Man... The Leakiest of All Vessels by Merwin

This is a contiuation from my previous Hub... And You Have FAITH In Mankind..?

Chas(uk)'s latest entry that prompted my reply...

I didn't offer any conjecture as to why longevity has increased, nor is it especially important to my premise. Further, nowhere in these comments have I implied that genocide or war were on the decline.

My premise is simple. I'll reproduce it here in its most succinct form, quoting myself: "[Imagine] another scenario, in which the divisiveness of multiple sovereignties is overcome (transcended by global governance), so that increased wealth and improved human development comes to us all, leading to a non-violent decrease and/or stabilization of the population."

Most of the rest of this thread has been spent pursuing rabbits down holes.

My reply...

Ah... now we are (gratefully) back to it. And I really don't believe this is a rabbit chase and if it were, at least from the volley in which I contended...

"Huh..!?!

My "superstition" has a lot more validity in history than what you are putting your faith into.

Where is your expectations of this brave new world coming from? Where in our history can you point and say "why here is proof that this can be done... they have done it before... here... was utopia!" 

HA...where? "

...then it was you who generated the rabbit chase.

To address your premise that brings us gratefully back to the point...

"[Imagine] another scenario, in which the divisiveness of multiple sovereignties is overcome (transcended by global governance), so that increased wealth and improved human development comes to us all, leading to a non-violent decrease and/or stabilization of the population."

With all the support mechanisms (That You Mentioned), you would think that if the boundaries of sovereign lands were dissolved and there were plenty of everything for everybody, there would be no more need for bloodshed..!?

Allow me to reiterate my previous query and I will remove the offending word utopia so you don't get too sidetracked...

"My "superstition" has a lot more validity in history than what you are putting your faith into.

Where is your expectations of this brave new world coming from? Where in our history can you point and say "why here is proof that this can be done... they have done it before... here... was ______!" 

HA...where? "

The material point is that you are placing unwarranted faith in the goodness of man, who from ancient times to right now, has sought (and is seeking) power through torture, terror and murder.

And you, who are willing to put your Faith into some flowery repentance from past acts, from a species that is only willing to repent from some Machiavellian impetus designed to coral the sheep. You are trusting that somehow, someway... man will finally step up and do the right thing.

You have the nerve to say that... for one (you), to have faith in God lacks scientific proof?

You say that you don't believe in god, but the teachings of Jesus are worth following. You say that there are many similar teachings from faith leaders of different disciplines that teach similar truths.

Okay, I will grant you all of that and a bag of chips... but these teachings by themselves, while generating adherents have not changed the course of man's bloody path.

Man, in every case has corrupted from the inside of peaceful messages, the value of said messages, in his various bids for power. He... man has taken all half truths to promote his own lies to get God's sheep to follow him, to subjugate and oppress others.

And now you are buying into the "peaceful message" of harmonious living through the removal of borders and sovereigns? What a leap of faith... that has little or NO scientific proof, to support that pie in the sky promise.

Jesus even predicted the habitation of man's power hungry march within His church...

Mat 13:31 ¶ Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:

Mat 13:32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

The birds of the air are symbolic of a life that is not part of the tree itself but takes advantage of what the tree has to offer.

My friend you seem to be placing an awful lot of faith in the leakiest of all vessels... man.

Comments 29 comments

Captain Jimmy profile image

Captain Jimmy 6 years ago from WV


hermfry418 profile image

hermfry418 6 years ago

Sad, but true. Very true.


Chasuk 6 years ago

I'm the "Chas" quoted at the top of this hub. Merwin and I started this conversation on Facebook, but for various reasons it is being continued here.

Merwin is contesting this premise:

"Imagine another scenario, in which the divisiveness of multiple sovereignties is overcome (transcended by global governance), so that increased wealth and improved human development comes to us all, leading to a non-violent decrease and/or stabilization of the population."

This premise -- to be doubly clear -- is mine.

I'm making no claims (which is why I used the word "scenario"). I'm providing the outline of a hypothesized sequence of events, and nothing else should be inferred.

Essentially, Merwin believes that peaceful global governance will occur, imposed by Jesus Christ.

I believe that peaceful global governance might occur, but I'm making no predictions. If it occurs -- which I hope it does -- I don't believe that Jesus will have anything to do with it.

I'm a non-theist, which eliminates peaceful global-governance-via-Jesus as a possibility.

Merwin thinks I'm applying double standards, because, according to him, there is less evidence for the possibility of a human-created peaceful global governance than for the possibility of a Jesus-created peaceful global governance. According to him, my belief takes more faith than his does.

There are two huge reasons that Merwin is wrong, but the most important reason is Merwin's claim concerning evidence. There is plenty of evidence supporting the possibility of human-created peaceful global governance.

If anyone expresses an interest in hearing it, I will present it, along with the other huge reason that Merwin is wrong.

Merwin also contends that I believe that Christianity is dumb.

He is wrong here, too.

I think Christianity is wrong, but you don't have to be stupid to believe it. Many Christians are stupid, and accept Christianity for stupid reasons, but the same applies to many atheists. However, neither Christians nor atheists have to be stupid to believe what they believe. Belief in Christianity isn't dumb per se, at least by my criteria.

I have the same criteria for Christianity that I have for any matters of fact. Whether human-created peaceful global governance is possible is a matter of opinion, which uses a different criteria entirely.

If anyone wants me to explain further, I will happily oblige.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

You obviously don't care what I write... for you take it and twist it to mean what you want it to mean, my GUESS is, so you may make it sound like you are debating an idiot.

Good luck with that, you obviously don't need my assistance... simply make it up as you go and accept from me a hearty, preemptive congratulations on you glorious "win".

Be sure to keep in touch.


Chasuk 6 years ago

I have twisted nothing, and you know it. Besides, you do an exceedingly good job of making yourself look like an idiot without my help.

That's all that this is to you, isn't it, scoring points? Too bad that it isn't about actually conveying meaning. You are more interested in the histrionics than anything else. Scorn and sarcasm are the only tools in your arsenal. Every time that you are faced with the possibility of debate, you cower and flee, after a paragraph of two of braggadocio.

You go through the motions, Merwin, but you aren't willing to do the work. You spin in circles, invoke Jesus when you want to remind us that you are a Christian, and use language like a blind man using a mallet instead of a fine instrument. I'm guessing that you have adopted the mallet approach because you have never figured out whether you want to bludgeon or use finesse, or maybe you honestly don't know the difference.

Good luck in ignoring any real intellectual challenges. Accept the easy path, and bask in the adulation of the bootlicks and lackeys who don't want to upset you with confrontation lest you ultimately limp away sulking.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

You have twisted my meanings and I am sure you do not want them listed here or anywhere else, but I do invite anyone interested to see for themselves.

All they need do is go to my Facebook profile to the status titled "I thought this was worth repeating and to more peeps..." dated Oct 3, 2:27 pm, and judge for themselves. It gets to the more significant parts in question, toward the end... but Chas borrows from the earlier comments as well.

I have my guess that the collective opinion would not matter to you either. Nobody but you seems to understand the finer intricacies of true debate. I'm guessing that overexposure to your style of debate would turn anyone off. You take the simplest idea (that does not set well with you) and diagram, cross examine, force your opponent into twelve different paraphrasing examples of what was a very easy to understand, simple statement, all seemingly designed to frustrate them into quitting. Not after "the possibility of debate" as you would lead people to believe... but, after many, Many, MANY, PAGES!

There are eighty-one (81) posts, just on this one status alone. Four are from two other people Conny and Roger, the rest are yours and mine. And this is merely one example of what we have been doing, as you say over a year.

Cower and flee? Call it whatever you want it really does not matter, for you would not acknowledge the truth of it no matter how simple or complex it had been presented to you... you would simply want it rephrased once again, and again, and again.

I am an idiot? I must be, thinking I could get a shred of honesty out of you. You have had me fooled for way too long, please forgive my bluntness but I am still pretty sick after about four days, and have little humor set aside for anymore of this rubbish.

I am not your only "friend" that has complained of your methods. I resorted to using the terms "dumb and dumber" for the obvious attempt at a humorous introduction of a negative connotation. Frustration at the manifold attempts (once again folks take a look at the above mentioned facebook status) I settled on those two terms to denote something unworthy to put important value on... if something is "dumb" one is unlikely to hang on to it.

Again... I RESORTED to the term "dumb" after nearly begging you to stop your unrelenting over analyzing, in depth dissection of a very simple concept that I will repeat here...

"I have not been writing about some mass consensus for criteria. I have been speaking to the critical eye and heavy scrutiny that - you - level at the supernatural, that you do not use with your own hopeful perspectives about man's ability to overcome his own nature."

AND...

"And that is (again) my point to all of this... you seem to have double standards, one that is strict and harsh for a god, who you state does not exist, and one for your MMPGG that seems to have little or no evidence that supports your Faith in MMPGG."

('MMPGG' is basically, man - peacefully - governing his fellow man under a one world governance.)

This was said, re-said, hashed and rehashed, until finally... FINALLY in an effort to make it as understandable as I could, I resorted to...

According to Chas' criteria... Christianity = dumb.

According to Chas' criteria........ MMPGG = dumber.

Very simply meant as, Chas is critical toward everything supernatural.

If he used the same critical eye toward his hope that man can get along with his fellows, he would not believe that either, as there is less evidence for that being true, then there is that the supernatural is real.

I may be an idiot... and for a lot of reasons.

You my friend may be the smartest person on the planet... I don't know I am after all an idiot, but if you say something to me I may ask for a little clarification. However I do not strive to drive off the tiny intellectual wannabes with endless queries for the sake of "supposed" clarification.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

"There is plenty of evidence supporting the possibility of human-created peaceful global governance.

If anyone expresses an interest in hearing it, I will present it,..."

I guess my original query wasn't worthy of your reply that you promised in your posting above... that I quoted in this comment.

Here, I will restate my question that got all this started soooooo long ago...

Where is your expectations of this brave new world coming from? Where in our history can you point and say "why here is proof that this can be done... they have done it before... here... was utopia!"

HA...where? "

And... I have already backed off the "utopia" part so you don't reuse that excuse to get side tracked and not answer the question.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

**** Really sick for three days instead of four.


Chasuk 6 years ago

Debate is like a journey that is not only fraught with dangerous detours, but in which neither traveler is necessarily sure of the destination. They might each think they know WHERE it is, but neither is guaranteed to know how to get there.

If they are wise, they frequently consult a map, and huddle over their travel plans. If they are unwise, the route they thought was taking them to Los Angeles takes them to Dubai instead.

Those listening to their dialogue often hear things similar to this: "Did you say Los Alamos?" "No, I said Las Vegas." "Are we in San Diego?" "No, we are in San Francisco."

In other word, successful debaters confer/consult/summarize every step of the way. Unsuccessful debaters spend a lot of time lost in a wilderness of their own making.

As for your questions, I'll now attempt to answer them.

Question #1: Where are your expectations of this brave new world coming from?

Answer #1: I have no expectations of a "brave new world." However, I do have hope for a world in which the divisiveness of multiple sovereignties is overcome (transcended by global governance), so that increased wealth and improved human development comes to us all, leading to a non-violent decrease and/or stabilization of the population.

Question #2: Where is my proof (for the scenario I present in Answer #1)?

Answer #2 briefly postponed: The second answer is longest, so I'll answer it last.

Question #3: Where have they done this before?

Answer #3: Global governance has never been possible before, so there is no precedent. With our new communication and transportation technologies, we now have a chance for the the first time of global governance.

Answer #2 resumed: Since global governance has never before been a possibility, I have no examples which are precisely analogous.

However, consider these periods of peace:

Pax Mongolica -- After Genghis Khan conquered most of Eurasia, it was a pretty safe place to live, for a long time. Look it up.

Pax Sinica -- This refers to several periods of peace imposed by the Chinese hegemony, over multiple dynasties. Look it up.

Pax Britannica -- One hundred years of relative peace under the British Empire. Look it up.

Pax Romana -- Two hundred years of peace imposed by the Roman Empire. Look it up.

The United States of America -- We did have a civil war, but most of our history has been peaceful, and we are comprised of 50 separate states under a single federal government.

I consider this ample historic evidence supporting the possibility of human-created peaceful global governance.

The only times on earth that we have ever had sustained periods of peace is when multiple sovereign states were been controlled by one government.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

Well that is something finally... thank you (not sarcastic), now I have something to work with. I am still sick so it may take a couple of days.

If you can provide some additional information it would greatly appreciated.

Most of your provided examples, are great and I will look into them... are previous to the last two hundred years and if you will recall I did mention more than once the more recent time frame, ear marking it with an "especially".

Could you provide some examples for that, more recent and therefore (in my opinion) more relevant global personality?

I will say here about the one example you've provided that fits my requested time frame, the United States... we have been extremely bloody in our acquisition and occupation of our land.

Just to touch on it here (I will get back to it), we have to consider the murderously enforced enslavement of the blacks as well as the multiple acts of genocide in our campaigns against the Native Americans under Manifest Destiny.

More later... blessings on you my friend.


Chasuk 6 years ago

In my opinion, the "two hundred years" bit is something that you have to demonstrate, not me.

We lately agreed upon this statement: "Historical evidence -- especially the evidence of the last two hundred years -- proves that peaceful global governance is impossible without supernatural imposition."

Obviously, this isn't something that I would argue.

If there is a superseding version, my apologies.

Get feeling better.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

Don't you think it is more than a little late in the game to be making this stipulation..?

Well, okay...

Each era and region has a personality all its own. Before the industrial revolution that morphed into the technological revolution, the lack of mobility confined collective personalities to regions and each region had a certain character for any given era.

Since the onset of the industry/techno revolutions (the last 200 years), the collective personalities themselves have been morphing into a global melting pot persona. I believe this is what is contributing to your "hope" for mankind's future.

It is this persona that is the crux of my opinion, and it is something that you may not dismiss with a cavalier wave of your hand, and or pass the onerous buck to me and not expect me to grab onto it wholeheartedly, for I do... and will grab on to it. Again, it is the center of my argument, and has been for many of our discussions, including early on, on this one.

Not to mention that none of the bygone "PAX Anybodies" are going to comeback to impose their characteristic persona upon us, at least not according to you that would be superstitious nonsense. Not to mention that the present global "persona" has itself well rooted in the mobility and technological landscape that makes us "one" and is therefore at the center of your argument... or at least should be.

However, by passing the buck, you neglect your responsibilities in your side of this exchange, for my original queries were based there, and you know it.

So if you don't mind get up off your lazy over-intellectual backside and do some research.

Sick as I am if I can respond to your halfhearted, glib, condescending approach, well... the least you can do is remember where this started and answer the whole freaking question, and not just the part that suits your fancy.

Please forgive my impatience but you have the appearance of someone who is cornered with your hand stuck in the cookie jar and your giving excuses for why your hand is in there, saying anything... except that you wanted a cookie.


Chasuk 6 years ago

You ask, "Don't you think it is more than a little late in the game to be making this stipulation..?"

Nope. First, because it is obvious. Why would I be defending one of your assertions? Second, because everything has its time and place, and we hadn't gotten there yet.

[rant on]

I really wish that you would stop making unwarranted assumptions about me. I am deadly serious, always. Anyone who really knows me knows this. My humor is serious, as is every other aspect of my life. Everything about me is serious, even when I'm doing my best not to be. I am never halfhearted or glib, though I am sometimes condescending.

It is my seriousness that you find annoying. It is my seriousness that is at the heart of my methodical nature. I spend NONE of my time on my intellectual backside. I live inside my head, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

I intellectualize everything except for my relationships, and sometimes I even intellectualize them, to my detriment.

I have absolutely no idea how you perceive that I have passed the buck. I answered your question as completely and honestly as I know how.

You still don't seem to understand that this isn't about "winning" or "losing" to me. I'm not in a competition. I debate to learn new points of view, because I am constantly aware that there are points of view which may be superior to mine. Debate is ultimately a method of self-improvement. I've explained this before. Nothing has changed.

In other words, I don't care if I'm wrong. If I learned tomorrow that it was really the Swiss who were the early settlers of North America, how can that knowledge hurt me? None of my knowledge has reserved categories of importance.

Okay, except for relationships. I trust the people I love because I choose to, not based on the evidence. That trust probably has its limits, though I haven't found one yet.

Give me a cogent argument, and I am thrilled, especially if it also gives me a new insight.

But my standards of evidence and argument are strict, because life isn't long enough to spend too much time chasing fantasies. I've discovered that -- for me -- being methodical gives me a final answer that I can trust more often than answers derived from what I consider sloppy methods.

[rant off]

What question or questions did I not answer?


Chasuk 6 years ago

If you are looking for additional information about Pax Romana, etc., Google can provide as much relevant information as I can. The only relevant point is that they are considered eras of relative peace by historians. That's all that I am arguing; that historical evidence exists which suggests that man-made peaceful global governance is at least possible. This isn't a retreat or a backpedal. That's all I have ever been arguing.

I have no reason to believe that "characteristic personas" were the reasons for these peaceful eras. I have already stated explicitly my theory of the cause.

So I've now given a good-faith effort to hopefully answer questions that I had apparently missed. Did I succeed?


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

Earlier I forgot to thank you for you wishing me better health... thank you.

In our past exchanges, have read your assertions that state that the hope you hold will happen eventually. That the global human character will eventually learn to get along. And I also remember a comment along the lines that you thought that it might not even happen during this generation but perhaps in some soon generation to follow. Or at least that is the impression I got.

That would be a very reasonable assertion (if that is indeed close to what you wrote), mostly because the global persona is far from having the collective maturity to pull it off. We are still too murderous.

The difficulty with a few generations, a couple, or even one more generation, are threefold (it may be manifold but for the sake of brevity...) and the three-folds are thus...

The exponential population growth (your still hopeful about that). Petroleum reserves are way past their peak, which is where we get everything from toothbrushes and all other plastics, to fertilizer and insecticides. And the Man's desperation in seeing these two locomotives heading straight for each other. Even if we had zero growth or less now, the collective need for petroleum products are still too cumbersome.

Man (the powers that be) does not want the one train (the runaway population) to crash into the other train (the rapidly vanishing oil reserves) to take away what could be a cushy life style for whatever Man (powers that be) that is left.

So Man (TPTB) in his preemptive posture will take the global reigns into his hands and in a show of force (making it obvious to everyone that He Is The Man) reduce the global population down to what is manageable, around 500 million. He will mandate two kids per family (zero population) and because He flexed His global muscles, He will live in luxury while the majority (all the rest) will live as affluent (they will live in relative luxury) servants to the Man.

This preemptive measure serves many purposes other than making Him "The Man", it also buys Him time to handle the other "oil reserve" juggernaut coming down the tracks from the other side.

He will be very selective as to who does not become "fertilizer" for the crops of His brave new world, for He needs the geniuses to come up with viable alternatives to oil. The techno-braintrust will be kept, they have had any silly superstitions long since sanitized out of their consciousness through higher education. And even if that is not a complete wipe, the Man has modified what may be remaining, manipulated it, and mandated it to be manageable as well.

I believe it is (our) this generation that the Man's desperation will come to a head, so He will have enough resources left to Him when the dust settles.

You are right, these discussions have never been about winning, and I long ago (perhaps six months or so) gave up any pretense of me, being a debater. I may have even used the term "debate" in reference to our exchanges since, but only because I like its use more than "arguing".

I will continue to use the word in reference to our exchanges, but only with the most casual view of it in mind.

My love and like for you my friend is not conditional it is there even if I get miffed.


Chasuk 6 years ago

I don't know what the future will bring. I fear for our species' survival until we put superstition behind us, but I don't when, if ever, we will advance to that state. Of course, I hope that we do, and you pray that we don't.

We sit on opposite sides of an intellectual and spiritual divide, but I am still glad that we became friends.

Take care.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

The supernatural is not the culprit... man is. Certainly he abuses the supernatural to his own ends, but that is the heart of man, even where the spiritual has been outlawed... Stalin, Chairman Mao, Man is murderous.

The only kindness that man has extended to his fellows on a large scale has been through faith.

Blessings on you my friend.


DavePrice profile image

DavePrice 6 years ago from Sugar Grove, Ill

I'm not sure I want to dive in here or not - coming into the middle of a conversation is dangerous and more than a little foolish - but I never mind looking like a fool. I have one burning question for Chas: If peace, in the historical times that you have referenced, is produced and maintained by "global" dominance, the rule of one government, that rule cannot be classified "peaceful" if maintained by force, by which each of your examples indeed was maintained. Peace by force is servitude, and there is no true peace for the servants. The "hope" you have for a peaceful human government is not hope, but wishful thinking - the same wishful thinking that fueled Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao to speak of but a few recent examples. They promised not hope, but forced servitude for the sake of benevolent rule, which was not given once rule was established and cannot be classified peace at all. There is no true human example to sustain the hope you speak of, which means your hope has less validity than that of the simplest of Christians who cannot defend his hope by reason, yet bases his hope on the one man ever to establish a religion based on His own resurrection from the dead. I again submit my ignorance jumping into the middle of the discussion, and "hope" that you will have enough grace to suffer a fool.


Chasuk 6 years ago

@DavePrice: Your question isn't an ignorant one, nor are you a fool. However, I will note that your question was more observation than query, and then disagree with your observation. :-)

Peace is either maintained by threat or by comfort. Often, it is born in threat, and then continues when the conquered are pacified by their own inertia. They have food. They have shelter. They have leisure time to spend on themselves and with their loved ones. In other words, they grow content. Remember, few of the most vehemently vocal Tea Party members would do anything to risk their pensions or their mortgages.

Peace under the auspice of man, as it exists or has existed, is true peace. The peace of heaven is pie-in-the-sky (or pie in heaven?). I have no more reason to believe that anyone has risen from the dead than I do any other myth.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

Okay my friend I have "Googled" your various "Pax(s)" and must say that you must not have "Googled" them at all to be using them as any example of what we discussed.

The premise was supposed to be an example of relative harmony and peace. The only relation to peace any of these examples have is in contrasted comparison to the wholesale slaughter that bought them the occupied territories that provided them with the momentary satisfaction of a full invasion stomach.

The "short peace" enjoyed at home however, was enforced by a history of heavy handed tormenting reprisals for those stupid enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Pax Romana for example had emperors like Nero & Caligula who's heinous acts are legendary. And the rest of your Pax "examples" are just as villainous though perhaps not as notorious. If need be I can investigate deeper and come up with more specifics, it makes me wonder... did you look into these yourself... or did you simply recognize the Latin word for peace, give it a glance and assume it was what you wanted?

Must I go on or will you finally concede?

There appears to be no time in history where Man was content and set aside his murderous intentions. Even when He had won "the whole (known) tamale" he acted like your worst example Pax Romana.

MAN... can not be trusted.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

2 Dave... Thanks for your comments. Though I don't think either of us will make a dent... I expect Chas to declare very soon, "My mind is made up do not try to confuse me with facts!"

Just joking Chas.


Chasuk 6 years ago

Imagine two continents, Chaswinia and Merwinia. On Chaswinia, Khan Chas -- via means that are not necessarily always kind -- consolidates all of the nations of that continent. Subsequently, the people of Chaswinia, on average, live happier and longer lives than the people of Merwina, and they do so for hundreds of years, until the consolidated states are again divided.

In the distance future, historians are comparing the two continents. They notice that Chaswinia's history was more peaceful during the period of consolidation -- more peaceful than any of Merwinia's history -- and they reasonably conclude that perhaps it was the consolidation that made the peace possible.

Some in this distant future dismiss this conclusion and say, "Well, that wasn't REAL peace. Man isn't capable of REAL peace. One day, however -- one day!! -- when our delivery of magic pixie dust arrives, oh boy, then we will have REAL peace!"

That distant future is now, and you are a magic pixie dust proponent.


Chasuk 6 years ago

As for the premise, don't forget that the premise was MINE, and I didn't define it as you have, nor do I accept your redefinition.

Why do you keep on attempting this dishonest substitution? My original premise is at the top of this thread, so it shouldn't be that difficult to keep straight.

I'll reproduce it AGAIN for your benefit:

"Imagine another scenario, in which the divisiveness of multiple sovereignties is overcome (transcended by global governance), so that increased wealth and improved human development comes to us all, leading to a non-violent decrease and/or stabilization of the population."


Chasuk 6 years ago

I prefer to spend a lot of time clarifying and establishing meanings precisely to avoid this sort of circuitous and unnecessary quibbling.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

Do whatever you like my friend. Perhaps we have been discussing two different versions of PEACE all along.

What I have been saying all along is that MAN is murderous by nature and you know that that is what I have been saying all along.

You keep saying that you hope for the possibility that man may have global peace at some point... and I have been saying that man cannot leave his murderous behavior behind him without a supernatural intervention.

Pretty simple really.

In my mind you are saying man can have global peace and I contend that only the ones that are not being murdered will consider it peaceful.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp I have substituted nothing... you say what you say... and I say what I say. I have never put words on your keyboard. These are your actual words I have simply copied and pasted...

"leading to a non-violent decrease and/or stabilization of the population."

"Non-violent" for those not being murdered?

BUT you do keep rephrasing what I say to make sound as though I've said something that I haven't.

Again... anyone who cares to, may take a look at all our exchanges, what follows is the same offer I made earlier...

All they need do is go to my Facebook profile to the status titled "I thought this was worth repeating and to more peeps..." dated Oct 3, 2:27 pm, and judge for themselves. It gets to the more significant parts in question, toward the end... but Chas borrows from the earlier comments as well.

It also dawned on me that they may need my name to access my facebook. Merwin Severtson, and of course you would need to become "my friend" at least long enough to access the postings in question.

Chas my friend, perhaps you ought to go back and read all of our exchanges I am sure that if you or anyone cares to do so they will see that I have not strayed from honesty.

And as far as circuitous and unnecessary quibbling... you sir are the master and I am less than a student, I am more like the victim.


Chasuk 6 years ago

I value your friendship, Merwin. I value it more than the outcome of this dialogue.

Concerning the question which occupies us here, It is unlikely that either of us will ever agree to the proper parsing of that question, or to the answer to that question, or to the best methodology of answering it.

I confess to being incapable of engaging in a casual debate (at least when the subject concerns a matter of fact and not a matter of opinion). Therefore, I suggest -- when we reach stalemates such as this one -- that we stop.


Xavier Angel profile image

Xavier Angel 6 years ago

i think someone needs help readin and staying away from the dictinary. chasuk, i'm talking to u.

coauthor great hub!! Jesus loves you, dude. keep it up!!!


Chasuk 6 years ago

@Xavier Angel: Thank you. I always enjoy a constructive comment.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

Thanks one and all.

2 Xavier thank you I welcome your encouragement.

2 Chasuk... very gracious return thank you.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working