A deep moral blindness is apparent, in Western societies today.





Yadda wrote on Jan 16^th, 2012 at 1:17am:

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 14th, 2012 at 10:25pm: Western society culturally and morally superior? LOL You are a joke soren. Western society is veering into moral decay and has been for a few decades now..... Abu, Whereas, devout moslem people, are clearly the best of people alive today.  [Koran 3.110] "Allah Akbar!!!" , .....you morally superior moslem warrior for Allah. /sarc off ISLAM / moslems are superior, folks. No doubt about it. /sarc off PROOF..... "Child suicide bombers: "They told us the bombs would not kill us, only the Americans would die and you can come back to us" " http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/01/child-suicide-bombers-they-told-us-the-bombs-would-not-kill-us-only-the-americans-would-die-and-you.html "....The mission was as simple as touching two wires together, the little boy was promised. The resulting blast would obliterate the American infidels – but God would spare him from the flame and shrapnel. Abdul Samat would be unharmed and free to run back to the men who had fitted his bomb vest."

A deep moral blindness is apparent, in Western societies today.

Even though we can provide evidence of the evil conduct and behaviour of people who [themselves] claim to represent ISLAM's ideals,....
abu_rashid and other moslems who post in this forum still do not understand [they are unable to 'reason out'] why we non-moslems reject their assertions that ISLAM is a superior philosophy, and why we reject their incessant assertions [the assertions of devout moslems!] that devout moslems are a superior and moral people.

Moslems cannot see it.

Moslems are unable to 'reason out', that ISLAM is an evil death cult.

Why so?

Q.
Why do moslems lose their ability to embrace truth, and lose their ability to engage in rational reasoned debate [with those who do not believe as they believe] ?



I have said this previously;

ISLAM, imo, creates a mental pathology, in those persons who choose to embrace it.

i.e.
ISLAM creates a mental instability [a state of insanity] in those people who choose to embrace it.

ISLAM creates a mental instability [a state of insanity] in those people who choose to embrace its doctrines of hatred.

A hatred directed towards ALL people, and ALL ideas, and ALL concepts, which are deemed to be non-ISLAMIC.



And Western countries, and overwhelmingly the intellectuals in the West, and politicians in the Western countries, see no problem in allowing those persons who embrace the 'ISLAMIC worldview' [who embrace a culture of violence, and ISLAMIC supremacism], moslems, to live and walk among us.

Our intellectuals and politicians, imo, are mad, and morally blind.





In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, our Western intellectuals and Western politicians still claim that they are certain that ISLAM is a benign and peaceful and socially healthy philosophy.

IMO, the people who are making such claims are either mad, or morally blind [i.e. morally bankrupt].

I doubt that this type of blindness is dependant on racial physical or religious boundaries.

Yadda, your thread titles are becoming increasingly epochal. Either you've been reading CS Lewis's schoolboy preface to Paradise Lost, or 1980s editions of the Watchtower.

They had the Soviets, you see, before the Muslims.

When will it ever end?

Karnal wrote on Jan 16^th, 2012 at 1:11pm:

Yadda, your thread titles are becoming increasingly epochal. Either you've been reading CS Lewis's schoolboy preface to Paradise Lost, or 1980s editions of the Watchtower. They had the Soviets, you see, before the Muslims. When will it ever end?

Conflict will never end.
Heraclitus had it figured out over 2,000 years ago.
"War is the father of all things."

We need enemies to understand ourselves. Everything is relational, nothing exists in-itself. All idealism that projects a final state is lies. Even idealism needs its enemies in order to exist. How can idealism exist without a contra to be fought?

Yadda wrote on Jan 16^th, 2012 at 10:35am:

A deep moral blindness is apparent, in Western societies today. Yadda wrote on Jan 16th, 2012 at 1:17am: abu_rashid wrote on Jan 14th, 2012 at 10:25pm: Western society culturally and morally superior? LOL You are a joke soren. Western society is veering into moral decay and has been for a few decades now..... Abu, Whereas, devout moslem people, are clearly the best of people alive today.  [Koran 3.110] "Allah Akbar!!!" , .....you morally superior moslem warrior for Allah. /sarc off ISLAM / moslems are superior, folks. No doubt about it. /sarc off PROOF..... "Child suicide bombers: "They told us the bombs would not kill us, only the Americans would die and you can come back to us" " http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/01/child-suicide-bombers-they-told-us-the-bombs-would-not-kill-us-only-the-americans-would-die-and-you.html "....The mission was as simple as touching two wires together, the little boy was promised. The resulting blast would obliterate the American infidels – but God would spare him from the flame and shrapnel. Abdul Samat would be unharmed and free to run back to the men who had fitted his bomb vest." A deep moral blindness is apparent, in Western societies today. Even though we can provide evidence of the evil conduct and behaviour of people who [themselves] claim to represent ISLAM's ideals,.... abu_rashid and other moslems who post in this forum still do not understand [they are unable to 'reason out'] why we non-moslems reject their assertions that ISLAM is a superior philosophy, and why we reject their incessant assertions [the assertions of devout moslems!] that devout moslems are a superior and moral people. Moslems cannot see it. Moslems are unable to 'reason out', that ISLAM is an evil death cult. Why so? Q. Why do moslems lose their ability to embrace truth, and lose their ability to engage in rational reasoned debate [with those who do not believe as they believe] ? I have said this previously; ISLAM, imo, creates a mental pathology, in those persons who choose to embrace it. i.e. ISLAM creates a mental instability [a state of insanity] in those people who choose to embrace it. ISLAM creates a mental instability [a state of insanity] in those people who choose to embrace its doctrines of hatred. A hatred directed towards ALL people, and ALL ideas, and ALL concepts, which are deemed to be non-ISLAMIC. And Western countries, and overwhelmingly the intellectuals in the West, and politicians in the Western countries, see no problem in allowing those persons who embrace the 'ISLAMIC worldview' [who embrace a culture of violence, and ISLAMIC supremacism], moslems, to live and walk among us. Our intellectuals and politicians, imo, are mad, and morally blind. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, our Western intellectuals and Western politicians still claim that they are certain that ISLAM is a benign and peaceful and socially healthy philosophy. IMO, the people who are making such claims are either mad, or morally blind [i.e. morally bankrupt].

Well, Abu never actually says what it is we "degenerate" Westerns are supposed to do. All he does is post up supposed atrocities and then takes a moral high ground without even explaining what that high ground is.
He's his own worst enemy and he turns people off Islam not toward it.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 16^th, 2012 at 3:19pm:

Yadda wrote on Jan 16th, 2012 at 10:35am: A deep moral blindness is apparent, in Western societies today. Yadda wrote on Jan 16th, 2012 at 1:17am: abu_rashid wrote on Jan 14th, 2012 at 10:25pm: Western society culturally and morally superior? LOL You are a joke soren. Western society is veering into moral decay and has been for a few decades now..... Abu, Whereas, devout moslem people, are clearly the best of people alive today.  [Koran 3.110] "Allah Akbar!!!" , .....you morally superior moslem warrior for Allah. /sarc off ISLAM / moslems are superior, folks. No doubt about it. /sarc off PROOF..... "Child suicide bombers: "They told us the bombs would not kill us, only the Americans would die and you can come back to us" " http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/01/child-suicide-bombers-they-told-us-the-bombs-would-not-kill-us-only-the-americans-would-die-and-you.html "....The mission was as simple as touching two wires together, the little boy was promised. The resulting blast would obliterate the American infidels – but God would spare him from the flame and shrapnel. Abdul Samat would be unharmed and free to run back to the men who had fitted his bomb vest." A deep moral blindness is apparent, in Western societies today. Even though we can provide evidence of the evil conduct and behaviour of people who [themselves] claim to represent ISLAM's ideals,.... abu_rashid and other moslems who post in this forum still do not understand [they are unable to 'reason out'] why we non-moslems reject their assertions that ISLAM is a superior philosophy, and why we reject their incessant assertions [the assertions of devout moslems!] that devout moslems are a superior and moral people. Moslems cannot see it. Moslems are unable to 'reason out', that ISLAM is an evil death cult. Why so? Q. Why do moslems lose their ability to embrace truth, and lose their ability to engage in rational reasoned debate [with those who do not believe as they believe] ? I have said this previously; ISLAM, imo, creates a mental pathology, in those persons who choose to embrace it. i.e. ISLAM creates a mental instability [a state of insanity] in those people who choose to embrace it. ISLAM creates a mental instability [a state of insanity] in those people who choose to embrace its doctrines of hatred. A hatred directed towards ALL people, and ALL ideas, and ALL concepts, which are deemed to be non-ISLAMIC. And Western countries, and overwhelmingly the intellectuals in the West, and politicians in the Western countries, see no problem in allowing those persons who embrace the 'ISLAMIC worldview' [who embrace a culture of violence, and ISLAMIC supremacism], moslems, to live and walk among us. Our intellectuals and politicians, imo, are mad, and morally blind. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, our Western intellectuals and Western politicians still claim that they are certain that ISLAM is a benign and peaceful and socially healthy philosophy. IMO, the people who are making such claims are either mad, or morally blind [i.e. morally bankrupt]. Well, Abu never actually says what it is we "degenerate" Westerns are supposed to do. All he does is post up supposed atrocities and then takes a moral high ground without even explaining what that high ground is. He's his own worst enemy and he turns people off Islam not toward it.

Because he is a symptom of the illness itself.  A grown white man turning his back on his own, and choosing to become a Muslim.  It doesn't get much lower than that.  Luckily for him, the disease which afflicts the west harms our ability to fight off "infections" like him.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 16^th, 2012 at 3:15pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 16th, 2012 at 1:11pm: Yadda, your thread titles are becoming increasingly epochal. Either you've been reading CS Lewis's schoolboy preface to Paradise Lost, or 1980s editions of the Watchtower. They had the Soviets, you see, before the Muslims. When will it ever end? Conflict will never end. Heraclitus had it figured out over 2,000 years ago. "War is the father of all things." We need enemies to understand ourselves. Everything is relational, nothing exists in-itself. All idealism that projects a final state is lies. Even idealism needs its enemies in order to exist. How can idealism exist without a contra to be fought?

Wow! I like it BD.

Yes, perhaps our enemies really do define who we are?

Because clearly, in choosing 'the enemy', we also define [reveal?] what we [choose to] oppose [and who our allies may be]?





When i was a child, i remember a popular saying going around was;

"A person who never made a mistake, never made anything."



Almost certainly throughout our life, in our choices, we will make many mistakes [i.e. take many a mis-taken path].

But when we recognise that we are on a mis-taken path, shouldn't we acknowledge our error, and try to remedy it?

I guess the answer to that, depends on whether our intended destination was at all important to us?



+++

Proverbs 3:6
In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 16^th, 2012 at 10:40am:

I doubt that this type of blindness is dependant on racial physical or religious boundaries.

I'm sure that is true.

The 'human condition' affects us all.

We all seem to be corrupted by this world.

And irrespective of our racial, or religious boundaries, some of us make many more poor choices, than others, i would offer.

Why so?

We are corrupted by all of our daily interactions with this world, and the deeper we 'engage' in our interactions with this world, the deeper into the 'mire' we certain to get, i would offer.

James 4:1
From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?
.....
4  Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

A bit harsh?       ;D       ;D       ;D






For me, i think Jesus verbalised the best solution to our collective problem;

Matthew 7:12
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.


But this is an idea which is easy to sabotage, by just a few 'barbarians'.

So, Jesus solution is no real solution?



There are a lot of predators ['barbarians'] in this world.

How do we deal with them?

... wrote on Jan 16^th, 2012 at 4:27pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 16th, 2012 at 3:19pm: Yadda wrote on Jan 16th, 2012 at 10:35am: A deep moral blindness is apparent, in Western societies today. Yadda wrote on Jan 16th, 2012 at 1:17am: abu_rashid wrote on Jan 14th, 2012 at 10:25pm: Western society culturally and morally superior? LOL You are a joke soren. Western society is veering into moral decay and has been for a few decades now..... Abu, Whereas, devout moslem people, are clearly the best of people alive today.  [Koran 3.110] "Allah Akbar!!!" , .....you morally superior moslem warrior for Allah. /sarc off ISLAM / moslems are superior, folks. No doubt about it. /sarc off PROOF..... "Child suicide bombers: "They told us the bombs would not kill us, only the Americans would die and you can come back to us" " http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/01/child-suicide-bombers-they-told-us-the-bombs-would-not-kill-us-only-the-americans-would-die-and-you.html "....The mission was as simple as touching two wires together, the little boy was promised. The resulting blast would obliterate the American infidels – but God would spare him from the flame and shrapnel. Abdul Samat would be unharmed and free to run back to the men who had fitted his bomb vest." A deep moral blindness is apparent, in Western societies today. Even though we can provide evidence of the evil conduct and behaviour of people who [themselves] claim to represent ISLAM's ideals,.... abu_rashid and other moslems who post in this forum still do not understand [they are unable to 'reason out'] why we non-moslems reject their assertions that ISLAM is a superior philosophy, and why we reject their incessant assertions [the assertions of devout moslems!] that devout moslems are a superior and moral people. Moslems cannot see it. Moslems are unable to 'reason out', that ISLAM is an evil death cult. Why so? Q. Why do moslems lose their ability to embrace truth, and lose their ability to engage in rational reasoned debate [with those who do not believe as they believe] ? I have said this previously; ISLAM, imo, creates a mental pathology, in those persons who choose to embrace it. i.e. ISLAM creates a mental instability [a state of insanity] in those people who choose to embrace it. ISLAM creates a mental instability [a state of insanity] in those people who choose to embrace its doctrines of hatred. A hatred directed towards ALL people, and ALL ideas, and ALL concepts, which are deemed to be non-ISLAMIC. And Western countries, and overwhelmingly the intellectuals in the West, and politicians in the Western countries, see no problem in allowing those persons who embrace the 'ISLAMIC worldview' [who embrace a culture of violence, and ISLAMIC supremacism], moslems, to live and walk among us. Our intellectuals and politicians, imo, are mad, and morally blind. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, our Western intellectuals and Western politicians still claim that they are certain that ISLAM is a benign and peaceful and socially healthy philosophy. IMO, the people who are making such claims are either mad, or morally blind [i.e. morally bankrupt]. Well, Abu never actually says what it is we "degenerate" Westerns are supposed to do. All he does is post up supposed atrocities and then takes a moral high ground without even explaining what that high ground is. He's his own worst enemy and he turns people off Islam not toward it. Because he is a symptom of the illness itself.  A grown white man turning his back on his own, and choosing to become a Muslim.  It doesn't get much lower than that.  Luckily for him, the disease which afflicts the west harms our ability to fight off "infections" like him.

I believe this is a serious area of research that needs to be undertaken. There is Ph.D after Ph.D waiting to be written on this.

Yadda wrote on Jan 16^th, 2012 at 10:19pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 16th, 2012 at 3:15pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 16th, 2012 at 1:11pm: Yadda, your thread titles are becoming increasingly epochal. Either you've been reading CS Lewis's schoolboy preface to Paradise Lost, or 1980s editions of the Watchtower. They had the Soviets, you see, before the Muslims. When will it ever end? Conflict will never end. Heraclitus had it figured out over 2,000 years ago. "War is the father of all things." We need enemies to understand ourselves. Everything is relational, nothing exists in-itself. All idealism that projects a final state is lies. Even idealism needs its enemies in order to exist. How can idealism exist without a contra to be fought? Wow! I like it BD. Yes, perhaps our enemies really do define who we are? Because clearly, in choosing 'the enemy', we also define [reveal?] what we [choose to] oppose [and who our allies may be]? When i was a child, i remember a popular saying going around was; "A person who never made a mistake, never made anything." Almost certainly throughout our life, in our choices, we will make many mistakes [i.e. take many a mis-taken path]. But when we recognise that we are on a mis-taken path, shouldn't we acknowledge our error, and try to remedy it? I guess the answer to that, depends on whether our intended destination was at all important to us? +++ Proverbs 3:6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

You can thank Plato for teaching us that everything is relational.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 17^th, 2012 at 9:54am:

You can thank Plato for teaching us that everything is relational.

Thank you Plato.



Yadda the uneducated, the unread.
....and yet somehow the 'universe' still comes through.          ;)
....why? because i am mad? or because i'm 'attentive'?


Universe.

Uni = one
verse = a spoken sentence
Gen 1:3




Bolshevik Destroyer said.....

"You can thank Plato for teaching us that everything is relational."


Dictionary;
relation = =
1 the way in which two or more people or things are connected or related. ....(relations) the way in which two or more people or groups feel about and behave towards each other.
2 a relative.
3 the action of telling a story.





+++

Psalms 27:10
When my father and my mother forsake me, then the LORD will take me up.

For Yadda, a very 'relational' bible verse.

Yadda wrote on Jan 16^th, 2012 at 10:35am:

A deep moral blindness is apparent, in Western societies today.

Q.
The people of the West, ourselves, especially young people,
....where are our 'heads at' today?

A.
Watch teh music video clip....

Hilltop Hoods, Nosebleed Section
....'the people in the front row'




Checkout the venue [crowds, fans] version of this music clip on YTube.

IMO, what is represented in that clip is a good analogy of where our [the 'West's'] 'collective' head are at.

Don't get me wrong, i think that its a great clip.

I know that if i was there, i would get sucked in too.

Its a great song!

Watching the clip, is addictive.

And the crowds,  ....it is easy to get caught up in the festive, joyous mood.

Yes?



+++

The people shown in the clip.

Who are they?

To me, they are a good representative of the 'mainstream', of what the 'culture' of the 'West' represents today.

Pleasure-seeking, self-indulgent, care-less.

i.e.
There is nothing wrong with being exclusively pleasure-seeking.

Right?



+++

I am not mainstream.

I am not 'normal'.

IMO, the 'mainstream' [represented by the people present at the Hilltop Hoods gig], are the people who are 'normal'.



I, me, Yadda, i am a part of humankind.

But i am perhaps, on the periphery of the what we know as humankind?

But i am not 'mainstream'.

And to me, that is a good thing.

From where i am 'standing', i [definitely] have a different perspective from the 'mainstream'.

Do ya think?

Watch that music clip again.     ;)




+++

Ecclesiastes 7:4
The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.

No?




Resilient Yadda.

One solution is to change the education system from one that focuses on the individual to one toward being absorbed in a philosophy that is future directed.

The postmodernists have done their best to destroy any future orientated goal because of supposed 'evil' power structures and the supposed relativism of all cultures.

Boot out all the deconstructionists from the 1960s onward from the Academe and replace them with a more classical education of John S. Mill, Locke, Burke, and Plato (as was previously the case before the postmodern nihilists took over). 
This would start to reverse the current academic culture that thinks its god-given purpose is to define everything Western as evil. Then, hopefully move toward one that teaches students to understand the issues that underpin why the West was king, and would positively promote Western ideas.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 18^th, 2012 at 10:55am:

One solution is to change the education system from one that focuses on the individual to one toward being absorbed in a philosophy that is future directed. The postmodernists have done their best to destroy any future orientated goal because of supposed 'evil' power structures and the supposed relativism of all cultures. Boot out all the deconstructionists from the 1960s onward from the Academe and replace them with a more classical education of John S. Mill, Locke, Burke, and Plato (as was previously the case before the postmodern nihilists took over).  This would start to reverse the current academic culture that thinks its god-given purpose is to define everything Western as evil. Then, hopefully move toward one that teaches students to understand the issues that underpin why the West was king, and would positively promote Western ideas.

Oooooow yes!       ;D




Then, hopefully move toward one that teaches students to understand the issues that underpin why the West was king, and would positively promote Western ideas ideals.





+++

John Locke 1632-1704
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1242692863/0#0




Locke - the Father of Liberalism or Contradiction?
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1300752332/0#0

It's unfortunate those threads didn't get many replies.

Locke's ideas ought to be compulsory reading, even at high school level if that is at all possible.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 18^th, 2012 at 3:01pm:

It's unfortunate those threads didn't get many replies. Locke's ideas ought to be compulsory reading, even at high school level if that is at all possible.

John Locke, 1632-1704

From the little that i have read of him, he seems a good and sensible man.

A man who's personal philosophy and worldview seemed to be based in fair, and [dare i say it] Godly reason.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 14^th, 2012 at 10:25pm:

Western society culturally and morally superior? LOL You are a joke soren. Western society is veering into moral decay and has been for a few decades now.....

The west is veering into moral decay only insofar as it regards the barbarians as benign. And Muslims who adhere to Islam are barbarians- ie enemies of everything the West, since Greek times, has stood for.
The Muslims were the most significant barbarian destroyers of the west's classical inheritance - more devastating than the Huns, Vikings, Goths, and all the rest because those either died out or assimilated to the western inheritance.

Of all those barbarians, the Muslims alone are still with us and they alone, therefore, are still pressing for the destruction of the West.

Quote:

But all that is morally right rises from some one of four sources: it is concerned either (1) with the full perception and intelligent development of the true; or (2) with the conservation of organized society, with rendering to every man his due, and with the faithful discharge of obligations assumed; or (3) with the greatness and strength of a noble and invincible spirit; or (4) with the orderliness and moderation of everything that is said and done, wherein consist temperance and self-control. Although these four are connected and interwoven, still it is in each one considered singly that certain definite kinds of moral duties have their origin: in that category, for instance, which was designated first in our division and in which we place wisdom and prudence, belong the search after truth and its discovery; and this is the peculiar province of that virtue. For the more clearly anyone observes the most essential truth in any given case and the more quickly and accurately he can see and explain the reasons for it, the more understanding and wise he is generally esteemed, and justly so. So, then, it is truth that is, as it were, the stuff with which this virtue has to deal and on which it employs itself.

(Marcus Tullius Cicero, from De Officiis)

There always have been and there always will be old men agonising about the morals of the young. Cicero comes across as a pompous ass, but despite that, he did have some good ideas on morality.

muso wrote on Mar 25^th, 2012 at 8:34am:

Quote: But all that is morally right rises from some one of four sources: it is concerned either (1) with the full perception and intelligent development of the true; or (2) with the conservation of organized society, with rendering to every man his due, and with the faithful discharge of obligations assumed; or (3) with the greatness and strength of a noble and invincible spirit; or (4) with the orderliness and moderation of everything that is said and done, wherein consist temperance and self-control. Although these four are connected and interwoven, still it is in each one considered singly that certain definite kinds of moral duties have their origin: in that category, for instance, which was designated first in our division and in which we place wisdom and prudence, belong the search after truth and its discovery; and this is the peculiar province of that virtue. For the more clearly anyone observes the most essential truth in any given case and the more quickly and accurately he can see and explain the reasons for it, the more understanding and wise he is generally esteemed, and justly so. So, then, it is truth that is, as it were, the stuff with which this virtue has to deal and on which it employs itself. (Marcus Tullius Cicero, from De Officiis) There always have been and there always will be old men agonising about the morals of the young. Cicero comes across as a pompous ass, but despite that, he did have some good ideas on morality.

And, as every school boy knows, the Roman Empire fell. Due to the lack of moral fortitude. The lack of moral fortitude is the cause of every fall, of empires, governments, individuals.

So the warnings are not empty. But the fools will forever ignore them.

Soren wrote on Mar 30^th, 2012 at 9:11pm:

muso wrote on Mar 25th, 2012 at 8:34am: Quote: But all that is morally right rises from some one of four sources: it is concerned either (1) with the full perception and intelligent development of the true; or (2) with the conservation of organized society, with rendering to every man his due, and with the faithful discharge of obligations assumed; or (3) with the greatness and strength of a noble and invincible spirit; or (4) with the orderliness and moderation of everything that is said and done, wherein consist temperance and self-control. Although these four are connected and interwoven, still it is in each one considered singly that certain definite kinds of moral duties have their origin: in that category, for instance, which was designated first in our division and in which we place wisdom and prudence, belong the search after truth and its discovery; and this is the peculiar province of that virtue. For the more clearly anyone observes the most essential truth in any given case and the more quickly and accurately he can see and explain the reasons for it, the more understanding and wise he is generally esteemed, and justly so. So, then, it is truth that is, as it were, the stuff with which this virtue has to deal and on which it employs itself. (Marcus Tullius Cicero, from De Officiis) There always have been and there always will be old men agonising about the morals of the young. Cicero comes across as a pompous ass, but despite that, he did have some good ideas on morality. And, as every school boy knows, the Roman Empire fell. Due to the lack of moral fortitude. The lack of moral fortitude is the cause of every fall, of empires, governments, individuals. So the warnings are not empty. But the fools will forever ignore them.

Yes the fools certainly will. It is beyond amazing that Yadda will post such statements when the morale atrocities of the christian church over such a long period of human history spell out the very imoral behaviour you seem so outraged over. Western society is decaying in it's own filth. This is aided by the church who are the greatest of all when a blind eye is needed.

The wars in Iraq ans Afghanistan should have taught us that the lessons of the first TV war in Vietnam were not learned and that we still engage in wars of self interest and we behave appallingly in those wars. The GFC should have warned us that we did not learn from the great depression and the current explosion in gun crime on our streets should br evidence enough that our communities are failing.

We are so busy trying to take the splinter from the eye of others we don't notice the log in our own.

Lots of criticisms there nairbe but little by the way of solutions.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 5:02pm:

Lots of criticisms there nairbe but little by the way of solutions.

Bolshevik Destroyer,

nairbe's criticism of the West is justified.

We [who should have known better] have corrupted ourselves, and we still have no care that that has happened.

What comes next is unavoidable.





the wicked, the oppressor....

Psalms 7:15
He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 21^st, 2012 at 5:02pm:

Lots of criticisms there nairbe but little by the way of solutions.

Good point, try applying to yourself.

Mine is only a personal opinion and we all know what we say about opinions. To me the key is in community and by that i don't mean global, Australian, state, City I mean your community. Concentrate on your suburb and your street. Know your neighbour and support them as best you can. Communities need to create employment for there young as a civic responsibility and stop worrying about the ski boat and holiday home. We are driven by greed and selfishness that is hidden behind global community.

There are no magic solutions available to or by government. In Fact government are powerless to do anything about it. Any action they may take in the endless spiral downward in law and order as well as the deterioration of social interactions in our communities fail spectacularly with only further deterioration of the situation and the erosion of human rights as the outcomes.

It is the hardest of all situations to overcome but it can only be done within communities and by communities. Greed must be shunned, families must again be shamed when on the dole, those that don't put in and contribute have backs turned to them. Responsibility to the people around you and not hiding behind nationalism and globalisation. The Romans fell because the morale corruption could not be reclaimed because the people were to selfish to change and western society is rotting from the inside for the same reasons.

It is a change of thinking that must come. Every civilization goes through cycles in it's rise and fall. They build through strict and cruel morale law, as they peak they find an equilibrium of morale value and personal freedom then freedom takes over and selfishness and greed become the virons that rot the corpse.

nairbe wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 10:30am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 5:02pm: Lots of criticisms there nairbe but little by the way of solutions. Good point, try applying to yourself. Mine is only a personal opinion and we all know what we say about opinions. To me the key is in community and by that i don't mean global, Australian, state, City I mean your community. Concentrate on your suburb and your street. Know your neighbour and support them as best you can. Communities need to create employment for there young as a civic responsibility and stop worrying about the ski boat and holiday home. We are driven by greed and selfishness that is hidden behind global community. There are no magic solutions available to or by government. In Fact government are powerless to do anything about it. Any action they may take in the endless spiral downward in law and order as well as the deterioration of social interactions in our communities fail spectacularly with only further deterioration of the situation and the erosion of human rights as the outcomes. It is the hardest of all situations to overcome but it can only be done within communities and by communities. Greed must be shunned, families must again be shamed when on the dole, those that don't put in and contribute have backs turned to them. Responsibility to the people around you and not hiding behind nationalism and globalisation. The Romans fell because the morale corruption could not be reclaimed because the people were to selfish to change and western society is rotting from the inside for the same reasons. It is a change of thinking that must come. Every civilization goes through cycles in it's rise and fall. They build through strict and cruel morale law, as they peak they find an equilibrium of morale value and personal freedom then freedom takes over and selfishness and greed become the virons that rot the corpse.

Interesting ideas but some are fraught with problems. For a start, people are obsessed with foreign issues; more people care for boat people and Palestinians than their own neighbours. Plus, employing people based on close communities sounds like the inevitable problem of discrimination will arise. I can just see the trendy lefties yelling "he/she's discriminated against because he/she's from out of town; you're being an 'outoftownist'".

I disagree greed is the major problem anyway. It's got more to do with a relentless critique built on pessimism and a will to destroy Western institutions. Too many weaklings, pessimists, and not enough optimists and men with balls.

nairbe wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 10:30am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 5:02pm: Lots of criticisms there nairbe but little by the way of solutions. Good point, try applying to yourself. Mine is only a personal opinion and we all know what we say about opinions. To me the key is in community and by that i don't mean global, Australian, state, City I mean your community. Concentrate on your suburb and your street. Know your neighbour and support them as best you can. Communities need to create employment for there young as a civic responsibility and stop worrying about the ski boat and holiday home. We are driven by greed and selfishness that is hidden behind global community. There are no magic solutions available to or by government. In Fact government are powerless to do anything about it. Any action they may take in the endless spiral downward in law and order as well as the deterioration of social interactions in our communities fail spectacularly with only further deterioration of the situation and the erosion of human rights as the outcomes. It is the hardest of all situations to overcome but it can only be done within communities and by communities. Greed must be shunned, families must again be shamed when on the dole, those that don't put in and contribute have backs turned to them. Responsibility to the people around you and not hiding behind nationalism and globalisation. The Romans fell because the morale corruption could not be reclaimed because the people were to selfish to change and western society is rotting from the inside for the same reasons. It is a change of thinking that must come. Every civilization goes through cycles in it's rise and fall. They build through strict and cruel morale law, as they peak they find an equilibrium of morale value and personal freedom then freedom takes over and selfishness and greed become the virons that rot the corpse.

You can't have a community with such a rapid influx of such a large number of various alien people who do not share your values.

Soren wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2012 at 10:18pm:

nairbe wrote on Apr 22nd, 2012 at 10:30am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 21st, 2012 at 5:02pm: Lots of criticisms there nairbe but little by the way of solutions. Good point, try applying to yourself. Mine is only a personal opinion and we all know what we say about opinions. To me the key is in community and by that i don't mean global, Australian, state, City I mean your community. Concentrate on your suburb and your street. Know your neighbour and support them as best you can. Communities need to create employment for there young as a civic responsibility and stop worrying about the ski boat and holiday home. We are driven by greed and selfishness that is hidden behind global community. There are no magic solutions available to or by government. In Fact government are powerless to do anything about it. Any action they may take in the endless spiral downward in law and order as well as the deterioration of social interactions in our communities fail spectacularly with only further deterioration of the situation and the erosion of human rights as the outcomes. It is the hardest of all situations to overcome but it can only be done within communities and by communities. Greed must be shunned, families must again be shamed when on the dole, those that don't put in and contribute have backs turned to them. Responsibility to the people around you and not hiding behind nationalism and globalisation. The Romans fell because the morale corruption could not be reclaimed because the people were to selfish to change and western society is rotting from the inside for the same reasons. It is a change of thinking that must come. Every civilization goes through cycles in it's rise and fall. They build through strict and cruel morale law, as they peak they find an equilibrium of morale value and personal freedom then freedom takes over and selfishness and greed become the virons that rot the corpse. You can't have a community with such a rapid influx of such a large number of various alien people who do not share your values.

I don't know about the diversity, i have friends who are Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist and Atheist and in the end we all get on and the coure value of family and friendship is there. I would though not disagree that to have such large population changes and growth in our cities does destroy those values. It is not the few refugees that we receive but the obsession with a big Australia.

The so called West will die if it aint careful!

The other half know what war is!! War requires a morality in order to be successfully campaigned!!!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2012 at 7:20pm:

The so called West will die if it aint careful! The other half know what war is!! War requires a morality in order to be successfully campaigned!!!

Care to clarify what this gibberish means?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2012 at 8:14pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 23rd, 2012 at 7:20pm: The so called West will die if it aint careful! The other half know what war is!! War requires a morality in order to be successfully campaigned!!! Care to clarify what this gibberish means?

Is it not obvious? if you don't believe what you are fighting for you will never succeed.

nairbe wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2012 at 8:23pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 23rd, 2012 at 8:14pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 23rd, 2012 at 7:20pm: The so called West will die if it aint careful! The other half know what war is!! War requires a morality in order to be successfully campaigned!!! Care to clarify what this gibberish means? Is it not obvious? if you don't believe what you are fighting for you will never succeed.

You should be death's translator.

Soren wrote on Mar 30^th, 2012 at 9:11pm:

And, as every school boy knows, the Roman Empire fell. Due to the lack of moral fortitude. The lack of moral fortitude is the cause of every fall, of empires, governments, individuals. So the warnings are not empty. But the fools will forever ignore them.

That's a commonly held myth. So does every Schoolboy believe that the decline of Rome coincided with the adoption of Christianity under Theodosius? Actually a lot of what would be traditionally be regarded as moral decline was stamped out under Christianity. If you look at the walls of Pompeii (AD 79) you see plenty of evidence of blatent prostitution, homosexuality etc, but it was certainly no worse than 500BC, despite Livy's writings on Lucretia.

The Roman Empire did not build by conventional means of trade to the same extent as the Greeks and the Phoenicians. They grew by the spoils of battle. (They regarded themselves as descendents of Mars.) The Roman empire got to the stage where it was too big and unstable, and they were coming under increasing pressure from the Huns and Visigoths. By around 405, they could no longer finance their armies in the more far flung regions, and they pulled out of Britain and Gaul around that time to defend Italy against the Vandals and Visigoths. Rome under Alaric after 410 was not significantly different to Rome under Stilicho, who was hafl Vandal. There was a gradual breakdown in institutions, largely for economic reasons.

Don't tell me that you have fond memories of "Edward Gibbon" from your school days?

The term "fall" is a misnomer in itself. The only significant "fall" was that of the Eastern Roman Empire (they spoke Greek) with the loss of Constantinople in 1453 to the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II.

Ah, the old boy's fond memories of his schoolboy days. Playing conkers, carrying his schoolmaster's books and whiling away the hours reading Edward Gibbons under an old oak tree near the quadrangle.

Ever been to Bankstown High?

You'd need more than moral fortitude to go there - Dutch courage, perhaps.

muso wrote on Apr 24^th, 2012 at 8:53pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 30th, 2012 at 9:11pm: And, as every school boy knows, the Roman Empire fell. Due to the lack of moral fortitude. The lack of moral fortitude is the cause of every fall, of empires, governments, individuals. So the warnings are not empty. But the fools will forever ignore them. That's a commonly held myth. So does every Schoolboy believe that the decline of Rome coincided with the adoption of Christianity under Theodosius? Actually a lot of what would be traditionally be regarded as moral decline was stamped out under Christianity. If you look at the walls of Pompeii (AD 79) you see plenty of evidence of blatent prostitution, homosexuality etc, but it was certainly no worse than 500BC, despite Livy's writings on Lucretia. The Roman Empire did not build by conventional means of trade to the same extent as the Greeks and the Phoenicians. They grew by the spoils of battle. (They regarded themselves as descendents of Mars.) The Roman empire got to the stage where it was too big and unstable, and they were coming under increasing pressure from the Huns and Visigoths. By around 405, they could no longer finance their armies in the more far flung regions, and they pulled out of Britain and Gaul around that time to defend Italy against the Vandals and Visigoths. Rome under Alaric after 410 was not significantly different to Rome under Stilicho, who was hafl Vandal. There was a gradual breakdown in institutions, largely for economic reasons. Don't tell me that you have fond memories of "Edward Gibbon" from your school days? The term "fall" is a misnomer in itself. The only significant "fall" was that of the Eastern Roman Empire (they spoke Greek) with the loss of Constantinople in 1453 to the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II.

Actually, Deceus was the first emperor who expressly wanted to halt and reverse the moral decline of multicultural Rome. He wanted to restore the martial traditions of Rome by decreeing that everyone should sacrifice to the gods of the Roman  pantheon. This made the position of the Christians very awkward. Most refused and were killed, including the Bishop of Rome. Those who went along had a problem on their hands when they went to their bishops for forgiveness. Deceus caused quite a lot of internal difficulty for the early church.
In any case, the Roman Empire survived until 1453, until the fall of Constantinople/Byzantium. That too happened because of moral weakness.

And Gibbon is a very good source - alas, most people who introduce him into discussions have not read him. He is available at Audible, BTW, if you are so inclined while driving around.

http://mobile.audible.com/search.htm?type=search&cache=1&author=Edward+Gibbon

Karnal wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 5:18pm:

Ever been to Bankstown High? You'd need more than moral fortitude to go there - Dutch courage, perhaps.

I am not often critical of Australia but you point to a tremendous weakness. It is a weakness shared by other western countries, of course, but it is more starkly obvious here.

Soren wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 5:59pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 28th, 2012 at 5:18pm: Ever been to Bankstown High? You'd need more than moral fortitude to go there - Dutch courage, perhaps. I am not often critical of Australia but you point to a tremendous weakness. It is a weakness shared by other western countries, of course, but it is more starkly obvious here.

Dutch courage?

No.
The view that football - sport and leaping about in the great outdoors generally - is fulfilling and that reading the newspapers and watching the ABC are signs of a rich inner life.
Egalitarianism is a great things and its positives outweigh its negatives. Still, it is not 'all good', as the plebs like to say.

Soren wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 7:58pm:

No. The view that football - sport and leaping about in the great outdoors generally - is fulfilling and that reading the newspapers and watching the ABC are signs of a rich inner life. Egalitarianism is a great things and its positives outweigh its negatives. Still, it is not 'all good', as the plebs like to say.

Egalitarianism is an ideal.

And the nature of men being what it is, egalitarianism is difficult to find, in the world of men.


Dictionary;
egalitarian = = believing in or based on the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.




I'm not in favour of legislating for 'forced' egalitarianism in a society.

But i am in favour of its merit being studied and its ideal being encouraged.

I believe that equal opportunity should offered to all   [...<-- and isn't that, expressing the egalitarian ideal ???]  .

But i believe that effort and merit should be rewarded [within an 'egalitarian' society], ....and i believe that 'rights' should be earned by each successive generation.

Soren wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 5:56pm:

Actually, Deceus was the first emperor who expressly wanted to halt and reverse the moral decline of multicultural Rome. He wanted to restore the martial traditions of Rome by decreeing that everyone should sacrifice to the gods of the Roman  pantheon. This made the position of the Christians very awkward. Most refused and were killed, including the Bishop of Rome. Those who went along had a problem on their hands when they went to their bishops for forgiveness. Deceus caused quite a lot of internal difficulty for the early church. In any case, the Roman Empire survived until 1453, until the fall of Constantinople/Byzantium. That too happened because of moral weakness. And Gibbon is a very good source - alas, most people who introduce him into discussions have not read him. He is available at Audible, BTW, if you are so inclined while driving around. http://mobile.audible.com/search.htm?type=search&cache=1&author=Edward+Gibbon

I've read all the old historians, including Gibbon and Mommsen, who compared to Gibbon is incredibly modern.  :) They share a certain romantic naivety and both swallowed Livy, hook line and sinker. Modern historians tend to take into account the revisionist context within which Livy operated. The same can be said of Zosimus (the primary source for the period in question) to some extent.

Now Decius himself was bestowed with the honorific, "Traianus", which illustrated the prevailing Roman ideals of conquest. They still aspired to this paradigm, although there was nothing left to conquer and loot and the empire of the time was slowly  decaying from within. They failed to update their business model. That was their main reason for economic collapse.  Sack loot and rape 101 just didn't work any more. 

The original Trajan was a classic example of the modus operandi of Rome.  Dacia and later Parthia was his source of his personal wealth and his perceived success. It had nothing to do with forming institutions and legal systems, or improved governance,  all of which the Romans inherited from the Etruscans several centuries prior. Gibbon quite liked him too. He rated him as number 2 in his top 5 Emperors.  

By the time it came to Decius (an Illyrian from the territory of  modern day Slovenia), there were no more large territories to conquer. It was all he could do  to sort out the various revolts that were breaking out across the empire. It wasn't until about 100 years later that Christianity became the official religion of Rome, and it was a very different religion, with more similarities to the cult of Bacchus and other mystery cults such as Mithraism than modern day Christianity. It just gradually became the mystery cult with the most influence (and the most thugs).   

Most of Pompeii had not even been excavated by the time of Gibbon.  Gibbon (and Mommsen) are more interesting from a historiography sense than anything else.

http://www.wpclipart.com/famous/philosophy/Edward_Gibbon.png
Edward Gibbon (1737-1794)

Quote:

He is available at Audible, BTW, if you are so inclined while driving around.

I won't be doing so much of that from June onwards. My setting with then be more (regional) urban than rural. I'll be working for evil fossil fuel  ;D

Soren wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 7:58pm:

No. The view that football - sport and leaping about in the great outdoors generally - is fulfilling and that reading the newspapers and watching the ABC are signs of a rich inner life. Egalitarianism is a great things and its positives outweigh its negatives. Still, it is not 'all good', as the plebs like to say.

Very true, old boy. But do you think we should create a law that people who think we're plebs and refuse to assimilate to our egaiitarian culture p!ss off back to their respective mother countries?

It would be a nice start to their citizenship, no? You know, we could have a little pledge or they could bugger off.

It might sound a touch harsh, but it is a law, after all. We love a nice law, we do.

What do you think, dear?

Karnal wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 8:01pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 28th, 2012 at 7:58pm: No. The view that football - sport and leaping about in the great outdoors generally - is fulfilling and that reading the newspapers and watching the ABC are signs of a rich inner life. Egalitarianism is a great things and its positives outweigh its negatives. Still, it is not 'all good', as the plebs like to say. Very true, old boy. But do you think we should create a law that people who think we're plebs and refuse to assimilate to our egaiitarian culture p!ss off back to their respective mother countries? It would be a nice start to their citizenship, no? You know, we could have a little pledge or they could bugger off. It might sound a touch harsh, but it is a law, after all. We love a nice law, we do. What do you think, dear?

I think you are a devious paki bastard, PB.
I pointed out a weakness, not the norm or standard to which assimilation is required if we want to avoid a fractious society (best represented by the places that most people who refuse to assimilate come from).

muso wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 8:45am:

Soren wrote on Apr 28th, 2012 at 5:56pm: Actually, Deceus was the first emperor who expressly wanted to halt and reverse the moral decline of multicultural Rome. He wanted to restore the martial traditions of Rome by decreeing that everyone should sacrifice to the gods of the Roman  pantheon. This made the position of the Christians very awkward. Most refused and were killed, including the Bishop of Rome. Those who went along had a problem on their hands when they went to their bishops for forgiveness. Deceus caused quite a lot of internal difficulty for the early church. In any case, the Roman Empire survived until 1453, until the fall of Constantinople/Byzantium. That too happened because of moral weakness. And Gibbon is a very good source - alas, most people who introduce him into discussions have not read him. He is available at Audible, BTW, if you are so inclined while driving around. http://mobile.audible.com/search.htm?type=search&cache=1&author=Edward+Gibbon I've read all the old historians, including Gibbon and Mommsen, who compared to Gibbon is incredibly modern.  :) They share a certain romantic naivety and both swallowed Livy, hook line and sinker. Modern historians tend to take into account the revisionist context within which Livy operated. The same can be said of Zosimus (the primary source for the period in question) to some extent. Now Decius himself was bestowed with the honorific, "Traianus", which illustrated the prevailing Roman ideals of conquest. They still aspired to this paradigm, although there was nothing left to conquer and loot and the empire of the time was slowly  decaying from within. They failed to update their business model. That was their main reason for economic collapse.  Sack loot and rape 101 just didn't work any more.  The original Trajan was a classic example of the modus operandi of Rome.  Dacia and later Parthia was his source of his personal wealth and his perceived success. It had nothing to do with forming institutions and legal systems, or improved governance,  all of which the Romans inherited from the Etruscans several centuries prior. Gibbon quite liked him too. He rated him as number 2 in his top 5 Emperors.   By the time it came to Decius (an Illyrian from the territory of  modern day Slovenia), there were no more large territories to conquer. It was all he could do  to sort out the various revolts that were breaking out across the empire. It wasn't until about 100 years later that Christianity became the official religion of Rome, and it was a very different religion, with more similarities to the cult of Bacchus and other mystery cults such as Mithraism than modern day Christianity. It just gradually became the mystery cult with the most influence (and the most thugs).    Most of Pompeii had not even been excavated by the time of Gibbon.  Gibbon (and Mommsen) are more interesting from a historiography sense than anything else. http://www.wpclipart.com/famous/philosophy/Edward_Gibbon.png Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) Quote: He is available at Audible, BTW, if you are so inclined while driving around. I won't be doing so much of that from June onwards. My setting with then be more (regional) urban than rural. I'll be working for evil fossil fuel  ;D

Muso, you deserve the old boy university medal for this post. You've completely out old-boyed the old boys. They won't even be able to finish reading this one, never mind responding to it.

It would seem you're every schoolboy's nightmare.

Soren wrote on Apr 29^th, 2012 at 8:06pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 29th, 2012 at 8:01pm: Soren wrote on Apr 28th, 2012 at 7:58pm: No. The view that football - sport and leaping about in the great outdoors generally - is fulfilling and that reading the newspapers and watching the ABC are signs of a rich inner life. Egalitarianism is a great things and its positives outweigh its negatives. Still, it is not 'all good', as the plebs like to say. Very true, old boy. But do you think we should create a law that people who think we're plebs and refuse to assimilate to our egaiitarian culture p!ss off back to their respective mother countries? It would be a nice start to their citizenship, no? You know, we could have a little pledge or they could bugger off. It might sound a touch harsh, but it is a law, after all. We love a nice law, we do. What do you think, dear? I think you are a devious paki bastard, PB. I pointed out a weakness, not the norm or standard to which assimilation is required if we want to avoid a fractious society (best represented by the places that most people who refuse to assimilate come from).

You mean those awful pleb-hating, ABCaphobe barbarians?

They come from Denmark, no?