I have never been accused of being organized :-]
On Jul 21, 2:55 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
> “…If you don't mind, could you tell me what part of my comment does
> not relate to the topic?” – deri
>
> Deri, apparently my words were misconstrued. I said that I found
> little/no coherence in your point …
> In other words, it didn’t make sense to me nor did it appear to be at
> all well organized. My words “..for this topic” were merely meant to
> say that my comment about coherence was limited to your posts to this
> one topic in case you had posted elsewhere. That was all.
> The question/guess, that you clarified for me (thanks) about the
> timeline you were using may become clearer over time at this group.
> Often we discuss our beliefs about how things were say, 100 years ago…
> 1000 years ago etc.
> Thanks again for your response.
>
> On Jul 20, 4:59 pm, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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 -- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
