MilitantDogOwner Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I was actually hoping to entice Spook and Keigmeister into giving their thoughts, MTP! Now that is a worthwhile enterprise. /sarcasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 You never know, MTP. Assuming (not unreasonably) that they will contend that Good and Evil are real things it would be interesting how they would define the terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 We all know what the future will hold,quote]But does God know? That's what I am asking. Does he have knowledge of everyone's fate? There is the free will to fear The Lord and accept his offer of salvation through Christ, or not to.No, there is not. Anyone who truly believes in this God would HAVE to come to abide by rules. Because the threat of hell is too awful to be ignored. Evil covers all those things, thoughts and acts which are detrimental to the wellbeing of mankind and the living of a life as instructed and exemplified by Jesus. Waffle. You are talking about evil all the time, but you haven't explained where this evil is and who is conducted it. But whatever it is you are talking about, I wonder whether you honestly believe that the motives for such action are based on a fight against evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Human beings, by our very nature, are just aggressive, angry and territorial animals. We just learned how to kill each other better over the generations. "To secure peace, we prepare for war." To think that if we disolved our ability to wage war (whether offensively or defensively) the world would be a happier place is naievity of the most dangerous kind. We may dress fancy and have shiney technology, but at the end of the day it will come down to resources like it always has. They have it, we want it. They want it, we have it. No different when we used to fight over who got to live in what cave millions of years ago. We as a nation (well the UK as a whole anyway) are lucky that we have men and women who are willing to step and be our guardians, protectors and warriors. Better an a force of volunteers than a force of conscripts forced into the position against their will. The wars have been fought over the past century, in the main, are examples of our aggressiveness, but few are examples of conflicts that are fought based on the interests of the vast majority of people involved. They have almost always been the product of small groups embarking on aggressive action to secure their interests.We as a nation are not lucky to have such people, because in the main, they are used to undertake actions against our interests and not to protect people. You are living under a myth. If such conflicts were not the results of elites exploiting their control over people and resources and there were fighters then I might have a different assessment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Human beings, by our very nature, are just aggressive, angry and territorial animals. We just learned how to kill each other better over the generations. "To secure peace, we prepare for war." To think that if we disolved our ability to wage war (whether offensively or defensively) the world would be a happier place is naievity of the most dangerous kind. We may dress fancy and have shiney technology, but at the end of the day it will come down to resources like it always has. They have it, we want it. They want it, we have it. No different when we used to fight over who got to live in what cave millions of years ago. We as a nation (well the UK as a whole anyway) are lucky that we have men and women who are willing to step and be our guardians, protectors and warriors. Better an a force of volunteers than a force of conscripts forced into the position against their will. The wars have been fought over the past century, in the main, are examples of our aggressiveness, but few are examples of conflicts that are fought based on the interests of the vast majority of people involved. They have almost always been the product of small groups embarking on aggressive action to secure their interests.We as a nation are not lucky to have such people, because in the main, they are used to undertake actions against our interests and not to protect people. You are living under a myth.If such conflicts were not the results of elites exploiting their control over people and resources and there were fighters then I might have a different assessment. In your opinion. Remind me again, during the fireman strike who was it who went out in their place to risk life and limb for the public? Even if the forces of our nation were sent out for oil, that is in the nations interest. How long do you think society will continue with a source of oil? Oh you'd be okay living on locally grown mung beans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 In your opinion. Remind me again, during the fireman strike who was it who went out in their place to risk life and limb for the public? Do you mean the strikebreakers of 1977 or those of 2002? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 In your opinion. Remind me again, during the fireman strike who was it who went out in their place to risk life and limb for the public? Do you mean the strikebreakers of 1977 or those of 2002? No I mean the servicemen and women who took to the streets in green godesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 In your opinion. Remind me again, during the fireman strike who was it who went out in their place to risk life and limb for the public? Do you mean the strikebreakers of 1977 or those of 2002? No I mean the servicemen and women who took to the streets in green godesses. So what? They still acted - under government orders - to undermine a legitimate strike called by civillians in their own country. Sorry. Was never impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Evil covers all those things, thoughts and acts which are detrimental to the wellbeing of mankind and the living of a life as instructed and exemplified by Jesus. Waffle. You are talking about evil all the time, but you haven't explained where this evil is and who is conducted it. But whatever it is you are talking about, I wonder whether you honestly believe that the motives for such action are based on a fight against evil. No, not "waffle", as concise a description as I have ever come across. It covers what evil is and from that the people or groups who engage in acts of or the promotion of evil. Do I believe that confronting people and things that are evil represents a fight against evil? Of course I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Do I believe that confronting people and things that are evil represents a fight against evil? Of course I do. Then you need to have a word with god - he seems to be responsible for an awful lot of it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 In your opinion. Remind me again, during the fireman strike who was it who went out in their place to risk life and limb for the public? Do you mean the strikebreakers of 1977 or those of 2002? No I mean the servicemen and women who took to the streets in green godesses. So what? They still acted - under government orders - to undermine a legitimate strike called by civillians in their own country. Sorry. Was never impressed. Yeah, would have been better to let people die in house fires while fireman sat around and moaned about how little they got paid and how little time off they got. Idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Or if the government had simply agreed to pay the firemen - who also regularly risk life and limb - the reasonable wage they asked for. It would certainly have been better than sending barely-trained people to do a highly-skilled life-saving job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Or if the government had simply agreed to pay the firemen - who also regularly risk life and limb - the reasonable wage they asked for. It would certainly have been better than sending barely-trained people to do a highly-skilled life-saving job. Yeah the poor firemen were under paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 They were underpaid, so the army were sent in to act as scabs. The effect of this would be to frustrate such industrial action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 They were underpaid, so the army were sent in to act as scabs. The effect of this would be to frustrate such industrial action. And saves lives your fricking idiot. The forces weren't doing it for their health. Although they were doing it on alot less money, worse work conditions and less time off. Boohoo for the poor hard done by firemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.