random comments about nothing in particular

[jezer]

[quote:1teshfe2]Surely you distinguish the aggressor from the defender?[/quote:1teshfe2]

Sure, but I am only responsible for my own conduct, and why should my conduct mirror there's at the expense of giving up all I try to stand for? It's an extremely tough stand to make, but it's a right choice I think.

Are beliefs worth DYING for? Yes. Are they worth FIGHTING for? No, in fact they can't be fought for... they can only come by free choice.

Your accusation about fear, is mere observation of people's arguments... and I don't think you can argue "what if" and "could" feature way too much in the Obama thing. The guy hasn't failed yet... and I know many here are looking forward to ever which way they can point it out that he has.

Fear is one thing, perfectly natural response in the body... but using it to leverage people is a whole different thing... that's what's been going on.

[Rynquald]

Yeah, fear is a great tool for encouraging the public to allow themselves to be disarmed

Seriously though, dying for your beliefs. If everyone that holds a given belief is willing to die, but unwilling to fight, it isn't exactly going to be difficult for someone else to eliminate the entire belief system.

Realistically, how can you die for your beliefs in a way that would further your goal? I can pretty much see two ways, you can die fighting for it. Or you could die without offering resistance. It's the second one that I find interesting in this case. The only way that is going to further someone's beliefs is if it inspires others to fight for their cause. If the now-martyr didn't expect it to happen, they intended to give their life for nothing, hardly dying for their belief. If they did, then they intended to make others fight for their cause where they wouldn't, and that makes a hypocrite.

And my "accusation" about fear was as simple as it sounded, there was no hidden meaning. I was simply pointing out that you have a tendency (in this thread at least) to suggest that anyone who doesn't follow your particular philosophy is fearful of...something.

[Tap]

[quote:1epajamz]What does it have to do with? Why am I right to shoot them, and they are wrong to shoot me? Whats it really about then?[/quote:1epajamz]

If you want to debate the merits of shooting someone, right or wrong, in the afterlife, go right ahead, I'd suggest protecting yourself. I'd going 100% towards them being wrong for wanting to shoot you first. If you want to open the door to an intuder and let him in hoping he doesn't do you harm, go right ahead. If you felt that confident that nothing bad would could out of it. feel free to attach fliers around town advertising "Free Stuff at My House- Just Don't Shoot Me" and see where that gets you.

[quote:1epajamz]To press my beliefs on other people... is actually immoral and unethical,[/quote:1epajamz]Ah, so now having someone tell you what you can and can't do is immoral and un-ethical? and I was certain you were leaning the other way...

[Alberich]

I think maybe you are failing to grasp that there is a difference between aggression, and violence. Aggression is almost never justifiable, i think you can find broad agreement on that. Justified or not, however, plenty of folks without your lofty ideals will still see it as a valid course of action. That is where the reciprocal, violence, comes into the discussion. Meeting unwarranted aggression with violence I have no problems with and you'd have a hard time convincing me there is anything immoral about it.
You seem to be taking almost a super-buddhist approach (go ask the tibetans how well that non-violence in the face of aggression thing is working out for them...).

on a slightly unrelated note i find your idea that you can believe in something but not be willing to fight for it fascinating... it sounds more like you have an idea you kinda like in a philosophical sense, but you know somewhere that it's a basically flawed concept.
does this apply not just to an idea - i've no idea how old you are, but are you extended that position to your hypothetical wife? Cheerfully stand in front of the first bullet, and then you're dead so what happens later doesn't matter? Seems at best a highly irresponsible way to look at the world.

[jezer]

It's amazing how often, it all comes back down to taking bullets... Heck, I have no idea what I'd do. Because it's about ideas, these idea's are not at a point where they are shaping my actions yet, because the idea's haven't had time to 'mature' and change my outlook yet... because it's a process and journey, not a destination.

I had a dream last night, where people were being executed, and when my turn came up, I wrestled the shooter, and twisted the gun back on himself... I guess how I responded then, would probably be how I'd respond now, in the heat of the moment.

You can't say one thing and do another... then your a hypocritical... only when you can actually live the line have you arrived.

There probably is a time where violence is right... but I don't know when, and I couldn't define it...

As for the Tibetians... who is really winning? The tibetans are standing by what they believe in regards to non-violence, in an ethical sense, they actually have the higher moral fortitude than the oppressive regime. If you look at it, through those ethical and moral glasses... whose winning?

We all enter the world as nothing and die with nothing, so if any thing in this world makes one man's life better than an others... it must be who he was morally, as this seems to be the separating factor between man and animals...

It seems some think I'm willing to die needlessly... It's certainly not the case, I'll do everything I can to preserve my life, drawing the line at whats right... what ever that is... and that's what I ponder...

Dying for ones beliefs, but not fighting for them seems a real pure thought to me... it's seems to be where religions go wrong... dying for them is ok, but at that point where you cross over and start fighting for them is when you've crossed the line... that's no matter who you are or who you follow. Religion is such a choice thing... you can't force people, it's counter productive.

I'm not a scholar of religions... but I do know that in the story of Jesus... he actually died for what he believed in, and never fought for it... there seems to be something of his example that still interests others today, it's a pity a lot of his followers have embellished his example with a whole bunch of self centered righteous crap.

[Weasel]

[quote="jezer":1ecrva7s]..blah blah blah..
I can tell many of you don't care for the morality/ethical argument, being able to retaliate against people who hurt you is enough for you in life...
..blah blah blah..[/quote:1ecrva7s]
What an unbelievably arrogant, narcissistic statement.

[Rynquald]

I hate to bring a debate down to personal insults. But these latest points are so incredibly naive that it forces me to question the stability of anyone making them. They could only make sense through an astoundingly twisted understanding of reality.

+1 Weasel.

[Medios]

Matthew 21:12

Then Jesus went into the temple, threw out everyone who was selling and buying in the temple, and overturned the moneychangers' tables and the chairs of those who sold doves.

Which bible you been reading Jezer?

[jezer]

I was more expecting...

Joh 2:15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

To overthrow tables, is one thing... but it's not violence against people... but "made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple" sure sounds like it to me. It would seem there is a time for violence... but like I said... don't ask me to define it... I don't know why he did this, and then let people kill him... he certainly seemed to see things a different way...

Church becoming a place of business drives the guy to violence... and let people trying to kill him doesn't...

He certainly saw the world a different way, he too spoke about justice... eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, but said to turn the other cheek...

It may seem like what he did was two faced, but I don't think it was... it was just operating on a different values system than we do.

[Tap]

I'm certainly no theologian but [quote:17hm1huy]He certainly saw the world a different way, he too spoke about justice... eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, but said to turn the other cheek... [/quote:17hm1huy]

The actual context was how the Jewish way of doing things was the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth and his response was if being struck on the check to turn to the other side so that it might be struck also. Many people have different thoughts on exactly who Jesus was. I feel that even though being the son of God, he was human. He was drawn to anger because the temple was being defiled. But you couldn't equate that to him being violent. As far as why he allowed himself to be crucified, that's the greatest story ever told.

[Weasel]

[quote="jezer":3s9x5ng7]He certainly saw the world a different way, [b:3s9x5ng7]he too[/b:3s9x5ng7] spoke about justice... [/quote:3s9x5ng7]
So you see yourself on the same level as Jesus now..

[jezer]

Yasik, Warrior Skills, Obama and now Jezer it seems...

How do you get rid of this guy and his sharp little teeth? Your beginning to remind me of that skunk on the Gods Must Be Crazy movie, the one that bites the guys boot and never lets go. Honestly Weasel, this crap your spewing is your perception of what I'm saying... and not in my intention or heart. I apologize if I've come across as self righteous, it's not my intention. I've got nothing against you, can't you just truce! Go find your next thing to get all indignant about... I just don't want this, leave me out of this.

[img:s1zwec1j]http://www.teachwithmovies.org/guides/gods-must-be-crazy-i-DVDcover.jpg[/img:s1zwec1j]

[Weasel]

Don't flatter yourself dude. I'm only responding to some of your comments, although it doesn't surprise me that you interpret it as some unprovoked personal vendetta, rather than simply someone pointing out some of the things you are saying. I guess if you didn't come across as if you think you're so much better than everyone else, myself and a few others might react a little differently.

[firebrand]

jezer, i have a proposition for you, since you are anti-violence and anti-guns. show me just how "non-violent" you are. go play sloth with no weapons and no blasting. get items and exps from mobs without killing or subduing them. let's see just how far you get. now get your ostrich head out of your horse's ass and stfu. we are all tired of your sanctimonious "it can't happen to me because i follow the law and i am non-violent" bullshit. sell it to the tabloids because we aren't buying it.


"shop smart. shop S mart" - ash --> army of darkness

[Tap]

"Medic!" - Sgt. Zim --> Starship Troopers