coping skills (knowledge, problem solving, opportunity seeking, intelligence, learning . . . stuff like that) . . . certain kinds of limitations in SOME people's coping skills have resulted in higher rates of all frustrations, lowered response thresholds, and dependence upon reactionary forms of responses that tend to lead toward reflexive kinds of behaviors, which reflexive behaviors have a higher tendency to be (hard-wired) for fear, anger, and, hence violence, and violence, in its most basic form is physical and, therefore, more highly associated with physical traits like strength, which co-relates more strongly with maleness.
Because the kinds of things I sketched above may have developed at this point in our social and cultural history to a degree of extremeness that is more common than it was previously, even a relatively small minority of such actors can have significant effects, which, given our general tendencies toward "divide and conquer" types of thinking (ignorance, false dichotomies, bad logic, dishonesty, propaganda, unrecognized biases, anti-rationalism etc. etc. etc.) those more extreme dysfunctional coping skills, though they still really are rooted in a relatively small group within the whole population, the extremeness of the behaviors makes them have wider influence than they previously have had, especially with the availability of technology and its potentials for in-group/affinity-group formations.
This is why even men who have not, and might not ever, abused their wives or other females, by their inclinations/temperament CAN come to support those who have and do abuse in any degree thereof.
An important part of this dynamic is women. SOME women, too, are handicapped by limitations in their own individual coping skills. Though the limiting factors that have that effect upon women are different and probably more deeply founded in our social and cultural history than are the limiting factors that affect men, the effects upon women would be varying degrees of the same kinds of behavioral traits I mentioned above. Put two such interactive dysfunctional behavioral sets together and what do you get?
In my universe, the majority of the responsibility for what happens in a dynamic situation belongs to the stronger, more powerful, of those who are involved in what is happening. A majority, of course, can be anything from 1 to 99.99999...%, depending upon the specific strength/power of the different behavioral factors relevant to their respective actors or their role in the elementary dynamic of what happened.
This means that, because it is necessary to identify justice, we should try to assess what portion of what has happened is sourced in which element of the events under consideration. It should be justice for as close as possible to ALL who are involved, in due and appropriate proportion. It will do justice no service, not only between abusive males and women, but also in any situation (e.g. abuses from police vs. those subjected to the processes and procedures of law enforcement) . . . that is, it will do justice no service, to deny that responsibility is NOT a zero-sum commodity. It is a SHARED thing. The real questions are shared HOW and by how much. And the reason that is important is because, ***IF*** we have any hope of ever doing any better for ourselves, we NEED to learn and learning has as much, or maybe even more, to do with how one can get things wrong as it can have to do with how one gets them right and one can't learn from what one is doing wrong if one denies that is happening in whatever degree, from weak to strong, that it is so.
Therefore, if women are ever to stand a chance against their STRONGER or more powerful abusive male partners or relatives or associates (beyond holding a gun on superior male physical strength and/or on all of the different forms of superior male power), we, each one of us, must begin by recognizing how each one of us may be making the mistake (and I'm sorry to say that at least in some cases that could be an intentional "mistake" designed to shift responsibility away from one's self) of allowing ourselves to become part of anyone else's dysfunctional coping responses.
I know that this is not a very popular thing to say about women, but I think it is necessary to begin here with, to whatever degree, weak or stronger, that we are responsible for what happens to us, if women are ever to discover and take charge of what their OWN female strengths/powers are. It will no longer do to claim somekind of "right" to do whatever and then blame others for their dysfunctional responses to us. YES! men SHOULD be able to control themselves. The fact is that some can, some can't, and still others "can't" and it does us no good to pretend that isn't so. You can kick a dog forever for not being able to sing opera and it will only make a monster our of you and the dog and kill singing of any kind altogether.
Yes, men, by virtue of their strength and power do own, in most instances, the majority of the responsibility for what happens between them and women. But that does not mean that it is not NECESSARY for each individual woman to honestly recognize what portion of the causes of what happens ARE in fact hers BY CHOICE. I think if we could do this, it could end a tendency toward a female culture of victimization by independently breaking the reiterative cycles of dysfunction generated by limited reactionary coping skills and set women on what could be come a more authentic path to what it means to be women, for women's sake, in America today.
Posts are often mis-characterized, mistakenly or otherwise, as worshipping PO, or as Democratic robots, which I could accept if, rather than offering those opinions largely WITHOUT enough information to do so, those doing so (that is, those who are mis-characterizing posts in support of PO and/or the Democratic Party) would offer their judgements as HYPOTHESES and, thus seek, i.e. ASK FOR, additional information to test one's own judgements/opinions about others, because discovering empirical truth should be more important than our opinions about it. I am willing to do this and I do call on others to consider it too.
Not that people can't/shouldn't have opinions, but just that, whichever "side" one is on, let's please not proclaim (like the oppressor whom we oppose) that our opinions are gospel truth, especially NOT when one lacks authentic determinative information.
If I make a claim and fail to identify what I don't know about my claim, my claim is, to some degree, falsified.
The reciprocal of these discovery processes (in which one forms HYPOTHESES about others and seeks information and evaluates that information objectively as to whether it supports or does not support one's hypotheses about others and then admits what one knows and what one does not know about any given hypothesis) is to ALSO apply the entire hypotheses process to one's self in doing the same thing to others.
Simply put, the processes of discovery are at least a 2-way street, and likely even more than that, as long as everyone who desires to be a part of that dynamic recognizes and participates in it's RECIPROCAL nature. In order to claim X, one NEEDS to be open, not only to just propounding one's own position, but also to receiving critique of it, including what you don't know/understand and what others DON'T KNOW/understand. Too much about what happens around DU is due to what we don't know about one another and too many people appear to believe that they can state their opinions as gospel truth that everyone else should accept, without any consideration for what one is NOT revealing about one's self, that is, what those others who are supposed to just accept your "truth" don't know about you or about what you are saying, an obvious example of this, though there are many many many more besides, is our real names. Who IS the DU community? Whose voice am I reading?
We are pretending that not knowing one another does not matter, or we are pretending that it is okay for some of us to actually know one another personally and not others . . . at any rate, the things that we don't know, including not knowing one another personally, factor big into the, mistaken or otherwise, mis-characterizations of posts and positions, including the fact that not all of those who support PO and/or the Democratic Party are blind robots.
One thing that is often completely ignored in the zero-sum games at DU is the possibility that some people, and I include myself in this category, place ISSUES higher than other priorities and candidates/political-parties are functions of ISSUES, not issues as the function of, or determined by, candidates/parties. It is possible that at least a significantly strong minority of what is pro/anti-Obama and/or pro/anti-Democratic Party on DU comes from people for whom THAT category of criteria, candidate/political-party, IS the highest priority, NOT ISSUES. This means that for some DU-ers it is possible that DU activity is defined by their own pro/anti-Candidate (e.g. Ron/Rand Paul) and/or pro/anti-SomeOtherPoliticalParty. - AND - We are supposed to PRETEND that this is not happening on this board, but that "not happening" is a strong statistical improbability.
For some people for whom issues ARE, in fact, the highest priority, that's a SINGLE issue, for some that may be a couple or more issues, for others it's as close to all of the issues that are relevant to the lives of the people as one can get, count me in this last group. And yes I do resent the fact that people so commonly play fast and loose with the laws of rationalism, which they SAY they respect in offering obeisance to "science", and yet FAIL, intentionally or otherwise, to consider their own prejudices and stereotypes of others, based almost solely upon a SINGLE trait (pro/anti-Obama and/or pro/anti-Democratic Party or at least not pro/anti-OurClique'sCandidatePicks and/or not pro/anti-OurClique'sPoliticalParty) . . . . all almost without ever asking anyone a single direct personal question (my guess is because they are afraid of being asked questions themselves in that reciprocal process I mentioned earlier that leads to authentic discovery).
The thing about making issues the highest priority is that issues, in terms of the more or less democratic processes by means of which we address them collectively, triangulate one another and the thing about the necessity of triangulation/negotiation is that at some point, issues DO turn into candidates and, hence, one form or another of something that could be referred to as a political entity (currently bearing, more often than not, either the "Republican" or "Democrat" party label) because political parties are statistically where the biggest demographics are. Demographics are the means by which ISSUES are more or less well defined and addressed and I dislike being abused for the candidate/party inclination when, IN FACT, that IS what ISSUES, if they really matter, are about, in one way or another. The tasks relative to all of that have to do with whether we have the "cart/candidate->party ahead of the horse/issue(s)" or not.
Issues defining candidates defining party is true even for those making that negative candidate/party critique, mistakenly or otherwise, of others. Scratch an absolutist ideologue and find a relativist ever time. Maybe that's unavoidable. Compromise, negotiation, some degrees of those things that are commonly called "hypocrisy", all of that is necessary if we are to just live without killing one another. That doesn't mean that all of it, compromise/negotiation/hypocrisy, is all equally valid, but it does mean that we should always strive to identify the rational bases for who each of us is and what each of us is doing and if one is authentically engaged in doing so for one's self, it's okay to call upon others to do so too. And, yes, I personally reject anyone who claims the PRIVILEGE of being above those FREE and open collaborative discovery processes, because of the way that fascism has historically come wearing whatever costume/label currently suits the pure will to power over others.
In regards to all of the above, I admit to a temperament predisposed to fight "argument from authority" especially when there appears to be a mistake about, intentional or otherwise, or lack of information concerning a position that I hold. Please accept my apologies, all, for any of my un-necessary bite. I hope you know that it really is more situational than it is personal (as I have described above), but please also know that I believe, if we are to stand half of a chance of being/doing any better, I must not stand down from my personal responsibilities for the best, most honest, truths as I know them. For me those truths place issues, what is happening to people in their lives first and critically assesses candidate/party, as best I can, in service to those lives.
#1 Spirituality IS an effort to identify truth, e.g. John 14:6 "I am the way , the truth and the life ..." "way" in this context refers to a manner of doing, a HOW, i.e. how to live the truth.
#2 Spirituality lives truth by faith, e.g. John 20:26-29 "...blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe ..."
This does not mean that you can just believe, have faith in, whatever and that makes whatever valid. There is a WAY, the path of faith to truth is narrow, the gate is small Mathew 7:13. Faith must be differentiated from non-faith. Non-faith is stuff like: all of our different kinds of idolatry, including self or other worship; all of our different kinds of quid-pro-quos, including "salvation" & "everlasting life"; proofs, rational and otherwise; miracles; logical tricks, e.g. post hoc ergo propter hoc . . . everything that is not faith, must be honestly identified for what its authentic validity is. Too many people of faith don't do this and, HENCE, abuse faith.
This means that that which is not faith CAN be validated for itself, for NOT being faith. If one values faith, it should not be mixed and confused with non-faith. As long as one is completely honest about what you're doing in that validation, that which is not faith achieves its TRUE valence in one's phenomenological universe. This, of course, includes rationalism, by differentiating faith from any form of rationalism, including, especially, sloppy or fuzzy rationalism, one comes to know what one knows and why one knows it and, hence, also what one does not know and that IS good.
The ways of rationalism have for centuries recognized that its processes and procedures do not lead to absolutes, only relativities. That's not a flaw. It's a beautiful thing that rationalism honors what it is and what it does so completely that the precise pattern of the lenses in an insect's eye are found worthy of the necessity we refer to as "knowledge". I would have it no other way, but that does not mean that rationalism claims to be God.
The very point of rationalism is that it is what it is and **IF** there is anything else, if there is anything other than that which is rational, whatever that other non-rational stuff "is", it "is" what it "is". That is, rationalism, though it recognizes some unidentified probability of something beyond itself, regards that probability as ir-relevant, because it is non-rational. Rationalism has nothing to say about anything that isn't rational, other than, IF such things "exist" at all, they are not rational. This is fine with me too; in fact, I LIKE the un-biased objectivity of this perspective, because it leads one step by step within the events of the phenomenological universe, a thing sufficient unto itself, simply by virtue of the fact that it is true.
Now, what does faith have to do with all of that? To me, rationalism takes us as far as one wants to go rationally. You could, at least theoretically, know everything that there is to know rationally by being rational (if you had time, means, and opportunity to do so). One of the things that you might discover along the way is that rational phenomena can have emergent properties, relative to one another. Some people would say emergent properties are "proof" of spiritual truths like god and miracles. Others say this is a matter of synergy due to synchronous properties of systemic processes and, therefore, an appropriate subject of rationally inductive engineering. So be that.
I wonder if there isn't a last step on that way to the fullest extent of all valid deduction plus the fullest extent of all valid induction, if you could get there . . . would that be All? Since we have already established that rational knowledge can't/doesn't validate anything outside of itself, that question cannot be answered from that perspective. And the truth about that truth is that it is a NULL set. Is that otherness there or not? We don't KNOW one way or another.
To me, this condition of indeterminence is the step just beyond the last rational step (wherever that "last" rational step happens to be). It's a fulcrum point maintained by honesty and ever approaching FREE unbiased dynamic balance between what is known and what is not known, between what is the product of motivational drives that have come to be identified as rational and the inclination referred to as "faith". And it is a particular trait of that fulcrum point (with its at least theoretically infinitely long levers) that its dynamics are a product of systemic open-ness, a condition of being receptive, to whatever is, whatever that is, whether it is known/rational or other-than-known/a-rational.
I guess a simpler form of all of this is - knowing : faith dynamically drive one another toward truth. I think faith is often abused by attributing pseudo-rational properties to it, like some of those mentioned in the paragraph following #2. above. Faith is more like a void, but you can't even say that about it either, because any determinance makes it non-faith. I side with rationalists on this critique of faith: people make up pretty stories and then say I believe in that, because I am a person of faith. I'd say no you aren't; you're another pseudo-rationalist messing up rationalism, instead of going the full limit, instead of authentically going as far as rationalism can truly take you and then either committing to that rational truth (tilting the balance in that direction) and/or authentically risking faith, honestly taking a chance on "missing the boat" for other non-rational/non-known truths that may or may not be valid.
Source: Omaha World Herald, By Janice Podsada
Cabela's, the Sidney, Neb.-based hunting and outdoor retailer, won't attend or sponsor this year's Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show, one of the largest hunting and outdoor consumer shows in North America.
Cabela's pulled out of the show, which will be held Feb. 2-10 in Harrisburg, Pa., after the show's organizer, Reed Exhibitions, said it was dropping a display of assault-type weapons and accessories at this year's event. Reed's announcement came a week after President Barack Obama announced new gun-control measures.
On the outdoor show's website, Reed said that while it strongly supports the second amendment .., this year we have made the decision not to include certain products that in the current climate may attract negative attention that would distract from the strong focus on hunting and fishing at this family-oriented event and possibly disrupt the broader positive experience of our guests.
On its Facebook page, Cabela's said it would be a no-show at the event, where it traditionally has had a significant presence.
Read more: http://www.omaha.com/article/20130123/MONEY/701239965/1685#cabela-s-pulls-out-of-show-after-organizer-drops-weapons-display
Here is a Cabela's email link http://cabelas.custhelp.com/app/ask & a phone: 800-237-4444
My concerns about Cabela's behavior have to do with this piece of legislation from the 112th Congress, sponsored by Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas, and currently in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=journals&uid=113133
My email to Cabela's regarding this situation:
I take Cabela's withdraw from the Eastern Sports and Outdoor show, because of Reed Exhibition's removal of assault weapons from their booth offerings, as Cabela's confirmed support for protection of American domestic assault weapons' markets and their inherently related and much much bigger such markets in troubled countries around the world.
Apparently these markets in countries into which US made, and NRA protected, assault weapons are flowing fully un-regulated to eventually produce the necessity of US troop killing and being killed in order to "defend" "our" "interests abroad", have Cabela's seal of approval. Hence your protection of assault weapons propaganda in a PRIVATE sports show that will result in the expenditure of PUBLIC funds, not to mention the lives of those who have little say in what happens so far after the fact.
Please review Senate bill S. 2205 introduced during the 112th Congress and in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee right now. In this bill the NRA, through it's wholly owned senators, seeks to prevent U.S. involvement in U.N. treaties that try to control the flow of US made and other weapons into troubled places like Libya and Iraq and all over the continent of Africa.
America's history as "the Policemen of the World" and our standing non-UN treaty involvements mean that it is highly likely that US Troops will end up facing the weapons that Cabela's is protecting in some horribly sad and damned places, while you enjoy your assault weapons' profits in the comfort of your homes.
You can be certain that there are many of us who will not forget your ir-responsible attitude toward what happens to ordinary Americans in OUR own streets and to OUR soldiers in harm's way around the globe.
Please reconsider and offer Reed Exhibitions an apology and thank them for their responsible behavior in this matter.
Thank you for reading this,
I take Cabela's withdraw from the Eastern Sports and Outdoor show, because of Reed Exhibition's removal of assault weapons from their booth offerings, as Cabela's confirmed support for protection of American domestic assault weapons' markets and bigger such markets in troubled countries around the world.
Apparently these markets in countries into which US made, and NRA protected, assault weapons are flowing fully un-regulated to eventually produce the necessity of US troop killing and being killed in order to "defend" "our" "interests abroad" have Cabela's seal of approval. Hence your protection of assault weapons propaganda in a PRIVATE sports show.
Please review Senate bill S. 2205 introduced during the 112th Congress and in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee right now. In this bill the NRA, through it's wholly owned senators, seeks to prevent U.S. involvement in U.N. treaties that try to control the flow of US made and other weapons into troubled places like Libya and all over the continent of Africa.
America's history as "the Policemen of the World" and our standing non-UN treaty involvements mean that it is highly likely that US Troops will end up facing the weapons that Cabela's is protecting in some horribly sad and damned places, while you enjoy your assault weapons' profits in the comfort of your home.
You can be certain that there are many of us who will not forget your ir-responsible attitude toward what happens to ordinary Americans in OUR own streets and to OUR soldiers in Harm's Way around the globe.
Please reconsider and offer Reed Exhibitions an apology and thank them for their responsible behavior in this matter.
Thank you for reading this,
probably tend to think of it as 0 consequences and, yet, they are also known to say things about how, "Freedom isn't free", which IS true, but then they conceive of the price of freedom ONLY in terms of blood, preferably someone else's, which in some instances is also more or less true, but the difference between those instances in which that may be true and those instances when oppression is the more likely result of that blood is extremely important to the freedom of everyone.
All of that is very concerning in contexts in which authentic understanding of what constitutes rational thought is completely missing and people operate most of the time under the principle that just saying something makes it so (because they themselves have known little or nothing but corporate propaganda).
The price of freedom is responsibility, ongoing, rational, honest, diligent, work-wo/manly commitment to what happens ALL of the time, NOT just after the fact. After "the horse is out of the barn", when it's too late to figure out whether whoever is headed at you, armed to the teeth is the oppressor or not and by how much, let alone how one's own behaviors have contributed to oppressing one's self by limiting one's choices until they lead to that bloody moment, in which no choices are left for anyone.
This means that people should recognize that if you NEED a gun to protect your home from thieves or criminals, it's already too late, so you should accept your responsibilities for social and economic justice BEFORE you get to that moment, which will result not only in fewer bad people trying to take your stuff, but also an increased probability that if anyone does try to assault your castle, they are more likely people who HAVE chosen to do that and therefore deserve to be apprehended and brought to justice. That's another important difference, because it reduces the inertia of the cycles of injustice that involve people who WOULD choose otherwise (i.e. choose not to be thieving your property) if they had had more chances not to all along and separating THOSE sheep from the goats reduces the strength of the cycles that repeat, repeat, repeat, until it's too late and a bunch of people lie bleeding and dying for something that never had a chance of being authentic freedom in the first place.
None of that can happen when chaos reigns and no one can identify their functional choices (all along, throughout all of the processes) well enough to adapt their own trajectory themselves, as individuals, and violence creates chaos, so it is much more likely that the results of violence are only more privilege, not freedom.
What part do you think the NRA plays in the following; here's the bill's header and text as it appears in THOMAS.
The bill's number is S. 2205 and it was introduced by Senator Jerry Moran in the 112th Congress:
S.2205 -- Second Amendment Sovereignty Act of 2012 (Introduced in Senate - IS)
S 2205 IS
To prohibit funding to negotiate a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty that restricts the Second Amendment rights of United States citizens.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 19, 2012
Mr. MORAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations
To prohibit funding to negotiate a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty that restricts the Second Amendment rights of United States citizens.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Second Amendment Sovereignty Act of 2012'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS.
(a) Findings- Congress makes the following findings:
(1) In October 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced the United States support and participation in negotiating the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty , to be finalized in 2012, signaling a shift in United States policy.
(2) An Arms Trade Treaty that regulates the domestic manufacturer, possession, or purchase of civilian firearms and ammunition would infringe on the rights of United States citizens protected under the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(b) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress that the sovereignty of the United States and the constitutionally protected freedoms of American gun owners must be upheld and not be undermined by the Arms Trade Treaty .
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING.
No funds may be obligated or expended to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States, in connection with negotiations for a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty , to restrict in any way the rights of United States citizens under the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or to otherwise regulate domestic manufacture, assembly, possession, use, transfer, or purchase of firearms, ammunition, or related items, including small arms, light weapons, or related materials.
Americans should ask sponsor of the bill, Sen. Jerry Moran, R, KS, if "transfer" in the legislation copied above could possibly include, directly or otherwise, transfer to the world's trouble spots, such as Libya, or across the U.S.'s southern border, where it is possible (as the Bush administration so clearly demonstrated) that AMERICAN TROOPS CAN BE COMMITTED, because of violence from armed cohorts, to kill or die for however the "interests" of the USA are currently politically defined, by lobbyists from the NRA, who may be contributing to Moran's AND OTHER SENATORS' campaigns.
You can search for activity on this legislation by it's number, S. 2205, and the Congress in which it was introduced, the 112th, by going here: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/multicongress/multicongress.html
Please read this legislation, as it is interesting to see Secretary Clinton's name mentioned in the findings relative to the UN treaties that the NRA is worried about, especially given recent events surrounding her transition out of her current position. If the NRA's concerns are purely domestic, why are they trying to prevent the Senate from acting on a treaty with the United Nations that controls the flow of American guns into other countries? Especially since such foreign situations have a way of involving American troops as the policemen of the whole world.
do need to understand how it works relative to certain probabilities and the office of the presidency.
Probabilities such as:
Even if we didn't do one more bad thing in the world for the rest of our time as a nation on Earth, there are various possibilities for successful and significant violence against us, are there not? Neither you nor I and hardly anyone else has enough of the right information to calculate those probabilities, but just for the sake of this hypothetical, let's say that they are 50 : 50. The chances of successful significant violence against this land/people are as likely as they are un-likely.
So, let's say something significant happens, many innocent people are harmed and killed, and you, as president could have done x, y, and z to reduce the probability of, or even prevent, that successful strike, but didn't because you "have a moral center". If such harms were to happen, what are the consequences to a person with "a moral center" who could have prevented them?
Regarding what is called "rationalization" and please note the root word there, rational: If the principle is that you must not DO things that hurt innocent people, given some likelihood (either more or less probable) of harms that one can DO things to reduce or prevent those harms, why aren't the rights of those victims of harm as equal in value as the rights of a person or persons reasonably suspected of connection to the probabilities of those harms? Especially if you can DO something about those probabilities?
This is an honest question. Not a trap. I just don't understand how a "moral center" works unless it works this way. You DO what you rationally can, in terms of the situation at hand, to sustain the principle. NONE of that means that you give wholesale approval to torture or coercion, only approval limited in specific ways by the terms of specific situations. One doesn't say, TTE, "Cutting people is evil" and then refuse to do surgery, in specific ways, when it will help or save someone's life.
My line of reasoning is not as corrupt as it is often portrayed. It is the essence of what eventually became Zen Buddhism, as it is found in its cultural roots in the Bhagavad Gita. Krishna does not provide Arjuna with a handy-dandy get-out-of-jail-free card. He doesn't even tell the great warrior what to do to fight the imminent evil. Krishna just simply reminds Arjuna that his life brought him to the present moment; all that had happened and Arjuna's part in it, was what made the situation what it was and NOT some other, different, less challenging situation. It's as though Krishna is telling Arjuna that he and the imminent events are the SAME thing. He doesn't absolve him, nor does he castigate him for the coming fratricide. Krishna says, in effect, "Own it," so we might conclude that whatever Arjuna does, whether he goes into the war and kills thousands, or whether he does not do battle and thousands are killed because of that, Arjuna should identify with either of his "choices", because the reality and he are not dichotomous. What is happening is who he is, however it turns out, so whatever he decides his course should be, he should DO his best to do that thing.
I'm honestly not trying to convince you of anything here. I'm just trying to explain how something works. That's how I understand it from my own life. The Bhagavad Gita gave voice to that understanding and Buddhism sustains something very similar in the value that it places on "non-attachment". I don't understand a perspective that claims another person has "no moral center" (not relative to most people that is); I don't see how that's anyone's to claim but one's own.
I respect you Bonobo, so I am asking you if you can explain what you mean to me, so I can understand better and agree to whatever extent possible.
Thanks for reading this.
Americans should be asking Sen. Jerry Moran, R, KS, if "transfer" in the attached legislation could possibly include, directly or otherwise, transfer to the world's trouble spots, such as Libya, or across the U.S.'s southern border, where it is possible (as the Bush administration so clearly demonstrated) that AMERICAN TROOPS CAN BE COMMITTED, because of violence from armed cohorts, to kill or die for however the "interests" of the USA are currently politically defined, by lobbyists from the NRA, who may be contributing to Moran's AND OTHER SENATORS' campaigns.
Text of Moran's bill: "No funds may be obligated or expended to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States, in connection with negotiations for a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty , to restrict in any way the rights of United States citizens under the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or to otherwise regulate domestic manufacture, assembly, possession, use, transfer, or purchase of firearms, ammunition, or related items, including small arms, light weapons, or related materials."
Please read the attached legislation, as it is interesting to see Secretary Clinton's name mentioned relative to the UN treaties that the NRA is worried about, especially given events surrounding her transition out of her current position.