events aren't bad.
</STRONG>
See above.You can call China evil for not following your views, China can call you evil for not following their viewpoints.
It goes either way.</STRONG>
Fable; I sincerely apologize if what I have said offends you, and I did (earlier) ask if I should in fact continue this thread. As it stands, I don't know that it is worth further argument. I would suggest you lock the thread.Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>@Lazarus, ... <snip> ... I'm going to deal with a few of your other points, but not now. Frankly, I'm too angered at your way of trying to pigeonhole me, flame me ("whitewash job") and misrepresent what I've done and believe because I can't see people in black and white. I'd rather not use words when I'm in this mood.
</STRONG>
C Elegens; you wished me to respond to this, so I shall. I agree completely with you!Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>@Lazarus: Forgive me for not having replied to your post yet. I will do so shortly, but I'd just like to add here that I don't have any negative thoughts about your posts and the opinions you express. Posting racist comments in one thing, posting views that I personally don't agree with, is a totally different thing, and the latter is IMO what you are doing.
@Lazarus & Hekate: To me, it's not a question of not evaluating. Evaluating effects of for instance a certain type of government and drawing the conclusion that it's acting against human rights, and not respecting human life, is necessary for learning anything. But the terms evil and good are to me very blunt instruments. I also think such words are often used in rhetorics, to create a certain atmospere. If the counterpart is evil, then we don't need to understand, we don't need to know what led to this, we don't need to view his as similar to ourselves, we can just erase him. Evil versus good needs no further explanation or analysis - the cause is good and just, and therefore already justified in beforehand.
I'm not saying you two are reasoning this way, I'm just trying to explain why I think the words evil and good are insufficient and sometimes even misleading words to describe the human nature. What will we learn if we believe being evil as some kind of trait, is the explanation for horrible acts that are committed by people? How can we ever prevent something like the Holocaust if we believe "evil" was what caused people to vote for the Nazi's?
EDITED for layout.
[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: C Elegans ]</STRONG>
I really had no intention of "flaming" fable, and I think a careful reading of my post would show that. Nevertheless, I am willing to drop this subject entirely - at his discretion.Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>@Lazarus: I don't mind discussing with you, but I understand why fable is not happy with the way the discussion has turned out.
</STRONG>
For my response to your previous post, see above (seperate post).<STRONG>
However, I'd very much like you to comment on the post I made above about the definition of good and evil. I read in your posts that you believe in an objective and universal moral. So do I, to a certain extent, ie I believe that the Human rights as stated by the General Assembly of the UN, should be applied by every government in every country world wide.
</STRONG>
OK, I looked over the Human Rights thing, and I do indeed have some problems with it. It was pretty good up there through about Article 21 or so (though I did not understand why they said in Article 16: "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State." That seems a bit odd to me - I think the individual is the fundamental unit of society, and IT is entitled to protection.<STRONG>
You asked for a link to the Universal declaration of Human rights? You will find it [url="http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html"]here[/url].
I'm not going to enter the discussion about US policy, (not yet, anyway) but please comment my questions about good and evil as moral concepts. Thank you
The simple thing is that don't give the money to the nations.Originally posted by Sojourner:
<STRONG>It's not that simple. Aid offered by the U.S. government is often rejected in this part of the world, and when it is accepted, it is an endless source of frustration to us to see that aid misused and rarely sent to its intended destination. Many of us here feel that our government should stay out of the foreign aid business, and leave that to the various charities who can better cut through the political red-tape and get it where it's supposed to go.</STRONG>
As I thought, your concept of rights are based on the North American people Rights. That only make sense, and must be folowed by the North American people, since you form these rights and can change it. Of course some of these documents, Declaration of Independence, were a great ideological influence outside North America, but it is restrictly to the USA.Posted By Lazarus
Whew! Well, to make a long story short, my essential ideas of rights are indeed contained in the documents of early America: the declaration of independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
I already say that I'm totally against interferences. If the World follow my ideological belief in the WW2, what happens? 1)Hittler is going to reach the power in Germany- it's ok for me leave it alone. 2)Hitler is talking about the Homo Arian and he is going to kill the Jews(Jude)- We'll broke Diplomatic relationship and offer asylum to all Jews that don't want to keep in Germain. 3) Now he is talking about his Vital Space and he is atacking Polonia and also want the Arc of Triumph for him- Now we going into France and Polonia to atack the germany troops and put Hittler back to Germany.Posted by Lazarus
Take Nazi Germany; we all know the nation was evil – what if no one had ever stood up against them? To not judge the actions of people and nations around the world is to sanction acts of evil; to take no action against evil once it is known, is to reward that evil.
See, Is here in this fragment where I found my Beliefs, where I found myself. No action must be taken against evil, because we don't see the others(country) as evil. We don't see Evil country. We are not The Good. We are something, they are something else.An Amazing and Beautifull Fragment Posted by Lazarus, The Humanist:
"If no action is ever taken against evil, then there is indeed no reason to even see it as evil"
It is not one Dictator, it is a role era of terror and Military Dictators. You don't have to be sorry, it was not an USA play, lots of people in Brazil were connected and responsible for the terror, The USA only give a little "help". And you have not connected to it.Posted by Lazarus:
I’m not very good with South American history – sorry! – is that dictator that you refer to an American “puppet?” If so, I am sorry. Again, what I want to stress is that it is not enough for America to have a PRAGMATIC foreign policy – it must have a MORAL foreign policy, instead.