Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] (unknown)

Expand Messages
  • David Leon
    Bill, Wow, I think I simply agree. Strange.... I cant seem to find a major point at which I differ in my own basic boundaries, with what you said. Interesting.
    Message 1 of 298 , May 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Bill,

      Wow, I think I simply agree. Strange.... I cant seem to find a major point
      at which I differ in my own basic boundaries, with what you said.
      Interesting.
      No 'point' to be made. I'm just replying.

      Dave

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "bhvwd" <valleywestdental@...>
      To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 9:40 AM
      Subject: [existlist] (unknown)


      > It has long been my contention that Fight club is a period piece
      > that was a natural outgrowth of the mosh pit generation. Physical
      > violence has been banned in white suburban america. Aggression is not
      > politically correct and therefore some minority will rebell and
      > demand violence be a part of their lives. Knowing self defense is one
      > thing, fighting for fun is a different matter. The S+M nature of this
      > type of activity suggests a psychopathology is present.
      > Each person draws his own line regarding recreation and physical
      > violence. For me Ice hockey and football are at the far end of the
      > scale. Boxing is over the line for me because the goal of the
      > contest is to cause your opponent a brain concussion. In the other
      > blood sports you try to score goals or touchdowns and the violence
      > is secondary.
      > I know people involved in fight clubs and their mentality is much
      > the same as soccer holligans. Tough , young men could be asked to
      > find more useful outlets for this violent energy but then it would
      > not be rebellious and would not accomplish the fulfillment of felt
      > needs. Most societies have outlets for physical aggression and this
      > rebellion is a sign we have gone too far in restricting such
      > conduct.
      > Some in this group have equated the fight club mentality with the
      > mens movement. I do not see them as having the same psychological
      > roots. I think the mens movement to be homoerotic in nature with
      > strong collectivist tendancies. The fight club group is
      > sadomasochistic at its root and is intensely individualistic and
      > competative. For me both groups are beyond lines I personally do not
      > wish to cross. That is a personal attitude and let others do as they
      > may.
      >
      >
      >
      > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      >
      > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
    • Mary
      Tom, Yes, most military intervention is not related to freedom or democracy. One of the discussions I m lobbying for concerns the organized use of force in the
      Message 298 of 298 , Mar 25, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Tom,

        Yes, most military intervention is not related to freedom or democracy. One of the discussions I'm lobbying for concerns the organized use of force in the cause of freedom which is a universally recognized philosophical ideal. I obviously don't equate freedom with capitalism or capitalism with democracy. And while I don't think it possible to impose any of these, we can assist their development, if we're commercially involved. I'm also anxious to hear a philosophical argument for the separation of the ideal from the activites of trade and politics. If one argues the practical is ideal, what is practical about abandoning the freedom of the group for the freedom of the individual? How are they separable?

        Mary

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, tsmith17_midsouth1@... wrote:
        >
        > Mary and Jim,
        >
        > I think one of my biggest objections toward going all over the world ostensibly fighting for democracy and freedom is the historical reality that since humans began to move from nomadic hunting tribes toward agriculture and commerce, nations have generally spun military aggression into whatever form the citizens are likely to consider as desirable, whither that being saving people's souls to the citizens of a theocracy, or initiating democracy and freedom to citizens of modern western nations. Hitler even spun his invasion of France in terms of liberating France. Operation Free Iraq was in my opinion as much of a spin as Hitler's claim of liberating France. We are told that US troops are all around the world defending freedom etc. The CIA Director under Nixon, Colby, said in the 70s that we own everyone of significance in the major media.I read that CNN had two versions of the Afghanistan War, a sugar coated version for US audiences, and a more realistic version for viewers outside the states. A USSR citizen in the states in the 80s said that American propaganda was much more effective than Soviet propaganda, because of the advertising inherent in capitalism can readily be applied to propaganda. He said that in the USSR propaganda is seldom believed;whereas in your country much of it is believed. In addition to highly developed skill in advertising in the US, the fact that there are a number of ostensibly independent news sources also tends to add credibility.
        >
        >
        >
        > John Quincy Adams wrote that the U.S. "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy."
        >
        > Adams' statement fits in well with a statement made by Nietzsche "Beware when you fight monsters, lest you become one."
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > The same groups that are now spun by western media as terrorists were spun as freedom fighters when the USSR was occupying Afghanistan. It is akin to Orwell's 1984 where good guy nations would be spun overnight into bad guy nations overnight, and vice versa. Looked at from the perspective of what is often accomplished in wars from Vietnam to Afghanistan and Iraq, there seems to be very little considering the huge costs in lives and money spent. However, from the point of view of the military industrial establishment, these wars sold hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weapons, ammunition, bombs etc.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Switzerland has existed peacefully as a tiny nation of 9 million in the middle of Europe for many years. I believe we could learn much from them. Their foreign policy is similar to what the founding fathers of the US espoused. I favor the idea of the creation of a cabinet level Dept of Peace. We had an Institute of Peace, but I think it is being eliminated. It only cost about 40 million a year, a pittance when you consider the astronomical costs of the total military industrial complex in the US. Interestingly, I understand the true costs of the US defense is grosly understated, as things like pensions and health care for military retirees are put in another category.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Peace
        >
        > Tom.
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "Mary" <josephson45r@...>
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 1:55:15 PM
        > Subject: [existlist] Re: The Arab demonstrators
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Jim and Tom,
        >
        > I haven't been communicating very clearly of late, but when someone agrees with me, I'm more likely to reexamine what I've written :)
        >
        > My concern for democratic movements involves the question of force. If violence is rationalized for protecting commerce, it certainly is justified for protecting democratic movements. I don't mean this only for internal conflicts but also in the case of U.N. resolutions. My hope is to advance the particular argument of whether fighting for freedom, passively or aggressively, is futile, as Herman suggests, not whether our countries should impose a particular form of democracy or capitalism.
        >
        > Mary
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com , "Jim" <jjimstuart1@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Mary,
        > >
        > > Yes, I completely agree.
        > >
        > > I have been wondering whether to follow up your post as you are spot on with your observations of political events both in the West and in the Arab World. So I hope what I add here does not detract or distract from your perceptive remarks.
        > >
        > > As you say, democracy isn't just about the party with the most votes governing for four or five years, it ought to be about justice and protecting minority interests. It should be about protecting the minority from the majority, and allowing sufficient diversity that all citizens can flourish irrespective of religious, political, cultural or sexual orientation.
        > >
        > > The trouble with theocracies is that they want to outlaw those activities they consider immoral. Islamic theocracies don't like independent women and alcohol, Christian theocracies don't like abortion and euthanasia. Both kinds of theocracies don't like extra-marital sex and homosexuality.
        > >
        > > But let's not look down with superiority from our atheistic vantage point. There's many an atheist who is homophobic and misogynist.
        > >
        > > I am sometimes accused on this forum of attempting to force my ethical views on others. Certainly I would like others (whether the ruling elite or the ordinary grass roots) to be more tolerant of alternative lifestyles.
        > >
        > > However is this me just being intolerant of intolerant people?
        > >
        > > Finally it occurs to me that as the Arab spring develops, hopefully, into an Arab summer, it may be that over the coming weeks, and months, and years, we in the West can learn more about the nature of true democracy from our Arab brothers and sisters.
        > >
        > > Jim
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com , "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Jim,
        > > >
        > > > A theocracy is what the neoconservatives envision. In the U.S. now, victorious political parties declare mandates and quickly initiate power grabs to stave off defeat in the next elections. There is currently no serious regard for or compromise with minority interests. This more closely resembles what Tom fears in the Middle East. The democratic process is difficult with interrupting periods of totalitarianism almost inevitable, so fears of theocracy abroad are concurrent with fears of democracy at home!
        > > >
        > > > Mary
        > > >
        > > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com , "Jim" <jjimstuart1@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Yes, it would probably result in a theocracy similar to the US where it is currently not possible to become President unless you claim to believe in God.
        > > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.