From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Wed Aug 28 2002 - 11:56:55 MDT
On 27 Aug 2002 at 0:06, Archibald Scatflinger wrote:
>
>
> I'm curious. Now I already realize that you™re a sucker for propaganda
>
This from the dewde who posts the most outlandish conspiracy theories
since the one about Elvis and the Space Men.
>
> but do you honestly believe that something beneficial can come from
> acts of violence.
>
If it forfends greater acts of violence such as nuclear detonations in
major cities, yes.
>
> When someone is making you feel threatened for some
> reason is it better to hit them in the face and hope that they will
> stop threatening you after that or is it better to approach the person
> and ask them nicely and openly what the disagreement is based on and
> why they feel the need to threaten you. Do we learn faster from honest
> appraisal of our situation or do we learn faster by perpetuating
> mindless acts of hate and separatism.
>
Saddam Hussein has historically viewed such dialoges as what they in
fact are, signs of weakness to be exploited. That is an honest
appraisal.
>
> We live in a very delicately balanced biosystem and it is fucking
> amazing that the balance that allows us to stay alive has remained
> balanced for so long. If we care about the survival of our or any
> species on this planet we need to learn everything we can about how
> the ecosystems work and how we can do our part to maintain symbiosis
> with the Earth. Some how I don™t think mindless and petty things like
> some ego-tripper coke head assholes, which get off by seeking the
> illusion of control, starting a war is going to make the world any
> more pleasant and livable for peaceful sentient beings, do you?
>
That "ego-tripper coke head asshole", as you so colorfully put it, and his
advisors, are pursuing the prudent policy in this dangerous new post-
9/11 world, concerning (my turn to get colorful) an own-people-and-
neighboring-people-gassing, sovereign-country-invading, attempted-
former-president-assassinating, Saladin-self-styling, Jew-and-
American-hating, suicide-terrorist-family-bounty-paying, weapons-of-
mass-production-pursuing maniac.
>
> I think it will be fucking amazing if the Earth can continue supporting
> life for 50 more years at the rate that mindless consumer culture
> pollutes and destroys the balance even without the added chaos and
> destruction of war. If we don™t evolve a huge amount as a species
> almost immediately then it won't matter what any of us think about
> super chimp or any other political idiot because there will be no
> chance for any of us to survive.
>
We do need to do much more concerning the environment, and
elimination of aggrandizing tyrants such as Saddam will allow us to free
and concentrate more resources on just such things. Ignoring him until
he becomes a much more catastrophic threat and commits devastating
strikes will end up costing not only many more lives, but also many
more resources - and the radiation poisoning of vast tracts of a finite
sphere.
>
> Did you know that almost a quarter million acres of forest are cut
> down a day?
>
> Rainforest destruction is currently estimated at 78 million acres per
> year - an area larger than Poland. That translates to about 214,000
> acres per day or an area larger than New York City. Learning to
> respect the value of these vital forest resources is an important life
> lesson for future generations.
> http://www.getf.org/millennium/deforest.html
>
No disagreement.
>
> Do you honestly believe that we should focus on building bombs and
> guns and pay people to learn how to use these guns when we don™t even
> know how to operate the planet we live on? Which do you think is truly
> more pressing as far as long term human survival is concerned?
>
Getting rid of people who would explode nukes in that frangible
environment before they can do so seems pretty damn pressing to me.
>
> Which do you think requires more talent and skill and thought?
> (Since you seem like the macho type)
>
> 1. Killing living things
>
> 2. Creating and maintaining life
>
Sometimes these are not opposed. Would you use the same
arguments to oppose taking out Hitler in 1939?
>
> If you were in a space shuttle orbiting Earth and you got in a
> disagreement with another passenger would you plant explosives in
> their room hoping that it would solve the problem while simultaneously
> risking damaging the spaceship beyond its ability to support life? Do
> you think it would help?
>
No, but if there were six billion passengers on the spaceship and one
was attempting to obtain nukes and had already gassed a lot of people,
conventionally preventing such a person from being in a position to
obtain those nukes would seem to be the prudent course.
>
> I am just curious
>
You are VERY curious, not to mention strange..
>
> Archibald
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:55 MDT