I) The pure love of information. II) To learn from our successes and our mistakes. III) To support the myths that underlie our beliefs.
It is this III that has sparked debates from Creationism/evolution to Christian America/Secular America to Manifest Destiny/Beligerant White Guy Is To Blame For Everything.
Whether you are conservative, liberal, or somewhere in between, there are basic myths that we hold as, well, gospel.
Arguements back and forth are arguments supporting one myth, even if it means destroying all others.
This has gotten to the point that this debate about the III Meaning of history includes history that is only seconds old. We spin the news to support our myths, or to destroy those who may oppose us.
We argue, talking past each other, on silly details that don't matter because the cornerstones of our beings, our ideals, and our faiths differ.
So what do we use to weigh one myth against another.
Is it Faith? Do you believe that your faith is any less real, any less true than that of a buddhist in India or a Muslim in Morrocco? How do we measure faith. How can a person who has not felt the hand of God showing them the right path, know which of the many paths are myth and wich is right?
Is it logic? We've had so many arguments claiming that science and logic are wrong. They say they are not enough. What is enough?
Is it statistics? Web links? Authorities? We are using history and news to defend and promote our myths, to prove that we are right. Is that where the answer lies? Is it in history alone that we can find the truth? If so, then in who's history for whomever writes the history slants it to support thier myths, or to attack others.
There are so many false leaders out there spinning new myths and new gods that it is becoming ever more difficult to function. By what criteria do we weigh the myths.
Myth 1--Iran and Nuclear Arms.
Iran states clearly that their nuclear program is purely an energy producing program.
The US states clearly that the scientific facts show that this is a bomb producing program.
Whom do we believe? Iran has the most to gain by having anyone believe there lie, but the US government spoke with just as much authority if not more, when it claimed Iraq had WMD, and that proved to be wrong. How do we measure the myth of Iran as a God fearing country doing what's best for its people by bringing them inexpensive power with the myth of Iran as an Axis of Evil, hoping to enpower its terrorist sattelites with a nuclear arsenal in order to destroy the demon US?
Myth #2:
Wal-mart--a danger to America by forcing vendors, customers, and governments to do its whim by using the brute force of its power and size.
Wal-mart--A boon to the common man, increasing his standard of living by decreasing the costs of his everyday needs.
Is there a blanket policy we can use to weigh these myths and all myths, to find the truth that probably lies between them? If we can ever agree on that, then we can eventually agree on everything.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The myths one has to deal with in the case of Wal*Mart are whether: 1) Is it better to employ an American/immigrant with the American dollar or to employ an economicly worse off foreigner living outside of US borders? 2) Is it better to use American money to develope a foreign nation's industrial base and have the US become an intellectual property and service based economy instead of improving the American industrial base? 3) Is it ethical to use the threat of unemployment due to job transfer to a foreign nation to drive down wages&benefits of American workers? 4) Are you willing to deprive Americans of their livelyhood for thirty pieces of silver? 5) Are you willing to pay for welfare to support poorly compensated Wal*Mart workers&families and American workers&families who must live on reduced wages&benefits or are unemployed because of Wal*Mart's business practices?
posted
Thirty pieces of silver? Wow, that's an unbiased and neutral way of asking your questions, that is.
Getting back to the original post, evolution is not a myth, it is a fact. The likes of social darwinism and eugenics are myths.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Just a technical clarification I suppose, but still.
And I fall into the category of those who study history for the pure love of information. And to think some day people are going to PAY me to teach history all day long. I love America =)
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for allowing me to demonstrate why I said: politics is really really REALLY HARD. Despite your assumptions, none of the questions was meant as a rhetorical statement: there is no simple "choose one" answer.
eg Reread 1) taking special notice of why "economicly worse off foreigners" contained italicization for emphasis. If one disavows the trustfund-baby trap of "I am entitled" [ala the Divine Right of Kings] "to the Good Life" [of wealth&opportunity unavailable to the average person] "because I was born" [though no effort of ones own] "to wealthy parents." [through happenstance, not choice], then being born to the FirstWorld, "wealthy*parents" isn't a special qualification which makes one more deserving of a good job, "wealth&opportunity" than a NewlyIndustrializingNation or ThirdWorld foreigner/"average*person". So the question becomes "Under what conditions should jobs be transferred from the FirstWorld to a NIN or the ThirdWorld?"
Each of questions is similarly more complex to answer once past the all-too-easy-to-fall-into "my side is better" trap.**
* Every FirstWorlder is born of "wealthy parents" in terms of all-needs-being-met and opportunities-given when that is compared to the-absense-of-a-social-safety-net for the "average person", who does live as a poorer member of a NIN or ThirdWorld country.
** As was my first response to Bob_Scopatz inre TomDeLay.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
