We succeed only as we identify in life, or in war, or in anything else, a single overriding objective, and make all other considerations bend to that one objective.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower, speech, April 2, 1957
I wonder if that's true?
It surely feels true. It feels really nice to have your life all orderly like that.
But I wonder: are we really likely to have such great insight that we with certainly can select the singly most important thing in our lives?
Also I don't like the term "bend to". I would have used "arrange around" or "support". "Bend to" sounds like everything else is sacrificed for the one objective. It sounds very much like warrior-thinking. And warrior-thinking is unhealthy, is my viewpoint. If you think like a soldier, you will be surrounded by enemies.
38 comments:
Warrior thinking can be positive under many circumstances. I'm living proof. I think like an old warrior yet I cannot say I've any enemies to speak of, nor do I feel an incessant need to hate anyone or bend anything to my will.
The best warriors understand force is not a good tactic. Brute force will never win over a good strategy, and strategic force isn't nearly as effective as strategies that use their opponent's own force against them. If you wish, it's even possible to come out of a fight without permanently injuring someone. Instead you conserve your energy and let them wear themselves out to the point where they can no longer fight.
Bloodthirsty, brainless brutes have no place on the battlefield. They have no idea what their path is truly about. Warriors discipline themselves, they hone their will, they become unshakable in their convictions, they hold respect not only for their blades and their brothers but also their opponents whom they recognize as human beings no different than they are. Being a warrior has nothing to do with shedding blood. It is about mastering yourself.
At least this is how I see it. Perhaps it is simply a lie I must believe so I can accept the warrior in me without condemnation. I did not wish to accept the blade as one of my personal symbols when I realized the spirit of a warrior dwells in me. I rejected it for the very reasons listed in the blog post. Interestingly enough I became calmer, peaceful, and more focused when I embraced it, realizing the ideals of the path could be upheld without the bloodshed. (Whether it's metaphorical or literal.) That's why I chose this moniker. The warrior need not fight, even for peace. He need only live free as his heart decides.
Well, you have posed the core question and problem that is at heart in essentially all texts about success. It certainly is flattering that if 4000 years of success literature has not been able to adequately answer it, you still have faith in us humble readers of your blog to do so! :-)
Personally, I believe Eisenhower was right. But this statement of his, at least by itself, is superficial. For there are two issues inherently connected to the problem:
1. choosing your objective, and
2. knowing when to switch, either temporarily for crucial support tasks, or permanently when you discover you've made a mistake in #1.
And these two make all the difference. Hence the need for 4000 years of treatises of this problem. (But when I release my book, this thousand-year-old tradition can finally stop. ;-)
I agree with Peaceful Blade regarding warrior thinking. The concept of a warrior, at its deepest, is philosophical. Ultimately the only enemy you have is yourself. And some of the advanced concepts about war strategy are an interesting way of conceptualising your inner battles.
(I haven't seen anyone create battle layouts of their "personal war theatre", but I would be the last one to mock someone for doing so.)
Many of the eastern marshal arts texts, of course, cover this beautifully. But for a more western treatise, I recommend The War of Art by Steven Pressfield. It's about the internal battle with "resistance" in creative work. Or, in fact, getting anything at all completed.
You can *make* a philosophical concept out of anything, but in normal conversation, it means what it means.
war·ri·or (wôr'ē-ər, wŏr'-)
n.
One who is engaged in or experienced in battle.
One who is engaged aggressively or energetically in an activity, cause, or conflict: neighborhood warriors fighting against developers.
Depends on what he meant by "succeed." I'm personally not capable of such monocularity of vision.
Eolake said: "... in normal conversation, it means what it means"
You are right. And I for one am not at odds with the above quoted meaning(s). You do not need to discard the everyday meaning in order to read more into the concept.
For example, some of us see the idea of war happening against other people as a logical fallacy.
If you accept that everything in your life experience is a result of your choices, and that through your choices you direct 100% of how your future unfolds, it follows that you can not truly ever be against anyone, except perhaps yourself.
Sure, every war needs actors for the enemy role (this is how the everyday meaning of the word continues to hold true), but through your choices you get to be the casting director.
So the "true battle", if there is one, happens within you.
Of course, if you do not accept Total Personal Responsibility as a correct interpretation for the nature of your reality, the above does apply.
Final Identity: By "success" I am referring to having your life pan out the way you want it to. Or simply, happiness.
You guys are a bunch of weak nerds.
Yeah, and proud of it too.
By "success", probably Eisenhower meant things like "to win a war" or "to become president".
Eolake clarified: By "success", probably Eisenhower meant things like "to win a war" or "to become president".
Yes, almost certainly those very things. But it shouldn't really matter what it is, as it's different for everyone of us anyway.
All that matters is that you know what you want. I.e. what success means specifically to you.
The Abraham Hicks material goes into lenghty discussions about the concept of wanting, and how it affects your outcomes.
It matters insofar as to avoid confusion. If you're talking about success as you mean it, and I'm talking about what Eisenhower meant, then we're talking past each other.
Ok, your right. I was trying to generalise.
If you think like a soldier, you will be surrounded by enemies.
I must agree with you Sire. It makes sense to me. My last resort is force after all reasoning has disappeared. Then I am hestitant to use it but I have before.
I think the greatest power is having it but restraining from using it. To me, that's awesome power.
No prob, I'm certainly guilty of that myself! In fact it might be worse than my coffee habit.
The warrior need not fight, even for peace.
Here you are not correct. History teaches that often one "must" engage in battle to obtain peace. It's been proven throughout history. But if "peace" can be obtained without the shedding of blood, I'm all for it. War should be the last option.
Yeah, and proud of it too.
You like not getting laid?
"You guys are a bunch of weak nerds."
This reminds me of a song from the greatest prophet of our time, Weird Al Yankovic:
We're dangerous dudes, we got bad attitudes
Most of our brain cells are gone
We were born to be bad, you better not get us mad
Or we just might toilet paper your lawn
We got a reputation 'round these parts
We only leave a ten percent tip
Sometimes we don't return our shoping carts
Stay out of our way and don't you give us no lip
'Cause we're young... dumb and ugly
That's what we are
We're so young... young, dumb and ugly
We wear black leather in the hottest weather
You can't imagine the smell
We got three-day stubble, our names spell trouble
T-R-U-B-E-L
Reaisin' hell, bendin' the rules just a little
We're livin' only for thrills
We squeeze our tooothpaste tubes from the middle
And wait until the last minute to pay our telephone bills
'Cause we're young... dumb and ugly
You better believe it
We're young... young, dumb and ugly
I'll tell you again
We're so young... young, dumb and ugly
We're comin' to your town
Yeah, we're young... young, dumb and ugly
We're wild, reckless men, we're on a rampage again
We drive with just one hand on the wheel
Danger's in our soul, we're goin' out of control
Swimmin' right after a big heavy meal
We're there wherever trouble's starting
We're rebels without a clue
We drink milk right from the carton
And keep our library books 'till they're way overdue
'Cause we're young... dumb and ugly
That's what we are
We're so young... young, dumb and ugly
You can't stop us
We're young... we're so young, dumb and ugly
Young, dumb & ugly
We're young... we're young, dumb and ugly
So ugly
Young... dumb... & ugly
peaceful, considering your history of incoherent, rambling, long-winded, irrational posts, you're the last person in the world who should be calling anyone dumb. In fact none of the people I was referring to could be called nerds, you're all geeks; nerds are smart.
Anonymous, it is interesting how you seemingly have a continuing need to provoke people. I wonder how old you are?
"Here you are not correct. History teaches that often one "must" engage in battle to obtain peace. It's been proven throughout history. But if "peace" can be obtained without the shedding of blood, I'm all for it. War should be the last option."
Who was history written by? The victors, the people who declared that fighting was the only option, the people who justified the war in the first place. History is not objective, it is skewed by the perspectives of those who lived those times and recorded these events. Nothing in the history books should be taken without a grain of salt.
It also depends on what stage of the game you're looking at. There are points in time where fighting is truly unavoidable. I never said such things don't occur. But all wars are unnecessary. The conflicts between brothers that escalate into battles need not get out of hand much less begin.
And on an internal level, if I am not fighting myself, does it matter what's happening in the world? At that point peace is a state of being separate from "external" circumstances. (placed in quotes because I believe as ttl does that we are completely responsible for the circumstances in our lives.) Even if I engage another in battle, I am not fighting. No, at that point I draw my blade to nullify the conflicting energy, not to add my own rage to it. Appearances may indicate war is unavoidable and conflict is already occurring around me, but appearance in no way indicates the truth of the matter. The optimal outcome is not beyond reach. It is simply a choice: Am I willing to aim for that? Am I willing to rally enough people behind me to make that happen? If the answer to both is yes, it is simply a matter of how. Oftentimes the means to do something do not become obvious until there's at least one man who's decided that he will pursue an end regardless of the odds.
I can guarantee that any event that ended with mass slaughter lacked the involvement of strong-willed, courageous individuals willing to pursue a different end. Just as, "I was following orders" would not be an acceptable answer from a soldier in Nazi Germany neither is, "there was no other way" an acceptable answer at the end of a full-scale bloody conflict.
I don't mean to condemn combat. There's little purpose in passing a moral judgement. If you fight, you fight. But take responsibility for it. You're not powerless, I'm not powerless, if people die it's because it was our collective choice to make that happen. "There was no other way" only makes sense in a context that acknowledges this and speaks of the point where our minds were made up and our weapons had already drawn blood.
(Note: any instance where I typed you, I meant it in the general sense. This should be clear from the context, but I wanted to add this note for clarity.)
Anonymous, it is interesting how you seemingly have a continuing need to provoke people.
Isn't that what peaceful was doing? Not very peaceful, really, is he? Not very willing to take the high ground.
It may look like I am always trying to provoke, but remember that Anonymous is a superorganism, not just one individual.
I would like people to think once in a while, about themselves and other things. Peaceful obviously thinks of himself as intelligent, as a writer, as a philosopher - he's none of those things. And that's okay. Just be honest. Be unpretentious.
I wonder how old you are?
That's a hard one, isn't it? Am I 12, or 75? I could just be retired and be bored. You'll never know, and it shouldn't even be a consideration anyway. If you agree with me, then regardless of my age I'm mature, literate, and intelligent. If you disagree with me, then I must just be some immature, wet-behind-the-ears, snot-nosed punk.
"Isn't that what peaceful was doing? Not very peaceful, really, is he? Not very willing to take the high ground."
Provoke? I don't recall where I did anything to provoke anyone. I did post lyrics to a funny song because I thought they were semi-fitting to the situation. Barely, but a thread like this can stand to have some humor, even if it's unrelated to the subject at hand. I've never made personal attacks, I don't believe I've been disrespectful towards another's views, and I've shared my own ideas in as clear and passionate a manner as I could. If any of that was misconstrued I do hope the offended parties will come forward so I may apologize and say when I meant to say in a manner that won't be misconstrued.
I welcome any invitation for self reflection no matter where it comes from, but if your criticisms hold water you'll need to elaborate because I don't see it.
At the very least it's good to see more than a two-sentence put down for once. Anonymous wouldn't be so bad to have around if it actually said something to support its opinions once in a while.
Eisenhower was a fellow Kansan. He was the one responsible for spearing our forces to victory, but this could only happen by taking a beach in Normandy on D-Day. Talk about a need to focus. I wonder how much total firepower was expended on that day!
I was but four when he spoke the words excerpted, but maybe we can gain more insight to his thinking by reading the whole speech.
but this could only happen by taking a beach in Normandy on D-Day.
The war was already won by that point. The only reason for the Normandy invasion was to stop the progress of the Soviets.
Well, I'm going to have to disagree with the concept of the Soviets. The War against Hitler et al. could have ended without the D-Day invasion of Normandy, and subsequent push into occupied and then German territory, but it would have left Holland, Belgium, France, much of Denmark, Northern Italy, etc., oddly occupied by an eventually losing power; which means that this power could have waged slow attrition to the point that they provoked an offer of an end to hostilities, but in a position in which they would have had much more favorable gains from the war, than was eventually had. They lost totally, including yielding their entire homeland to occupation; rather than, coming to some armistice line halfway through France and then "regretfully" ceasing hostilities.
I don't mean to make any form of moral judgment about either of the choices. Just to point out, that if it's true the war "was won" before Normandy was stormed, nevertheless the form of win would have been utterly different from what did happen after Normandy was stormed.
TTL reflected about war...
So the "true battle", if there is one, happens within you.
I get the feeling this battle is already lost, every time somebody takes the massively criminal decision to start a war. :-(
"Envy spawns madness
Madness collapses into disaster
Mankind never learns"
[From the intro or a war simulation videogame.]
True story: a tourist visiting Chine saw a crowd, gathered around two men in a VERY heated argument. Puzzled, he asked one of the bystanders: "How come they're not hitting each other already?"
The Chinese person responded: "He who strikes the first blow would admit he's out of arguments."
Suddenly I'm feeling great respect for Chinese wisdom...
(As opposed to, say, TEXAN wisdom?)
):-P
Peaceful Blade said...
"Nothing in the history books should be taken without a grain of salt."
Whoa there! Easy on the salt, or you'll get hypertention before you know it! ;-)
"Remember that Anonymous is a superorganism, not just one individual."
Dang! And I thought the Brood, the Borg, the Hand, Kobra, Hydra or the Phalanx were trouble. But we're confronted with the mostest terriblest ageless faceless faithless entity of dem all: "The Anonymous"!
Resistance is futile. 8-|
Good thing I like futility! :-)))
And immature, wet-behind-the-ears, snot-nosed punks greatly amuse me.
Lorin evoked D-Day...
"I wonder how much total firepower was expended on that day!"
The French are still discovering and defusing bombs and shells from that event TODAY. It gives you a slight idea of the magnitude...
Final Identity analyzed...
"Just to point out, that if it's true the war "was won" before Normandy was stormed, nevertheless the form of win would have been utterly different from what did happen after Normandy was stormed."
A very interesting comment there.
I think G.W. Bush practically made the mistake you suggest by obtaining the fall of Baghdad in a totally un-subdued country.
Shock and?... Ow! What followed hurt the "victors" quite a lot.
Pascal, considering the things the Chinese have done, I'm not sure most of them have any trouble striking the first blow.
The French are still discovering and defusing bombs and shells from that event TODAY. It gives you a slight idea of the magnitude...
They're still turning up shells now and then from the first world war. If they haven't finished with that one yet, it's going to be a while before they get around to finishing with the second.
Pascal said: "I get the feeling this battle is already lost, every time somebody takes the massively criminal decision to start a war. :-("
Not just to start but to participate. Whether to war or not is a decision every person makes separately for themselves. Nearly all Americans in Iraq are international war criminals.
On the other hand, you could almost excuse George Walker Bush from starting the aggression as he clearly does not have the mental faculty to reason nor the ability participate in society as a healthy human being.
I hope you linked to the essay as a joke, even if it's not funny, and displays an almost breathtaking ignorance. Because this dude believes it, it can't be funny, only sad.
Joe Dick, why would I joke about something as serious as this? I see no flaw in Roedy Greene's reasoning. But if you do, by all means write him so it can be corrected and everyone can learn from it. He is an approachable chap and open to feedback.
He is an approachable chap and open to feedback.
He may seem so, to people who already believe as he does.
It appears that many of the comments here were made by people who lack much historical context of world war II. My parents were in Holland during the war. Talking about total personal responsibility is bizarre in the context of a 12 year old girl how is being bombed first by the Germans, then by the Allies. The Duch were occupied, and many starved to death. Talking about making choices is ludicrously easy from the comfort of your own home.. Look up some of the history, and then imagine yourself in those situations. My dad smuggled himself to England to join the Britsh army to continue fighting the Germans that occupied his country. He lost his mother and 4 sisters to bombing attacks. I respect himm as a true warrior, perhaps in some ways as peaceful blade describes. He has always voiced respect for the German army and it's soldiers as well trained professionals. He also said that the SS were despicable, and were despised by the German Army.
The posts by anonymous aren't even entertaining. I imagine that his life expectancy on the battlefield would be measured in minutes. Someone too afraid to use his name while making potshots at others is beneath contempt or consideration.
Someone too afraid to use his name while making potshots at others is beneath contempt or consideration.
At the risk of sounding like I'm defending Anonymous, most people here don't sign their real names - like me, peaceful blade, final identity - and those that do, like Alex, don't give their full name.
It's probably a good idea to put some name on your posts, if only (as I think Eolake said) so that we can distinguish one Anonymous from another.
The posts by anonymous aren't even entertaining.
Sometimes they can be. Sometimes not in the way Anonymous might like.
"At the risk of sounding like I'm defending Anonymous, most people here don't sign their real names - like me, peaceful blade, final identity - and those that do, like Alex, don't give their full name."
Aye, a name means very little. Even though I'm using a blogger account I could change my handle at any time without there being any indication who I am. (So long as I keep nothing in my profile, such as interests and contact information, that would serve as constants through the name changes.)
We're all anonymous in a sense. I suppose what we're asking for is a sense of consistency, which we already have. Anonymous' postings are unreasoned pot shots at other readers of this blog. (With a few exceptions here and there.) It's also easy to discern the writing styles of the worst offenders. It's impossible to stay in one place for very long without forging an identity, however ill-defined it may be.
It's also easy to discern the writing styles of the worst offenders.
It's funny, once when I accidentally (somehow) posted as anonymous, Pascal instantly knew it was me. It wasn't anything bad anyway, but he knew it was me.
Anyone who is going to stick around will use some name just to avoid being lumped in with the ones making random pot shots, etc.
"Talking about total personal responsibility is bizarre in the context of a 12 year old girl how is being bombed first by the Germans, then by the Allies. The Duch were occupied, and many starved to death. Talking about making choices is ludicrously easy from the comfort of your own home."
I'm going to elaborate on what I mean when I speak of total responsibility.
For me, it's included in a world view that thinks the soul is pre-existent and chooses beforehand whether or not to incarnate and who to incarnate as and where and during which time period.
This is also linked to the power of thought. IE, by taking control of one's thoughts and emotions we can influence ourselves, each other and our environment in miraculous ways. I also believe all things are interconnected and essentially one (which is how it's possible to have such influence) on a metaphysical level.
For myself, I've seen all the evidence I need to believe it, and I feel within my heart that it's true. But I'm not here to convince you. Nay, I'd have to give a much more in-depth explanation if that was my intent. What I've said barely explains where I'm coming from. All it does is give insight into what I think and how it works the way it does. And note, even though I think every soul is ultimately responsible for his or her own destiny, I do not use this as an excuse to toss compassion aside. Anyone that would do so does not truly understand this line of thinking.
Total responsibility works to a lesser extent even within the normal paradigm. It wouldn't apply to the 12 year old girl in the sense that she had nothing to do with shaping the circumstances she found herself in. It would apply to the extent that she would play a part in determining what those circumstances changed into, but surely none would judge her. Whether she made the best decisions or the worst, it's difficult to function under that kind of pressure. Remember, placing responsibility is not the same as condemnation. We are always responsible for what we choose to do no matter how difficult our choices may be. However, to blame you for doing something ignoble under duress I would have to disacknowledge part of my humanity. Shadows can be found in every human heart. The ones who yell, "crucify!" the loudest are the ones trying to forget this.
To further apply responsibility within a non-metaphysical paradigm, I re-iterate that war itself is never necessary. "But when someone attacks me I have to fight back! We have to protect ourselves from each other!" This is only because there are people who choose to act as aggressors and there are people who, knowing no better means to stop them, react in kind.
We do not need to kill each other for food, water or shelter. Killing another human being would do nothing to extend my lifespan. Similarly, no one would benefit from doing that to me. Few species remain alive by constantly preying on each other.
There was a time when this was different, no doubt. That's probably how it all got started. Somewhere during mankind's infancy he probably found himself short on food. With too many bellies to feed and no other apparent means to fix the situation, they probably started killing each other. Irrational hatred was added into the mix because, without it, we would lack the drive necessary to take the life of one of our own. This hatred has persisted through every race and culture, it has survived every time period and taints our existence to this very day. This is what makes conflict necessary, but it is something quite unnecessary in itself.
If you look only at the figures most prominently involved in determining whether or not man would engage his brother in mortal struggle, usually their primary justifications were childish grudges that could just as easily have been let go. We are quick to dehumanize others, to fight what we do not understand... It does not have to be this way. Most legitimate reasons for conflict could probably be addressed through more innovative means if we'd stop devoting so much of our resources, both physically and mentally, to perpetuating our conflicts.
Regardless of the role I play, I have an impact on what's occurring now. I didn't decide to go to war in Iraq. I did nothing to personally provoke muslim terrorists. But I'm a part of this world. I have a voice. It may be a quiet one, but if I don't use it then what right do I have to complain when everything continues to go awry? If we see something wrong with the world then it is our choice whether or not we do something. It doesn't matter if we don't see a way. If we don't try, if we have no intention to try if a way is presented, then we're just flapping our mouths to make ourselves feel better about not putting our foot forward. Collectively, we're only victims of these atrocities because we allow ourselves to be.
I believe that peaceful blade made an error when he stated that killing another human being wouldn't extend his own life (or vis versa). If say, someone needed a new heart or kidney, and you were a donor match, they could kill you, harvest the organs, and then extend their life. I don't say this to be melodramatic, there have been several reported cases of this. It's a sad extension of the fact that poor people in South America and India are selling their own organs for money. (Your liver will regenerate after a few months if some is left behind, and you can function on one kidney)
I'm not in need of an organ transplant so killing someone wouldn't extend my life. Maybe there are cases wherein killing one person would save another. I certainly didn't deny that there are such cases. But I wasn't even thinking of those situations when I wrote the comment. On a mass scale, when it's nation against nation, it's often caused by something unrelated to survival. A good many wars are simply the result of greed. The same things that fuel mass-scale slaughter are also behind more isolated conflicts. Few variables change when survival is brought into the picture because an imagined threat to our survival is just as powerful as a real one.
And in the cases where a human being could extend his own life through another's death or vice versa it can still be handled diplomatically without greed and desperation entering the picture. (For instance, my policy is that life belongs to those who will live it. If I honestly felt my time had come I would rather consciously choose to save a life upon my exit than continue a listless existence for who knows how long as others die. I doubt I'm alone in this.) The trouble is we fear death so much we are easily driven into a frenzy when our own mortality stares us in the face. What we need is more compassion, not distrust, not fear. (Not naivety either. One has to remain balanced.)
It's an interesting angle to approach, but I feel the underlying intent is the most important factor in all things. It's one thing to degrade a human being and say, "I am more worthy of life than you are and I will take what is mine!" It's another to say, "I'm on my way out. Unless my body is repaired I will die. Anyone who gives me what I need will die... I expect nothing, but if there are any who are willing please give me what I need." The difference is between dehumanization and mutual human respect. The latter has the power to end conflict in all its incarnations.
Joe Dick said...
"considering the things the Chinese have done, I'm not sure most of them have any trouble striking the first blow."
The eternal discrepancy between theoretical wisdom and practical actions. Especially if you were thinking about political doings.
:-(
Do you know many Christians who are truly living what they believe in? Same difference.
Our "enlightened leaders" over here in Lebanon are sure talented to SPEAK admirably. For some reason, the results on the field don't seem to follow...
WHOA! TTL, you could've warned us before we started browsing that site you linked to. The page with war victim photos is gorier than anything I've seen either in fiction movies, in real life, or even on an operating table. Be advised, all the slightly faint-hearted: keep your graphic curiosity on a leash on that "war criminals" site!
Perhaps the scariest thing is, those images are not worse than what may happen in rich, indistrialized countries in peace time. With the help of some nicely extreme road accidents. Human madness is everywhere.
"you could almost excuse George Walker Bush from starting the aggression"
Sure thing. But should I also forgive the 50% of American citizens who let him steal the 2000 election, AND got him re-elected? That's 150 million criminally irresponsible morons to forgive. It's going to take me a while. Even with ACIM's help.
Robert Kits van Heyningen,
I'll certainly agree with you that the WW2 German Army was not made in its entirety of sadistic monsters. The first victims of a fascist system are its citizens, and German soldiers were very afraid of the SS and their huge arbitrary power. Many took the risk to disobey inhumane orders.
I've seen enough honest and realistic war movies to know that when you're a mere soldier on the battlefield, you're practically a pawn in a confrontation that's way beyond you. Whatever your side, you have little choice but to kill or die.
Individual (or group) war crimes aside, the guilt and responsibility of a war's atrocities fall upon those who decide it in the first place. Self-defense is not something I give myself the moral right to criticize.
Joe Dick said...
"Sometimes they can be. Sometimes not in the way Anonymous might like."
Now THAT was definitely an entertaining comment. :-)
Peaceful Blade said...
"Anonymous' postings are unreasoned pot shots at other readers of this blog. (With a few exceptions here and there.)"
Which just confirms that a flamer who won't use some form of name is a problem for all anonymous commentors. Some of which have the excuse that they're not very expert at blogging, and have very interesting things to say.
All Anonymouses (Anonymice? Anonymoose? Anonymeese? Anonymi?) are not trolls, just like all German soldiers were not criminals, and all American GIs in Iraq are not monsters. Or saints, either. Generalization is the first step in racism and toward war.
But... are Anonymous Flamer and people who think like warriors the same topic?
"We are always responsible for what we choose to do no matter how difficult our choices may be."
I'm sure we agree that the difficulty of the choices affects the degree of the responsibility. Seems like what you say next, right?
"Your liver will regenerate after a few months if some is left behind"
Actually, weeks. Remember the myth of Prometheus, "whose liver kept regenerating every day"? It is an absolutely fantastic organ. I know of a child who lost two thirds of his liver after an accident. The damaged parts were surgically removed. His liver was back to normal size in about ten days.
Back on topic, the examples you mention prove, precisely, that donating an organ can be done without killing. In fact, if organ gift was automatic instead of requiring the complicated approval of a minority of generous people, there would be no shortage of organs from naturally &/or accidentally deceased people.
"A good many wars are simply the result of greed."
Or ignorance. Or stupidity.
I believe there is extra-terrestrial life in the Cosmos. The reason they haven't contacted us yet is, they're waiting for INTELLIGENT life to appear on Earth. That's not us yet. Globally, we behave like a most retarded species. Alley cats are more peaceful at mating season. (Most of the time, street cats resolve their confrontations without fighting, I've seen it many times. Siamese cat wisdom??? ;-)
"(For instance, my policy is that life belongs to those who will live it. If I honestly felt my time had come I would rather consciously choose to save a life upon my exit than continue a listless existence for who knows how long as others die. I doubt I'm alone in this.)"
The capacity to sacrifice ourselves for selfless love is what redeems us from being a species of total no-goodniks.
Of course, generosity without the need for sacrifice is nice too!
Post a Comment