I can only relate to my life experiences and the history I have read. If there is another source I should refer to I would be happy to research it. I guess I am stating my observations based on this, as I suppose you were when you agreed with archytas' statement that men kill for petty, personal reasons, which I happen to disagree with. Although others may consider someones actions in this regard petty, I am sure those who kill do not feel this way. Similar to the evaluation of truth, the level of pettiness is in the eye of the beholder.
If you don't mind, could you tell me what part of my comment does not relate to the topic? On Jul 20, 7:25 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > “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-Hidequotedtext - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
