Feared or Respected?

[johndowe]

Originally Posted by Jenae LaTorque

John Dowe

That is a ridiculous thing to say John. Without their opposites, most things lose their meaning. For everyone to respect one another, than the meaning of respect is gone.

Simple case: If I see a man kick a dog for no reason, I am not allowed to dis respect him? Get real man!

All I can figure you meant by this is that respect should be given until the other proves that they are not worthy of it.

As for me, there are plently of two-legged varimints in this world that I will dis-respect everytime. And would put a bullet in if it was possible to do so with impunity.

Would you respect these guys?

HI there.

"Dealing with" the guy that kicked his dog is not dis-respecting him, it is correcting a wrong, he looses respect from you, yes, but in a way you are trying to help him to understand that it is wrong to kick his dog, as long as you don't kick him to show him, see the difference?

In your third statement, i agree to the extent that: if they don't respect you back, they don't earn their respect and are dis-respecting themselves and showing themselves to be only worthy of minimal respect, they are still human beeings.

Well, i agree that there are some vile people in this world, and some would deserve to be shot or even tortured to death for what they have done, but if you were to kill them, wouldn't that make you the same as they are, maby not as bad, but going down the same path?

About Hitler & Stalin, they didn't set out to be the way they were, when he was a child Adolph didn't aspire to kill 6,000,000 jewish people, but as he grew up and lived, his hared for others especially jewish people grew, and because of the stupid things the jews and the french did to the germans that started ww2, as i often say, it takes 2 to tango, you can't start a fight alone, but they did very vile things, and deserved their end, and more, but they were human beeings and deserved a minimal amount of respect even if they didn't show any to their victims, again if we do the very same thing they did, that makes us th same as the were, because, they too did what they did in reaction to what was done to them, where does it end? When we exterminate ourselves, and there are no more humans on the face of the earth?

It was written that eveil is easy, but good is hard.

And i agree that evil is easier, good is not always as hard as it is touted to be in that writing, when you look into yourself about an action you are about to take, you know if it is good or bad, and you choose to do it or not, so sometimes good may be harder, but evil or bad can also be hard.

But in the end you are more likely to regret a bad action than a good one, regretting having killed some one doesn't bring him(or her) back, while regretting having given the last of your money to a charity is not as bad and you will get more money at some point soon anyway.

And as i stated earlyer in this post, when you do a bad thing including dis-respecting someone, you dis-respect yourself.

JohnDowe.

[ila]

Originally Posted by johndowe

.........About Hitler & Stalin, they didn't set out to be the way they were, when he was a child Adolph didn't aspire to kill 6,000,000 jewish people, but as he grew up and lived, his hared for others especially jewish people grew, and because of the stupid things the jews and the french did to the germans that started ww2.........

You had better have some proof to backup a statement like that. I'm not referring to opinions, but to proof.

[johndowe]

Hi there.

First i NEVER said the jews deserved to be killed at auschwitz, far from it.

What i was refering to it the fact that the french and the jews flooded the already weak german economy with counterfit deutch marks, collapsing the german economy, Hitler beeing a failled house painter, already in a bad state of mind was made aware of that fact and consolidated his political career and used the jews as the reasons for all of germany's problems, they were responsable of a bit of them but not all of them, but saying that rallied the masses to his cause and gained more and more followers and support, until he got in power.

He was a clever man and VERY charismatic, but he was also consumed by hatred, and did horendous things, as we all know.

AS for proof i don't have any, any more than you do to contradict my statements.

The only thing close to proving this is the fact that the german economy did collapse and there were alot of counterfiet german currency.

And as we all know, those were volatile times and alot of records were destroyed, and not all accidentally(and on all sides).


Also i didn't think about what i was saying and i should have elaborated, but i didn't and i didn't mean to be dis-reapectfull of the jewish people or any other people for that matter, and for that I APPOLOGISE, but colapsing the german economy was a very stupid thing to do, irregardless of who did it.


JohnDowe.

[ila]

Originally Posted by johndowe

Hi there.

First i NEVER said the jews deserved to be killed at auschwitz, far from it.

I never said that you said that the Jews deserved to be killed at Auschwitz (or any other concentration camp or place). You made the statement that the actions of the Jews and the French started WWII. I challenged you to provide proof for that statement.

Originally Posted by johndowe

What i was refering to it the fact that the french and the jews flooded the already weak german economy with counterfit deutch marks, collapsing the german economy, Hitler beeing a failled house painter, already in a bad state of mind was made aware of that fact and consolidated his political career and used the jews as the reasons for all of germany's problems, they were responsable of a bit of them but not all of them, but saying that rallied the masses to his cause and gained more and more followers and support, until he got in power.

The German economy was collapsing due to hyper-inflation. There were several causes for this; among them were high unemployment, political unrest, reparation payments, etc. I rather doubt that counterfeit currency was the cause of all this. I'm not saying that there wasn't any counterfeit currency circulating because undoubtedly there was, as there still is to this day will all major currencies in the world. (By the way the currency at the the time was the Reichsmark)

Originally Posted by johndowe

AS for proof i don't have any, any more than you do to contradict my statements.

If you are going to come up with a statement which is your theory then the onus is on you to provide the proof for the validity of that statement. It is not on me to disprove it. For example when a scientist or mathematician comes out with a theory that scientist or mathematician is required to prove his/her theory. It is not required that anyone else disprove it.

Originally Posted by johndowe

The only thing close to proving this is the fact that the german economy did collapse and there were alot of counterfiet german currency.

Yes, the German economy did collapse. It also recovered when political stability was brought to the country. And yes, the NSDAP did provide political stability for a period of years, no matter how repulsive their aims and means of achieving their aims. The point is that there was political stability and it was in a great part responsible for the recovery of the economy.


Disclaimer - Don't take any of my statements as support for Hitler, the NSDAP, or policies of Germany. Nor should anyone take my statements as support for or justification for WWII.

[johndowe]

Hi there.

The big thing here, is that neither of us was there at the time.

And that there were lots of things that happened that weren't recorded and or were destroyed, so it is hard to proove anything beyond a resonable doubt, but if everybody would have been more tolerent hence more respectful, ww2 very probably would never have happened.

JohnDowe.

[ila]

Originally Posted by johndowe

.....And that there were lots of things that happened that weren't recorded and or were destroyed, so it is hard to proove anything beyond a resonable doubt, but if everybody would have been more tolerent hence more respectful, ww2 very probably would never have happened.
JohnDowe.

You have a point there, John. The seeds of tolerance and respect would have had to have been planted a long time before then, though.

[johndowe]

Originally Posted by ila

You have a point there, John. The seeds of tolerance and respect would have had to have been planted a long time before then, though.

Hi there.

You have a point there too.


JohnDowe.

Here are a few suggested books on the conditions of pre-war Germany:

“Germany 1918-1939” by John Kerr

“Economic Crisis and French Foreign Policy” by Haim Shamir

“The Treaty of Versailles: a reassessment after 75 years” by Manfred Franz Boemeke, Gerald D. Feldman, Elisabeth Gläser

“The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money” by John Maynard Keynes

“Wilsonianism: Woodrow Wilson and his legacy in American foreign relations” by Lloyd E. Ambrosius

[johndowe]

Originally Posted by aw9725

Here are a few suggested books on the conditions of pre-war Germany:

"Germany 1918-1939" by John Kerr

"Economic Crisis and French Foreign Policy" by Haim Shamir

"The Treaty of Versailles: a reassessment after 75 years" by Manfred Franz Boemeke, Gerald D. Feldman, Elisabeth Gläser

"The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" by John Maynard Keynes

"Wilsonianism: Woodrow Wilson and his legacy in American foreign relations" by Lloyd E. Ambrosius

Hi there.

Thank you for the effort, but i prefer lighter reading, or tech manuals, but again the jesture is appresiated.

JohnDowe.

[johndowe]

Hi there.

The origin of respect and out need for it.

Along time ago, and NOT in a galaxy far far away, when we were all living in small tribes, the need for respect was more important than food and water, for the individual, because since we were nomadic, if one of the tribemembers was disrespected by his fellow tribesmen, he could and possibly would be abbandoned by the tribe and left to fend for himself, his odds of survival would be severely diminished, and his chance of procreating would be nil, but it would also probably be a good thing since he was dis-respected, and probably deserved the dis-respect, so respect was essential to our survival, back then.

Now that we have "evolved" respect is not as crucial to our survival as it once was, but it is important in ALL social interactings, some one that isn't respected will not succed in business, will not find a mate, or freidns, and will be an outcast, those who are respected will enjoy all those things.

But that's not the whole story is it?

Some people that are dis-respected and dis-respectful can and do live comfortably in our society, because there are things that can over shadow the respect or dis-respect we feel about someone, one thing is fear, another is money, and they can and do motivate people to do and act differently towards those people, you can't buy love or respect but you CAN buy things and hire people to hang around you and make them seem that thery like and respect you and you may get a bit of respect for the appearance of respect to blend in, but beeing respectful would be much easier.

JohnDowe.

[johndowe]

Hi there.

Wolves are a social species, like we are or more precicely we were, and in a social gathering there are rules, there is a leader and there are subordinates, there are males and females, both have a leader and both have their own tasks and some shared tasks, if there is a leader and a rival for the position arises, the whole pack is affected and the conflict must be resolved, the leader and the rival have to have it out and only one can be the leader, the winnwer is the new leader, the loser can be forgiven or chased from the pack, but it is the leader's decision and none of the other wolves will interfeer with it.

At first glance it may not seem a good idea to chase away an obviously strong and probably good hunter from the pack, but it isn't his strength or his hunting capabilities that are in question, but his compliance to the leader, for the pack to function as a unit there has to be unity, one leader unquestionned and obeyed, blinly, if there is discention in the ranks, it is detrimental to all the members of the pack, a deer that would have been caught, could have escaped becaude of this discention and the whole pack would go hungry for a day, so respect of the leader is more importand than individual prowess, the same is true for the females, only the leader of the pack mates and only with the dominant female, they also have their roles to play, they tend to the young and defend the camp while the males hunt, any one of the pack would give their lives for the pack, for without the pack they would not survive.

This is true of all social animals, there are variants but the underlying principle remains the same, but only for small packs of less than say 50 members beyond that the system is non responsive and smaller groups form and it becomes harder for the whole group to function as a unit, a family structure implements itself, and the pack becomes a tribe, a center point to operate from but not directly tied to the others, it is no longer a dictatorship but a cooperative of sorts, where the whole tribe will defend itself from enemies, but may very well hunt by thenselves and share in the results of the hiunt with the rest of the tribe in exchange for having their young tended and kept safe, but in order for that system to work there has to be a leader that all the families will raly behind in times of crisis, and that is why respect is so important to them, the leader is the one that is most respected and that has proven himself a worthy member of the tribe, and those who are not respected are viewed as useless and eventually excluded from the tribe entirely and end up dead before their time.

There are few animals that live in a tribal atructure, but we use it extensively and we use it in a GRAND scale with cities of millions of inhabitants, where once respect was given an recieved without question, now giving it is a problem, where selfishness was rooted out for the greater good, selfishness is now a way of life, where lazyness was a sin, now it is no only tolerated but accepted, and for what, so that some may gain power over others and make money, respect is as important now as it was then, so why not play the game properly? Give respect to get it, it is that simple and them you have to keep beeing respectful to earn it, is that so hard? for a normal person, no, but for the lazy and the selfish it is and, over time the dis-respect that they generate for themselves is extended to others of their area, tensions arise, crime increases, attacks become more common, sounds femiliar?

Because of some less desirable people who openly dis-respect themselves beeing lazy and selfish, are accepted and protected by some well meaning but midguided people, it causes resentments, ill feelings and miss understandings between the different groups and with time the problems escalate and those groups distance themselves from eachother, until there are well tended nice looking areas and there are slums, those who were instrumental in creating those slums deserve to live there, but unfortunately, it is their children that end up living there and they are dis-respected because they live there and theat their parents were lazy and selfish, and weather or not they themselves are lazy or selfish, and they have great difficulty escaping the slums, and when the do get out their attitude betrays them and they are treated as second class citizens and all because of the lack of self-respect of their forefathers, and the dis-respect was forced on to them.

Solving the problem is not that hard in theory, but has proven to be much harder in practice, in theory, all one would have to do would be to start respecting himself and others and problem solved, ok, but there isn't just one person that is in this problematic sitution, there are millions and some are comfortable living there and make money because of the slums beeing what they are, and are wiling to go to great lengths to keep things as they are, and from both sides of the fence, so the problem persists because the will to change of the inhabitants of the slums is weak and unorganised and the ones that want to keep things as they are, are better organised, but if the inhabitants of the slums would learn the simple rules of respect and start applying them properly the ones that want to keep the slums as they are would not be able to do so and a major urban problem would be almost solved.

Who knew respect and the lack of it, could have such far reaching consequences.

JohnDowe.