Why Can't People Get Along?

[Lava]

Hi


I also found the original list of values a bit odd. Maybe different geography, time and culture get in the way, but for me those values were mostly just paid lipservice. They arent what was really encouraged: in fact I find the so-called morality I saw around me as a child highly immoral and somewhat disgusting.

There is a big difference between lipservice and genuine values, and looking round this society I think its basically lipservice, with a bit of genuine thrown in. The proof is in the actions, not the words.


Each of us sees serious threats in the world. Yet each of us identified them as different things. So we have a world in which a very wide range of things are regarded as threats by some.

We differ so much in our views that across the board respect for others is impossible for nearly all humans.

We have goals and desires, some of which are strong. Most seem to be quite happy to toss their morals onto the back seat to achieve them.

Quite a few are even happy to sentence others to misery and death to further their desires. We have something like 1% of psychopaths in society IIRC.

We have - and this I think is a key one - blame. Failure to understand situations and consequently blaming others is very widespread.

Finally we have PAM - people are morons. Most people really do not manage to work out what is going on in the world, nor to understand many of the situations they find themselves in. Not surprisingly this leads to lots of blame and lots of harmful actions being taken.

Really finally we also have large numbers of people and businesses that work by creating disinformation and/or conflict, and harvesting money or political support from the resulting chaos.

Then there is a whole class of really screwed up people, who like to go around hurting others intentionally as a means to take out their anger on others. Presumably this is a result of anger due to either abuse or blame.

Then we have ego, endless posturing to try to save face and maintain popularity.


So the natural state of humans is war, not peace. The natural state is what existed pre-civilisation.


Regards, Lava!

[rhod01]

"I condone sexual promiscuity. I condone it a lot in fact :) As for homosexualism, I don't do it. But I'm not gay :) Gays don't bother me. Intollerance bothers me, which is weird because I cannot tolerate people like you :)"

Same-gender orientation is a general statement. Why didn't you include bisexuality in your response? Do bi people "bother" you? Is being fair and balanced in your responses too hard, or not suiting to any purposes you have?

[LogicaLunatic]

Originally posted by Merlov, "I condone sexual promiscuity. I condone it a lot in fact :) As for homosexualism, I don't do it. But I'm not gay :) Gays don't bother me. Intollerance bothers me, which is weird because I cannot tolerate people like you :)" Same-gender orientation is a general statement. Why didn't you include bisexuality in your response? Do bi people "bother" you? Is being fair and balanced in your responses too hard, or not suiting to any purposes you have?

Did the emoticons intersperced throughout my three line response to you happen to give away the fact that I wasn't being quite serious? :) If it didn't then it should have. I didn't and still don't think that your original post in this thread deserves a serious response. You quoted somebody out of context and replied with something meaningless with no relation to this topic.

Buck up buddy :)

LL

[samsara15]

Good post, and I don't know why people can't get along with each other. Except to say that people are jerks, and don't follow what we were taught as kids. However, it seems to me that what I was taught, the same as what most of us were taught, from the Bible, was to be a liberal. And maybe I'm a jherk too. Why not?

[castille]

If it is legal to kill anyone you dont like, I'd get along better with everyone.

[Compugasm]

Originally posted by castille, If it is legal to kill anyone you dont like, I'd get along better with everyone.

I hear Al-Queda is hiring.

[castille]

Originally posted by PhanthomOps, You mean that just because people could get along with each other they would lose their individually?? Hmmmmmm Interesting.

Well getting along means we ALL agree on the same thing, thus we lose individuality.

we had 4 gangs at the time who were fighting turf wars and God help anyone who got in the way. Personally, I lost count of how many fights I had because I didn't do the gang-thing. The area was a mix of Italians, Irish, Germans and Puerto Ricans.

We had 14! Beat you!
However I find your optimism about the world either honourable, or stupid. I cant decide which one yet. I don't mean optimistic "I'm going to beat up that guy because I know I can!", I mean morally optimistic "The world is a good place".

I've figured by now the world is hell, so why not make the most of it?

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by PhanthomOps, You mean that just because people could get along with each other they would lose their individually?? Hmmmmmm Interesting.

Well think about it, why do we go to war? Because of differences in idealogy, if we all thought the same, would there be conflict?

[Gorgo]

Did "we" go to war? I didn't.

[white rice]

It's a giant stew. Another question is why do you love who you love so much? Sometimes there's no one size-fits-all reason. Sometimes there is no logical reason. Likewise, figuring out hate is just as difficult.

Some people feel like they're entitled to more, while others do need more. There's the underlying issue of distrust and paranoia. All are factors we use to survive, so it isn't neccesarily evil despite its connotations.

Simple scenario. You push the elevator button to call it. Another guy comes by for the same elevator and despite him seeing you push it, he pushes it again. In that other guy's head he doesn't know who you are or your level of competence, so he does that action to give him a piece of mind and control.

There's no competition or hate invovled, he doesn't know what you're thinking or who you are so he acts accordingly.

But what if you were likeminded with other people in terms of culture and tradition? In some sense, that too is a way of survival and passing along your mark to future generations. So you might force your children to do the same things. Or you might protest against foreign influences that are a threat to your way of life. That might help open the door to labeling outsiders and giving stereotypes to other groups.

Then there's other compounding factors like love and hate. If you loved your family enough, would you go to lengths to kill or gain material wealth at other people's expense? If you loved your country enough, would you be willing to die for it? Your religion? Your way of life? So would it seem that it takes some degree of love to equally hate. Add that with a general sense of paranoia and distrust, you're seeing boogeymen left and right.

So it begins to sound cynical and every person prescribes to their different philosophies. But why not overcome it to share and respect your common man? Well take a war where we haven't been attacked or doesn't directly affect our borders. Why do we kill our common man when no harm is directed at us? Where's the difference? It's someone telling us we're at war through an abstract concept. Doesn't that feel insane to think that at another time, the man you just knived could be your drinking partner?

And that is what some adults feel, the idea that they're at War with others. In war, political and economic ends matter just as much as the physical. Is there a logical reason for that? There doesn't have to be one.

[Comrade]

Well, self-defense is defined legally as "in defense of you or others."

Also, Gorgo says he didn't go to war.
I did "go to war", but not for Bush's reasons, but for some reason nobody allows this train of thought...if you support the war, you agree with Bush. I support the war because since I started reading about Iraq (an offshoot of my idle research of the Persian Gulf War) I began to hate Saddam. I supported the war, not for WMDs or the opposite of all this whiney "he wasn't a threat to US, and we don't care about others," but because I wanted him gone.

[Gorgo]

The war wasn't about Saddam Hussein:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cf...cfm?ItemID=4685

[Actually, U.S. officials made clear that U.S. troops would enter Iraq whether or not Saddam and his sons left the country. (Michael R. Gordon, "Allies Will Move In, Even if Saddam Hussein Moves Out," New York Times, March 18, 2003, p. A16.)]

[PhanthomOps]

Comrade:
Very true and astitute observation - thank you :)

LogicalLunatic:
Quote: "It matters not how people act, only how you react. Your reactions are the only thing you CAN control. Most actions percieved as threatening are actually benign in nature. This isn't really related to what is right and wrong. It merely pertains to how we interact."

Absolutely right on target - Thanks :)

The balance of your examples in this post are excellent - and if I am correct can be attributed directly to the perception of an individual or group as to the intent of another person or group.

Lava:
Quote: "I also found the original list of values a bit odd. Maybe different geography, time and culture get in the way, but for me those values were mostly just paid lipservice. They arent what was really encouraged:"

Odd as they maybe to you, I was raised with them, and boy did I get my a-- taned when I violated any of them. It wasn't until I was eleven years old and graduated from the Cub Scouts to the Boy Scouts that I fully understood what my parents were really trying to teach me.

Quote: "There is a big difference between lipservice and genuine values, and looking round this society I think its basically lipservice, with a bit of genuine thrown in. The proof is in the actions, not the words."

1000000000000000% right. Too many people today give lipservice in order to evade their responsibility, or to look good. Regretfully this is just a facade and is worthless.

Quote: "So the natural state of humans is war, not peace. The natural state is what existed pre-civilisation"

Would it possibly be more like people not taking the time or effort to understand, and the feeling that you just can't trust anyone that fuels indifference as opposed to war??

Samsara15:
Quote: "Good post, and I don't know why people can't get along with each other. Except to say that people are jerks, and don't follow what we were taught as kids. However, it seems to me that what I was taught, the same as what most of us were taught, from the Bible, was to be a liberal."

First, thank you :) :). Could it be possible that as we grow older that we form our opinions from our experiences, and realize that all is not hunky-dorey that we become more self-protective and indifferent towards others??

castille:
Quote: "Well getting along means we ALL agree on the same thing, thus we lose individuality."

Does it?? IMHO, I would say that there are a few people you would call friends - if so, then I would conclude that you have common grounds for agreement as well as disagreement. In that vein do you lose your individuality or not??

Quote: "We had 14! Beat you!
However I find your optimism about the world either honourable, or stupid. I cant decide which one yet. I don't mean optimistic "I'm going to beat up that guy because I know I can!", I mean morally optimistic "The world is a good place"."

Hey, I had all I could do to contend with the 4 that were in my neighborhood.
Although I have witnessed the worse in people first hand, I have been fortunate to have experienced a lot of good. I feel that in general, most people are decent and good at heart. It just seems that we constantly only hear of the dreggs of society. I am an optimist as I don't want to waste my life as a pessimist with the perverbal colud of doom hanging over my head.

Pooeypants:
Quote: "Well think about it, why do we go to war? Because of differences in idealogy, if we all thought the same, would there be conflict?"

Okay, forgetting "war" for the moment, you and I have a difference in our idealogy, and the way we generally look at things, however, are we actually engaged in war - or just a difference of opinions??? As long as there are human beings their will always be conflict of one sort or another, however, it is how we approach it that will determine peace or war.

white rice:
Your entire post makes a lot of sense, and points out just how our differences and preconceptions impact on our lives. Thanks :)

[PhanthomOps]

Gorgo:
Quote: "Did "we" go to war? I didn't."

Are you at least in the cheering section for our troops???

Conrade:
Quote: "Well, self-defense is defined legally as "in defense of you or others. Also, Gorgo says he didn't go to war.
I did "go to war", but not for Bush's reasons, but for some reason nobody allows this train of thought...if you support the war, you agree with Bush. I support the war because since I started reading about Iraq (an offshoot of my idle research of the Persian Gulf War) I began to hate Saddam. I supported the war, not for WMDs or the opposite of all this whiney "he wasn't a threat to US, and we don't care about others," but because I wanted him gone."

Gorgo's Response: "The war wasn't about Saddam Hussein: [Actually, U.S. officials made clear that U.S. troops would enter Iraq whether or not Saddam and his sons left the country. (Michael R. Gordon, "Allies Will Move In, Even if Saddam Hussein Moves Out," New York Times, March 18, 2003, p. A16.)]"

Hey Gorgo - Check this one out:

http://www.newsmax.com/
Wednesday, June 2, 2004 10:41 p.m. EDT (partial article)
New Iraq Chief: Evidence Linking Saddam to 9/11 Is 'Genuine'
The man tapped to head Iraq's new interim government has vouched for the authenticity of evidence that links Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks.
Though the notion that Iraq played a role in 9/11 is considered heresy in U.S. intelligence circles, newly appointed Iraq Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said in December that a document purported to be from Saddam's intelligence service that places lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta in Baghdad two months before the attacks was indeed "genuine."
"We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaeda," Allawi told the London Telegraph at the time. "But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks."

And:

http://wwwc.house.gov/everett/news/columns.../col_081103.asp
Toppling Saddam Was Right Move
Aug 11, 2003
It's silly season in Washington. Add former Vice President Al Gore to the list of liberal politicians who are claiming the White House deceived the American people about the nature of Saddam's regime as an excuse to invade Iraq. Senator Bob Graham, D-Fla., trying to score points for his failing presidential campaign, has even called for President Bush's impeachment for the alleged deception. Such claims are ridiculous.
Saddam not only had the desire and the means to pose a threat, he also had connections to those who shared his hatred for America. Iraq harbored Musab al-Zarqawi, a known associate of Osama Bin Laden who directed an Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan and oversaw a poisons lab in northeast Iraq. Saddam sheltered the notorious Abu Nidal whose organization carried out more than 90 terror attacks in 20 counties that killed or injured 900 people including 12 Americans. Saddam also stoked terrorism and violence in the Middle East by paying the families of suicide bombers $25,000 for attacking innocent civilians. And the list goes on.
It is simply amazing anyone could fail to see the clear and present danger posed by the regime of Saddam Hussein. If Saddam's record is not enough, we are already uncovering more evidence of his mobile chemical and biological labs, his nuclear arms documentation, and the mass graves of thousands slaughtered by his regime.
President Bush made the right decision to rid the world of Saddam's evil. It's a shame some here at home would rather ignore these facts in a weak attempt to bolster their political standing.

I know that I said that anything goes, however, there are other threads which deal directly with Saddam (Iraq) and the current situation. :) :)

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by PhanthomOps, Okay, forgetting "war" for the moment, you and I have a difference in our idealogy, and the way we generally look at things, however, are we actually engaged in war - or just a difference of opinions??? As long as there are human beings their will always be conflict of one sort or another, however, it is how we approach it that will determine peace or war.

If we substitute "War" with "intellectual debates", then yes, we are at war.

[PhanthomOps]

Pooeypants:
Quote: "If we substitute "War" with "intellectual debates", then yes, we are at war. :)

Okay: choose your weapons - spitballs at 20 paces, peashooters at 50 feet, howitzers at 10 paces, etc. :) :)

[Gorgo]

Where have you BEEN!?

Why would I cheer an illegal attack?

Originally posted by PhanthomOps, Gorgo: Quote: "Did "we" go to war? I didn't." Are you at least in the cheering section for our troops???

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by PhanthomOps, Pooeypants: Quote: "If we substitute "War" with "intellectual debates", then yes, we are at war. :) Okay: choose your weapons - spitballs at 20 paces, peashooters at 50 feet, howitzers at 10 paces, etc. :) :)

Hmm, heavy artillery at point blank range please. :)

But honestly, we share very similar idealogy as we grew up in the rich western world, only big difference is that I believe in one less God than you.

[PhanthomOps]

Gorgo:
Quote: "Where have you BEEN!? Why would I cheer an illegal attack?

QUOTE (PhanthomOps,)
Gorgo: Quote: "Did "we" go to war? I didn't."

(PhanthomOps): Are you at least in the cheering section for our troops???

You mean to tell me that you wouldn't even support our troops?? Wow, that's cold.

Pooeypants:
Quote: "Hmm, heavy artillery at point blank range please."

The size would dictate the actual distance between you and me :) :)

Quote: "But honestly, we share very similar idealogy as we grew up in the rich western world, only big difference is that I believe in one less God than you."

That is very true, so we do have common ground for the most part.
I respect your belief in one less God, which is your right of choice to which you are entitled. :)

[Gorgo]

It's a meaningless phrase. Do I think they deserve to be paid a living wage, have their medical problems taken care of, etc. Yes? Unlike George Bush, I do.

Do I think they should obey illegal orders to attack and murder innocent people?

No.

Originally posted by PhanthomOps, You mean to tell me that you wouldn't even support our troops?? Wow, that's cold.