Unethical world

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

AcrobatMan

Rock n' Roll Doggie
Joined
Feb 26, 2002
Messages
3,854
Location
Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
I am disillusioned. I can't understand how people behave and react . This is highly materialistic world , most people are out there for carnal pleasures, for $$$$, lying for sake of anything, cheating, pouncing on someone's else opportunity, forgetful about things people have done for them, unmoral, unethical and dishonest.
frown.gif


AcrobatMan
 
ah c'mon melon, if we don't romanticize the past, how will we ever convince people we need to go back to it? all you l*berals want to do is corrupt the world, it was such a nice, pure, perfect world before any of your immoral ideologies surfaced
 
I agree. In the Declaration of Independence, those guys signed it with the statement "we pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor"- their honor meant as much to them as their money and their lives! Now there is hardly any honor left. People will do anthing to stomp all over others just to get money and get ahead. It's sad.

There might have been bad people in the past too, but look, after all this world has been through and all the access to knowledge we have now, people should be above that. Besides, it's not just killing and wars here. There is corporate greed, wicked landlords, bosses who set people up and friends who stab each other in the back. It's terrible people could do those things and feel no remorse. I have noticed a big decrease in conscience the last 20 years. I think it has something to do with right and wrong being thrown out the window and replaced with the 'whatever is right to you in your opinion' and 'if it feels good do it' philosophy.
 
Originally posted by Desire4Bono:
I agree. In the Declaration of Independence, those guys signed it with the statement "we pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor"- their honor meant as much to them as their money and their lives! Now there is hardly any honor left. People will do anthing to stomp all over others just to get money and get ahead. It's sad.

Our Founding Fathers revolted not for "freedom," but because the British aristocracy considered the American aristocracy (i.e., them) to be degenerate trash. After that, they decided it was time to be independent from Britain.

Besides, it's not just killing and wars here. There is corporate greed

See: Late 19th century, Roaring Twenties

wicked landlords

You should see Jacob Riis' photos of 19th century tenement slums.

bosses who set people up

Striking workers were shot and killed in the 1880s at the beheast of the factory bosses.

and friends who stab each other in the back.

How often do you read that happening in Shakespearean plays? Hmm...a lot. Not a new concept to today.

It's terrible people could do those things and feel no remorse. I have noticed a big decrease in conscience the last 20 years.

Well, Reaganomics did make a big impact in that; probably the latest reprise in such occurrences.

I think it has something to do with right and wrong being thrown out the window and replaced with the 'whatever is right to you in your opinion' and 'if it feels good do it' philosophy.

Before, it was "do what I say, not what I do." So, while the working class is put to impossible moral standards, those in power are busy lapping up money and having lots of affairs. Warren Harding, president in the early 1920s, was probably 10x worse than Kennedy and Clinton combined. He just got spared scandal by dying.

Melon

------------------
"Still, I never understood the elevation of greed as a political credo. Why would anyone want to base a political programme on bottomless dissatisfaction and the impossibility of happiness? Perhaps that was its appeal: the promise of luxury that in fact promoted endless work." - Hanif Kureishi, Intimacy
 
Originally posted by martha:
I don't behave in this manner

martha : I didnt say this for anybody on this group and also even none of my friends are like this.

But most of the people I interact these days are like this irrespective of race, nationality or color of the skin. Whether they are of the same religion as me or not. Whether they are my compatriots or not. Looks like its kindof very universal. And technologywise yes.. Humans have done a lot.
They got themselves on the moon . Freedom
yes I appreciate more freedom in the society .. but what about ethics ?

People bend faiths to suit their needs. whats the need for it. People twist God to suit themselves. Why do they need to do this?

Today's society is same as the one by the cavemen - do anything for your survival and benefits, run after money, for carnal pleasures etc whether or not its right , moral , ethical or not. Who cares
at the end of the day !!! As long as their interest are being met. This is the attitude of humans . And this was the attitute hundreds of years ago.

Many times, I feel myself out of place and out of time
frown.gif
 
Originally posted by AcrobatMan:
Many times, I feel myself out of place and out of time
frown.gif

I still think I'm from an alternate universe in an alternate dimension in a world that will never be.

Melon

------------------
"Still, I never understood the elevation of greed as a political credo. Why would anyone want to base a political programme on bottomless dissatisfaction and the impossibility of happiness? Perhaps that was its appeal: the promise of luxury that in fact promoted endless work." - Hanif Kureishi, Intimacy
 
Originally posted by melon:
You know what? The *present* is probably the best we as a civilization have ever had it.
true, to me the biggest difference is that people nowadays have more time to moan

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it
 
Originally posted by AcrobatMan:
This is highly materialistic world , most people are out there for carnal pleasures, for $$$$, lying for sake of anything, cheating, pouncing on someone's else opportunity, forgetful about things people have done for them, unmoral, unethical and dishonest.

I don't behave in this manner, and my real friends don't either. Maybe you need to hang with a new crowd.

------------------

You have fairly generic bunions. --my podiatrist, 4-11-02
 
You know what? The *present* is probably the best we as a civilization have ever had it. Have a very deep look at world history over the last few thousand years and what do you see?

--dictatorial monarchs.
--the anarchy and fear of the Dark Ages.
--the nearly 1000 years of slavery at the hands of feudalism.
--a murderous / imperial / autocratic Christianity who didn't even blink an eye torturing and murdering people "suspected" of heresy.
--death at the hands of incessant wars, simple illnesses that we now cure with antibiotics, smallpox, the bubonic plague....it is just too sick to list all of it.
--the greed of imperialism and mercantilism, which preceded capitalism.
--deep poverty and lack of education for well over 90% of the population, minus the nobility and the clergy (who were often nobility themselves).

I really don't get it, honestly. Our world is about as "good" as it ever has been, and we've been labelled as so "evil." I wish we'd really stop romanticizing our past, which was *not* moral *nor* good.

I got a nice awakening a few days ago about what the old people in our town did when they were young. Trust me...everything happening now happened then. Mass communication just makes us more aware of what goes on around the world than ever before.

Melon

------------------
"Still, I never understood the elevation of greed as a political credo. Why would anyone want to base a political programme on bottomless dissatisfaction and the impossibility of happiness? Perhaps that was its appeal: the promise of luxury that in fact promoted endless work." - Hanif Kureishi, Intimacy
 
Originally posted by martha:
Originally posted by Desire4Bono:
In the Declaration of Independence, those guys
Owned slaves.


I knew someone would throw that old classic into the stew. So maybe a third of them did, but does that mean all their accomplishments should be disregarded and their words and stories replaced by the minor and insignificant ones of women and minorities, thus revising history in a PC way?

I have seen this happen in recent school textbooks. I toured Yorktown battlefield and Victory Center with a bunch of fifth graders and was shocked the names of Washington, Cornwallis and Rochambeau were never mentioned, while there were statues, speeches by tour guides and major glorifications of any woman or minority you've never heard of, right down to the common soldier's wife who came to do the laundry. Now it's fine to mention all that too but not at the expense of leaving out the names and stories of the major players because they were white guys and/or they did something that is now frowned upon. Don't all policitians and generals in some way?

You have to remember too that as foul and disgusting and unacceptable as owning slaves is to us today, in those days some people were raised in a different time with a totally different set of standards and ethics. It's not like they were some demons. Then as NOW, people will justify the things they do that are wrong so they can go ahead and do them and not feel guity. They will rationalize it in their heads until they feel it is their right, and their choice, there is nothing wrong with it and no one should take it away from them. Those men should not be hated or condemned any more than lots of others who've done other things. Like I said not all of them did have slaves and all of them were brilliant men (everyone has faults) who started this nation and should be remembered for that without the scorn of a modern society and its standards they did not have to deal with. So that's it, some of those guys had slaves, so they are evil and should be forgotten and disregarded, stuff them in the closet, shut the door on them and never mention them again in a positive light?!

I saw a black scholar on TV a few years ago who said something I totally agree with. He said rewriting history to make some people feel better isn't really history, it's psychology, and it's wrong. Good for him. you can't change the past and it isn't fair to judge those who lived over 200 years ago by today's standards. Like so many have pointed out, we're not perfect now either, but that does not make every person's lives and accomplishments worthless.

------------------
~"Everybody seems to think I'm lazy,
I don't mind, think they're crazy
running everywhere at such a speed
'til they find, there's no need!
Please don't spoil my day,
I'm miles away,
and after all, I'm only sleeping!"~
John Lennon

[This message has been edited by Desire4Bono (edited 05-20-2002).]
 
I miss the day and age when "A Random Act Of Kindness" was a WAY OF LIFE-
and NOT
a slogan.

Out-
diamond

------------------
AIM= diamondbruno9
 
Originally posted by diamond:
I miss the day and age when "A Random Act Of Kindness" was a WAY OF LIFE-
and NOT
a slogan.

Out-
diamond


What? You mean people used to do things without slogans? I mean, humor me, I'm a child of the "Just Say No" 80s
rolleyes.gif


Yes martha, they owned slaves. I used to hold the "but look at the historical context, they didn't think it was wrong" but as I furthured my studies into American history I founf that starting around 1830, Northerners began to lobby on behalf of the slaves. The antebellum era (the years 1825-1855) showed a lot of characteristics of pre-9/11 America. One that was quickly prospering in its economy and its citizens were working less and making 'good' money and so had more time to get involved in lobbying. Individual rights groups became prevalent, like those that fought for child labor, women's suffrage, and the freeing of slavery. I looked to see if there was much in the way of sympathy for slaves in the 1770s. Colonists were pretty occupied at this time, but DID take notice of slavery. At the time, it was not as prevalent as it was in the early 1800s. Slavery at the time of the Constitution was relatively new, see. In the beginning, indentured slavery was used most often. However, as the Colonists needed to trade more they saw that they could get slaves from the west coast of Africa and thus secure a trading partner. That is how slavery came about and grew so quickly, because the colonies needed that trading and saw that they benefitted a lot from it.
-end essay mid-point cos it has nothing to do with anything-

AcrobatMan, it's too bad that you feel disillusioned. I do too, I mean, how can't you sometimes? But then I think about how I can IMPROVE the situation and try. That's my suggestion. Then in 100 yrs, someone will be on a forum using history to prove a point and, if we all become more positive, it will be a better, more peaceful future.

------------------
Anticipation is a liar.

Hey Daisy, this doesn't mean I'm back.

[This message has been edited by Lilly (edited 05-20-2002).]
 
Lilly, I am well aware of the Abolitionist (anti-slavery) movement. That is what I was referring to when I said some people then, as now, did not want to be told what to do by a group of activists. They will justify what they want to do as noble and none of anyone else's business if they want to continue to do it without the burden of guilt, or having to stop altogether. The reaction of slave owners to the abolitionists was much the same as some people's reactions to anti-abortion activists of today: "It's my life I can do what I want, if you don't want to do it don't but don't tell me what to do, it's my choice, just because you don't approve doesn't mean you can take my right away, mind your own business." In their day, for many years, the Abolitionists were considered crackpot religious zealots and most people did not take them seriously, just as some today feel about the pro-lifers. (Trying to be fair to both right and left I will add the scenario of that argument could also be used with pro-anti gun control people, or other issues of today) The 15% of Southerners who owned slaves disregarded the Abolitionists as busybodies because they didn't want to hear their message and didn't believe it because they didn't want to because it messed with what they chose to do. See, if someone really wants to do something others believe to be evil, they will belittle the naysayers and throw 'my rights' in their faces because they don't want anyone interfering with what they want to do. That does NOT mean those Southerners knew it was evil, believed it was evil and continued to do it with wicked delight, dancing around cauldrons at night. They kept it up because at the time their livelihood depended on it and they were in denial because they didn't want to believe it.

It happens all through time too in some form. Just like the blood industry did not want to believe it in the 80's when someone suggested AIDS was spread by blood. It was their money, their meal ticket and they chose not to believe it until it was proven 3 or 4 years later and they were forced to screen blood. In the meantime, thousands were infected by tainted blood. Another example is when the aspirin industry denied the connection between aspirin and they tragic deadly childhood disease Reye's Syndrome until it was proven and many kids died in the meantime. Money has that hold over people, sad but true. If it's too terrible to believe, they reject the idea, though it's hurting someone.

Now I have beaten so far from the bush I doubt anyone will read or understand what I tried to say. I in no way endorse or justify slavery, it was atrocious and I am against the practice, be it in the US, medieval Europe (serfs), the Bible times, or any other country or time in history. I was only trying to make a point for those no longer around to tell their side of the story, as irrelevant as it may be to those who will close your minds and convict them regardless.

I must also add that when Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration it originally included passages banning slavery, but some other Southerners refused to sign until they were omitted. Remember too when branding the founding fathers as slave owners that most of them, including John Adams, Ben Franklin, Ceaser Rodney, Rev. Witherspoon and many more, never owned any or condoned the practice.

Remember the Read More About it adds that used to come on after movies? Well I would like to recommend two programs now which I think are very good and if you can survive and get through the thick cheese in some places there are good messages there about both sides of the issues in those days.

One is the musical 1776. (So fast forward through the annoying songs) Sure it is not totally factual but there is a lot of real historical info on the founding fathers in there.

The other is the miniseries North and South and North and South Book II. It tells the story of two very good friends, one Northern and one Southern, in the years before and during the Civil War. It explains the attitude of both on slavery and how they remained friends despite the differences. It also chronicles the Abolitionist movement. It's not a documentary, it's a historical drama and love story with the history mixed in. If you ever get a chance, watch it. It might make you understand or see in a different light, though not accept, how things were back then and how someone could be a good person in other ways and still hold unpopular views. (I'm not making any excuses of course!)


[This message has been edited by Desire4Bono (edited 05-20-2002).]



[This message has been edited by Desire4Bono (edited 05-20-2002).]
 
Melon:

I agree with you on some of those things.

Desire4Bono:

I also agree with you on some of the things you said; in fact, you righted a lot of misconceptions about the founding fathers as well.

That being said, we must not forget that slaver DOES still exist today, but we are asked not to address it out of "cultural respect."

~U2Alabama
 
Originally posted by Desire4Bono:
So maybe a third of them did, but does that mean all their accomplishments should be disregarded and their words and stories replaced by the minor and insignificant ones of women and minorities, thus revising history in a PC way?

No.

I meant that before we start canonizing the "honorable" people of the past, while knocking what people do nowadays, we need to keep in mind that the people of the past had their selfish, perverse, HUMAN characteristics as well.

That's all.

------------------

You have fairly generic bunions. --my podiatrist, 4-11-02
 
Originally posted by Desire4Bono:
Lilly, I am well aware of the Abolitionist (anti-slavery) movement.


Oh, I hope you did not take my reply in any condescending tone, because it wasn't meant to be so at all. Just talking about what I had been studying is all.

------------------
Anticipation is a liar.
 
Originally posted by U2Bama:
That being said, we must not forget that slavery DOES still exist today, but we are asked not to address it out of "cultural respect."

There is Sudan, of course, which is reprehensible at very minimum.

What about indentured servitude? Now wouldn't this American phenomenon of the last two decades of "forced volunteerism" (i.e., forcing high school students, for instance, to perform x amount of service hours before they can graduate, even if they perform all the academic requirements) fall under that category; and, hence, it is illegal?

Melon

------------------
"Still, I never understood the elevation of greed as a political credo. Why would anyone want to base a political programme on bottomless dissatisfaction and the impossibility of happiness? Perhaps that was its appeal: the promise of luxury that in fact promoted endless work." - Hanif Kureishi, Intimacy
 
Okay, you all can feel free to call me Pollyanna if you want. I know about the horrible things that happen in this world; I was telling people about how evil and corrupt the Taliban was, for example, for SEVERAL YEARS before 9/11. But:

--When in human history was so much time, money, and energy devoted to the treatment and cure of horrible diseases?

--When in human history have we had so many ways to communicate with each other?

--When in human history did women have so many rights, although the work of feminism is far from finished?

--When in human history have people lived such long and healthy lives as many people now on Earth have the chance to live?

We have a seemingly infinite amount of work to do, of course. And perhaps I'm wearing rose-colored middle-class American glasses. But just because I think we have work left to do doesn't mean I think we can't do it. I think, a thousand years from now, this time will actually be seen as a Golden Age of human civilization: an age in which new things were invented practically every day. And even though we've invented weapons, I'm sure that if we added up all of the telecommunications, transportation, medical, etc. inventions, they would far outweigh all the new ways we have to kill each other. And there will always be giant boulders, anyway.

Acrobat, I know it seems like the world is a difficult place to live in. But Melon has a good point: we've come a long way. And we have no reason to believe that this, too, will not pass. There simply has to be more good in the world. A lot of that is just trusting in God. But look at how lucky YOU are. That's at least a start.

"The Bible always said, 'And it came to pass.' It never said, 'And it came to stay.'" --unknown

------------------
Well, the God I believe in isn't short on cash, mister. --Bono

But a day will come
In this dawning age
When an honest man
Sees an honest wage.
--The Edge
 
Originally posted by melon:
There is Sudan, of course, which is reprehensible at very minimum.

What about indentured servitude? Now wouldn't this American phenomenon of the last two decades of "forced volunteerism" (i.e., forcing high school students, for instance, to perform x amount of service hours before they can graduate, even if they perform all the academic requirements) fall under that category; and, hence, it is illegal?

My view is that what Sudan does is unacceptable at any level, even if it is a "cultural thing."

But I must admit I am not familiar with this forced volunteerism (which negates the word in and of itself) you are talking about; I don't think we have it here in Alabama. And, I agree with you that it sounds illegal as a requirement for graduation.

~U2Alabama
 
Back
Top Bottom