War
People like to blame war on religion, race, and culture. In reality war is caused by money. War occurs when the cost to kill your neighbour is cheaper than the cost to buy what you want from them.
Are there really inalienable rights that human beings have? If you do not have the money to defend your freedom, does it really deserve to be yours? If we define money as value, then if you provide little value to your society do you deserve to exist at the expense of taking away value from other cultures?
Society often defines “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as inalienable rights. That is fine, but if you ask 100 random people accross the world you will get 100 different definitions for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Is driving your pick up truck considered a liberty and pursuit of happiness when the cost to get the oil includes so much damage to the environment and bloodshed? These inalienable rights are open-ended generalizations that only have meaning to the culture defining them.
To understand the cause of war we need to calculate the expense of a life. Again it goes back to money. The cost depends on your ability to defend what you have that is valuable to others. If you own nothing of value, then no one is going to bother you. Think of a cow. Most of us do not think twice about the enormous pain and suffering we have put dozens (hundreds?) of cows through only because they provide value. Since the cow can not defend it’s own value, it is killed and consumed.
The same extension applies to humans. Those cultures that provide value to others, like mid-east, have to be able to defend themselves . Otherwise human beings do not think twice about committing genocide so they can continue their “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. If you and I don’t have “feelings” for cows, why should we have feelings for humans that cause us more harm by not allowing us to be free? In fact people often feel more anger for humans since they are capable of reason, but do not use it. It’s not the cows fault it had to be killed, but it is the human’s fault for being killed.
I do not know who is right or wrong, but these are just some ideas you won’t ever hear on TV, but really explain the heart of the matter. Freedom is all in the eye of the beholder. To put it another way, “One man’s genocide is another man’s freedom fight “.
It’s conclusion, everything is relative and needs to be judged from the perspective of those it affects. Those with more money (value) will always control those with less value. This is a fact that history has taught us for thousands of years.
War
People like to blame war on religion, race, and culture. In reality war is caused by money. War occurs when the cost to kill your neighbour is cheaper than the cost to buy what you want from them.
Are there really inalienable rights that human beings have? If you do not have the money to defend your freedom, does it really deserve to be yours? If we define money as value, then if you provide little value to your society do you deserve to exist at the expense of taking away value from other cultures?
Society often defines “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as inalienable rights. That is fine, but if you ask 100 random people accross the world you will get 100 different definitions for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Is driving your pick up truck considered a liberty and pursuit of happiness when the cost to get the oil includes so much damage to the environment and bloodshed? These inalienable rights are open-ended generalizations that only have meaning to the culture defining them.
To understand the cause of war we need to calculate the expense of a life. Again it goes back to money. The cost depends on your ability to defend what you have that is valuable to others. If you own nothing of value, then no one is going to bother you. Think of a cow. Most of us do not think twice about the enormous pain and suffering we have put dozens (hundreds?) of cows through only because they provide value. Since the cow can not defend it’s own value, it is killed and consumed.
The same extension applies to humans. Those cultures that provide value to others, like mid-east, have to be able to defend themselves . Otherwise human beings do not think twice about committing genocide so they can continue their “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. If you and I don’t have “feelings” for cows, why should we have feelings for humans that cause us more harm by not allowing us to be free? In fact people often feel more anger for humans since they are capable of reason, but do not use it. It’s not the cows fault it had to be killed, but it is the human’s fault for being killed.
I do not know who is right or wrong, but these are just some ideas you won’t ever hear on TV, but really explain the heart of the matter. Freedom is all in the eye of the beholder. To put it another way, “One man’s genocide is another man’s freedom fight “.
It’s conclusion, everything is relative and needs to be judged from the perspective of those it affects. Those with more money (value) will always control those with less value. This is a fact that history has taught us for thousands of years.
The democratic paradox
| Liberal democracy is a fusion of two logics; the democratic, which values popular sovereignty and the liberal, which values individual rights and securities. There is no way to guarantee that decisions reached through democratic procedures will not put individuals rights and securities under threat. Hence it’s a necessary feature of liberal democracy that it’s held to be legitimate to establish limits to popular sovereignty in the name of protecting liberty.
The tension between liberal and democratic logics is ever-present but it’s irreconcilable. Some contingent articulations of liberal democratic values can deal with the tension in ways which are contingently more effective than others. The tension can be provisionally stabilised but it can never be overcome. Leaving this antagonism unrecognised obscures the fundamentally conflictual nature of democratic politics. Focusing on the possibility of rationally grounded consensus—as is the aim of Rawls and other deliberative democrats—hides the fact that such a consensus is a temporary hegemony; an expression of liberal dominance. The democratic paradox is at the heart of liberal democracy and any political discourse which ignores it is deeply flawed. |
Sex
Throughout history there have been various attitudes on sex, one of the pre-dominant ones is that it’s wrong or bad, especially if done in the wrong context, e.g. infidelity, homozexuality, etc. Another view is that it’s a very holy, sacred event between two people.
My question is: why is there such a hang-up about sex? It’s just another human behaviour. Ok, it’s immensely pleasurable but eating and drinking can be immensely pleasurable if done in a certain way, same can be said for sleeping, why aren’t they made into sacred events or condemned as immoral? Opinions, please.
Too young
Recently, a young man of 18 was placed in prison for 3 years for sexually assaulting his girlfriend, who is 16. Throughout the case, the young man vehemently expressed his love for his girlfriend and his firm belief that their relationship was morally justifiable. Furthermore, the prosecution clearly stated that the girl had never claimed to be raped, rather that their sexual contact had been consensual. Most of the evidence produced in this case was provided by the parents of the alleged victim. My quandry is this: was the court justified in convicting an 18 year old boy, who had shown nothing other than love and care for his girlfriend, for sexual assault? Can our justice system tell people, regardless of age, who they can and cannot love? Or was this boy only acting in accordance to his own moral belief and his love for his girlfriend wrongfully accused and sentenced? If he was morally justified in his actions, then what age is too young? Where do we draw the line for love and age?
Thoughts and criticisms appreciated.
Why do women want a career?
Welcome back
Thank you all for your patience. After numerous attempts we finally managed to create te blog. I will be moderating your comments and I am also assuming responsability for all you have to say. You will have complete freedom of speech.
I hope that you will concentrate on writing in an original manner and will not post any comments that do not belong to you.
Enjoy!
