quote:

ORIGINAL: charmdpetKeira

Thompsonx
 

quote:


To no one in particular:
My thoughts are that some amongst us seek more than they need or could ever use for no other purpose than to deny it to others and in so doing justify their avarice as human nature. 

 
 
Assuming we know the motives of others is a dangerous game; isn’t it?
I have made no assumptions.  If you took that from my statement then please disabuse yourself of that notion.  An example of what I was talking about might be found in the autobiography of Andrew Carnegie in the matter of the crushing of the steel workers union.  It was done not so that Carnegie could have more but so that the steel workers should have less.
 
 It does give a good example of why a garden paradise might not work though.
 

quote:


charmdpetKeira:

There are those among us (the majority) who lack the courage to face another for the purpose of mortal combat but they will elect those who likewise lack that courage to hire proxies who will.  This does not make the cowardly less culpable.
Thompson

 
 
Speaking for myself here; please don’t mistake a lack of willingness to “kill first, ask questions later”, as cowardly.
 
I am quite capable of fighting my own battles, so the dilemma for me does not lay in a lack of capability, but more a lack of necessity. Common sense tells me, I can kill those who cause problems for me, but as soon as I do; someone new will be lining up to take their place.
Once again I have been unclear in my meaning.  I was referring to war.
 
 

 
My problem with the statement “our purpose is to kill”, even to weed out the population, is that it gives people permission to play god. So, where do we start? Who gets to choose who dies and who lives? Why does this idea sound familiar to me?
 
Northern Gent
 
quote:

quote:



ORIGINAL: charmdpetKeira

 Also, while I do enjoy a little healthy competition, I don’t play to the death. Why not? Am I fooling myself? Do I really want to kill people and just don’t realize it?

Eeeegads!!! Obviously, it is time for bed.

Sincerely,

k



'Depends on your dreams and aspirations, Keira, and the type of person you are at your core etc. 'Companion or competitor?

 
 
Being competitive does not mean one has to kill the opposition; does it?
 
k

quote:

ORIGINAL: charmdpetKeira

thompsonx,
 

quote:


Assuming we know the motives of others is a dangerous game; isn’t it?
I have made no assumptions.  If you took that from my statement then please disabuse yourself of that notion.  An example of what I was talking about might be found in the autobiography of Andrew Carnegie in the matter of the crushing of the steel workers union.  It was done not so that Carnegie could have more but so that the steel workers should have less.

 
 
Perhaps I am still having problems with a terminology deficit :)
 
What I’m saying goes along with what NorthernGent said about conditioning, behind most actions there is some sort of emotional motivation that the result of said action, is meant to satisfy. When there is more then one person involved, they may all be doing the same action, hoping for the same result, but chances are; there are many different emotional motivators.
 
I believe, the emotional motivators tend to be the more important issue, because they are the core of justification. If we keep ignoring the fact, people are emotionally motivated, it is doubtful the activities we believe to be wrong, will stop.
I am in agreement with this.  I believe that those who act in this fashion do as a result of conditioning and not some inherent aspect of "human nature"
 

quote:


quote:


charmdpetKeira:

There are those among us (the majority) who lack the courage to face another for the purpose of mortal combat but they will elect those who likewise lack that courage to hire proxies who will.  This does not make the cowardly less culpable.
Thompson



Speaking for myself here; please don’t mistake a lack of willingness to “kill first, ask questions later”, as cowardly.

I am quite capable of fighting my own battles, so the dilemma for me does not lay in a lack of capability, but more a lack of necessity. Common sense tells me, I can kill those who cause problems for me, but as soon as I do; someone new will be lining up to take their place.

Once again I have been unclear in my meaning.  I was referring to war. 

I understand, and urge you to consider; passive does not equate to “cowardly”. 
My point was and is that those who encourage war by voting for those politicians who will wage war are just as culpable.  If they had to go and do the bleeding and the dying they might not be so willing to vote for a politician who was in favor of war.  As long as it is someone else's blood it is OK but they are too cowardly to shed their own.
 
Also, the phrase “It takes a village”. The reason it takes a village is because everybody has a different job all working toward the same goal. If everyone was meant for mortal combat, who would do the other jobs? Otherwise, it seems to me, we would all be nomads running around the planet killing everyone else off.
 
Sincerely,
 
k