4th May NL memorial day WW-II

Ryan_m_b

Danger I don't know why you have said this because it is not true at all. Regardless if you have a problem with a moderation decision then appeal it, we don't discuss it openly.Obviously, if they were somehow enshrined in nature we wouldn't need to include them in our legal system would we? "Rights" are privileges that society holds in such high regard that they are made a foundation of that society's legal system and therefore the physical, social and political processes within that society work towards maintaining them.

Danger

Well, I apologize for the publication of that, but the fact is that I have received infractions just about every time that I have expressed an opinion in the past couple of months, including the fact that not only several posts, but also an entire thread, were deleted because someone on staff didn't like what I said. I think that it is time for others to know why I don't post much any more.
In a couple of cases, the person who issued the infraction disagreed with it having been issued, so I still see some hope on the horizon.
As for the second part, you are essentially backing up what I said, but you do specify "our" legal system. We do not share a legal system, unless you are a Canuck in disguise, and even our two systems are not even close to what exists in the rest of the world. We're about half-way between you and England (our solicitors wear powdered wigs only in the Supreme Court of Canada, or perhaps also in Court of Queen's Bench. Sorry, but I took law only in Grade 10, in 1971, so I'm not up on it).
Every nation has it's own legal system, and a lot of them are not compatible with either of ours. That does not in any way make them less legitimate. Neither one of us has any obligation to agree with them, nor do we have any right to interfere with them.

Ryan_m_b

No this is not the case, you did not receive any infractions for expressing your opinion but for the manner in which you expressed them. Let's leave this though because as I said we do not discuss moderation decisions in this way.
I meant to say "in our legal systems" because many countries throughout the world subscribe to some form of human rights legislation. Of course many disagree on what counts as human rights; whether or not a privilege is valued highly enough to be afforded status as a right is an interplay between the values of the people and the values of the leaders (with more democratic countries favouring the former and more authoritarian the latter). I would argue that a legal system based on the latter is less legitimate purely because it is a legal system forced upon people who do not have a say in it, our right to interfere in this matter comes under the same debate as the right to interfere in any situation which essentially boils down to do you have the capacity to act in a way that will result in a positive outcome for those concerned?

Danger

Agreed. Let's just shake on it and leave it behind.
That is exactly what I meant; every society has its own definition of "human rights", none of which are inherent to humans in general. They are all socially imposed. I'm not sure how long you've been around here, but many of us have a young lady friend, a member of PF, who is not really considered a person in her part of the world, despite being a nuclear physicist, simply because her reproductive organs are internal. I would like nothing better than to "internalize", with my boot, the reproductive organs of the men who rule her society.

zoobyshoe

There's a difference between the idea of needing an enemy, which is not an authentic human need, and being taught to expect an enemy only to have it not materialize. The latter situation is actually psychologically troublesome because it represents having your sense of purpose taken away.

The thing you're waiting for needn't be an enemy. The point of the play Waiting for Godot, is that people waste huge portions of their lives waiting for external things, good, bad, or indifferent to change their lives. Consider the Cargo Cults of New Guinea which were built around superstitious rituals intended to entice the return of American planes dropping cargo from the sky, as they did in WWII. Once any practitioner gives up and accepts the planes are never coming back, what happens to their sense of purpose?

The idea there is any enemy is one thing that will give a sense of purpose, but the idea of purpose is the important, operative one.

For the average PFer, purpose is tied to education, not an enemy. The big issue for young people is identity. They are constantly experimenting with defining themselves. Having a purpose leads, quite obviously, into having an identity. Having an enemy is an easy and universal means to have a purpose, but it is not really a human need. Having a purpose seems to be the need, the sought after definer of identity.

Monique

Danger, why'd you think I'd be a US citizen? No, I grew up wearing wooden shoes. I did live in the States for a few years, but that's already 10 years ago (and not in sunny California)

On the topic: there's a developmental stage when children reach puberty that they start developing their social skills and an identity starts to develop (like zooby mentions), that's exactly the time when groups start to form and the children start judging each other more than they used to. Apparently the need for identity is hard-wired in our development, I am not convinced however that we need an enemy.. but maybe that's my idealism.

Danger

I have a memory like a sieve. Sorry about that. I joined PF in '05, and for some reason thought that you were posting from university on our side of the pond. Perhaps it was just a matter of you referencing your time over here. You didn't actually post much in those days, so you always seemed rather exotic to me. (You still do, of course, but now the cause is hormonal rather than geographical. )

I never thought of this until you brought it up, but I now have to wonder what the rest of your clothing is made of. Are there trapdoors in strategic locations? Are wooden teaspoons used as training bras, and you work your way up to ladles? What I wouldn't give to be a termite in your culture...

I like the thoughts that both you and Zoob express. Not that I dislike the other opinions, but you two always seem to strike at the heart of the matter without being sidetracked by cultural influences.

Andre

To get back on track, do we need an enemy?

I pondered a bit about that, feet on the table, relaxed, own ideas, no scientific substantiation for now. Imagine the paleo persons of the paleolithicum, running around in the steppes. Whenever they are safe, unthreatened, they do just their things, study worms, smoking pork, whatever. No adventure.

But now there is a threat, a herd of outraged mammoths. What now? They have to defend the community, work together, save the women and children. Together they can do it, and eventually they survive. Everybody happy, the warriors for proving that they make the difference, the protectees for being protected by the bravest members of the clan. Admiration all around.

The keyword is "happy" here. If you have an enemy, eventually you're going to be happy, happy for the reconciliation within the group. No dutch persons have ever been more happy than on May 5th 1945, when the liberation was complete, the enemy defeated.

So if you have an enemy, the processes to deal with the crisis succesfully lead to happy fraternization and most probably to a boost in reproduction processes.

But what if there is no threat? No enemy around? Everybody is just doing their thing. So boring. Consequently, if there is no enemy, you can always make one. There are always devils and dragons to invent or an outraged deity, or 'them', the others, the outgroup, who are not 'us'.

So everybody needs an enemy, trust me, I am a very experienced enemy.

Danger

Excellent scenario, Andre. I'm sorry that I contributed to derailing your thread.
One of the things that seems obvious to me, though, is that the prime instigation of politics as a social device is that those who were heroes, voluntarily or otherwise, don't want to relinquish that status after the true threat has passed. Hence the invention of Weapons of Mass Distraction, devils, Communists, Atheists, or whatever else they can con the minions into believing is going to come for them in the night. In some rare cases, those new threats are real, but for the most part they are boogymen or strawmen or what ever you use as a bogus baddie. Scare enough people, and you might remain in office. Luckily, people seem to be getting smarter as of late.

Astronuc

I don't need any enemies, and I can do without them. I'm not sure why one would need an enemy. Does the term 'enemy' extend to adversary? Evenso, I don't really need adversaries.

Nature and the universe are challenging enough, and certainly interesting and not boring.

Andre

Dan, it's okay. You may want to check "moral panic".

Astronuc, I don't know, maybe you don't care if your favorite sport team is beat badly, after all footbal is war but I have a tendency to frown about the continuous destruction of rain forests, overhunting of whales and things like that.

I realize I also had a tendency to believe everything that 'our' warriors against those 'crimes' told about the perpetrators.

Borek

It occurred to me now - we (as a species) have a (sometimes nice) trait of uniting in the face of danger (danger, not Danger). I guess it is deeply rooted in our genes, as herd cooperation was needed for survival. Sadly, seems like this trait can be easily triggered by imaginary dangers, which makes us susceptible to manipulation, especially when we feel insecure.

Andre

Exactly Borek, exactly.

My two cent addition to that idea is that some people are so eager to unite that way, that they invent imaginary dangers. Moreover, showing that you know how counter such an imaginary threat, promotes you way up in the pecking order. Others accept those dangers happily because they look at the pecking order too and it unites, having a common enemy. After all, The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

daveb

There's a great quote in the movie Cast a Deadly Spell: Witch Hunt, in which Eric Bagosian says (paraphrased), "Put ten people in a room, and though they may not choose a leader, I guarantee they'll choose one of the ten to hate" It's a rather pessimistic, albeit probably realistic, vew of humankind.

zoobyshoe

I addressed this in post #22 and am interested in your response to what I said.

Andre

Okay Zoobyshoe, sorry to be late. I guess you do have a point and I certainly exaggerated with the generalizing "everybody". The proposed mechanism is probably weak for many individuals, no doubt.

However observing many conversations, it strikes me that many friendly people get very passionate about those evil ..fill in your favorite opponent... in an attempt to get the attention/admiration of the audience. It's getting so predictable that I got to detest it.

But it's beginning of the processes that ultimately may lead to the worst possible scenarios in the OP.

zoobyshoe

In the absence of something better, people will accept the threat of an enemy as the basis for a sense of purpose. I think what we have to worry about is young men, particularly disenfranchised young men and young men with little or no education. They are brimming with hormones, and craving a sense of identity and purpose. It's easy to tip them over into violence and they are easy prey to demagogues who would use them to further their own ends. They are susceptible to accepting pre-packaged enemies.

Hitler's ability to forms gangs of such young men is what allowed him to rise to power, terrorize his own nation and people, and then, when the opposition was cowed, start rounding up Jews.

10 or 15 years ago teenaged boys started hanging out in front of the markets in my neighborhood asking for change. They were in groups of three or more, so people were intimidated and many would give them change out of fear.

They weren't official gangs at all, just a bunch of teenagers who had stumbled on the principles of organized crime by accident and started to explore it.

Anyway, the neighborhood passed an ordinance making illegal for 2 or more high school students to "gather" in public. The cops enforced it rigidly, and the problem went away. Sometimes it's that simple.

Germany did not deal with Hitler properly after the Beer Hall Putch. He and the other party leaders should have been jailed for life for attempting the violent overthrow of the government, prevented from disseminating any propaganda from jail, and the Nazi party dismantled and made illegal.