Kony 2012

[totally steaming!!]

i think the easiest way to put it is,

First you gain respect of the crowd (bring a bit of wealth to the community, preach common truths and promise a better quality of life)

70% will now believe almost anything you say unless they already have knowledge of the subject.

25% will be a bit more hesitant, but join the bandwagon because everyone else is doing, "so it must be right".

4% are still unsure and sit on the fence

1% totally disagree, and don't want a part of it

So you order your loyal 70% to kill these publicly

seeing this happen the 4% have now jumped on the bandwagon in fear of their lives

lets go kills some people!

technology may have progressed a shit ton in the past few centuries, but human nature sure hasn't

Edited March 8, 2012 by totally steaming!!

[Token]

Dildo.

[casualjoe]

I'd say the flaw is in our education system firstly, compassion is not a school subject, imagine if compassion had been a school subject for the last 200 years there would be many better parents out there and many positive knock on effects that follow it. We understand humans are impressionable and then waste this opportunity by basing a society around hedonistic consumerism.

Obviously places like Rwanda could have really benefited from this sort of education, their culture is plagued with all sorts of hocus pocus and misinformation, much like everybody was before the age of scientific understanding.

We have a savage imperialistic history to transition from but people are becoming increasingly empowered with decent information, it's just a matter of time (more than our lifetime probably but that doesn't bother me) before human consciousness grows into a type 1 civilization.

Saying it's just human nature is naive and just an excuse to do nothing..

[1a2bcio8]

I see where you're coming from now in terms of addiction. I think the core of my analogy stands but you make a valid point about how a psychological need can remain even after one stops the habit. I guess an addiction to picking one's nose would have made a better analogy

I've never really argued for perfection though. And I would find it very disappointing if you were considering changing the state of affairs in third world countries as a kind of unachievable perfectionism. I don't think alleviating such things as genocide and famine can be equated with a kind of eutopia. To be blunt, talking about it being pretty good already is severely short sighted and radically lacking in empathy toward the majority in this world who have an atrocious life. Perhaps you don't mean this and for that moment you were only referencing our situation in the 'developed' world?

Edited March 8, 2012 by Ben Rowlands

[totally steaming!!]

I'd say the flaw is in our education system firstly, compassion is not a school subject, imagine if compassion had been a school subject for the last 200 years there would be many better parents out there and many positive knock on effects that follow it. We understand humans are impressionable and then waste this opportunity by basing a society around hedonistic consumerism.

Obviously places like Rwanda could have really benefited from this sort of education, their culture is plagued with all sorts of hocus pocus and misinformation, much like everybody was before the age of scientific understanding.

We have a savage imperialistic history to transition from but people are becoming increasingly empowered with decent information, it's just a matter of time (more than our lifetime probably but that doesn't bother me) before human consciousness grows into a type 1 civilization.

Saying it's just human nature is naive and just an excuse to do nothing..

there are always going to be unfortunate people, people that think they deserve better. Most will jump at a chance to blame someone, more importantly "something". e.g, not a person, a 'jew'. for example.

there is nothing you can do stop emotions getting the better of people.

so there is always a chance for genocide to take place.

its a fact of life. there is nothing that will ever change that.

you may educate one generation right, but you miss one and you back to square one.

sustaining this on a global level is just impossible.

the world is also too greedy, its built on greed. it wouldn't be as modern as it is if not, we wouldn't even be here typing now.

We're all guilty of greed. you, me... everyone that reads this.

Epic speech below! one of my favorites

Edited March 8, 2012 by totally steaming!!

[MonsieurMonkey]

My attitude may be common, but I'd like to think I'm a little more informed than most But I think you don't quite see the full picture of the problem, why would I want to sacrifice anything for a society that won't listen to me? (By this I mean, "Hey, Africans, this is science, it's working really well for us, wanna try it?" "No thanks, we've got religion.") Anyway, I typed out a rambling post, then I couldn't be arsed. So here's the short version.

Africa is not a hospitable place, yet people continue to live there, having numerous children when they can hardly feed themselves, why has natural selection not killed them? Because we perpetuate their life cycle by dumping money into it, I'm sorry to say but these people are living in a place that just cannot sustain life.

That's basically the end of my opinion on Africa now, I got bored of the argument a long time ago. I'm fully aware that "we", and I use that term very loosely, could help Africa. Can you imagine if for the next 5 years, every company in the world gave half of their profits to third world countries, they'd all be dragged out of the dark ages, but is that what we should do? Basically creating benefit cultures in these places, where people expect to carry on as they are while being bailed out by other nations? Very much in the same way some people live in this country, knowing that the tax payer will carry them without having to return anything.

PS. I'm in no way implying that Africans are like benefits scroungers, I'm saying that continuously bailing out a country that has way more problems than what most people see then they'll never get anywhere.

Remove all corrupt leaders, cap the expansion of population, sustain support as we do now, in 2 generations they may be able to work within the country they have. But do "we" think "we" can do that? It's incredibly unlikely.

Sorry if any of this has been covered.

[JD™]

Based purely on my own observations, it seems that those in the developed world who really care about the state of affairs in third world countries have periods of extreme depression, guilt and disgust. Personally, I try to avoid those emotions in the same way I don't get on a rollercoaster because paying to be scared is just idiotic. Everyones individual world is different, and mine doesn't include anyone in real poverty so it doesn't concern me day to day. Yes, I know that there are problems of massive variety in the third world and yes, I'd prefer it if they weren't there. But will I significantly detriment my own life to help sort it? Nah. I don't even think that's as harsh as it sounds, I'm just honest with myself rather than the many who feel the same but feel they've 'done their bit' by sharing a video.

My feeling is a human one, compassion is overshadowed by something like selfishness. Maybe I'm primitive, but I don't fight against it, but recognising it keeps my conscience nice and clear.

On the perfection point: I would imagine if you polled enough people in atrocious situations and asked them to describe perfection, a lot would probably just describe a situation without genocide and famine. Perfection is subjective, and never achievable because it changes based on your situation.

Edited March 9, 2012 by JD™

[Muel]

Personally, I try to avoid those emotions in the same way I don't get on a rollercoaster because paying to be scared is just idiotic.

I'm just gonna comment on this bit, because I disagree with it. Being scared gives you an adrenaline rush, and that makes you feel amazing. I've only been to Alton Towers once and it was money well spent in my eyes. Wouldn't go again because it got boring towards the end of the weekend we had there.

Mind you, I ride motorbikes and enjoy climbing things with no ropes, so I'm probably just addicted to it. (Have also done kayaking, surfing etc but then I became scared of water).

[Topsy]

We got warned this morning via radio not to donate any money and be very sceptical about invisible children. ^^

[1a2bcio8]

My attitude may be common, but I'd like to think I'm a little more informed than most But I think you don't quite see the full picture of the problem, why would I want to sacrifice anything for a society that won't listen to me? (By this I mean, "Hey, Africans, this is science, it's working really well for us, wanna try it?" "No thanks, we've got religion.") Anyway, I typed out a rambling post, then I couldn't be arsed. So here's the short version.

Africa is not a hospitable place, yet people continue to live there, having numerous children when they can hardly feed themselves, why has natural selection not killed them? Because we perpetuate their life cycle by dumping money into it, I'm sorry to say but these people are living in a place that just cannot sustain life.

That's basically the end of my opinion on Africa now, I got bored of the argument a long time ago. I'm fully aware that "we", and I use that term very loosely, could help Africa. Can you imagine if for the next 5 years, every company in the world gave half of their profits to third world countries, they'd all be dragged out of the dark ages, but is that what we should do? Basically creating benefit cultures in these places, where people expect to carry on as they are while being bailed out by other nations? Very much in the same way some people live in this country, knowing that the tax payer will carry them without having to return anything.

PS. I'm in no way implying that Africans are like benefits scroungers, I'm saying that continuously bailing out a country that has way more problems than what most people see then they'll never get anywhere.

Remove all corrupt leaders, cap the expansion of population, sustain support as we do now, in 2 generations they may be able to work within the country they have. But do "we" think "we" can do that? It's incredibly unlikely.

Sorry if any of this has been covered.

I don't think you're as informed as you think. Our nation in particular has played a significant role in Africa's current predicament. Aside from our previous colonial endeavours such as imposing false dividing lines between the nations of Africa which led to war, we've also sold arms to those warring nations and supported dictatorships where it benefited us to do so. The west in general, like it does to the rest of the less developed world, has exploited Africa significantly. For instance, aid and loans to African nations have often come with the explicit expectation that they should operate as 'free markets'. This is Orwellian double speak which has always meant that international business such as American or UK business should have privileged rights to operate within and therefore access to those nations resources but which won't extend in the other direction. The consequence is that the nation doesn't really benefit from it's own resources and an international business does instead. Furthermore, those loans are not to be used for education or medical facilities but for creating fertile ground for international business. We never really "bail" out Africa and all these popular efforts to send aid to Africa are a nonsense when the detrimental private dealings of Western governments occur at the same time.

Furthermore, asking the question as to why the African people haven't moved from an inhospitable land doesn't really amount to much. I feel it's fairly self-evident that people are often stuck where they are. Where would they go? Who will take them? Europe certainly won't for the most part. Is there much point in moving from one f**ked African nation to another?

Finally, yes Africa can be inhospitable but where that it is the case it would be significantly more manageable if, say, the GM crops we sell to African nations, that are able to cope with the arid landscape, we didn't condition to yield only one season.

But if I remember correctly, America used to flood the world market with surplus, subsidised farmed foods such as rice which meant that African nations couldn't compete. Because Americans tax payers were subsidising the farmers produce they could undercut everyone else. This stops Africans from stimulating their economy with regard to a more accessible means of making money than other resources that require more investment, that's not available, in the first instance. I don't think Africa is quite as inhospitable as you make out and a lot of it is open to farming.

I wouldn't trust the view of the rest of the world that one gets from watching the bbc and reading the guardian newspaper. Mainstream news outlets are too much a part of the overall system that benefits from the sort of exploitations I've mentioned. They will offer you a view of the world that supports what they do. Western governments and business are generally a sordid affair. They lie to us because they know that really we wouldn't stand for what's going on if we knew the exact nature. Isn't that telling about the fact that people do care? If we didn't care then there would be no need for the lies.

Based purely on my own observations, it seems that those in the developed world who really care about the state of affairs in third world countries have periods of extreme depression, guilt and disgust. Personally, I try to avoid those emotions in the same way I don't get on a rollercoaster because paying to be scared is just idiotic. Everyones individual world is different, and mine doesn't include anyone in real poverty so it doesn't concern me day to day. Yes, I know that there are problems of massive variety in the third world and yes, I'd prefer it if they weren't there. But will I significantly detriment my own life to help sort it? Nah. I don't even think that's as harsh as it sounds, I'm just honest with myself rather than the many who feel the same but feel they've 'done their bit' by sharing a video.

My feeling is a human one, compassion is overshadowed by something like selfishness. Maybe I'm primitive, but I don't fight against it, but recognising it keeps my conscience nice and clear.

On the perfection point: I would imagine if you polled enough people in atrocious situations and asked them to describe perfection, a lot would probably just describe a situation without genocide and famine. Perfection is subjective, and never achievable because it changes based on your situation.

I would argue against the idea that people who care about the plight of those beyond themselves are depressed. This can happen but a lot of the people I've met and read about that are engaged in philanthropy tend to be the sanest and happiest people I know. I think it's a basic psychological fact that our happiness is tied to our compassion and love for other people. If you choose the pleasure of the shiny over your love for your fellow human being then you end up lacking in terms of your potential for sanity and happiness. Selfishness promotes confusion because it requires so much rationalisation and denial to support itself. Compassion is open because it doesn't need anything whereas selfishness is inescapably about need and doing what is necessary to fulfil that need.

I do get the selfishness though. I have to deal with it in myself all the time. It is a very human tendency but the point is whether it's one worth giving into and what do the alternatives offer?

Perfectionism, although I dislike using such an abstract word, should defined according to the norms of what it is to be a human being or what we call inter-subjectivity. What this means is that all human being, beneath their individualism share the same needs. On that basis, fulfilling the basic needs of food, shelter and the absence of war is nothing like perfectionism. Radical subjectivism or absolute relativism is a dangerous concept when applied to human beings and is an important rationalisation for the modern trend of selfishness.

Edited March 9, 2012 by Ben Rowlands

[Rebelistic]

Africa is a huge continent. How can the whole place be summed up as 'inhospitable'?

That doesn't make much sense to me.

[Matt Vandart]

You mean we're, like, human?

Read 'ROBOTS'

You're absolutely right, of course. I suppose you could say my 'realism' on this subject comes from the data I have on the small subset of humanity that I know of - most of which couldn't do the right thing even of they wanted to. Knowing the right thing and being capable of doing it are totally different things... I guess I'm just 'happy' to let shit happen and do what I can for me and those around me.

Essentially: f**k this Kony shit. If we're gonna do something let's do it properly, and if not can everyone stop wasting bandwidth talking about it?

This is the control mechanism working to perfection, by the way I am in the same boat.

There's scientific consensus that we are a product of our environment and experiences, which means human behaviour is not set in stone, our brain learns as it grows. Growing up in our society it's easy to see how we can be such assholes.

Indeed

I'd be better at this debate if wasn't a laptop addict who'd left his laptop at home. But as someone who's grown up around drug and alcohol addicts I feel I can only base my thoughts on what I've seen - I don't, however, hold my opinions in such high regard to say they can't be wrong. All I know is that the addicts I know fight every single day to uphold their clean status. It's not what they want to do, most of the time, it's what they believe they should do.

I believe that the world is already pretty good, humanity is already good. Enough people do what they believe they should do enough of the time, rather than what they want to do. Good is good enough to be great, if you allow it to be. Striving for perfection is a great thing, but it can only lead to failure. You, me, everyone, will never achieve a perfect human race, so why not just revel in the contentment that we're as good as we are?

I have a thing on my office wall called the 'Done Manifesto'. One of the points it makes is 'treat everything as a draft, it helps to get it done', and another is 'pretending you're perfect is almost as good as being perfect, and that's close enough'. I think both can be applied here.

This I like.

My attitude may be common, but I'd like to think I'm a little more informed than most But I think you don't quite see the full picture of the problem, why would I want to sacrifice anything for a society that won't listen to me? (By this I mean, "Hey, Africans, this is science, it's working really well for us, wanna try it?" "No thanks, we've got religion.") Anyway, I typed out a rambling post, then I couldn't be arsed. So here's the short version.

Africa is not a hospitable place, yet people continue to live there, having numerous children when they can hardly feed themselves, why has natural selection not killed them? Because we perpetuate their life cycle by dumping money into it, I'm sorry to say but these people are living in a place that just cannot sustain life.

That's basically the end of my opinion on Africa now, I got bored of the argument a long time ago. I'm fully aware that "we", and I use that term very loosely, could help Africa. Can you imagine if for the next 5 years, every company in the world gave half of their profits to third world countries, they'd all be dragged out of the dark ages, but is that what we should do? Basically creating benefit cultures in these places, where people expect to carry on as they are while being bailed out by other nations? Very much in the same way some people live in this country, knowing that the tax payer will carry them without having to return anything.

PS. I'm in no way implying that Africans are like benefits scroungers, I'm saying that continuously bailing out a country that has way more problems than what most people see then they'll never get anywhere.

Remove all corrupt leaders, cap the expansion of population, sustain support as we do now, in 2 generations they may be able to work within the country they have. But do "we" think "we" can do that? It's incredibly unlikely.

Sorry if any of this has been covered.

Good points and some nonsense.

[Mockett]

[1a2bcio8]

Thanks for that. I think the video makes sense within the context of US imperialism.

[JD™]

Read 'ROBOTS'

This is the control mechanism working to perfection, by the way I am in the same boat.

This is a conspiracy theory working to perfection.

Mine's just my choice, and it's one I'm happy with. Control mechanism this is not, no matter what you think.

Ben: I will reply, but it deserves more time than I have.

[1a2bcio8]

This is a conspiracy theory working to perfection.

Mine's just my choice, and it's one I'm happy with. Control mechanism this is not, no matter what you think.

Ben: I will reply, but it deserves more time than I have.

Okey doke

One thing about being a "robot" though We're very conditioned by our environment. It happens to us at a stage when we can offer little resistance to it. What's worse in the modern era is that technology (internet, television, etc.) makes our conditioning in certain directions, by wealthy minority groups, significantly easier and it is, after all, the wealthy that are best placed to afford advertising and clever advertising at that. Kids in front of the television are simply sponges; they lack a critical faculty to understand how they might be being manipulated. Children are pushed into a 'having' mentality which is so emphasised that it becomes of central importance even if being a human being requires something deeper in order to be really satisfied and content.

Even formal education doesn't really promote critical thinking until we're at university and even then it tends to be narrow and we won't touch on certain presuppositions or fully connect the dots between ideas and events. Narrow specialisation is the trend at universities. So even in adulthood our critical faculties end up either limited or work in narrow margins meaning certain ideas are always taken as self-evident or sacrosanct. And when are we ever told that we should be critical of authority or critical of our trends? Why aren't we taught about the nature of history as reflecting the changing nature of humanity that can and has gone in directions that are healthier? Why aren't we taught about what happiness is? How it might be achieved?

Essentially we're very vulnerable to blindly adopting ideas that we take to be our own because they either came to us at a point where we were generally unaware or because, despite having critical skills, we don't apply them to certain areas of our thinking. This is compacted by the fact that when lots of other people behave or belief in the same way you are even less likely to be critical about those norms. This is what is meant by being a robot really. It's not so much a conspiracy but just a consequence of the nature of people being vulnerable alongside people being greedy. We are products of our environment and at present our environment is centred on greed.

Importantly though, this greed is insane because is contradicts our actual nature. You may disagree about universal compassion and love being more in line with who we are and what we need but I don't think anyone will deny that the instinct toward survival is an inherent part of who we are. Yet our present conditioning toward greed, which constitutes shiny things, totally denies our need toward survival. We are wrecking our environment to the extent that even our lives are in danger. This is insanity because we are not living in accord with who we are. I also think it's insane not be living in accord with our love and compassion. They are in equal need to survival and survival without them isn't really living. No doubt may will disagree with me but who will consider that perhaps it's their conditioning and not who they really are that is telling them that?

Sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you JD and don't feel that you have to respond. I only aim my arguments at you because you're more rational and coherent than most. I also think you have a kind of openness that means my words won't be like a bird flying into a closed window. I'm also still at home unwell and this shizzle helps keep my mind sharp-ish when I haven't got the energy to study.

Edited March 9, 2012 by Ben Rowlands

[JD™]

I stated periods of depression for a reason good sir Linked basically to the fact that they have the 'perfect' existence which then bring on the guilt I mentioned. I don't think that a love for fellow human beings is overshadowed by a love for shiny things in people. I think we've got a certain capacity of love to give, and I'd rather go for quality over quantity - not spreading the love too thin. Yea, shiny things might take some of that love too - but isn't the point of love that you don't have any control over it?

You describe compassion in the same way that I describe selfishness - they are both natural and uncontrollable. I think your need for compassion mirrors mine for 'selfishness', although I don't think it's as black and white as that. I have oodles of compassion, and oodles of selfishness - I use them both on a smaller subset of humanity than many because that's what works best for me. If I had unlimited resources of emotion, cash and time, there'd be happiness everywhere. With any combination of only 2, I have to make a sacrifice. I prefer to make people happy who I see and connect with regularly, and I'm glad some others decide to do it differently because none of us have all three of the resources.

Our thoughts on the abstract term of perfectionism differ massively. I believe that someone who is lacking in any of the basic needs of food, shelter and the absence of war would happily be looking up to the existence of all those basics as 'perfect'. The thought of 'if only I had food, then my life would be perfect' would be something they would definitely go through. Likewise, someone with all those basics will look up to another sort of 'perfection' - i.e. perfection is a moving metric to measure against. My 'perfection' at the moment would be to have a house with a few bedrooms and a garage, a wife and kids, and to have less stress to allow myself more happiness. I'm sure that when I achieve those things, I will be aiming for some other version of 'perfect' - probably less material.

[1a2bcio8]

I stated periods of depression for a reason good sir Linked basically to the fact that they have the 'perfect' existence which then bring on the guilt I mentioned. I don't think that a love for fellow human beings is overshadowed by a love for shiny things in people. I think we've got a certain capacity of love to give, and I'd rather go for quality over quantity - not spreading the love too thin. Yea, shiny things might take some of that love too - but isn't the point of love that you don't have any control over it?

You describe compassion in the same way that I describe selfishness - they are both natural and uncontrollable. I think your need for compassion mirrors mine for 'selfishness', although I don't think it's as black and white as that. I have oodles of compassion, and oodles of selfishness - I use them both on a smaller subset of humanity than many because that's what works best for me. If I had unlimited resources of emotion, cash and time, there'd be happiness everywhere. With any combination of only 2, I have to make a sacrifice. I prefer to make people happy who I see and connect with regularly, and I'm glad some others decide to do it differently because none of us have all three of the resources.

Our thoughts on the abstract term of perfectionism differ massively. I believe that someone who is lacking in any of the basic needs of food, shelter and the absence of war would happily be looking up to the existence of all those basics as 'perfect'. The thought of 'if only I had food, then my life would be perfect' would be something they would definitely go through. Likewise, someone with all those basics will look up to another sort of 'perfection' - i.e. perfection is a moving metric to measure against. My 'perfection' at the moment would be to have a house with a few bedrooms and a garage, a wife and kids, and to have less stress to allow myself more happiness. I'm sure that when I achieve those things, I will be aiming for some other version of 'perfect' - probably less material.

Firstly, I really think your idea of perfectionism as implying any kind of argument against the potential for change in Africa is not valid. If that's what is still meant or are we on a tangent? Anyway, we're meaning two separate things as you point out. I'm referring to the nature which is shared between human beings and you're referring to the nature which is more contextually relative. In your case, the type of perfectionism you refer to bears no impact on the chance for change in Africa. Just because food seems like the best thing in the world to somebody who is starving doesn't say anything about the possibility of them creating a situation wherein they have food. It doesn't inescapably indicate the lack of realism about the potential for change.

It's not that one of us is right or wrong about how we want to apply the terms of perfectionism. They are both valid because words are meaningless until they are applied to contexts whereupon they become qualified. The point is which ones when applied to the problem of Africa indicate concerns about our way of thinking about it? I think it's the idea of perfectionism in terms of utopia that is problematic and unrealistic and not your more subjective and relativistic, valid within it self, use of word.

I get what you're saying about the depression. You're aiming it at me in particular. The trouble is that previously I was reacting mostly with anger. I remember feeling so pissed off with all my friends who just wanted to talk about superficial nonsense when there were much more pressing matters at hand. The problems of the world seemed so insoluble and therefore depressing. It's been years since that sort of thing has caused me depression and I react more with concern and motivation about these sorts of problems. I've also found out that my mental health problems have been far more grounded in my biology than was previously understood so I'm not an entirely fair example. Importantly though I've realised that working on one's self is the foundation for helping other. And from this position I can tell you that you can make movements that can begin to cut away your selfishness, leaving more room for more wholesome feelings. Reacting with compassion and understanding is an option to the problems of the world and is healthy.

We are not stuck with a certain degree of love and a certain degree of greed but they grow or diminish according to the way we work (or don't work) upon ourselves. I strongly feel that saying you are stuck with set degrees of feelings is seriously wrong. Otherwise what would be the point in trying to work through relationships or attending psycho-therapies? Through meditation and mindfulness I have experienced intense feeling of universal and infinite love. This is somewhat embarrassing to admit but I'll admit it anyway because it is the sanest and happiest I've ever felt. It revealed to me what constituted sanity, serenity and happiness and over the years I feel that I've made a greater movement toward this and I know others that have done the same and more so than myself.

My ability to articulate myself is leaving me. I'm not overly keen with the coherence of some of this response but meh.

Edited March 9, 2012 by Ben Rowlands

[1a2bcio8]

One other thing. Love is what allows you to have control! It's such a bad myth of our culture that love is considered a passive event that just happens to us, i.e. "we fall in love". Love is the active choice to feel and act beyond yourself. Only when you are not obsessed with yourself but concerned with others can you have control over yourself.

[Muel]

Dude you should do talks and shit. People would pay to hear you talk about stuff.

[JD™]

Firstly, I really think your idea of perfectionism as implying any kind of argument against the potential for change in Africa is not valid. If that's what is still meant or are we on a tangent? Anyway, we're meaning two separate things as you point out. I'm referring to the nature which is shared between human beings and you're referring to the nature which is more contextually relative. In your case, the type of perfectionism you refer to bears no impact on the chance for change in Africa. Just because food seems like the best thing in the world to somebody who is starving doesn't say anything about the possibility of them creating a situation wherein they have food. It doesn't inescapably indicate the lack of realism about the potential for change.

It's not that one of us is right or wrong about how we want to apply the terms of perfectionism. They are both valid because words are meaningless until they are applied to contexts whereupon they become qualified. The point is which ones when applied to the problem of Africa indicate concerns about our way of thinking about it? I think it's the idea of perfectionism in terms of utopia that is problematic and unrealistic and not your more subjective and relativistic, valid within it self, use of word.

I get what you're saying about the depression. You're aiming it at me in particular. The trouble is that previously I was reacting mostly with anger. I remember feeling so pissed off with all my friends who just wanted to talk about superficial nonsense when there were much more pressing matters at hand. The problems of the world seemed so insoluble and therefore depressing. It's been years since that sort of thing has caused me depression and I react more with concern and motivation about these sorts of problems. I've also found out that my mental health problems have been far more grounded in my biology than was previously understood so I'm not an entirely fair example. Importantly though I've realised that working on one's self is the foundation for helping other. And from this position I can tell you that you can make movements that can begin to cut away your selfishness, leaving more room for more wholesome feelings. Reacting with compassion and understanding is an option to the problems of the world and is healthy.

We are not stuck with a certain degree of love and a certain degree of greed but they grow or diminish according to the way we work (or don't work) upon ourselves. I strongly feel that saying you are stuck with set degrees of feelings is seriously wrong. Through meditation and mindfulness I have experienced intense feeling of universal love. This is somewhat embarrassing to admit but I'll admit it anyway because it is the sanest and happiest I've ever felt. It revealed to me what constituted sanity, serenity and happiness and over the years I feel that I've made a greater movement toward this and I know others that have done the same and more so than myself.

My ability to articulate myself is leaving me. I'm not overly keen with the coherence of some of this response but meh.

I think at the very least I've gone off on a tangent with the perfection side, and I think it might as well be left now.

You clearly don't get what I'm saying about the depression - it was in no way referencing you. Going back to the original post that I mentioned it, I was talking as a whole about my sample of people I know with philanthropic traits - they all get depressed because they want to do more than they are able to do.

I respect you disagreeing with my theory of being born with a certain amount of love to give, but it doesn't change my view. I think that through meditation and mindfulness you're just accessing what was already there. I think there's many ways of accessing what's already there, and I believe the main one is receiving love, adoration, respect etc which helps to allow you to find your reserves that you haven't tapped into. I also believe it's replenished and retrieved when your love for something diminished - it's not just used up. It's an abstract theory though, and I'll never be able to prove or disprove it. I just go with it because it works for me.

I don't think I've got much more to give to this to be honest - we seem to have reached a bit of an impasse where the time/effort:'reward' (in terms of being further understood) ratio is getting to be a bit skewed too far on the effort side. Good to bounce ideas around though, helps me understand myself a little bit more as well as understanding another side.

[Daniel Gray]

Edited March 9, 2012 by Daniel Gray

[Luke Rainbird]

Peter Pan builds an army of children and he's a hero. Soon as some black dude tries it he's the bad guy...

[Muel]

Mockery aside, my take on this current situation is that the guy is clearly scum. He has been for 30 years, and if there was any gain in sorting him out then the SAS would have been dropped in 20+ years ago. Fact is, it's not our country, not our right to police that country, and not our fight. All this fund raising and awareness is futile. If the government could see an advantage to dealing with this guy, they would have done by now.

Remember the controversy about the war in Iraq and what a mess that ended up in? That was to remove a maniac who was murdering his own people from power. Seems to me that this is the same rough deal, a bad guy, doing bad shit to people he shouldn't be doing bad shit to. At the moment he's no threat to us. There are no WMDs, no threat of war etc, but what happens if we go over their with the banners flying singing god save the queen and destroy him and his army? (Made up of the abducted children we're wanting to save I might add). What if every other nasty b*****d warlord fella in Africa turns round and decides that the UK shouldn't be meddling in Africa, and that we deserve a few more buses being blown up in London?

This is just my own blinkered, narrow minded, northern view on things without reading the rest of this thread because I don't have time today.

EDIT: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/mar/08/kony-2012-what-s-the-story?fb=native Read. He's not even in Uganda and his army is now in the hundreds. That counts as war to deal with IMO.

Edited March 9, 2012 by Muel

[Luke Dunstan]