The Ideal World Online Community

Hi guys,

Letting you know the Proposed Credo page is up at http://www.iwfi.org for review.

The poll attached to this thread is just asking for a yea or nea on the concept and structure of the Proposed Credo page itself. NOT a vote on the content of the proposed credo listed there.  Each of those pc's will ultimately have a thread dedicated to it where it will be torn to pieces, but that's not the purpose of this thread.

At this point I'm just letting you know the pc page is up and open for review is all. Feel free to start a thread dedicated to any one of these if you feel so inspired. At this stage, however, I'm more concerned with putting in place the basis for the organization than with getting started really debating credo. That's something we probably won't get serious about until we have a decent membership in place, and a healthy set of diverse minds ready to party!

But that doesn't mean we can't start looking at them whenever we want. For now though, please give me your vote on the page itself.

Cheers,
K

OK, I voted "Cool" because I really don't have a problem with any credo as you've written them.

Just so I don't have to flip back and forth from the main credo page, here is a copy of what you've come up with so far:

Quote:pc8KG - In the Ideal World there is an international poverty line which is international law. No human being ever has to live below this poverty line at any time or for any reason.  
      
pcV4T -  In the Ideal World every human being has access to an adequate supply of healthy food and clean water.  
    
pc5HB -  In the Ideal World every human being has access to a good education regardless of wealth or status.  
    
pc3XQ -  In the Ideal World every human being has access to adequate shelter and clothing.  
    
pcBV9 -  In the Ideal World every human being has access to quality health care regardless of wealth or status.  
    
pc4DT -  In the Ideal World there is no crime. There are no criminals, no jails or prisons, no anti-social, inhumane, unethical or destructive behaviour of any kind.  
    
pc9P1 -  In the Ideal World there is no war. The use of violence and bloodshed to settle our differences is recognized as being insane and abolished for good. The only place weapons of war exist is in a museum.  
    
pcL9J -  In the Ideal World there is no illness or disease of any kind. All known disease and illness have been cured and all known cures and preventative medicines are fully available, without limitation to all persons regardless of wealth or status or any other damn thing.  
    
pcW28 - In the Ideal World any issue can be unanimously agreed upon by any group given enough open and honest communication between all parties concerned.  
    
pc2QW -  In the Ideal World every human being has adequate access to transportation.  

A few things spring to mind.  I mean, I agree that ultimately in an ideal world there would be no war.  Such a statement would also imply that there would be no need for war.  For example if terrorism didn't exist, or threats to freedom, etc., then yeah, I could see that there would be no need war.  By extention it seems some other credos might be "In an Ideal World there will be no terrorism" or "In an ideal world there will be no need for war."  

Currently I do see the need for war, if warranted.  I do not see the need for a war of choice (in which there is not an immediate threat to the lives of innocent people) such as the Iraq war, but I also can see circumstances where war might be warranted if freedoms or individual lives might be at stake.  Taking out the Taliban and going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan I think was warranted.  Perhaps I'm getting too caught up in the details of how we get from point A to B...i.e. our current reality vs. the ideal objective.  

So I guess the thing I keep bumping into, is that if we have a credo that states "there is no war" then by extension I guess the question would be how to get to that point, right?  Do we agree that war is neccessary if there is a real threat to the well being of innocent people?  Or would the credo mean that even in the face of a real threat to peaceful citizens that we would do nothing?  

I'm also thinking we will need to further define what these credos mean, and I think we talked about this Kenny, such as a hyperlink that would further define the credo.  For example the last one...on transportation.  If we give everyone a bicycle or pair of roller blades, would that be enough to satisfy the credo, or are we talking planes, trains and automobiles?



jesterdood

jesterdood Wrote:For example the last one...on transportation.  If we give everyone a bicycle or pair of roller blades, would that be enough to satisfy the credo, or are we talking planes, trains and automobiles?

I was thinking jet skiis

Thanks Mike. I think ultimately each credo needs a unique thread where it can be torn apart. But that's not something that needs to happen at this point. Soon...

K

Oh, and I don't think your vote was registered...

jesterdood Wrote:A few things spring to mind.  I mean, I agree that ultimately in an ideal world there would be no war.  Such a statement would also imply that there would be no need for war.  For example if terrorism didn't exist, or threats to freedom, etc., then yeah, I could see that there would be no need war.  By extention it seems some other credos might be "In an Ideal World there will be no terrorism" or "In an ideal world there will be no need for war."  

Mike, I think some of the earlier credos might have the desired effect in relation to terrorism. Such as pc8KG, pcV4T, pc5HB, pc3XQ, pcBV9, and pc2QW: all relate to global inequity. Those who live in wealthy nations take for granted things such as food, health care, transportation, education, shelter and and clothing, while those living in poorer nations do not. This inequity, when coupled with the blind acquisitiveness that characterises most western societies, is, I believe, a prime motivator for terrorism. When this inequity is addressed, terrorism will cease to be so attractive to those living in need.

Yeah John, those are good points you raise, I agree with what you're saying. I've actually been giving this one alot of thought since Mike raised this question and I agree with you Mike, it's not just a case of wanting a world free of war, it's a case of wanting to create a world where war is not necessary. So perhaps this credo does need to be reworded. We can look at that down the track.

I also agree that there are circumstances in the world as we know it today where violent conflict seems to be the only alternative. To remove the need for violent conflict it would seem that human beings would need to be able to resolve their differences through non violent means, but the unfortunate problem as I see it is that human beings are often not that capable of being reasonable. When there is a conflict of interest between people we tend to resort to violence and bloodshed very quickly. And once it starts it spirals and escalates into all out insanity.

Look at those marines in recent days whose buddy was killed by a car bomb in Iraq, so a group of them just lost it and started going door to door, killing entire families execution style. Inexcusable, but it happened. Our own troops are out there doing this shit. Think about that, our own US troops are executing innocent Iraqi families in a cycle of revenge killing. And the torture at Abu Graib and elsewhere, I don't want to even get started on that. The thing is, the people doing this shit are not Nazis or terrorists from some distant land, from some twisted culture we don't understand (hey that rhymes), they're our own people, someone you might find yourself standing in line with at the grocery store.

It seems to me that human beings tend to simply be violent by nature. While we on one hand sing our songs of "Peace on Earth and good will toward men" and so on, we on the other hand embrace violence to the core of our culture. Our entertainment, our games, they're riddled with the most horrific violence imaginable. So, it would seem that on some level we enjoy it. Ah, we are a conflicted race... I anticipate we'll be looking at all this in depth.

K

yea its really ok

Kenny Wrote:Hi guys,

Letting you know the Proposed Credo page is up at http://www.iwfi.org for review.

The poll attached to this thread is just asking for a yea or nea on the concept and structure of the Proposed Credo page itself. NOT a vote on the content of the proposed credo listed there.  Each of those pc's will ultimately have a thread dedicated to it where it will be torn to pieces, but that's not the purpose of this thread.

At this point I'm just letting you know the pc page is up and open for review is all. Feel free to start a thread dedicated to any one of these if you feel so inspired. At this stage, however, I'm more concerned with putting in place the basis for the organization than with getting started really debating credo. That's something we probably won't get serious about until we have a decent membership in place, and a healthy set of diverse minds ready to party!

But that doesn't mean we can't start looking at them whenever we want. For now though, please give me your vote on the page itself.

Cheers,
K

John Wrote:Mike, I think some of the earlier credos might have the desired effect in relation to terrorism. Such as pc8KG, pcV4T, pc5HB, pc3XQ, pcBV9, and pc2QW: all relate to global inequity. Those who live in wealthy nations take for granted things such as food, health care, transportation, education, shelter and and clothing, while those living in poorer nations do not. This inequity, when coupled with the blind acquisitiveness that characterises most western societies, is, I believe, a prime motivator for terrorism. When this inequity is addressed, terrorism will cease to be so attractive to those living in need.

John... I'm sorry, but you sound just like a college professor who blames the West for being more successful, and somehow wishes that our standards and way of life will be brought DOWN so we can share in the rest of the world's misery.  Why not adopt a view of maybe we have done a lot of things RIGHT, and try to help the rest of the world RAISE it's standards, so that they will not be poor/miserable and desire terrorism out of jealousy or envy?  You seem to loathe everything that is good about western society (and American progress especiallly), and concentrate on magnifying the bad, so that you can feel even more miserable and justified for your feelings.

It would be really nice if you would realize that TERRORISM IS NOT OUR FAULT... it is the fault of brainwashed kids in madrasas and elsewhere who are filled with hate by many techniques and grow up thinking it is honorable to kill themselves and as many infidels (or their neighbors if they happen to be in the way), and that their skewed god will somehow be happy and give them all the wine and sex they could possibly want in eternity...

dioje787 Wrote:

John Wrote:Mike, I think some of the earlier credos might have the desired effect in relation to terrorism. Such as pc8KG, pcV4T, pc5HB, pc3XQ, pcBV9, and pc2QW: all relate to global inequity. Those who live in wealthy nations take for granted things such as food, health care, transportation, education, shelter and and clothing, while those living in poorer nations do not. This inequity, when coupled with the blind acquisitiveness that characterises most western societies, is, I believe, a prime motivator for terrorism. When this inequity is addressed, terrorism will cease to be so attractive to those living in need.

John... I'm sorry, but you sound just like a college professor who blames the West for being more successful, and somehow wishes that our standards and way of life will be brought DOWN so we can share in the rest of the world's misery.  

To use your line, don't put words in my mouth.
Read my post again. I'm talking about providing the basics for everyone. I'm not talking about lowering our standard of living (although a little more responsibility would certainly be welcome -- does a city dweller really need an SUV?), I'm talking about raising the standard of living in places where children starve everyday and die of diseases that were eradicated in the west decades ago. May sound like socialism to you, but it sounds like basic human compassion to me.

dioje787 Wrote:Why not adopt a view of maybe we have done a lot of things RIGHT, and try to help the rest of the world RAISE it's standards, so that they will not be poor/miserable and desire terrorism out of jealousy or envy?

  

That is exactly my point. We should try to raise the standards of living where people do not have access to the basics that we take for granted.

dioje787 Wrote:You seem to loathe everything that is good about western society (and American progress especiallly), and concentrate on magnifying the bad, so that you can feel even more miserable and justified for your feelings.

Okay. Who's making assumptions now? I loathe everything about western society? Don't remember saying that one. It really irritates me when people do that. It is similar to McCarthyism. If you disagree with me, you're a communist. So anyone who criticises US policy is anti-American? No. That's the black and white, good and evil view of the world that belongs in works of fiction.

What I loathe is when the powerful exploit the powerless, and call it development. And why don't you accept that corruption of leaders is not the sole domain of socialism? The human beings leading the west do not have some moral highground, as you have implied in posts elsewhere (if we try to negotiate, they will perceive it as weakness and attack, but we would never, never, never do such a heinous thing). The invasion of Iraq is a case in point. The administration tied it to the war on terror despite no credible evidence that there was any connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, and plenty of evidence that he had been disarmed of WMD years before. (I saw 2001 footage of Condoleeza saying, 'we have 99.9% disarmed Iraq.')

So, why did they invade?

Why did the US overthrow democratically elected governments in a number of South American countries -- and elsewhere -- the most well documented being Allende in Chile? Oh, there I go, succumbing to propaganda. I remember some line about a duck. If it walks and quacks.

Pure, unadulterated greed. The pursuit of the dollar for the US. Democracy can take a walk when it gets in the way of US business interests, so please, stop trying to portray  the US as the moral good guy who only has the world's best interests at heart.

And please stop making assumptions about how I feel, and I'll try to stop thinking that you are the type of guy who picks fights in bars.

Just because US corruption pisses me off does not make me miserable.

Your response to examples of US corruption is, 'oh, ignore that, focus on the good we've done'

dioje787 Wrote:It would be really nice if you would realize that TERRORISM IS NOT OUR FAULT... it is the fault of brainwashed kids in madrasas and elsewhere who are filled with hate by many techniques and grow up thinking it is honorable to kill themselves and as many infidels (or their neighbors if they happen to be in the way), and that their skewed god will somehow be happy and give them all the wine and sex they could possibly want in eternity...

Yeh, right. There's smoke, but there ain't no fire. I accept that there is a culture that has developed around the concept of jihad. Do I think that young men with explosives strapped to their chests are insane? Of course. But this finger-pointing in pointless. I don't believe that either side is entirely responsible for the current state of affairs (except Iraq. That is entirely Bush's fault. 'Bring 'em on,' he said. So they came.)

Why do they hate us?
Because they're all crazy!
Should we examine our past behaviour in these regions?
Hell, no! USA! USA!

Their skewed god. Ha. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all Abrahamic religions. It's the same god. Skewed? Yeah, I think so.

Hi Ashish, the answer to your question is covered here: http://www.kennystringer.com/mybb/showthread.php?tid=8
Please let me know if this is clear to you. K

Hi Ashish, thanks for your thoughtful feedback here. Clearly you have made some effort to develop your suggestion and whether or not I agree, I want you to know that I very much appreciate your enthusiasm and your creativity, and the time and energy you are putting into iwf.

Ultimately this matter will be decided democratically by the group when the time comes. The truth is, every aspect of this organization all the way from the name, Ideal World Foundation, to the very last letter of the charter, to the color scheme of our website, is ultimately up for suggestion and change should the group so decide. It is OUR iwf, not mine or yours or any one persons. Everyone here should have a sense of ownership and input.

Your suggestion is acknowledged. Remember Ashish, your input carries just as much weight as mine or anyone elses around here. So your suggestion will be brought to the table formally when the time comes. In the meantime, everyone please feel free to contribute to this discussion.

As for my personal feelings on this matter - I'm not convinced that a three letter acronym is the way to go for indexing credo. Remember, the index system is nothing more than an alternative to numbering, ie., credo 1a or credo 9b. I've chosen a randomly generated 3 digit alphanumeric system in order to have a virtually unlimited set of possible variations - not really unlimited, but practically so for our purposes. The thing is, the index does not need to mean anything. It is just a referencing tool. And once we begin discussing these credo at length, it won't take long for members to learn what pc8KG is about, for example.

I'm also not sure I want to have to create a three word summary of every credo in order to generate a three letter acronym. Really, the indexing system is just a referencing tool, and a numbering tool. That's all. Anyway, thank you Ashish for your suggestion. Please rest assured that it is noted and will be brought to the table formally when we begin.

Cheers,
K
PS. Ah, I see yames has voted "not cool" here too! Ashish, you have created mutiny!! Yames, care to clarify your reasoning?