no, and I didn't make it clear, what I meant was that the Toltecs were a non-violent society. Whether or not they were telepathic is up for debate. We obviously can't prove or disprove it because of the thoroughness with which they were destroyed.
thats a tricky question... because on one hand I say fair would have been letting the first crazy mofos that saw him in the US kick the shit out of him and kill him then and there without a trial and all that bull crap... then on the other hand its like he needs to suffer the way he's made other people suffer... but is that really right? I do indeed beleive the man should be punished and put to death.. but either which way there really is no right answer to that kind of question no matter what someone is the wrong and he isnt getting what he really truly deserves... soooo I say we go to the jail find a couple kleptos.. soak an old shed in some kerosene put the shithead in there bored it all up so he cant get out and let hte mofo burn to death... but ask me in a few days Im sure my answer will again change
if you want proof, I can't give it. It's like saying we know Jesus did what he did. We don't. It's people's verbal accounts that we have to go off. You can't verify half of what's in our history textbooks anyway. We're talking rhetoric now. But by all accounts I've heard and read, the Toltecs, while not originally peaceful (they came to central america around 700 I believe), did at some point after they settled become a culture of artists, philosophers, scientists, astronomers, and monks. All weapons were destroyed and they lived peacefully (meanwhile making huge strides scientifically, spiritually, and astrally) for a few hundred years before they were wiped out in a matter of days by some nomadic warrior tribe. The surviving refugees fled north and shaped the foundation of the Maya.
Well, that's pretty cool if they were a wholly peaceful society. But how can a society exist without having conflict of some sort? The scientists and philosophers and astronomers and monks couldn't have all agreed on everything...That's what I'm talking about when I say conflict. Maybe war isn't inevitable, but conflict is. It's my opinion that it's the only thing that keeps humanity extant. We have a problem, and then we solve it, and then we have another problem, and so on. And so forth.
I'm just saying it's in the realm of possibility that conflict can be solved peacefully. With violent resolution someone gets hurt. With peaceful solutions everyone comes out ahead and humanity is healthier than it was before. peace does not equal everyone getting a long. peace means equal respect to all beings.
Well, it's not like that. It's that I'd rather live here than Caracas. To be honest, I'd rather live in Alaska or Canada, since it's further away and I was born in AK anyway. It's weird because even though I don't particularly care for the US, I'd rather live in red states, though I would consider myself a moderate left-leaning supporter of the libertarian and green party and a follower of the independent green party of Virginia. That's what I love about Alaska. You have your gun nuts, nobody can find you, and everyone has a neighbor who grows something good... wether it's a fifty pound head of cabbage or Alaskan Thunderfuck and BC Kush.
There are some human beings I can never respect. And with peace, everyone does not come out ahead...usually it's some lame compromise where everybody's worse off than before. It's equal, sure. But what's equality when what you get out of it sucks?
You've got a point there... It's always some sort of compromise that leaves people mumbling under their breath.
True. But when you have hostile society's threatning yours, you never can live without conflicts. You'll need at least a defence. The Aztecs did have a very violent and bloody culture and I believe they came forth of the destroyed Toltecs as well. However I do get your point and I also agree. But it's the same case now, imagine a country in the western world lay down there arms and become totally peaceful, other countries (from the middle-east, Asia or maybe even another western country) walk right over you. I'm not for a violent society neither, but a land has to show that it can be. Only not in an aggressive way.
I agree. It is not conducive in our current society to lay down our weapons and become totally peaceful. But we are going out and picking fights. We are stretching our armies to the point where if we did get invaded we would be screwed. We are not even prepared to handle that. and that's not even the point to my argument. My point is that it is a possibility to live peacefully, but not enough people believe that to even come close to making it a reality. And really, it has be a planet-wide kind of deal, which obviously makes it much more difficult. In the past, you could have a pacifist society for hundreds of years because no one even knew you existed. It's time to awaken to a new world-wide consciousness. That's not going to happen among the leaders. That will only happen among the people. it's all just theorizing. but i figure it's better to theorize for a better earth than just extrapolating on the past and deciding there is no chance for change.
Most History books are screwed and skewed. Read Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen. (Only covers US History...) Going into this book I expected it to be a straightforward and precise debunking of a lot of exaggerated and manufactured pieces of American folklore, much like Bill Bryson did in his books on the English language. "Lies My Teacher Told Me" is rather more blunt... Loewen's premise is that history textbooks have been dumbed down and slanted to portray an endlessly optimistic and patriotic view of America which suits the needs of the conservative white people who sit on textbook adoption boards. Loewen does a good job of showing what goes in to publishing a history text, to assure that the book will be adopted widely, authors must take care not to badmouth southerners, any of the American presidents and forefathers, or the United States in general. Conversely, textbooks are stuck including all sorts of minor historical characters in their narratives to satisfy the local pride of as many different school districts as possible. What results is pre-chewed history which is short on controversial ideas and long on names and dates. Loewen states that textbooks should not present such a Eurocentric view because it harms the worldview of minority students. I believe that historical accuracy is a goal for its own sake. If textbooks would relate a true narrative about how America came to be where it is today, including both the proud triumphs and the embarrassing missteps, students would become interested in and even passionate about history. "Lies My Teacher Told Me" is good at showing some of the many areas where history textbooks fall short. That's why I've always said if were to go into teaching, I'd do History.
Everything you learn at a highschool level is fucked up, not merely history. Which is why nobody takes anything learned there seriously. Go to University and work off of original sources.
Well... my point is that History is not only past, but present and future, once you screw that, well... you don't have much to work with besides correcting what you already screwed.
What are we supposed to do if someone invades our country? what if an intruder starts shooting at me? If in the course of defending myself or my country I kill someone, would I be a murderer?
I don't think it's fair to sentense ANYONE to death. Even the worst piece of shit alive. Actually, I don't think it fair not intelligent to put people behind bars. Criminals need therapy and support, jail isn't gonna fix them...
If Sadaam deserves to die for war crimes than so does our own president. There’s no reason that one murder deserves to die while another is allowed to run a country.
Yeah... *retards* because Saddam Hussein COULD have helped him. Could. Oh yeah, and the invisible WMDs. You can say at least Hussein is gone for his genocide BS, but now you have a civil war and the destruction of a people/culture on your hands between the sunnis and shiites. Most people, even our own damn politicans, have no clue what the difference between the two are. Sunnis are traditionalists and are the majority whereas the shiites make up about 15 percent and aren't traditionalists within the Islamic faith. Then you have your sufis, etc, which some people won't consider part of Islam. I don't think it is, since it predates Islam, though the cultural influence is everpresent.
