"Them's as can't...teach!"
Accept2 said:
Winning the Nobel Peace Prize would be something anybody on the planet would want. You would think that with the millions and millions of people who oppose these wars, someone, anyone would actually go there and show us that peace is easy, possible and diplomacy is great and all that hippie stuff. The fact that I dont see it happening makes me think the following:
1. They dont actually believe their own BS.
2. They are far too lazy.
3. They would rather preach and have a do as I say not as I do approach.
4. They are already there, and their beheadings are available for download on the internet.
Which could it be? I know! I know! Its all 4 right?..........................
I can agree with the last two but as to no's 1 & 2 it ain't necessarily so!
I think that many folks absolutely believe in "their own BS". They run on faith and not reason. They think they are being logical 'cuz they can't appreciate the difference.
Ever listen to an evangelical preacher on the tv or radio? They think they are quite logical! Yet their arguments are often circular. "The Bible is literally true!" - "How do you know this?" - "Because the Bible tells us so!"
It can be awkward for some to admit that they believe no matter what the argument or evidence. They constantly seize on anything new that comes along and twist it into a "logical" point in their defense. Someone discovers some old boards halfway up Mount Ararat and presto! "Incontrovertible proof of Noah's Ark!"
Boards found at the bottom of the Mount or at similar elevations elsewhere in the world are ignored.
Another example would be the drawing of false comparisons. Such as "They have soldiers killing our people. We have soldiers killing them back. Therefore we are morally equivalent."
This just isn't logical. It is the REASONS why we kill that define our morality! One side believing that slaughtering unbelievers is a holy act and the other believing that they must stop them are not morally equivalent posititions.
Killing and murder are not at all the same.
To most reasonable human beings killing is a repugnant act, to be taken only when there is no other recourse. It is a difficult thing to face such a problem and be able to "shoot your own dog". When you run on faith it is amazing how it can blind some to the necessity of firm response and yet with others take away all reluctance to kill non-believers or those not of the correct "race" or "tribe".
Many if not most Klansmen were quite religious.
Perhaps there's some ego thing happening as well. Being against something can be taken as making you yourself more of a "good" person. The more intensely you believe then the better a person it makes you.
Mis-placed faith can also satisfy the natural need for self-worth, like that wingnut in Montreal the other day.
Notice how so many voices are using this incident to justify leaving our national gun registry alone? The evil bastard had at least 3 legal weapons registered under that registry, a registry that has soaked up nearly 2 BILLION dollars, has a less accurate database than a horoscope and is routinely ignored by any criminal. It merely made a vague list of the law-abiding gun owners.
Why? Because to the "faith" personality the new gun registry appeared to be an act towards stopping gun murders. Simply making the effort was taken as actually doing something effective. Many politicians got a lot of votes but it didn't stop one gun from entering the country illegally or being used in a crime.
For that matter, it didn't add ONE DAY to the typical sentence received for using a gun in the commission of a crime!
Hence the joke going around for years during the past Liberal governments: "It doesn't have to work! It's enough to say we got one!"
As for point number 2, such folks are usually far from lazy. They will work their butts off for a cause! They just don't always pick the right cause or combine that cause with others that make it difficult to take their side.
Take the Kyoto Accord, for example. Who wouldn't want to stop pollution damage to our planet? The problem is, if you actually READ the Accord you see that there are "extras" you have to swallow with the main point that might not taste so good. Kyoto exempted Russia, China and India from actually cleaning up their act, when they are arguably the worst polluting offenders. It offered offending countries the ability to do nothing to reduce emissions by simply buying "energy credits" from third world countries instead. In effect, it was a way to dramatically increase foreign aid and not really the effective tool to reduce emissions that it should have been.
In order to get the apple you were being forced to eat the worm. Then you were labelled as being against saving the planet, because you didn't accept Kyoto. To someone who runs on faith, there was no difference.
It's been called "Symbolism over Substance" and it's the reason why Man is so poor at actually FIXING his problems!
We call ourselves moral people that will not kill and turn our backs from the ugly site of millions being slaughtered in Rwanda or this very minute in Darfur. We tell ourselves that we should not interfere with another culture!
I see NO virtue in such philosophy! If I found myself supporting such views I would hang myself in shame. If those who champion such views ever became the government I would be terrified for the future of my children.
If that makes me a "bad person", then so be it.
