kappert [the Taoist]: "There is no such thing as 'good' and 'evil' ".

Lao-tse [the Tao]:                 (2)

"When people see things as beautiful,

 ugliness is created

When people see things as good,

evil is created".

Kappert,explanation,please?

ps This is 'good' FUN !!!

1, (2), 3, 4, 5

Answer:

(2) Only as a last resort will a wise person use a deadly weapon.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/gillespie/gillespie1.html

Woops!

@ kappert

1, (2), 3, 4, 5.

The Tao

1 Weapons are meant for destruction.

(2)

3 If peace is the true objective how could one rejoice in the victory of war?

4 Those who rejoice in victory take pleasure in murder.

5 Those who resort to violence will never bring peace to the world.

Kappert,would you care to provide everybody with the missing quote at (2) ?

Thank you.

@kappert

http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Post/680352

Brilliant! Now,when is Yitzhak going to get on to this bandwagon and blame ME for being the pacifist in this argument? Come on,Yitzhak,let's be 'aving yer!

kappert: ...what good times have there been in Europe. Every tribe had their gods and goddesses, festivities all around the year to enjoy fertility and the benevolence of superior powers...But then came the middle easterners with their stupid, limiting and castrating monotheisms.

It is misleading to characterise European paganism as "good times", given its proclivity for violence and inequality.

kappert: Perhaps a non-violence attitude would have prevented their slaughter, perhaps not. But the attitude makes impression on the aggressor. It's more sportsmenlike to kill warriors than to kill 'sheep', and much easier to legalize.

Agreed. I never found the Germans, Russians or Japanese to be particularly sporting either...

kappert: When the enemy sits down and does nothing, they maybe slaughtered anyway. This action will not receive the blessings of the regime.

Were the "regime" merciful, the subject of "slaughter" would never be broached.

kappert: The objective is to persuade the aggressor not to go to war...Of course you treat the victims after the war, the cleaning of the minds begins to get rid of bad consciousness over massacres.

And if the aggressor cannot be persuaded? Your second sentence is unintelligible and nonsensical.

kappert: I'm more concerned about the psychology of the aggressor. The victim is a victim, anyway.

What is your occupation? No, wait, let me guess. A judge?

kappert: The victims will be treated by heroes, trying to save their lives...

Yet these heroes are imperiled by the victims' unwillingness or incapacity to defend themselves, as aggressors tend to murder such heroes.

kappert: If you win a war, you slowly realize the brutality it has been. You'll need to comfort your mind. You may adopt Vietnamese, Afghan or Iraqi children...

Eventually these children will come to take on the history and struggles of their ancestors, including the previous war if their collective did not obtain satisfaction.

"What's so funny about Gaza-City?"

They show re-runs of old Jerry Lewis movies on local tv AND show complete intolerance towards Pacifists.In that part of the world,it doesn't get much funnier than that.

Thanks for the bio...In addition to which,he wrote,"Only liberal societies tolerate Pacifists..." (see full quotation,again,below).Thus,in addition to being an excellent story-teller,he was also a shrewd observer and commentator on the REAL world.Hence,my comment,Game,Set and Match to C.S.Lewis.But then you already knew that.

Anything else? 

"ps:C S Lewis writes fantasies"

I do believe you are confusing C.S.Lewis with Lewis Carrol (of "Kappert in Wonderland" fame).If not,then you need to explain precisely why,in your opinion,he does so.

As for your "folks in Gaza-City" line,now YOU are starting to sound like Jerry Lewis.One fantasy at a time,please...  

Q: What do you do to protect the innocent...?

A: Nothing (I'll probably be slaughtered)...

Thank you,kappert,but forgive me if I don't choose to join you in that one man suicide pact with reality.

Game,set and match to C.S. Lewis.Who says so? You do. 

See again: my previous response, "re: victims and aggressors" posted under "Archbishop Goes Bonkers (3) ",before responding to my last post.Do NOT screw with me!

"The objective is to persuade the aggressor not to go to war".

We have been here before.

HOW do you persuade the aggressor not to go to war? (See: Genghis Khan quote)?

What do you do to protect the innocent,soon to be victims, if the aggressor remains unpersuaded and declares war in spite of your pleas for 'more dialogue'?

What happens between more pleas for dialogue and "treat(ing )the victims AFTER the war" ?

Last (and least), what the hell does "the cleaning of the minds begins to get rid of bad consciousness" mean?

Unless you are prepared to address these questions in a rational manner, there appears to be little point in engaging in further debate with you.

"I'm more concerned about the psychology of the aggressor (than I am the welfare of the victim).The victim is a victim anyway".
The objective is to persuade the aggressor not to go to war.
Of course you treat the victims after the war, the cleaning of the minds begins to get rid of bad consciousness over massacres.

Fjordman: Those inhabiting the European continent are first and foremost Germans, Dutchmen, Poles, Italians, Hungarians, Portuguese etc.

Apparently not. Otherwise supranationality would be confined to the ivory towers.

Fjordman: "Europe" has existed mainly to protect the continent against Islamic expansionism.

Incorrect. Hellenic origins aside, "Europe" has existed conceptually to represent the former possessions of Rome in the West, their peripheries and the developments that occurred therein, namely Roman Catholicism, the Germanic successor states and the assorted clashes and fusions of Romantic, Germanic and Celtic culture fueled by conflict, commerce and the preservation and transmission of knowledge. Islam has only served to demarcate its boundaries.

@kappert

Your advice to the peoples of the free world faced with potential annihilation is to "sit down and do nothing" because,although "they maybe slaughtered anyway",by doing nothing the ensuing slaughter "will not receive the blessings of the regime" committing the slaughter.That's it? That's your message of peace and cooperation to the world?

That would also have been your advice to the American Indians and is currently your advice to the Palestinians,right?

Had you offered that advice to the Indians they NOT the palefaces would have either scalped you on the spot or roasted you over a slow fire.Offer that same advice to the leaders of Hamas,Hizbollah etc., and you're likely to be circumcised at the neck.

Kappert,you are one sorry,spineless and deluded SOB.To think that brave young men (and women) gave their lives in two WW's only to leave a world fit for 'heroes' like you to live in makes me puke.

see: @kappert (again).It directly addresses the 'point' you raise.

Then,try answering my questions.

"Perhaps a non-violence attitude would have prevented their slaughter,perhaps not.But the attitude makes impression on the aggressor".

 Bull****!!! Tell that to Genghis Khan.Do you really believe he cared what spineless pacifists might think about either himself or his actions? But Genghis Khan wasn't a paleface slaughtering the peaceful Red Indians so to you he doesn't count,right?

http://findquotations.com/quote/by/Genghis_Khan

I'm sorry,but I have no idea what "sheep" have to do with this.As a teacher don't you think you should do what you would normally advise your own students to do which is to respond directly to the question on the examination paper. You'll certainly get better marks from me if you do so.

If you genuinely believe that I know more about American history than you,why are you arguing with me? Disingenuous.

If you condemn the American Indians for resorting to war,then you are saying that they were wrong  to choose violence over pacifistic submission to paleface aggression,but you don't believe in the concept of 'right' and 'wrong' so how can that be?

If you believe that the American Indian was 'wrong' to resort to violence in response to the palefaces,presumably you believe that a pacifistic response would have vanquished the palefaces and given victory to the American Indians,correct? If not,then what you are saying is that the Indians were doomed to lose their lands to the palefaces no matter how they responded,but it would have been better to simply accept their inevitable demise rather than to resort to violence in a futile attempt to retain their ancestral lands,right?

Bottom line: You believe the palefaces were morally wrong to 'steal' Indian lands but neither war nor dialogue could have prevented the inevitable outcome of paleface aggrassion.Call it 'Kismet',right again?

I think you need to do more explaining than I do before we can progress this debate any further.

I'm listening.

While you are mulling over your various (non) responses to my previous question,perhaps you'd care to bring us up to speed on your ideas for comprehensive resolution of the Middle East question.

Let's assume the Israelis continue their 'occupation' of the West Bank.How should the Palestinians (i.e. Arab Amer-Indians)respond to this continued Israeli 'aggression'? Should the Palestians  abort  their 'armed resistance'? Do you condemn them for even resorting to 'armed resistance'in the first instance? Remember,kappert,Jimmy Carter might be reading this,and there might well be a Nobel Peace Prize in this for you if you get this one right.Well? 

So,you are telling me that the American Indians DIDN'T try to settle their differences peaceably with the palefaces,instead they resorted to war,an action for which you condemn them,correct? In other words,they got what they deserved,right?

Why didn't the American Indians try this against the falefaces? If you tell me they did,why didn't it work?

"So it is 'pacifistic growth' which worries C.S.Lewis because our neighbours are absolutely totalitarian?

No,kappert...

If ALL our neighbours were ABSOLUTELY peaceful we wouldn't have a problem,would we?

However,however,however,if ONE (or more) of our neighbours are "absolutely" totalitarian in nature and wishes to extend their "absolute" totalitarian  ideology,BY FORCE OF ARMS, to their surrounding neighbours,how should those neighbours respond to that threat?

Well,kappert,what would you suggest?

"Pacifistic growth" which is ONLY tolerated in liberal societies.You know,like the one YOU are privileged to live in.

Do you hear that,folks? You are currently listening to the deafening silence of the hypocrite who would bring peace to the world.

@ kappert

"ONLY liberal societies tolerate Pacifists.In the liberal society,the number of Pacifists will either be large enough to cripple the state as a belligerent or not.If not,you have done nothing.If it is large enough, then you have handed over the state which does tolerate Pacifists to its totalitarian neighbour who does not.Pacifism of this kind is taking the straight road to a world in which there will be no Pacifists".

C.S. Lewis 

As an American I've been following European developments with a morbid fascination. My emotions are mixed. On one hand I do believe that people tend to get what they settle for, reap what they sow, and get the government they deserve. This makes it difficult to muster much kinship or sympathy with a great many Europeans and their irrational anti-Americanism. I'd love to see the US quit NATO.

On the other hand, I do see many clinging to the classical liberal values (individual liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of association, etcetera) that are the foundation upon which the 'New World' was built. For these people, I'm wondering 'What can be done for these good people?'. I admire the few demonstrations of fighting spirit I see that make it past the censors and gatekeepers, but it appears the game is completely rigged against recognition of their concerns. The verdict has been delivered. The outcome has been predetermined. Their voices are squelched.

Rather than being mere melancholy spectators, Americans ( at least those who are not totally enraged by European anti-Americanism), should doing what they can to give Europeans an alternative to the utopia that the EU political class believes it is creating. I believe this is best done by continuing our in-progress battle against a completely dysfunctional and broken US immigration system and exercising the freedom of speech and choice that our European ancestors are losing to enact the reforms necessary to make legal immigration less of a nightmare.

I do hope that Canadians and Aussies will do the same for the Europeans that are absolutely convinced that the USA is as Hollywood portrays it. :-)

You may recall that other monotheisms surged much earlier than Islam. But you are completely right that monotheists are extremely doctrinaire in their understandings. They would burn me on the stake, wouldn't they?

Just for the record,you do realize that you are insulting Islam with that characterization,do you not? Got that everbody? Kappert thinks Islam is a "stupid,limiting and castrating monotheism".

Only in a liberal society could a Pacifist get away with such a statement of utter intolerance.

Oh, what good times have there been in Europe. Every tribe had their gods and goddesses, festivities all around the year to enjoy fertility and the benevolence of superior powers.
But then came the middle easterners with their stupid, limiting and castrating monotheisms.