Love Conquers All

[Golden Dragon Shining]

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar Sent Peace Message To ISIS, Received Photo Of Beheaded Man

"I tried to initiate peace talks with the ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) recently but they sent me a photograph of a beheaded body of a man. Thus, my effort for a peace dialogue with the ISIS ended," Sri Sri Ravi Shankar said.

"I think the ISIS does not want any peace talks," he told reporters in Agartala. "Hence, they should be dealt with militarily."

Ha...

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/sri-sri-ravi-shankar-sent-peace-message-to-isis-received-photo-of-beheaded-man-1398207

You'd think India would know better by now...

500+ years?
 

Edited April 23, 2016 by Sionnach

[Marblehead]

But really, those who preach peace and love must try, mustn't they?

 

And it is a sad truth, sometimes love is not enough.

 

And yes, India has its own problems.  Their culture is ancient.  Old habits linger on and on.

[Karl]

There is a great paragraph in Peikoffs book on Objectivism that says that when man refuses to act rationally from choice, then he has given up responsibility for his actions and hence all his human rights, including freedom and life. As such he can be regarded as nothing more than an animal and not a human being-this is a difficult thing for those who believe that animals have rights to accept-and thus must be dealt with by cage or bullet.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Karl

[thelerner]

There is a great paragraph in Peikoffs book on Objectivism that says that when man refuses to act rationally from choice, then he has given up responsibility for his actions and hence all his human rights, including freedom and life. As such he can be regarded as nothing more than an animal and not a human being..

I think this statement is the basis for much evil. The ultimate rationality on why we can treat others badly, indeed murder them.

 

Whereas an atheist, Marblehead states "But really, those who preach peace and love must try, mustn't they?"

 

 

Back to OP, good (and saintly) doesn't mean stupid.   Even the power of love has problems when its going up against psychopaths. 

Edited April 23, 2016 by thelerner

[Golden Dragon Shining]

That is the point.

I would question his awareness for even making the attempt.

Anyhow.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Sionnach

[zerostao]

There is a great paragraph in Peikoffs book on Objectivism that says that when man refuses to act rationally from choice, then he has given up responsibility for his actions and hence all his human rights, including freedom and life. As such he can be regarded as nothing more than an animal and not a human being-this is a difficult thing for those who believe that animals have rights to accept-and thus must be dealt with by cage or bullet.

thanks for posting this as it saves me from reading any objectivist theory or any peikoff.

if i could sum up the idea behind the paragraph in one word, that word would be inhumane.

or, if i chose another kinder word to sum it up, it would be ignorant.

[Karl]

I think this statement is the basis for much evil. The ultimate rationality on why we can treat others badly, indeed murder them.

 

Whereas an atheist, Marblehead states "But really, those who preach peace and love must try, mustn't they?"

 

 

Back to OP, good (and saintly) doesn't mean stupid. Even the power of love has problems when its going up against psychopaths.

Told you it was a tough. Of course when some psychopath is in your house with a big knife threatening your family, you will preach love and good wishes at them ?

 

Nah, you will fight for your values. You will leave all those thoughts of bliss, peace and sacrifice in the gutter and use whatever you have to hand to bludgeon the attacker to death.

 

You peaceniks are all the same until reality comes calling.

 

It is the total opposite to evil. It is to judge and to be judged. Not to go initiating violence, but to defend against it. To defend life against death.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Karl

[Karl]

thanks for posting this as it saves me from reading any objectivist theory or any peikoff.

if i could sum up the idea behind the paragraph in one word, that word would be inhumane.

or, if i chose another kinder word to sum it up, it would be ignorant.

Really. So your values extend to allowing someone who has given up rationality voluntarily to do whatever they want to you and anyone you care for ?

 

Well, you argue well enough when you don't believe a thing, I wonder what happens when what you believe becomes a physical reality intent on snuffing you out ?

 

You don't agree with locking up those who do not respect life ? Or ending the life of those who casually end the lives of others ?

Edited April 23, 2016 by Karl

[thelerner]

Told you it was a tough. Of course when some psychopath is in your house with a big knife threatening your family, you will preach love and good wishes at them ?

 

Nah, you will fight for your values. You will leave all those thoughts of bliss, peace and sacrifice in the gutter and use whatever you have to hand to bludgeon the attacker to death.

 

You peaceniks are all the same until reality comes calling.

 

It is the total opposite to evil. It is to judge and to be judged. Not to go initiating violence, but to defend against it. To defend life against death.

Ah, the only way to win is producing the old 'your family has there knives to there throat' scenario.  Very handy, but manipulative.. leading.. silly.

 

You've moved from 'when man refuses to act rationally from choice' he deserves to die(!?) to holding a knife at childrens throats.  Is there any degree of extreme you won't go inorder to win an argument?  What next have them holding a nuclear grenade inorder to justify killing someone/anyone/everyone who doesn't act according to your definition of rationality?  Jeez.

 

I'm no peacnik, yet I can't help thinking the writer is borrowing from the ISIS playbook when he's so fast to label other human beings animals.  Before we commit a crime too often we label the other 'animal' or subhuman.  Bad habit. 

 

 

back to the OP, its the jobs of saints to try to create peace where there is discord.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.  Yet we need the people who try, if no other reason then to balance the fearful and psychopaths who call for blood and violence too quickly. 

Edited April 23, 2016 by thelerner

[Karl]

Ah, the only way to win is producing the old 'your family has there knives to there throat' scenario. Very handy, but manipulative.. leading.. silly.

 

You've moved from 'when man refuses to act rationally from choice' he deserves to die(!?) to holding a knife at childrens throats. Is there any degree of extreme you won't go inorder to win an argument? What next have them holding a nuclear grenade inorder to justify killing someone/anyone/everyone who doesn't act according to your definition of rationality? Jeez.

 

I'm not a peacnik, yet I can't help thinking the writer is borrowing from the ISIS playbook when he's so fast to label other human beings animals. Before we commit a crime too often we label the other 'animal' or subhuman. Bad habit.

I don't think you have thought it through. I'm specifying the intentional and voluntary choosing of the suspension of reasoned thought. You do not accept that ISIS hold knives to the throat of innocent, peaceful people ? You believe they are exercising rational thought when they engage in suicide bombing and mass suicides. That it isn't you or your family is fortunate.

 

ISIS are subhuman, they are animals. It isn't a bad habit to regard them as such. Did you excuse those who flew passenger jets into the twin towers. Do you think this was the behaviour of rational humans or irrational animals?

 

These aren't straw man arguments. These are real examples of irrational humans which pose a serious danger to the lives of the innocent. Of course that's only if you regard the West as being more pro life than those that oppose it, you have to accept that you must take a view.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Karl

[zerostao]

Really. So your values extend to allowing someone who has given up rationality voluntarily to do whatever they want to you and anyone you care for ?

 

Well, you argue well enough when you don't believe a thing, I wonder what happens when what you believe becomes a physical reality intent on snuffing you out ?

 

You don't agree with locking up those who do not respect life ? Or ending the life of those who casually end the lives of others ?

i had a sql error as i was posting and it posted before i intended.

your post in the context of this thread is one thing and another thing is your short paragraph standing alone.

i have trouble with the wording, esp. rationally and animals.

as a stand alone paragraph i stand by my reply.

if i am out in the woods and encounter a rattlesnake, bear, or any animal, my natural response is not going to be to try and kill it.

if that animal attacks me, that is an entirely different matter.

if that animal attacks other animals, and not me, then judging could come into play, but that is when it gets tricky.

[thelerner]

I think you need to go to extremes to justify easily calling people animals and inhuman.  I think you're playing by the ISIS playbook, doing the thing they do.  There cruelty is based on calling others non-human.

 

Since you ask directly, the people in ISIS are not subhuman or animal.  They are criminal.  Human beings who are doing terrible, criminal things and need to be stopped and dealt with by our laws.  Because of the nature of the situation that is going to be military. 

 

I think, my perspective, of recognizing the evil men do, allows me to understand there motives and see within myself such dark potential exists.  That it begins when I call start labeling others as animals and subhumans. 

[Junko]

Yes,it does indeed.

[Karl]

i had a sql error as i was posting and it posted before i intended.

your post in the context of this thread is one thing and another thing is your short paragraph standing alone.

i have trouble with the wording, esp. rationally and animals.

as a stand alone paragraph i stand by my reply.

if i am out in the woods and encounter a rattlesnake, bear, or any animal, my natural response is not going to be to try and kill it.

if that animal attacks me, that is an entirely different matter.

if that animal attacks other animals, and not me, then judging could come into play, but that is when it gets tricky.

 

No different to an irrational human. You won't know they are irrational actors until their actions confirm it. If you went around killing humans because you thought they were irrational, not because their actions confirmed that they were, then you would be acting irrationally.

[Karl]

I think you need to go to extremes to justify easily calling people animals and inhuman.  I think you're playing by the ISIS playbook, doing the thing they do.  There cruelty is based on calling others non-human.

 

Since you ask directly, the people in ISIS are not subhuman or animal.  They are criminal.  Human beings who are doing terrible, criminal things and need to be stopped and dealt with by our laws.  Because of the nature of the situation that is going to be military. 

 

I think, my perspective, of recognizing the evil men do, allows me to understand there motives and see within myself such dark potential exists.  That it begins when I call start labeling others as animals and subhumans. 

 

I do not 'easily call people inhuman' I make the specific argument that they have chosen to act in a wholly irrationally out of a deliberate choice to do so. You have to make the judgement call, none of us are immune. We must judge if a person presents a clear and present danger to our values and in what respect and what opposing force to utilise.

 

That you name someone criminal is a cop out. A criminal in the eyes of the law is someone who breaks an arbitrary speed limit, has homosexual relationships or doesn't pay their taxes. That isn't what ISIS is. They are a direct threat to life. I may be true that your own Government also represents some degree of danger, but then you must judge if that degree of danger is of greater risk than a terrorist organisation prepared to kill themselves and take your life along with theirs.

 

No such dark potential exists unless you choose it Lerner. That you would be prepared to use force in defence of your own life or values is not irrational behaviour. As long as you intend to claim no value by that action except to conserve the values you have honestly and rationally earned.

 

That's why I said, judge and be prepared to be judged. I have no issue determining one from the other, but as I said, it won't be an easy choice for those who regard animals as having rights. I would expect that you would react similarly to irrationally acting human animals.

 

 

[Geof Nanto]

@ Karl

 

You write with such myopic vision and display such little understanding of what is be human that it’s scarcely worthwhile replying to you. Your basic premise here that people voluntarily discard their rationality is flawed. No such thing happens. People simply have different perspectives and are acting rationally in response to that perspective.

 

As an extreme example, I've talked to people whose crazy behaviour I've witnessed whilst they were experiencing what we call a psychotic episode.  Yet when they explain how they were then experiencing the world in that state, their actions reveal themselves as perfectly rational and logical responses.

 

What you’re wanting is for everyone to share your perspective so that the world will be simple and certain for you. You've taken subjectivity to such an extreme that for you it's become the objective worldview.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Yueya

[thelerner]

Using force isn't dark nor is protecting others.  Inflicting pain unnecessarily, torture, amputations, mass murder personal and impersonal.. that get dark and its exists within me.  Not using it, but its there, that impulse to kill them all, torture the rest, and let god sort it out.  Its there.  I need to know that and keep it in check.  To realize its also in others, that it needs to be acknowledged and we should be afraid of it.  Not glorify it, or think its macho. 

 

A big step towards becoming our worst selves, losing our humanity, is calling others- animals or subhuman, instead of criminals who need to be dealt with.  That might involve gentle warnings, loving support to killing them. 

 

Karl, for you, since you write people who 'refuse to act rationally', no longer deserve freedom or life.  Where do you draw your upper line?   Whats your minimum where people lose such rights?   I won't insult you or this site by saying its walking on grass, spitting on the side or petty larceny, but what does irrational judgement mean?  And who decides, who punishes?

Edited April 23, 2016 by thelerner

[Marblehead]

ISIS are subhuman, they are animals.

The wildest of animals don't even do what they do.  They are the slime of the Earth and should be washed away with sulfuric acid.

[Marblehead]

I apologize for not expressing much love in that last post.

[Bindi]

I read that most of humanity operates at the lower chakra levels, from the root to the solar plexus, and spirituality is trying to bring consciousness and energy to the higher ones. But there are also chakras below the root chakra that operate when more or less what we would call criminal behaviour occurs.

 

“They are known as atal, vital, sutal, rasatal, dharatal, mahatal, and patal. Animals also have chakras, and in the instinctive frame of consciousness, these are the seven chakras which are activated.”

 

Operating from the very lowest of these allows people to kill others with impunity. I think even if this is done as part of a cult, the individual would carry that karma.

[thelerner]

The wildest of animals don't even do what they do.  They are the slime of the Earth and should be washed away with sulfuric acid.

 

It's not just about what they are, its about who we are.  Using sulfuric acid on other people degrades us; makes us less human beings.  That doesn't mean we play patty cake, it means we follow the rules of war and do our utmost to avoid civilian casualties.  There's a whole lot of people in ISIS territory who were caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

 

Modern warfare where you have a kill rate of 20 civilians to every combatant is a stain on humanity.  We have to do better.  It starts with not pinning the label inhuman on other groups, so we justify doing inhuman things to them. 

 

Let me go further then that though.  Let me plead for the lives of ISIS members. 

addon> Let us not forget that the evil they do is because they bought into the belief that people of other religions and ethnicity are subhuman and animals.  We will beat them, there is no doubt.  If we hold tight to the idea some groups are animals and subhuman then we've won the war and lost the peace.  The worst of there ideology will have survived in us.  >

 

In war there is killing, its a necessity.  Fight intelligently, avoid civilian casualties, attack there finances, trick them, hound them, cut off there supplies, degrade and punish there allies.  

 

Realize 2 years ago these were guys on the street, living there lives, doing no harm, and if you handle things intelligently, 2 years from now many of these ISIS member could be doing the same.   Good doesn't mean stupid though, there are war crimes and regular murder, rape etc.,to be answered and paid for.  

 

Yet many individuals and families were disenfranchised people drawn to ISIS for the dream of finding a good life in a religious setting.  That's the dream/trap that ISIS propaganda set out and it snared 10,000's.  Most more stupid then evil, since ISIS made no bones about slavery and genocide of other groups.  Still that was 'justified' as a short phase one before paradise set in. 

 

These 'ISIS' members do not deserve death or to be called subhuman, probably stupid and naive works better.  They don't deserve a get out of jail free card either.  They should return under probation, checking in and violations should get them jailed.   Those who committed crimes should already be there.

 

Much of there ideology is based on God is on there side and the Caliphate is his ambassador on the earth.   Win the war, take away there territory, chain or kill there Caliphate, imprison there top hierarchy, propagandists and jihadist imams and you've gone  long way to returning the masses to normalcy. 

Edited April 24, 2016 by thelerner

[Bindi]

From what I can gather Isis started in response to civil injustice in ?Syria, Shia’s were being summarily executed and Isis formed to protect the Shia minority. So initially Shia were treated as sub-human by Sunni’s who controlled the government. And then they didn’t stop, their fight with the Sunni overlords extended to a fight with the American overlords and extended further again from there.

 

My point being I gather Isis started as a response to the group they identified with being attacked. So they are freedom fighters in their eyes, fuelled by a religious precedent in the name of Allah. And then they became a successful cult that attracted the disenfranchised and violently inclined, so the violence spiralled out of control.

[Karl]

Using force isn't dark nor is protecting others.  Inflicting pain unnecessarily, torture, amputations, mass murder personal and impersonal.. that get dark and its exists within me.  Not using it, but its there, that impulse to kill them all, torture the rest, and let god sort it out.  Its there.  I need to know that and keep it in check.  To realize its also in others, that it needs to be acknowledged and we should be afraid of it.  Not glorify it, or think its macho. 

 

A big step towards becoming our worst selves, losing our humanity, is calling others- animals or subhuman, instead of criminals who need to be dealt with.  That might involve gentle warnings, loving support to killing them. 

 

Karl, for you, since you write people who 'refuse to act rationally', no longer deserve freedom or life.  Where do you draw your upper line?   Whats your minimum where people lose such rights?   I won't insult you or this site by saying its walking on grass, spitting on the side or petty larceny, but what does irrational judgement mean?  And who decides, who punishes?

 

That's a far more open minded stance Lerner.

 

Of course I will judge, but I voluntarily give up the right to extract justice by living under the rule of law. I've said that this is the true purpose of Government in the final analysis. They have the monopoly on force. I recognise that there must be a completely objective law who's scales weigh in the balance of justice and who's eyes are blind. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life.

 

You can call people criminals if you wish, but criminality must be linked to morality and morality to the value of ones life as the measure. An individual, group or state that has explicitly initiated violence against peaceful people, groups or states has given up their rights to freedom and life. Their fate-what justice is extracted-I hand over to the law under which I voluntarily live.

 

I make the point about legalise because states are not objective or entirely moral, but as it stands I can certainly judge to accept the current state I live under as preferable to one in which pure totalitarianism is enacted. I'm clear where I am better off even if it isn't perfect. However that's a different argument.

 

To return to your initial paragraph. Many of us are capable of a small degree of sadism. However, our prospective victims can choose not to participate with us. I don't have to cooperate with thieves, kidnappers, or cut throats-except where I'm forced into doing so by a state-that I do cooperate in the case of something worse, I am not doing so because I wish to turn over a portion of my wealth to a thief who threatens me with a knife. I am not making a voluntary exchange. Where a thief threatens you with violence if you do not cooperate, or a hijacker takes over control of the plane you are a passenger in, or a jihadhist sprays bullets into an audience for no other reason than to take life-then these are not avoidable, voluntary interactions. You cannot walk away from a country that is threatening to annihilate you with an atomic bomb, the thief aiming a gun at your head, or the jihadhist intent on destroying your life in a place where there is peace.

 

You are at liberty to leave your country. Walk into a war zone. Volunteer to be a combatant. You could strap on an explosive vest, or become a violent thief. What prevents you from doing so ? I don't have that kind of violence within me, unless I am under duress. Only if things have become so intolerable that death is a price I would be prepared to pay, but that is not where we are for the moment. The West is still incredibly free compared to many places around the world and where the law is not as objective as it could be, it functions passably and is not intolerable.

[Karl]

@ Karl

 

You write with such myopic vision and display such little understanding of what is be human that it’s scarcely worthwhile replying to you. Your basic premise here that people voluntarily discard their rationality is flawed. No such thing happens. People simply have different perspectives and are acting rationally in response to that perspective.

 

As an extreme example, I've talked to people whose crazy behaviour I've witnessed whilst they were experiencing what we call a psychotic episode. Yet when they explain how they were then experiencing the world in that state, their actions reveal themselves as perfectly rational and logical responses.

 

What you’re wanting is for everyone to share your perspective so that the world will be simple and certain for you. You've taken subjectivity to such an extreme that for you it's become the objective worldview.

You are mixing up rational error with purposeful abandoning rationality. For instance people believe they are entitled to claim a portion of someone else production. They are not acting irrationally, they are acting in error because they are under the impression there is a social contract and that they have accepted this contract and the privileges that go with it.

 

I am not talking of that kind of error. I'm talking about someone who says "I will have it and I mean to have it by any means at any cost to myself or to others".

 

A man who has a psychotic episode is not voluntarily giving up reason. His rationality is in error. This is a very narrow define, because a psychotic has no right to make the excuse that his rationality absolves him from responsibility, he is still responsible for the crimes he commits and the law must exact justice for any victims of his psychosis. A man who takes a powerful drug, goes nuts and kills someone in a fit of blind rage is still responsible for his actions of taking the drug in the first place-here he abandoned reason by not thinking carefully about the consequences of his actions. However, a man who was tricked into taking such a drug would not be responsible for his actions, these would fall on the trickster.

 

You must ascribe to your own moral values, I will decide if I want to interact with a person who has those values. You are judging me, I accept the judgement, but in turn I judge you and your value to me. I cannot foist my values on you, neither would I, nor can you foist yours on me.

 

This is far from myopic, it is objective and you have proven it. Despite claiming moral fluidity you are acting on fixed moral values yourself. You are judging me against those values and finding me wanting-indeed proving that there isn't moral fluidity at all, otherwise you could not call me myopic and lacking in human understanding. Yet you see, I understand very well.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Karl

[Orion]

Everything is part of the Divine, even murderous, psychopathic killers... even people who sacrifice humans or eat fetuses, even cruel torturers. They're all just part of the myriad faces of God. Whether or not *you* can love them, is irrelevant to this fact.

 

Can you compassionately and lovingly kill someone? I think so. Maybe we're not all advanced enough to do that, but I can envision a situation where it's doable.

 

Can you love your torturer? Can you maintain the quality of trust no matter what happens to you?

 

It's about the conditional vs. the unconditional.

 

Love being a "conquering" force is an oxymoron. Love conquers nothing. It yields and receives everything into its field. True love, divine love, the love born of emptiness, is a fire that consumes everything until nothing is left. Does the Sun conquer? Or does it simply shine so bright that nothing else can outshine it?