“Although violence seems to be intrinsic with many earlier cultures, it was typically dealt out as a penatly by lawmakers, and not wanton acts of harm dished out by somebody who got cut off on the way home from work. I guess there are more reasons to get irate these days as stress levels rise due to monetary insecurity, over-medication, and security cameras ;-]” – deri
Again I must ask what you base the above belief about there being more violence today than in the past. I can only guess that your comparison has to do with things during your lifetime and not before your birth now. Is this correct? Also, I too appreciate humor and irony but so far find little/no coherence in your point for this topic. Any expansion/clarification of your belief structure would be appreciated. On Jul 20, 10:42 am, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm afraid not. There seems to be many more acts of 'casual' violence > these days compared to when I was a child. Maybe we just hear about it > more because of the mulitude of media sources. Although violence seems > to be intrinsic with many earlier cultures, it was typically dealt out > as a penatly by lawmakers, and not wanton acts of harm dished out by > somebody who got cut off on the way home from work. I guess there are > more reasons to get irate these days as stress levels rise due to > monetary insecurity, over-medication, and security cameras ;-] > > On Jul 20, 12:28 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > “I am sure that early man, before being saturated with media, > > politics, > > religious dogma, and over-population, was a much more peaceful > > animal.” – deri > > > Quite an interesting opinion there deripsni. Do you have anything at > > all to support the idea? > > > On Jul 20, 5:10 am, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Maybe knowledge breeds violence? In the unlikely case that a man has > > > not been introduced to religion or politics, would he still have the > > > same propensity to kill as the modern man? Maybe, but the reasons > > > would be fewer, say for perceived territorial infringement, or > > > protection of family and food. > > > > I am sure that early man, before being saturated with media, politics, > > > religious dogma, and over-population, was a much more peaceful animal. > > > A person's conscience seems to dictate activity ranges, and today's > > > man has had his conscience mezmerized by over-information, over- > > > breeding, over-indulgence, etc. Unfortuately I cannot forsee a > > > reversal in this trend short of some global catastrophe that wipes out > > > a large number of the human animals that inhabit this rock. > > > > Many can speculate as to what breeds violence but, in my opinion, a > > > healthy conscience precludes any unsolicited violent activity. I think > > > a good question to ask is 'what causes the deterioration of a healthy > > > conscience?'. Unfortunately, I think there are too many answers to > > > that question. > > > > On Jul 18, 6:42 pm, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > A common belief today is that religion breeds violence. Isn't this > > > > like saying politics is violent? I read the below today, and it gave > > > > me food for thought, particularly that last sentence: > > > > > "Some kill because their faiths specifically command them to do so; > > > > some kill though their faiths explicitly forbid them to do so; and > > > > some kill because they have no faith and hence believe all things are > > > > permitted to them. Polytheists, monotheists, and atheists kill. Men > > > > kill for their gods, or for their God, or because there is no God and > > > > human destiny must be shaped by gigantic exertions of human will. They > > > > kill out of pursuit of universal truths, and out of fidelity to tribal > > > > allegiances; for faith, blood and soil, empire, national greatness, > > > > "socialist utopia", capitalism, and "democratization". Men always seek > > > > gods in who's name they may perform great deeds or commit unspeakable > > > > atrocity, even if those gods are not gods but "tribal honor", or > > > > "genetic imperatives" or "social ideals" or "human destiny" or > > > > "liberal democracy". Then again men also kill on account of money, > > > > land, love, pride, hatred, envy or ambition. ... The truth is that > > > > religion and irreligion are cultural variables, but killing is a human > > > > constant"(*) > > > > > (*) David Bently Hart, _atheist delusion_ pg > > > > 12http://www.librarything.com/work/book/47946437-Hidequoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
