| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley |
|
||||||||||||||
| Teachers teach | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Sat May 27th, 2006 09:50 am |
|
1st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://forum.atimes.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7391The holy Koran stresses this common word and calls on an followers of divine religions and Voluntary association is a learning experience. What then is prescribed when one cannot agree to an equitable proposition? What is one to do to another when equity cannot be found? If one is to offer equity, as one is inclined to measure it, based upon a belief in it, and one cannot come to an equitable proposition with another one, then, what happens next? Dismiss, ignore, disregard, reject, disagree and do not follow, yes, and rightfully so, if one cannot agree, but, what does one cause to happen after the negotiation process ceases? If at first an offer does not succeed in coming to an equitable proposition, then, what is the right, or best, or most beneficial, peaceful, honorable, equitable next best thing to do? What, if not right, if not practical, if not expedient, if not honorable, and all that, what is, at least, the least destructive option? For the sake of clarity in perspective; can it be proposed, as good, or accurate, or reasonable, to assume to know, and measure, the entire span of choices, options, and limits of possibilities, to guess, or imagine, the exact wrong thing to do and from that extreme can one then find, at least, the average or median option once the decision has been reached to reject an equitable proposition? Is it exactly wrong, then, to kill the messenger who has proposed an equitable proposition? Is that exactly the wrong thing to do or can one imagine into being some greater wrong? Can one torture the messenger who has delivered a version of an equitable proposition? Is that the worst that one can do? Has the entire span of options from right to wrong been considered? One might imagine something worse. One might even bring about something worse. One could, for example, torture the messenger’s entire family, or would threatening such an act, complete with a host of previous examples of such acts, be enough torture, worse even than personal physical pain? Is this venture into imagination risky or useful? Can one gain from having the capacity to imagine as much possibility as possible or is it better to adopt a more common strategy: Hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil? How then does one manage to come to an equitable proposition when one must deal with evil? I suggest that the answer is not: Bend over!, rather, the answer is to know enough to listen and, at least, agree to disagree on a principle that says: Aggressive violence is not an option that can ever be negotiated into an agreeable or equitable solution. Aggressive violence is the Final Solution. Either one is evil on purpose or one is not and if one cannot see torture as evil then one may want to check their membership card.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Current time is 09:52 am | |
| Power Independence > Power Independence > Discovery > Teachers teach | Top |
