From: Jei (jei@cc.hut.fi)
Date: Sun May 02 2004 - 16:46:03 MDT
On Sun, 2 May 2004, Erik Aronesty wrote:
> Q1: Is compassion objective?
...
> 5. Even if you are quite certain that members of group Y are violent,
> aggressive and mean you harm, compassion is still an effective mode of
> thinking for reducing the aggression and, potentially, mitigating harm to
> oneself.
I agree..
And if both groups have infinite resources, that is
also the only way to bring about peace and resolution
to hostility and conflict situations. One side has to
start the peace process by stopping all retaliations.
One might also conjecture that groups disseminating
false facts and covering up truths, (such as routine
torture of iraqi prisoners), are in fact worsening
the situation and creating a very dangerous situation
where a one-sided perception of reality does not equate
with the facts on the ground to the other side of the
conflict.
Short term, this may be beneficial, if your goal is
indeed to continue the strife and fool somebody into
supporting it, but if the real goal is actual peace,
the falsification of facts leads to total misunderstanding
and misreading of the situation, e.g.
"They hate us for our freedom."
One other great example:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html
// Jei
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 02 2004 - 16:47:32 MDT