Here we go..

E and I actually discussed this today. Let me reiterate (sp?)..

George Bush did the people of Iraq an enormous favour. He gave the opportunity for their thoughts to be free and their souls to be free. That was wonderful, and it is for that sole reason that I semi-supported the war. However, I do not think that it was the best way to have reached this goal. Although the Iraqi people are now able to express themselves openly, their country was in utter chaos for a while after Suddam's reign collapsed. People exploded into rebellious rampages and their individual disciplinary control virtually evaporated. If the main goal of Bush was to "free the people", he would have done so in a more orderly fashion instead of rushing to the job. Sure, Suddam had 12 years to disarm, but did he ever put pressure? Did he ever give that bastard dictator a reason to within those 12 years? HELL NAW. So this argument is purely invalid.

Okay, I'm running out of steam... *breathes*...

We're all selfish bastards. I don't back down from that opinion, because it's evidently a part of our human nature, and is thus true. It just all depends on the extent of our selfishness. I'll have to say that politicians and especially Bush are higher in the spectrum of selfishness, but whatever. My point now is, we have the right to criticize Bush for his stupidity, yet we can't go about it blindly. Everyone said that war was wrong, but they never gave a valid reason for it in this particular situation.

Example.
I remember seeing a clip of a woman saying, "I don't see how dropping bombs on innocent children will bring about peace." OKAY LADY, CALM YOURSELF AND THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. The war wasn't a war for peace, first of all. No one ever said it was. It was a war that was generally understood to be one to free the people of Iraq from the fear of their nasty, degrading, disgusting, and dehumanizing dictator. And the bombs weren't dropped on innocent children. They were dropped on landmarks that were suspected to be Suddam's hideouts. Children weren't exactly living next door of these buildings. If ever there were child casualties, they were accidents. This always happens in a war (which is why I don't like the idea, but that's another opinion altogether); it is unpreventable.

Think of it this way. To bring about revolution, someone's going to have to suffer. Take the double-cohort for example. To bring about a postivie change with the education system, my grade along with the OAC's had to suffer. We were the guinea pigs. However, the year after us and the years to come will have no problem. You see what I mean now? In order to bring about good, often pain has to be inflicted somewhere. In war, the unfortunate fact is that pain will be brought about the lives of people an their families, but in the future, the people of Iraq will have the chance to build better lives for themselves.

Alright, now I'm REALLY running out of steam.. *closes eyes and relaxes*

I'll write more later. Maybe then my thoughts will be more organized.

p.s: PEOPLE! Don't always wait for me to start debates; if you have a thought, don't hesitate to bring it up.

  posted by MsKarenAu @ 1:43 AM

 
OooooOOOOoooooo. This one is good.
We consume because we can. We have the money to do so.
Would most of us give up our current living standards to live in a garbage bag tent in order to eliminate AIDS in Africa? and if we did donate monies to the needy how would it get there? By a corrupt government that would expolit the people with our funds. Additionally, who is to say that a foreign body should interfere with an already established pupulation of people?
This is between the people:
Should the Nazis have killed the Jews for the sake of making Germany rise out of a depression?
Should the Gorrillas go against government for the sake of their beliefs being heard?
If that was controversial, globalization has made it international and pumped up the screaming:
Should the US eliminate a foreign regime on the grounds that it is "corrupt" and the country is a huge oil well?
It did, the country is now worse than before with the US leaving it with its issues, death and crime is through the roof. Butthead Bush: you started it, you got to the middle of it, it's not over, make things better. You said you would didn't you? Know is the time to make an overkill of your brilliant plan that you had planned out with Blair all along. You got the oil, know take the people under your wing.

"Babies and young'ns die every single mudder fukkin day by OUR HANDS cuz we're all too selfish to give up our wealth to feed them."
In the developed countries people more people die due to long line ups in the hospital than on the street.
In starving countries of poverty and war, they're being done a favor and/or help is being offered. However, too often governments reject, funds are limited, Dalton's Theory of Selection, disease, and a revolution are powers that need more than money to control.

"Half of them couldn't even explain why they thought war was wrong in this situation in the first place. Damn, if we were so concerned with the well-being of all those thousands and thousands of innocent people, we would get off our asses and donate half our salary to them until they can get back on their feet. But no. We're all selfish bastards."
I don't believe in war because it is a movement that uses a basis of physical force to try to get people to do what the stronger power wants. It is a threat. It is an exercise of an ethnic cleansing. Beliefs are argued. Priorities are incoherant. Who is to say that poverty is a priority when they're fighting a war that takes millions of dollars a day and trying to not get shot? Would they buy food on the street if they could?
If we did donate money, whose hands would it end up in?
The UN: to buy ammo to stop the killing
The Amnesty: 30% to the people who need it, the rest to the management in between
People do shit. But how much is actually done for the goal?
Also, most are internal issue where governments disallow foreign influence.
Who is to say that it is in our power to cease a country's practice?
Don't mess with other people's family issues.
Poverty, is such. We can offer counciling but they won't take it if they don't want it.
Sure, we could make a difference but, it takes more than cash and a good heart. It takes the majority and cooperation.


  posted by E.C.tasy @ 5:15 AM

 
I posted this entry in my own blog earlier last week and I find that people should be replying to this stance, so here I go again..

I was looking over some statistics on poverty, about how our developed countries consume about 86% of the world's resources, while the poor countries consume the rest. How sad is that?

Let me give you something to think about. This gets me so fukkin pissed off at anti-war feinds..

Who are we to accuse the United States for bombing Iraq and killing all those innocent children? Babies and young'ns die every single mudder fukkin day by OUR HANDS cuz we're all too selfish to give up our wealth to feed them.

We're all a bunch of hypocrites.

Honestly, the only reason why so many people responded so strongly was because "war is wrong" seems to be the thing to say nowadays. Peace nuts are taking over, I swear. Half of them couldn't even explain why they thought war was wrong in this situation in the first place. Damn, if we were so concerned with the well-being of all those thousands and thousands of innocent people, we would get off our asses and donate half our salary to them until they can get back on their feet. But no. We're all selfish bastards.

So much for George Bush being selfish.

Contradictions, anyone?

  posted by MsKarenAu @ 2:07 AM

 
I might have overstated my case a little. I admit that IF a boy, in case given example, was put in a world of hostility ALL his life, then it is not entirely his fault for turning out evil. Why? Because in his case, he was NEVER given the chance and/or knowledge of what "right" even was. If, from birth, you were never taught what the "right" thing to do was, then of cousre, you cannot be entirely expected to uphold it. However, as soon as you are taught the being "right" is "right" if that makes any sense, then it becomes more of your responsibility to uphold that because you know what it means and why you should gear your perspective towards it.

  posted by JW @ 10:10 PM

 
Attitiude towards life depends on your current emotions.

For example:
a) Kill me now.
b) Why does stuff always happen to me?
c) I wish i was somewhere else.
d) Life isn't fair.

Are you pissed or happy? That can determine your perspective.
Other factors:
A) education
Are you scientific? It's the life cycle. You're born, you die. Be comfortable with money in between.
B) religion
If you're good now you'll go to a better life later
C) Influences
I'm happy when i'm drunk. I'll keep living to get drunk.
My friends' and familes' purpose is so, so i will follow as is.

Life is debatable. Entertainment by time? Your attitude towrds life is determined by external influences and self-development. It's everything and everybody's fault including your own.


  posted by E.C.tasy @ 2:12 PM

 
First and foremost, I want so say that I like the idea of choosing our attitudes towards life. I have nothing against it, except for the fact that I believe this is not entirely true.

Once again, firstly, our genes dictate the basis of our attitudes. You can observe this in the behavior of a fetus; he/she can either kick the mother and roll around her womb restlessly, or he/she can lie there, quietly, restfully, and at peace with his/her position. This is all genetic; no environmental factors effects this, for the baby isn't even born yet.

The nurturing of a child is secondary to his/her development of character. Now with Jon's example of Prince Louis, was this prince born with this attitude, or was he trained to think with such dignity? What has allowed him to be such a strong person within himself?

This then leads to my Star Trek example. The commander's life was far easier than that of his clone. They share the same genes, and so, if the commander had been put through the same pain and the same upbringing, would he have ended up as destructive as his clone? Is it really the clone's fault that he's not as positively in tune as the commander is?

Probably not. Perhaps, genetically, his capabilities to teach himself to be optimistic and flexible was just never there. They needed positive reinforcement to be developed successfully, and unlike the commander, the clone never had that. He was never conditioned, as a human being, to better himself.

I hate this existentialist-like thought. Anyone out there who can argue against it?

  posted by MsKarenAu @ 3:59 PM

 
No one's saying anything.

  posted by MsKarenAu @ 3:36 PM

 
Ok, so aparently I misread the question, and brought up an ENTIRELY different point, but in the end I think they are interdependant

Morals are what causes us to be the way we are, they are our boundaries for actions, they are our guidelines in life. What I was trying to say is that our guidelines are strictly our own, and nobody else can control them. I agree with Jonothan when he says we are who we are, and we are nobody else, nothing anyone can do to change who we are unless we allow them to. There is no way to destroy a will, except by the will of the willingless, or in other words, the only people who can be changed by that which surrounds them, are those that truly do not care about who they are.

I decided, instead of answering the question, I would propose a posibility of there being both nature AND nurture personalities, those who are strong willed are who they are no matter what everyone else thinks, and those that are not, are just "social chamelions" as I like to call them.

  posted by Anonymous @ 11:16 PM

 
When it all comes right down to it, your attitude towards life if almost entirely your fault. Yes, you are influenced by society around you but you are in control of your perspective and how you'd like to look at things. Sure it's near impossible to go against all of society, but if you hold strongly enough to your principles, it's possible. Permit me to post a story that might show my point better.

King Louis had been taken from his throne and imprisoned. His young son, the prince was taken by those who dethroned the king. They thought that inasmuch as the king's son was heir to the throne, if they could destroy him morally, he would never realize the great and grand destiny that life had bestowed on him.

They took him to a community far away, and there they exposed the lad to every filthy and vile thing that life could offer. They exposed him to foods the richness of which would quickly make him a slave to appetite. They used vile language around him constantly. They exposed him to lewd and lusty women. They exposed him to dishonor and distrust. He was surrounded 24 hours a day by everything that could drag a soul of a man as low as one could slip. For over 6 months he had this treatment - but not once did the young lad buckle under pressure. Finally, after intensive temptation, they questioned him. Why had he not submitted himself to these things - why had he not partaken? These things would provide pleasure, satisfy his lusts, and were desirable; they were all his. The boy said, "I cannot do what you ask for I was born to be a king."

So in essence, Prince Louis held that perspective of himself so tightly that nothing could shake him. My point remains that our attitudes in life are almost entirely our fault, despite whatever environment we've been brung up in. It depends on perspective and willpower.

  posted by JW @ 11:07 PM

 
good job Dave.. but you still didn't answer my question.

Is our attitude towards life entirely our fault, or is it solely based on the environment of our upbringing?

Let's hear the responses, people!

  posted by MsKarenAu @ 10:49 PM

 
Ok, I am off to a good start here, I already have something to say

We are all innocent
OLP is THE best band ever, and thats a really true message

if you go to my blog you will see that I already describe how a serial killer can be a moral person

Morals are based on individual things, in war its ok to kill, but in cold blood it is not, whats the difference? The difference is public opinion, if the general public agrees with what you are doing, its OK to do, and in reality, this system works, the general public isnt going to let you butcher them(lets put aside fascists for now). In the end the only real thing that keeps us from acting in certain ways is ourselves, so you can stand to reason that there is no such thing as "good" and "bad" its all just conformity

READ MY BLOG FOR A FULL EXPLANATION, im tired and didnt feel like getting too far into this

  posted by Anonymous @ 9:05 PM

 
Ok, my name is Dave, you more than likely don't know me, I actually only just started talking to kay yesterday, and she told me about this whole blogger thing, and I have my own blog now Here. and she invited me to be a part of this debating dealie, it looks pretty cool... I hope I can piss a few people off and get pissed off when my ideas get shut down

dave...

  posted by Anonymous @ 8:57 PM

 
"We are all innocent." - OLP

Is this true? Is a person's character completely under his or her own control?
If any of you have seen the Star Trek movie, you would now know what I'm talking about, but for the rest of you, I'll explain.

What happened was, many many years ago, they cloned the commander for a take-over mission of the commander's ship. They abandoned the plan, however, and sent the little clone boy to a destructive planet where they thought they would get rid of him for good, for the torture there was horrendous. He survived, however, but under terribly harsh conditions. The race of the most destructive warriors took care of him and taught him their violent ways of handling problems.

When this little boy was twenty, he finally got the chance to meet the commander, of whom he is the clone. Of course, because of their completely different growing/living conditions, they grew up to be completely different people with different values and different ambitions. While the commander strives for peace and strives to keep the universe in equilibrium, the clone wishes to take over, galaxy by galaxy.

Now, these people have the same genes, but they are two extremely different characters. One is good, and in a sense, the other is evil and destructive. Is it really his fault that he is that way? What if the commander were placed in the same situation as the clone. Would he be like the clone too?

I hope my question is clear.
Let's see your thoughts, people. =)

  posted by MsKarenAu @ 1:14 AM

 
In other words, don't be co-dependant.

  posted by JW @ 11:13 PM

 
Why be dependent on somebody else when you can be independent?
I know it sounds selfish and all but really, in the end, everybody is for themselves. You live your life and others live their own. If you spend all your time being accepted, don't you lose track of yourself. If you spend time with everyone else, where is your time? Time to do homework, chillax, or think? Will you melt in with the rest of the crowd? Will you stand for your own and know what you are for? Will you be there for anyone at any time? Do u do things for yourself or do you morph yourself for others? Do you know what you want? Do you know what you have? It's important to be there for other people and be a wycked friend that they can look to no matter what. They respect you and you respect them. But what are they to respect if you don't know your own?
"If who u are is what you have and what you have is gone, than who are you?"
It is so few that stay friends. Too many times, too many let go of friendships. Hardships really. You do not stand alone, but are u an individual?

  posted by E.C.tasy @ 6:18 PM