jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (29 posts)

The greatest lie ever told.

  1. Josak profile image59
    Josakposted 3 years ago

    That a human life is worth less on the basis of the color of their skin, their gender, their faith, their sexuality or their nationality.
    Perhaps the greatest of these is nationality, at least with the others (unjustifiable as they are) there is some physiological or psychological difference, but no lie has killed (and continues to kill) as many people as the last one and no lie is more illogical than that the value of someone's life is determined by which imaginary lines they were born between.

    1. gmwilliams profile image83
      gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Not only it is the GREATEST lie, it is the MOST INSIDIOUS of all lies.  Separations, segregations, annihilations, and abuses of many kinds occurred because of this artificial social construct.  All are ONE and humankind is gradually advancing towards this; however, we have a LONG, LONG way to go.
      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8197440_f248.jpg

    2. profile image82
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A human life is worthless on the basis of age or being unborn?  Does this fall in the same category then?  Isn't it just as illogical to say that an unborn baby can be aborted one day but not the next, based solely on age?  Isn't it just as illogical to say that a pregnant mother can abort a baby, and that's legal; another pregnant mother can be murdered, and it's a double homicide?  You can quite literally go to prison for killing an unborn baby IF you are not the mother, and the baby was wanted.  IF you are the mother, you can abort (kill) the unborn baby, and that's all right.  The world is full of imaginary lines.

      1. profile image0
        Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        +1

      2. Josak profile image59
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Actually I am unsure on that one personally but this thread really isn't a conversation on abortion, here are plenty of those around if you want to have that conversation.

      3. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You're right - the world is full of lines.

        You've drawn the line for "baby" onto the timeline of growth long before many others would, and then ignored those other lines as if they didn't exist.  People very often do the same thing with their own lives as well.

        What makes a mix of black and white nearly always black?  Just the line that people draw.

        What makes an American into an "African American"?  Just the lines that we want associated with our person.

        And those "lines", or "labels" is just what the OP is about.  Labels we can use to denigrate others, to make them seem they are worth less.

        1. Josak profile image59
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Exactly.

        2. profile image82
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          We can disagree on abortion.

          Okay, let's agree on something here then, Wilderness.  Who do you protect first, your own family or your neighbor's family?  Should America protect and preserve life within its own border before protecting the lives of others?  If so, shouldn't we have border security, so we can tell who enters our country?  Some, likely Josak, would say that we shouldn't have this security, that our country should have open borders.  Further, they would say that the American lives lost because of criminals entering our country illegally is justified based on the number of illegal aliens who get opportunity.  I feel that our country owes it to our citizens to have security, to know who is entering our country, and to protect and defend American lives.  Should we sacrifice our own family security or way of life to allow greater opportunity to a neighbor?

          1. Josak profile image59
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So you are saying that that someone's life is worth more or less dependent on where they are born?

            1. profile image82
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I'm saying that I take care of my own family before trying to take care of somebody else.  If helping somebody else puts my family at risk, I won't do it.

              1. Josak profile image59
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Actually you will note the lack of "family" being listed as one of those lies.

                But something like immigration policy is not reasonably based on protecting one's own family.

                Ugh, I know now I am going to get the illegals commit crimes and Latin men rape girls but I am not racist thing.

                The issue is quite simple either you believe all human lives are precious and equally worth protecting (putting aside the death penalty for certain crimes etc.) or some lives are worth less than others based on where they are born, their nationality, race etc.

                It's some kind of morality by proximity.

                1. profile image82
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  All life is valuable, but that doesn't mean that all people should have access to our country.   We have an obligation to protect life.  By allowing ANYBODY into our country, we are endangering people. 

                  I believe that these people's lives had value too:

                  http://www.ojjpac.org/memorial.asp

                  http://standwitharizona.com/blog/2011/1 … al-aliens/

                  There is a legal way to enter our country, and that way involves a background check, something that protects people.

          2. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Protection depends on local, specific task.  The soldiers storming Normandy were protecting their neighbor, the man attacking a thief is protecting his family.

            Ethically, the concept of ownership, specifically that of land, exists and is valid.  Yes, the nation has the ethically right to say who can come in and occupy their land.

            Legally, the constitution tasks the president with protection of our borders (whether he tries to fullfill that duty or not is another tale) so yes we also have the legal right under US laws to prohibit alien visitation.  In addition, international law also recognizes land ownership and thus the right to deny access to aliens.

            None of which has anything to do with denigrating others as mentioned in the OP.  No person is defined as a person by the term "alien"; it is simply a label affixed to indicate legal status.

            1. profile image82
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Wilderness, the bottom line stands.  Would you take care of your own family before taking care of others?  Do you feed your neighbor's child at the expense of your own?  Life is equal, but we have an obligation to protect certain life first, our own family and our own citizens.

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Can only answer "It depends".  Given the choice I will feed my child before my neighbors.  Given the choice I may feed all the children of the nation before my own.  I'm not sure I could even if I recognize the moral necessity.

      4. grand old lady profile image89
        grand old ladyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        +2

    3. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Last I check the world was coming to the aid of the Philippines. Trying to stay positive.

      You've made a very good point however, I've always thought it was strange that North American armies go into other continents and can legally kill, but when someone kills them they are charged with murder.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr

      1. Silverspeeder profile image60
        Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Is the question one of legality or survival of the fittest.

        He who has the biggest weapon wins?

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          As the one with the biggest guns generally make the laws (and the morals) there isn't much difference.  They just kid of merge into one most of the time.

    4. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Unfortunately the world operates on a self regulated set of standards. The majority or influential have the right to determine the rights of others. Why is it that the oil producing nations in the middle east garner so much support from the US while the northern and middle countries of Africa get entirely ignored? The greed factor has a lot to do with it and the hierarchy that controls it determines the outcome. The existential movement towards globalization seems to have a more open minded approach of equal competition between nations. The hard truth is that slave labor is easily accessible as the underlying impetus.

  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    There is nothing wrong with fences. This is how we get along with our neighbors. Don't be fooled:
    No new taxes for universal welfare.

    1. Silverspeeder profile image60
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Human nature

      Why is it that humans always forget the survival of oneself and your offspring is paramount above all other things, most of us have not evolved into the sacrificial lamb but the few who have now want us to believe its the norm. Survival of the fittest has what has kept humans the dominant force on this planet.
      Evolution ah, the survival of the weakest will be the predominate preoccupation of the mediocre.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thank You, Silverspeeder! God's silver and gold speed to you!

    2. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this
  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago

    whats wrong with fences again? We are all the same color underneath. Rip off the skin of anyone and it will be bloody red. This doesn't mean national boundaries or confederate boundaries are necessary. Unless you are a
    NWOT.
    Definition of NWOT: New World Order Type.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      edit: unnecessary or a bad thing.

    2. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      This must mean that the government and corporations of the USA are new world order types as they have absolutely no respect for national boundaries.

  4. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 3 years ago

    I don't know about greatest.  For me, the greatest lie ever told is progress is inevitable.  It lulls us into an illusion of comfort, where we just "expect" everything to magically get better, simply because of the passage of time.

    Our entire existence as a species is as stake because of this lie.

    1. profile image82
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      We're also lulled into thinking that all change is progress.

 
working