| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-06 14:18:31 |
|
|
| laaran |
 |
 |
|
why do we decide method of murder
Here we decide not much.
And nobody spoke about that in this thread.
You can agree with Posthuman, but you transform my words, and this is not honest.
Why should people become violent animals?!
This is an old story, called humanity.
Why do they choose way for execution?
I agree with you on this point. He should be allowed to choose it.
Laaran, when I wrote about Saddam`s self-control, I meant that he didn`t lose consciousness and more (!) he claimed another execution.
These were not his first words. His first words were a lot more ridiculous, and insulting to many people.
After one minute, he calmed down, and what he said was rather fair. Maybe for the first time of his life.
One more point about hanging.
You can see it as something very violent. Or as something not violent at all. Because nobody touches the one-who-is-going-to-die with a weapon.
Shooting at Hussein would be more violent (yet he asks for that).
Last point, soldiers are violent. And worst, they are allowed to handle killing-machines (guns, or planes, or bombs or tanks or ...). If you refuse violence, first think about your army.
I don't reject armies. But the moral control should be a lot stronger on all soldiers.
Do you care for that ? |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-06 15:15:52 |
|
|
| Valeria13 |
| Valeria Korneeva |
|
 |
|
Firstly you wrote about Saddam and now you`re writing about army at all…Well, if we discuss such global problems, we can go too far…As for our Russian army, a lot of young men don`t want to serve for motherland. And this word “motherland” is becoming more and more empty, without “filling”…Many boys in Russia choose high education in such institutes where there is military cathedra. It means they won`t become soldiers, they will rather study in institute and they won`t think about army.
Unforunately, violence will always be in any army (except, I think, army with very strist discipline). And more, this war in Iraq was begun by the White House and many American soldiers (I only guess) felt themselves right and strong. They “saved” people from Saddam although NOBODY from Iraq didn`t ask them for it. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-06 15:34:37 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
Firstly you wrote about Saddam and now you`re writing about army at all
It is an answer to your words : 'violent animals'
You see only the violence of the judgement. Death sentence.
But there was a trial, Saddam Hussein had attorneys (although they were refused one additional month).
Everybody searched for proofs against and for him.
He was asked for explanation. People tried to understand his logic.
My first post was a comment about his words and his attitude.
I will not repeat his first words (when he learned the sentence), you can find them easily on internet.
You seem to ignore these first words, and the fact that he shouted immediately very loudly.
My first post was about this. Nobody was interested into this, so I accepted it, and I answered to the comments of others.
Last point : he was against hanging. OK. Why didn't his attorneys tell it before ? They could tell it before the sentence, why wait ? They refused to pronounce the words "death sentence" before the official sentence ? What did they hope ? God would send a sheep and replace Hussein with a sheep, like God did for Abraham's son (according to those who are religious). |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-06 17:27:05 |
|
|
| Valeria13 |
| Valeria Korneeva |
|
|
|
Why do you take examples from religion? Do they reflect real life? These parallels are obvious but I think that comparing Saddam with innocent Abraham`s son is not exact and correct. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-06 17:49:38 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
I take this example because it is shared by Christians and Jews and Muslims (alphabetic order).
My example is not exact and not correct ? I agree.
Then what has to be has to be. And Saddam Hussein must die, either suicide or be killed.
And attorneys should speak about that before the sentence and during the trial (as Saddam Hussein has consideration for the way he will die).
But his attorneys prefered to discuss this question : "is he guilty or not guilty". And this was certainly not the right question. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-06 19:06:39 |
|
|
| Quetzal |
|
 |
|
hm, saddam hussein killed, a sa crifice to the monkeys's gods...
human knows that to kill servs only to call vengeance in return.
saddam husein should have been enjail for life far away of irak, in a high level security prison.
because death do not resolv things, and can't ressucite the death, it's just a satisfaction, a pleasure, for monkeys, who loves more vengeance than justice.
justice can give dead, because justice is not vengeance, but monkeys think that justice is the only way to confirm and legalise their destructiv pulsions. they kind of people are not really better than the people they're killing all together..
those people people/monkeys kill with a smile, thinking they ain't got blood of anybody on their hands, but it's a murder by procuration, nothing else.
do my monkey is happy of the murdering of an other monkey?? yes in all, i hope they'll do a movie of the execution and put it on the web, i will be really happy to see him dying slowly, it's so entertaining, like to get of the wings of a fly..
but my human is not really happy of this situation, because he knows that the death sanction never comes after justice, but ever after an organised vengeance... what seems to be the saddam hussein'procès.
why? do my human really not happy, because he know that's with that kind of ways, humanity, and irak is not really readdy to put its head out of these shit, that we're all plunged into.
and murder and killing, who ever gives death is the best way to help humanity to drawn a little more.. in fact it's when a legal organisation do murders and crimes that humanity is the more plunged into the its own shit.
and at last just for fun.. with the death of saddam hussein this is the last part of the Irak state organisation wich is dying.. i think that george bush(son & father) must be really happy to have plunged so many people in an total chaos..
but, but, smile, if irakians are not in these shit for nothing, just used your car and you'll know your part of this disaster.. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-06 19:37:15 |
|
|
| Posthuman |
|
 |
|
Quetzal,I agree..
Or,let we all (in the name of a justice,or fair law,of course),kill back for all the people he had killed..
Disussing about death sentence and comparing killing animals with killing a man is speculation about the murder.
And the most grotesque representation of a human nature is justifying that act by higher cause,for humanity.Hiding their own distorted minds for blood,or seeing other human being suffer.
All those who stand behind the court are very religious people,but they seem to forget one main "request"- repent and forgive. Hum..I don't remember seeing "KILL" among them..
And please,don't compare men with animals,they are way too pure for us,and they kill other animals to eat them.What is our justification? |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-06 20:00:30 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
@Quetzal
those people people/monkeys kill with a smile, thinking they ain't got blood of anybody on their hands
Which monkeys are you speaking of ?
And why do you use a racist word (monkey was the most racist word in French language for black people) ?
I know you don't speak about black people, but you use a racist word. Strange.
but my human is not really happy of this situation, because he knows that the death sanction never comes after justice
Since 3 years, you are unhappy with what happens in Iraq. It is not new.
Before, you didn't care at all.
and irak is not really readdy to put its head out of these shit, that we're all plunged into
Writing that from France, a very safe country, is really insulting.
"we" are in safe countries.
saddam husein should have been enjail for life far away of irak, in a high level security prison.
Europe can propose that.
But Europe does not propose that.
Yes, he could go for life in an European jail (for life, not for 15 years like we do in France).
I propose jail for life in Vatican. Vatican has no jail ? Then create them, it is easy to speak always.
@Posthuman
Or,let we all (in the name of a justice,or fair law,of course),kill back for all the people he had killed..
Who said that ?
Who used the words "kill back" ?
Or these words come from your own head and imagination ?
And the most grotesque representation of a human nature is justifying that act by higher cause,for humanity
Who said that ? Who needs a "bigger cause" to judge Saddam Hussein ?
And please,don't compare men with animals,they are way too pure for us,and they kill other animals to eat them.What is our justification?
Men are horrible when they worship human life.
Animals fear Death less than you do.
Worshipping life is not a clever idea. But humans create so many ideas, some good, some bad.
Disussing about death sentence and comparing killing animals with killing a man is speculation about the murder.
You are discussing about "Death sentence" as a general sentence.
Before your comment, we were discussing about "Death sentence applied to Saddam Hussein".
It is rather different.
"speculation" : I can not understand this part of your sentence. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-06 20:36:26 |
|
|
| Posthuman |
|
|
|
I was replying to court,who judge Saddam,I think we're talking about that.Therefore,"kill back" applys to that.I think they wanna KILL him because of all his crimes.Or I'm wrong,somehow?
For humanity.It is.Why would they want to KILL him if not to say "here,we killed the man who had killed someone from your country (for which,by the way,we don't give a damn" that should show the world that we have all the strings in our hands".
Man can be shallow,not worthy of many things,but death (or "giving" death) is not in our hands.At least,not in someone elses hands.If you want to kill yourself,do it.At least there can't be some court to judge you (to death penalty).But who are we to value how much a man life is worth?!
Man is a man.Is his name Saddam or ..(me?) .. all the same.
Any other saying is really not worthy of my hands typing to respond,and dignify such a narrow mind of my further explanation,about basic human rights,right to live,is really not worth it. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-06 21:05:00 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
Therefore,"kill back" applys to that.I think they wanna KILL him because of all his crimes.Or I'm wrong,somehow?
You are wrong.
S.H. refuses to recognize his crimes, and refuses to help resolve the consequences of his crimes. These are the main reasons of the judgement.
Why would they want to KILL him if not to say "here,we killed the man who had killed someone from your country (for which,by the way,we don't give a damn"
The judge are Irakis. All of them.
What do you try to say ?
The judges always said they wanted the Death sentence for Saddam Hussein.
Pressure from the US government may have change the date (the sentence "appears" a few days before US elections). Not the sentence itself.
But who are we to value how much a man life is worth?!
Unfortunately men do that very regularly.
And they say : it is for God, or for political motivation, or for the honor of my family (if my girl was raped).
Let's accept that human race has to do it sometimes. Stop hidding what our race is.
dignify such a narrow mind of my further explanation
Right. Very narrow.
If you want to kill, kill. But don't add any pretty (ugly ?) comment about God(s), or politic, or honor, or even justice. Just say : it has to be. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-07 00:28:19 |
|
|
| Bac |
|
 |
|
I'm not sure I understand the topic title: "Puppet", but as fara as Saddam Hussein, he's getting better than he deserves. He even had a trial, which is more than he offered to so many he murdered.
By the way, putting a man to death as an act of justice is not murder. It may be killing someone, but it's not murder. And if anyone deserves the death penalty, Saddam would have to be a top candidate.
As far as sheep, well, I sometimes eat lamb and wear wool, but no sacrifices. I don't know if sheep can really be "murdered" since they are sheep, after all. But sometimes they may die a pointless death -- like if you hit one while driving down the road. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-07 01:13:19 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
It may be killing someone, but it's not murder.
These are questions of definition. For me, it will be a murder. But not a crime.
He even had a trial, which is more than he offered to so many he murdered.
A trial is not only for the defense of the accused person.
A trial also helps to understand our own race. Whatever we think about S. Hussein, his words are interesting if we want to avoid a second Iraq.
He was offered a trial ? Maybe. Yet the trial is one of the few good things we had from him.
I'm not sure I understand the topic title: "Puppet"
That seems (to me) very appropriate for his attitude when he learned the sentence.
As far as sheep, well, I sometimes eat lamb and wear wool, but no sacrifices.
And ? Some people practice sacrifice, you don't. OK. This is your way of life. That does not tell that your way is worst or better. Shall we open a thread about the life of each of us ?
I don't know if sheep can really be "murdered" since they are sheep, after all.
Yes, we differ about this point. Many Christians have little respect for animals. I eat lamb, this is not the question. The question is to imagine that animals have feelings. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-07 08:46:29 |
|
|
| Bac |
|
|
|
|
It may be killing someone, but it's not murder.
These are questions of definition. For me, it will be a murder. But not a crime.
|
Then we have to change the definition of the word "murder" and/or "kill" also. I prefer to use them properly, but that's me. (Not to say that I've never misused a word, but it would be better for the sake of language.) Because murder is a crime, but I don't think hanging Saddam would be a crime. That I agree.
|
He even had a trial, which is more than he offered to so many he murdered.
A trial is not only for the defense of the accused person.
A trial also helps to understand our own race. Whatever we think about S. Hussein, his words are interesting if we want to avoid a second Iraq.
He was offered a trial ? Maybe. Yet the trial is one of the few good things we had from him. |
A trial may at times help us to understand something about our race, but this is not the purpose of a criminal trial. It's to determine a defendant's innocence or guilt. That's it.
|
I'm not sure I understand the topic title: "Puppet"
That seems (to me) very appropriate for his attitude when he learned the sentence.
|
Yeah, that may be true. Sure.
|
As far as sheep, well, I sometimes eat lamb and wear wool, but no sacrifices.
And ? Some people practice sacrifice, you don't. OK. This is your way of life. That does not tell that your way is worst or better. Shall we open a thread about the life of each of us ? |
No, it doesn't say that my way is better or not. I wasn't trying to make a point, just offering my view on the use/value of sheep. But if we want to all have our own threads on our lives, that's fine with me too. :-)
|
I don't know if sheep can really be "murdered" since they are sheep, after all.
Yes, we differ about this point. Many Christians have little respect for animals. I eat lamb, this is not the question. The question is to imagine that animals have feelings.
|
I think many Christians (at least where I live) do have respect for animals as they are a creation of God. In the book of Genesis, God gives man certain power and responsibility over animals. But they are not equal to mankind. That doesn't mean I think people should be cruel to animals (I find it sick what some people do to animals).
I'm not sure if animals have feeling the way we do. I believe they feel physical pain, but as far as emptional or psycholgical I'm not sure to what extent they feel something. There may be some cruel rituals being preformed with sheep via Islam (I don't know about that since I'm not muslim), but I just felt murder was an odd choice of word. Ok, though, we disagree. That's fine. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-07 11:24:45 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
A trial may at times help us to understand something about our race, but this is not the purpose of a criminal trial. It's to determine a defendant's innocence or guilt. That's it.
Kurdish Irakis don't agree with you.
They'd like to postpone the execution of the sentence. They want a second trial of Hussein concerning the gazing of Kurdish Irakis.
Yet they are sure that he is guilty. And they want a Death sentence for Saddam Hussein.
They don't ask for a trial to help him. Or to determine if he is guilty. Kurdish Irakis know what happened there better than we do.
We may consider another possibility : they want a trial so that other communities learn about the gazing.
No, it doesn't say that my way is better or not. I wasn't trying to make a point, just offering my view on the use/value of sheep.
Hum. Yes.
I see what you mean.
Yet our culture does not help us to understand the sacrifice of a sheep. All the Christians I met told me : look, God is generous, he wanted to "test" the faith of Abraham. I think that this explanation erases the meaning of a sacrifice. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-07 14:00:05 |
|
|
| Posthuman |
|
|
|
Well well,I'm not sure should I even start this discussion with Bac here,since this subject is very sensitive due to it's nature..
But ..I do have to add something (meaning I do see where your views come from,therefore,I accept them as your own way,and,no other way you could see)..
|
| Then we have to change the definition of the word "murder" and/or "kill" also. I prefer to use them properly, but that's me. (Not to say that I've never misused a word, but it would be better for the sake of language.) Because murder is a crime, but I don't think hanging Saddam would be a crime. That I agree. |
Maybe there is a difference (of course,since those are 2 words),but they could be a synonyms if you look this way..
What they wanna do to Sadda is killing AND a murder too..since it is a killing of a man that doesn't want to die.It is even more bruthal if we know who wants to do that (intelligent and reasonable people of that court),for Saddam is not any wonder,since his moral values are in question,but what is their excuse?
Tell me one reason why this man is to be exsecuted? 'Cause killing is more suitable for killings he did,huh?
'Cause men hunger for revenge has to be satisfied? Exile for life isn't enough? Of course not,in world where life is considered as a game "whose worth more".
I'm aware that individuals who think as I do can't change this sentence or even mind those of who see this murder as justified..
And for the animals..
|
| I think many Christians (at least where I live) do have respect for animals as they are a creation of God. In the book of Genesis, God gives man certain power and responsibility over animals. But they are not equal to mankind. |
Yeah..this never cease to amaze me.. Humans are above everything (oh no,sorry..God forgive me..not than you..  ) (but then again (yeah yeah,I know,this mistake can't happen,since He's never questioned..  )
And please,but please..tell me why is that so?
?cause they are not mentally evolved as people are?And that makes them less worthy of life?
|
| There may be some cruel rituals being preformed with sheep via Islam (I don't know about that since I'm not muslim), but I just felt murder was an odd choice of word. |
 And how do you call the way they die so millions of people can eat them? I'd say slaughter. No,of course,that's not cruel..silly me..for gods sake we are humans!  we can do what we want (oh me again,not EVERYTHING,God can do everything.. 
I can't imagine what can be more cruel than murdering an animal (since it doesn't want to die) to satisfy us..Or you think that killing it for some (muslim) rituals is far more worse? (Oh,bad them,they won't eat it after that!) . Explain me why is that,please?
|
| I'm not sure if animals have feeling the way we do. I believe they feel physical pain, but as far as emptional or psycholgical I'm not sure to what extent they feel something. |
Ok,I agree,they certainly don't have the same feelings as people do(God thanks for that),but basic emotions we all share. And fear comes there too. And now you may thank God 'cause many of us won't ever feel that terror they do,in the name of "higher" 'cause. (And why is that,I forgot..? Oh yes,we were hungry.)
Once again,all of this is just..'cause you are such a big Christian,and you value human life so little (animals I won't even mention)..? Forget the names,forget who we are..life is life..One more down won't turn back others who fell before him..Can't we see that? |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-07 16:28:25 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
Exile for life isn't enough? Of course not,in world where life is considered as a game "whose worth more".
'Exile for life'.
This is your point. Not jail for life, but rather exile.
I know two traditions for this kind of judgment. The Nordic one, and the Turkish one. Which one do you propose (or another one), and how ?
Do you know that the Iraki court does not control the rest of the world ? Give a piece of France (to please Quetzal) or a piece of Serbia (for example the southern part) to Irak government. Then they may listen to your opinion.
(Oh,bad them,they won't eat it after that!)
Don't worry, they also eat it.
Eating animals will not stop, our race is (like other races) eating animals.
Don't try to stop that, it is stupid and it is Nature.
That does not make us better than animals.
Lions are not better than gazelles. So we are not better than lions are. Crocodiles are not better than I-don't-know-what-they-eat.
Ok,I agree,they certainly don't have the same feelings as people do(God thanks for that),but basic emotions we all share.
I don't know where is the limit.
Of course, they can not understand how a nuclear bomb works (I like this example because Posthuman will dislike it).
They can not understand maths, or just a bit. Yet they probably have a taste for aestheticism.
And they can not appreciate La Joconde ? I don't appreciate it either. I can try to understand some secret of her smile, but that does not change my feelings for this painting. The best with this painting is the "package" of tourists who are turning around. It is funny and amazing. Animals can probably feel what I feel in front of these tourists.
And now you may thank God 'cause many of us won't ever feel that terror they do,in the name of "higher" 'cause.
Yes and no. You say that because you are young. Most old people, even the richest ones, feel some form of terror.
Forget the names,forget who we are..life is life..One more down won't turn back others who fell before him..Can't we see that?
True.
But I'd like to offer one chance to Saddam Hussein. Die with honor. After a very bad life, try to show something good during the last moments. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-07 18:34:49 |
|
|
| Quetzal |
|
|
|
[quote=laaran]@Quetzal
those people people/monkeys kill with a smile, thinking they ain't got blood of anybody on their hands
Which monkeys are you speaking of ?
And why do you use a racist word (monkey was the most racist word in French language for black people) ?
I know you don't speak about black people, but you use a racist word. Strange.
|
it's you that readding the word monkey as a racist word, you should look another time to the human généalogie, homo sapiens got 99% of its gene in common with the apes, wich are monkeys.. the human reality is made of an enormous biologik part, and a try culture to put some humanity to ours behave.
i use to make diffrence between the cultural human, and the biologik sapiens, and to put the crazyness of sapiens under the word monkey. these tree part are into any human. and these typical behave are prety melt, but they're easily reconizable..
hm if european used to call black people monkeys, it just because they never really feel in their own behaviour the smile of the monkey.
[quote=laaran]
but my human is not really happy of this situation, because he knows that the death sanction never comes after justice
Since 3 years, you are unhappy with what happens in Iraq. It is not new.
Before, you didn't care at all.
|
hm, you may said since 25years now.(first irak war with iran 1980) the situation in irak ever been problematic and espeacely since 1991.
and if US comes here to implant their biblic justice-ways.. well if justice behave like angry monkeys.. do we really need that kind of organised vengeance??
|
and irak is not really readdy to put its head out of these shit, that we're all plunged into
Writing that from France, a very safe country, is really insulting.
"we" are in safe countries.
|
hm, laaran, it's not because i'm french and you too, that we're are not into any difficulties, then so, why always speaking about france as you use to do... irak got its problem, which is caus by a strange US administration, it'll go better in 10years. it's ever long to reconstruct a country, see russia which seems to go a little better now.
|
saddam husein should have been enjail for life far away of irak, in a high level security prison.
Europe can propose that.
But Europe does not propose that.
Yes, he could go for life in an European jail (for life, not for 15 years like we do in France).
I propose jail for life in Vatican. Vatican has no jail ? Then create them, it is easy to speak always.
|
you should read about the history of garibaldi when in 1850 he gets roma and open the doors of the vatican jail-cave.. it was, if we can compare, as auchwitz with famelic prisoner, skulls everywhere, peope who where enjail her so long that they become blind, to not see any light...
i don't think that is human behaviour to get any human into the hand or of saddam hussein, or into the vatican jail..
but may be your frenchy monkey will prefer "the island of devil" in guyana.. but it seems that guantamo will pergfect for this.. no ?? |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-07 20:11:41 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
i use to make diffrence between the cultural human, and the biologik sapiens, and to put the crazyness of sapiens under the word monkey. these tree part are into any human. and these typical behave are prety melt, but they're easily reconizable..
So our crazyness and violence is due to our animal roots ?
We didn't evolve quickly enough ?
My point of view : we didn't evolve at all concerning violence. We are not more or less violent than other predators. Just more technological.
hm, you may said since 25years now.(first irak war with iran 1980) the situation in irak ever been problematic and espeacely since 1991.
Hum.
As French, we were wrong many times about Iraq. I don't say that we were nasty. Just wrong. We were imagining a future, and each time we failed to guess the future (about the war Iraq-Iran, about 1992, and three years ago, when most politicians here told that rebellion was going to spread inside the Middle East).
We should be a lot more careful now.
We are shocked by their decision ? Death sentence ? Let's consider that we don't really understand their culture.
If other countries/people understand their culture, let them speak. Who is candidate ?
hm, laaran, it's not because i'm french and you too, that we're are not into any difficulties
I am not. If you are, I am sorry. Being French makes my life easier.
you should read about the history of garibaldi when in 1850 he gets roma and open the doors of the vatican jail-cave..
And you think that Vatican could do this again today ? I don't think so. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-08 11:37:35 |
|
|
| Quetzal |
|
|
|
My point of view : we didn't evolve at all concerning violence. We are not more or less violent than other predators. Just more technological.
hm, i would say that we're just little less hungry that others species, which permit us to devellope the human behaviour. but still, we're hungry, but of many things that we maybe do not really need, but makes life better, and easy to live.. our natural aggressivity is not as it was just turned on alimentation, economical actuals ways which are a natural phenomenom, evers shows how hungry we are..
we made some progress in these aggressivity into our nation, laws and right constrait to a beter behaviour, a fair and human behaviour.. but if you annalyse the movement of history, you can clearly see that wars and the actual international rules belong to our animality, where the desires of the strongers are ever the best. our works is not done to make a better world, which pass by a Global Earth Organisation, a universal political orhanisation, where laws and right, human right become a reallity, and not just a wich.
i think that it'll not become during my life,coz we're to all into ever our nationalism, but the goal have to be knowned, humanity begins with this federation of continants, before as human right, humanity is just a wich.
natural violence, that it came from the Nature itself, or human behavior as ever been the thing against what we've fighted. rights, laws and democraty the best way to acces to this happiness that old philosophers used to talk. caus' we can be in happiness lonely, you can try to make it by your ownwill, but humans lives together, and the distress of other humans will ever tuch us whaterver we're put on a mountain of money.
we can be happy from time to time, but the eyes closed, happiness really begins when we'll not saying, "what a fucking crazy word"
paradise is may be under our feets, but for the moment, it just the monkey's crazy planet, hungriness, crazyness, wars instead of discution..
our work is not done yet. but i can see, not so far in the futur, if we care now, something, an earth really livable, for anyone. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-08 12:04:31 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
happiness really begins when we'll not saying, "what a fucking crazy word"
You have everything wrong.
A race of predators can not be happy without violence.
Let's correct these words.
Maybe the females of the race can.
Then you have to keep only 1 male for 9 (99 ?) females, or something like that (we do it for cows, don't we ?).
The remaining males will be happy, because they will "discover" the bodies/ideas/sensibility (not only physical sensibility, also art, psychology, litterature...) of the females. Discovery can replace violence.
Can females be happy with very few males ? I don't know. Why don't we try ? |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-09 22:04:28 |
|
|
| Quetzal |
|
|
|
well, human are not predators, they're omnivore, remember it laaran, it make a little difference, and human arn't a soloist species but naturaly a social species, as lamb, we like to be together.. ;)
it's true, predators can't stay together, but humans can and do it naturally, and if they do war, it's more for food and richness, than for the other sex, we're not in the same than old grec and the war of troy, wih priam, paris, and helen.. ten years of war for a girl, well humans now are not so crazy.
humans like to race but now more to do sport than go on war just for fun, because they're nothing else to do..
the luck of human is that they born naked of any natural behaviour, but it means not that they ain't got any instinct. culture and language replace the natural behaviout by those done by our culture via our parents.. and he you look to any human child who have been adopted, he or her, will not act with the culture from where he/her comes. they'll get the culture of the place they live. it's means that there no radical behaviour wich can be changed in human being.. but ever, human are likes gremlins, nice and fair if you foods them in time and if you don't plunged them into cold water or shit.. you know what happened after, not really fun when they got in their hand a M16 or a kalashnikov. or more.
loves behave stay ever the most difficult part of the human behaviour, and still so many millenium, the love problems have ever been traited with the possibilities of the périod, religious morality was one the point, but psychologist will told you how sex privation and perturbation are the best ways to get a human crazy, freud was working in the end of the victoria area, where sex and puritanism where a real constraint on population, as the woman "corset"..
there no solution i think to it, love is love, and people have to act their best and as they want with agree partners. see our population are they readdy to go on war?? what they prefer do, eating, have fun, discut with friends, and make love with their lovers, and do many other thing than wars.. race with violence? for few i think, and less and less.. race with safety because we're here to have fun and not necessary to die too in advance, and be because we that now an acident can may be means 20 or 30 or more years with an handicap.. wich is not as easy to live. no?
race without violence is what it will happened, if all we acces to a part of the richness of the world, for now rich are to scary an paranoiak to lose what they got, and poors let grows their teeth if somedays they find a rich for food.. it's a good race of stupids, they'll just may die sooner one of heart problems, the other under the hit of the cops of the rich.
but generaly nature make it choice, and choice those who find naturally equilibre beetwen one or the other plan. that why human nevers have been abble to resolv and old natural parradox.. beetwen the necessity of individuation(lonely) and our social and necessaire behavior..
all the politic try to find the just way beetwen our individual need of freedom and our need of a society, an human society. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-09 22:19:37 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
Let's think about this.
Then why does the government lie to us about so many things ?
Why are our history books so false about some historical facts.
Yes, I heard one explanation some years ago. French people had enough civil war and revolution, now we must work together for a better country.
What does that mean ? That means that humans are violent. And could be violent again. Even French people could be violent again... |
|
|
|