Tell me what "evil" means to you, Stephen, and I'll tell you if I think it exists. I'm wondering if "tribalism" and "individualism" will come up in your definition ...As to Americans and Christians, I do not consider them to be evil by my understanding of that word. There is a general inclination in humanity, Stephen, toward minding your own business and not worrying about what's happening beyond the mountain ranges and seas (and now political borders) beyond which you rarely venture. But that inclination has stopped serving us, if it ever did: if you ignore what's going on beyond your borders, you tend to end up having a bunch of Europeans show up and throw you out of your homeland. Anyway, functional or not, the inclination still exists, and sometimes is exploited by people whom I do consider to be evil, such as most of the Bush Administration (if you don't like the word "evil," try "sociopathic": they are just inherently unable to sense in a meaningful way the notion that other people have rights, including other people whom they do not like).Most Americans and most Christians are not sociopathic, in fact quite the opposite: the essential sense of "American-ness," I think, is that we consider that everyone else in the world could be and probably ought to be an American (and I mean that in a good way -- Americans believe that everyone else in the world finds "self-evident" the same values that we do, and not that we think everyone should be forced to become American). And Christianity is based almost entirely on concern for other people, including other people whom you do not like.But most Americans and most Christians are as strongly inclined as anyone not to want to be concerned with what happens beyond their borders. And, probably not by design, but more likely through the workings of the free market (oh -- did you think that nothing bad can come from the workings of the free market? Rather religious or at least tribalist, if you do.), most Americans and many Christians are offered a very attractive economic situation if they'll just play the game, and leave it to other people to worry about what's going on beyond their borders. And most of them do just this; we might say that they are just too lazy to question, as they ought to do if they are to be "good" people, whether or not their attractive economic situations do not contribute somehow to the misery of other people elsewhere. Or we might not. But that's pretty much the way things are, as I see them.Anyway, I await your definition.

Islamofacism is a totalitarian ideology, is a form of close society in the sense of Karl Poppers definition, and therefore enemies of open societies. I do not have any problem with a religion but I have a problem with fanatic sects and authoriarian regimes (comunism, fasicim, islamofascism, etc...)

QuoteOriginally posted by: MarsdenBlah blah blah.Can someone summarize this? Here's my guess: "Muslims are evil. Evil, I tell you!"I noticed something about Iran's 1978 revolution. I'm guessing there wasn't anything about how the deposed Shah's Mossad-trained SAVAK police organization would jam glass bottles up prisoner's asses and then break them. But, hey, it was all in good fun, right? Not like these evil, evil Musims -- no sir!Do you think is better to blow up planes, or trains, or subways, or restaurants full of civilians in suicide bombers attacks? Do you think nowadays in Iran is better with public executions, etc.....Yes you are right, SAVAK was savage, easy to balme Mossad for this, isn't it? but somehow this kind of behavior persist in today Iran, isn't it?Political prisoner in critical conditionPeik-e Iran website, May 2 – Mohammad Ibrahim Behboudi was arrestedin 2003 by intelligence agents and transferred to ward 209 of Evin prison.After 70 days of solitary confinement and enduring torture that tore thestitches on his abdomen, he was sentenced to three and a half yearsprison for disrupting security and being a member of the Mojahedin in1981. He is in critical physical and psychological condition and suffered aminor heart attack two weeks ago.This one I liked as a example of how dangerous for close societies is freedom of speech. And yes you are right, Catholic Church did some nasty stuff several undred years ago, and have publicitly apologized for it,..... however the different is that Islamofacism is doing this kind of atrocity todayIran critic faces death penaltyBBC News, May 10 - The death sentence imposed on liberal Iranianacademic Hashem Aghajari has been confirmed, his lawyer has said. SalehNikbakht says he has been officially told of the re-imposition of the deathpenalty originally passed on his client in 2002. Aghajari was charged withblasphemy for saying that Muslims should not blindly follow religiousleaders.Or this execution of a 16yr old girl for un-muslims behavior,..... for "acts incompatible with chastity".http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/a ... ml">Public execution of 16yr old girl for unmuslim behaviourI can put some examples of child accussed of homosexuality that also has been sentenced to death penalty and executedYou can find more on Iran Human rights abuses, hereIran abusesBut somehow seems to be the culture of the area...... but executions in public places without a trial seems to be business as usual in those countries. Look at this new today,... is in spanish but you can see the photosPublic execution of a 22yr boy in Yenin/ West BankPhoto GalleryListen it was not me who wrote the articles that I quoted "Dear Muslims: what is that you do not understand" and "Islam's useful Idiots", it was an Iranian himself, ........... his name Amil Imani,.... his webpage: http://www.amilimani.com

QuoteOriginally posted by: MarsdenTell me what "evil" means to you, Stephen, and I'll tell you if I think it exists. I'm wondering if "tribalism" and "individualism" will come up in your definition ...As to Americans and Christians, I do not consider them to be evil by my understanding of that word. There is a general inclination in humanity, Stephen, toward minding your own business and not worrying about what's happening beyond the mountain ranges and seas (and now political borders) beyond which you rarely venture. But that inclination has stopped serving us, if it ever did: if you ignore what's going on beyond your borders, you tend to end up having a bunch of Europeans show up and throw you out of your homeland. Anyway, functional or not, the inclination still exists, and sometimes is exploited by people whom I do consider to be evil, such as most of the Bush Administration (if you don't like the word "evil," try "sociopathic": they are just inherently unable to sense in a meaningful way the notion that other people have rights, including other people whom they do not like).Most Americans and most Christians are not sociopathic, in fact quite the opposite: the essential sense of "American-ness," I think, is that we consider that everyone else in the world could be and probably ought to be an American (and I mean that in a good way -- Americans believe that everyone else in the world finds "self-evident" the same values that we do, and not that we think everyone should be forced to become American). And Christianity is based almost entirely on concern for other people, including other people whom you do not like.But most Americans and most Christians are as strongly inclined as anyone not to want to be concerned with what happens beyond their borders. And, probably not by design, but more likely through the workings of the free market (oh -- did you think that nothing bad can come from the workings of the free market? Rather religious or at least tribalist, if you do.), most Americans and many Christians are offered a very attractive economic situation if they'll just play the game, and leave it to other people to worry about what's going on beyond their borders. And most of them do just this; we might say that they are just too lazy to question, as they ought to do if they are to be "good" people, whether or not their attractive economic situations do not contribute somehow to the misery of other people elsewhere. Or we might not. But that's pretty much the way things are, as I see them.Anyway, I await your definition.Yes sir, finally a great post. I almost entirely agree with your opinions here. I agree with you about some bad consequences of the free economy, but I believe that the main driver of the misery of other people came not from America but from the corruption in the elites of totalitarian regimes. That's why the notion of open societies is so important.However, you probably will say that America has been supporting some of those regimes, like Saudi Arabia, and you are right but also have been fighting others (North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, etc...). But remember that the commitment of a goverment is, and shall be, with the wealthfare of its society, not with the rest of the world. On top of that, each country desides what the model for growh they want to pursue, for instance India is more consumer, internal market oriented and exporting services, while China has been relaying mostly in good exports. Another example, compare the expenditure in R&D+d of Germany with the one in Spain, or the US vs Lybia for instance. All of those economic policies has an output and a cost, is always a trade off, so if the goverment is mistaken in its policies or the goverment is corrupt, blame your goverment not others.

QuoteOriginally posted by: menceyYes sir, finally a great post. Marsden must be a happy and relieved man now.

QuoteOriginally posted by: MarsdenTell me what "evil" means to you, Stephen, and I'll tell you if I think it exists. I'm wondering if "tribalism" and "individualism" will come up in your definition.I mean - you do not know what evil is? May I ask you a personal question? You post so much and quite oftem condemn people for not sharing your opinion on something. Your posts are emotional. Why do you care? There is no evil, so all opinions are equal, aren't they?

Perhaps there is evil, and perhaps it is something to write emotionally about. But my direct point was that I wanted Stephen to provide his understanding of what "evil" means; you may have noticed his novel definitions of "slavery" and "freedom" above -- I thought it a good idea to make sure we were speaking the same language before I endeavoured to answer his question.I hope that helps to relieve your deep-felt angst about me, Gamal. If not, please seek professional help.

To hire a professionalist to solve all problems with you? Oh no, I won't do it.

QuoteOriginally posted by: Marsden(aka farmer aka Mob Psycho aka abu mazen)so 3 of my favorite posters are the same person ?

In a July 2007 article, The Human Rights Council: A New Era in UN Human Rights Work?, Yvonne Terlingen, the director of Amnesty International’s offices at the UN, directed pointed criticism at the activity of the allegedly ‘reformed’ UN Human Rights Council. Discussing the Councils actions during three special sessions which discussed issues in the “Occupied Palestinian Territories”, convened in June, August and November of 2006, Terlingen offered the following observations concerning the failings of the Council to uphold its mandate: ”On their merits, all three situations were urgent and grave and deserved the special attention of the council. But their outcome was in some respects unworthy of a council expected to act in a “fair and equal manner,” as Resolution 60/251 requires. Particularly regrettable was the one-sided resolution that the council adopted-by a vote of twenty-seven for, eleven against, and four abstentions-on Lebanon (A/HRC/S-2/1). The highly politicized resolution strongly condemned “grave Israeli violations of Human Rights and breaches of International Humanitarian Law in Lebanon,” but entirely ignored the massive human rights abuses committed by Hezbollah in using indiscriminate rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. This was a clear example of the “selectivity” and “double standards and politicization” that Resolution 60/251 seeks to eliminate. Moreover, the nearly exclusive focus of these special sessions on Israel, at the cost of disregarding equally if not more egregious human rights situations elsewhere in the world, started to raise serious questions regarding the council’s credibility.”from NGO Monitor

welcome back, mr bronto: you seem to have been MIA for a while

wrong thread. crosswired. ???

Ah, a trip down memory lane...

Those devilish little angels