ScaupHunter wrote:Glimmerjim wrote:blackduckdog2 wrote:ScaupHunter wrote:He is trying to enage you on the ideas that we are all morally and emotionally damaged by the destruction of another life. Toss in the demeaning of a human being through exectution and the deeper statement that makes about our society as a whole. Then you need to dig into the personal gratification and vengeance effect. Which involves a segment of our society that would thrive on and enjoy commercializing it and allowing those who enjoy that type of thing to watch.
What he seem to really be saying is that he doesn't agree with us being "barbarians" and wants you to consider the higher issues. All the time denying that humans are barbarians and the veneer of civilization is thin. New Orleans after Katrina is an excellent example.
That's not bad..... Keeping in mind that I am personally OK with capital punishment as long as I get to be judge, jury and executioner. And that thin as the veneer of civilization may be, it's all we've got, and worth protecting
Extrapolating from the concept that the civilized aspect of society is a thin veneer, do we want to continue to shave that veneer down until it first becomes translucent, then clearly transparent? Or would it benefit us to continue to do that which adds solidity to that veneer? Makes it stronger and more intrinsic to the society it coats? Transform it from a facade, to a veneer, to a core substance? If you take a thin veneer of gold to a medallion of tin, it looks better for a bit but the appearance fades quickly and has no staying power. Plus, everyone with familiarity in the products realizes that it is a thin veneer over a cheap, shoddy core. If, however, layer upon layer of gold is layed upon that cheap core, at some point the core becomes meaningless, and the value resides in the gold in which the "basic inner core" is irrelevant to the value of the item as a whole. A complete transformation in the quality of the item has occured, but the inner core remains the same. It has simply become irrelevant, and is only exposed when there is a serious rending of the entire item. So, given a choice, do we strive to take those items with a thin veneer and dispose of them as a cheap product, or do we do that which subtly, slowly and unnoticeably increases the value until the difference between it and an item of pure gold is for the most part meaningless?
You want to put lipstick on the pig? As an engineer and a blacksmith I would never start with a crappy piece of steel or inferior product and then try and coat it enough to make it work. Laying coatings of gold over a tin core is not making it better. It just creates the opportunity for the opportunistic human nature to rear up and try and sell that piece as all gold by weight. Putting lipstick on the pig is going to fix anything. It only make things worse.
We all know the veneer of civilization is very thin. Humans are predators. We have two sharp teeth in the front of our mouths for a reason. We hunt, kill, and destroy our own kind and all other creatures with abandon. The people who are to afraid or incapable of taking care of themselve run and hide behind that thin veneer. they grasp onto it like a life buoy from a sinking ship. Others use it to try and feel superior or enlightened. Others use it as a bludgeon to force their agendas onto others. None of it changes the core of humanity or our nature. We are neither good nor evil by nature. We are predators that hunt and kill for our food and fight for survival by nature. Being a higher thinking animal does not change our biology. Nor does trying to feel superior or hiding behind others skirts. If you truly want to be free you have to be willing to risk, dare, and take the chances that life brings. Freedom is not a nanny government state. It is the right and ability to make your own decisions and live your life as you wish so long as you bring no harm to others.
We argue about the higher and greater good here from time to time. Guess what, both sides want the greater good for humanity . One side sees murdering unborn children and protecting murderers as a viable definition of that greater good. The other side sees protecting unborn children and killing murderers as the greater good. These are generalizations, but they fit the liberal / conservative arguments nicely. There is simply no supportable evidence that allowing abortions, and protecting criminals has enhanced our society in any way. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. What with ridiculous incarceration rates in the US. Rampant crime, in small condensed areas of the nation ( liberal strongholds, one and all ), and ridiculous stats like 70% of black children are born out of wedlock, etc....... That is what the veneer of civilization buys you. Eventually when a society denies it's nature and allows the resolve and moral center of its society to die, that society dies with it.
America became great and a world power by kicking the crap out of our enemies. Every great power and great nation in the world has become great through the exact same method. It is simply human nature. I challenge our liberal brothers here to name one great nation that has not risen on the power at the tip of the spear, sword, or gun. There are quite simply none in the worlds history. After working on that, I challenge them to name one nation that reached the point the US is in economically, physically, morally, and as a society and survived. The liberal agenda no matter how hard you believe it is one of defeat and despotism. It always has been and always will be. Why? Because it simply has to force everyone to comply or it will never work. Despite the fact that it never works and never has. History writes the story over, and over, and over, yet modern liberals think they can make the story change.
I am not saying to throw away the veneer of civilization. I am saying we need to grasp the reality of our nature as humans. We need to stop with all the babysitting and crying over bad behavior while excusing it at every turn. Instead of protecting everyone from everything, use the law to remove criminals from the system permanently. Actually protect society instead of people who have proven by their own choices and acts they don't belong in society. Allow each citizen to earn their own rewards and consequences. That is what freedom is all about.
Wow, that is some seriously self-righteous bullshit, Scaup. I used to crank that kind of stuff up in high school when I didn't have anything to say on the essay tests……….look, you sort of caught on to what I was saying earlier when I alluded to (in a thread about Christianity) the twin issues of forgiveness and vengeance (let's add a third, OK? Redemption. 'Tis the season and all that) Let's actually discuss that instead of playing this stupid pigeon-hole-the-liberal game. I said (and you clearly understood, even if Spinner did not) that there are damages to the human soul (don't go all TomKat on me and start screaming that I have no right to the term "soul" because I don't go to church) I think you see the potential for danger there as well as I do, although I wasn't so much speaking to a devolving civilization as I was a personal evolution. Like I said, Jesus did not subvert the law (except when he wouldn't join in stoning the adulteress) but he insisted that everyone who DID want to first undergo a little introspection. He spoke over and over about forgiveness, but I think it's pretty clear that he did not intend criminals to go unpunished. Those words of wisdom, I think, were meant for the punishers, NOT the punished. They were a warning about what can happen to the soul, as an individual or as a community, when it fails to grasp the dark side of putting oneself in a position of supreme power over another of God's children. Personally, I'm good with capital punishment, except I don't trust anyone (certainly not the government) with coordinating the effort. So I'm never likely to vote to support it, because somehow the bills are not likely to stipulate BDD2 as judge, jury and executioner.
Now I'll finish with another jab at you (that's called thematic unity) At least the ideas I'm throwing out there are original, and they are very germane to the subject at hand. Yours were subject appropriate, but you just ain't bringing anything to the table. I wish you would, because every now and then you shock me with your ability to think clearly and subjectively. Much as the engineers want to rail against the notion, it CAN be done. It must be done, in fact, because civilization does not proceed by calculus alone