>> ^entr0py:

>> ^Sketch:
Finally, intelligent design is actually a legitimate scientific fact! But WE are the intelligence. We created life, like we created God.

Except they didn't actually design anything, it's 100% a copy of an existing bacteria's genome. I don't really get the important distinction between this and conventional genetic engineering. Either way your starting point is the genome of an existing cell, which you proceed to fuck with.


My god man, do you have any idea how technically complicated the genome is? We took the simplest bacteria and it still took 15 YEARS (and a millions of dollars) with current technology. This process just proves that we have the capability to build a genome from scratch (whether it's designed to a template of a previous genome or to one devised by us). I think the fact that we have accomplished this much is absolutely incredible and opens doors in our future to lead to the vaccines and cures of diseases we never even thought possible.

I can see where you're coming from, but at the same time I can see the other side. Often what is considered polite and courteous is offensive. I'm not a delicate princess and I do take offense when I'm treated as such all the time. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy it when my romantic interest opens doors and whatnot, I just don't want to fight tooth and nail to be able to pay for something. Sort of ruins the romantic gesture.

I'm a badass, not a flower.

>> ^CheshireSmile:

>> ^bananafone:
>> ^CheshireSmile:
chivalry is dead, and feminism is the box they're gonna bury it in

A. Chivalry never existed. It's a myth invented by the Victorians.
B. You really think women being second class citizens will make men treat women better?
C. I hate it when feminism is blamed for all societal woes. Feminism is awesome and has brought about a better world for me and for my children to live in.

what i was actually saying was that it seems more and more often, whenever a guy tries to be polite for a girl, she mistakes it for him acting like she's below him (not dissimilar to the misunderstanding you just made), and talks about how she doesn't need him and whatnot. feminism is fine. really. i'm all for equal rights and wages and whatnot. just often i see the facts skewed by feminazis to look worse off than they are. with that in mind it seems like these days feminism isn't fueled so much from a thirst for equality as much as from, say it with me, misandry.
of course, everyone has their reasons.

Is my sandwich ready?>> ^peggedbea:
there is no feminist conspiracy, i promise. and its not a matter of "getting off on it" it's a matter of broad generalizations about the way people are enculturated and things that are social occurrences. they just are.
and if you ask, you offer to pay. it's the same rule when i ask my female friends out to lunch; i ask, i offer to pay.
i have a really good friend, we met like 9 years ago and dated briefly. he even did the "open the car door thing" and i thought it was way over the top and he was trying way too hard, but something about it seemed oddly sincere so i didn't bust his balls for it right away. but 9 years later and all romantic interest crushed dead, he still opens my car doors and usually pays when go out, even for my kids, except for the times he's been unemployed and i paid for everything, or in cases where i get to the check first (which i try to do a lot). no one is getting off on it, no one is trying to get laid, it's just the way he shows respect and appreciation and love. i'm glad i never called him out for what i thought was a douchebag move, because he wasn't saying "i want to manipulate you into fucking me" he was actually saying "i respect and appreciate you" (but yeah, in most cases if you go so far as too open my car door, i might think you're trying too hard and be annoyed by it)
the point is these things are cultural symbols. they exist. opening a door for someone doesn't have to mean "i want to fuck you" or "you're a pitiful weak female and can't do this for yourself". it's just body language and it usually means "i acknowledge you're going through this door next and respect you enough as human to not let it slam in your face" and if you're so socially detached and cynical that you don't understand that, then no, i probably don't want to date you. but all things become subjective, of course. i usually like shy nerds, and i am usually friends with them first, and then i usually just tell them. but it's not like i've never been asked out first, and i pay attention to body language and signals and social cues. because they exist and say a lot about a person. and maybe it's because i was raised by men, or raised in the south, but courtesy and respect and general politeness are important. and our culture says these things show respect and courtesy. we don't go along telling people we respect them verbally, we open doors and want to share meals and help our neighbors.
and as far as blankfist's encounter with these bitches, some people are shameful and rude. some women are pampered spoiled bitches who think its okay to let his presence on the sidewalk go ignored. and that's wrong.

>> ^imstellar28:
What else can "getting out of a ladies way" be if not chivalry? Chivalry was killed in the mainstream when feminists started complaining about it. It still exists in small circles where and when it can be used as a tool for sexual conquest (as it always was)..i.e. when a guy is after a girl who gets off on "a guy who opens doors for me or picks up the check or has good manners"
The problem in this situation is these women think all men want to court them at all times...hence the pompous sense of entitlement and selfish attitude they project towards men. I'd put them in the same group as the feminists who complain about guys opening doors for them - the "people I don't want to date" group.
>> ^peggedbea:
chivalry:
what remains of it, for the most part, is part of the courting ritual.
...
i'm sorry you have bitchy, attractive, spoiled neighbors. but chivalry and feminism aren't the issue.

there is no feminist conspiracy, i promise. and its not a matter of "getting off on it" it's a matter of broad generalizations about the way people are enculturated and things that are social occurrences. they just are.

and if you ask, you offer to pay. it's the same rule when i ask my female friends out to lunch; i ask, i offer to pay.

i have a really good friend, we met like 9 years ago and dated briefly. he even did the "open the car door thing" and i thought it was way over the top and he was trying way too hard, but something about it seemed oddly sincere so i didn't bust his balls for it right away. but 9 years later and all romantic interest crushed dead, he still opens my car doors and usually pays when go out, even for my kids, except for the times he's been unemployed and i paid for everything, or in cases where i get to the check first (which i try to do a lot). no one is getting off on it, no one is trying to get laid, it's just the way he shows respect and appreciation and love. i'm glad i never called him out for what i thought was a douchebag move, because he wasn't saying "i want to manipulate you into fucking me" he was actually saying "i respect and appreciate you" (but yeah, in most cases if you go so far as too open my car door, i might think you're trying too hard and be annoyed by it)

the point is these things are cultural symbols. they exist. opening a door for someone doesn't have to mean "i want to fuck you" or "you're a pitiful weak female and can't do this for yourself". it's just body language and it usually means "i acknowledge you're going through this door next and respect you enough as human to not let it slam in your face" and if you're so socially detached and cynical that you don't understand that, then no, i probably don't want to date you. but all things become subjective, of course. i usually like shy nerds, and i am usually friends with them first, and then i usually just tell them. but it's not like i've never been asked out first, and i pay attention to body language and signals and social cues. because they exist and say a lot about a person. and maybe it's because i was raised by men, or raised in the south, but courtesy and respect and general politeness are important. and our culture says these things show respect and courtesy. we don't go along telling people we respect them verbally, we open doors and want to share meals and help our neighbors.

and as far as blankfist's encounter with these bitches, some people are shameful and rude. some women are pampered spoiled bitches who think its okay to let his presence on the sidewalk go ignored. and that's wrong.


>> ^imstellar28:
What else can "getting out of a ladies way" be if not chivalry? Chivalry was killed in the mainstream when feminists started complaining about it. It still exists in small circles where and when it can be used as a tool for sexual conquest (as it always was)..i.e. when a guy is after a girl who gets off on "a guy who opens doors for me or picks up the check or has good manners"
The problem in this situation is these women think all men want to court them at all times...hence the pompous sense of entitlement and selfish attitude they project towards men. I'd put them in the same group as the feminists who complain about guys opening doors for them - the "people I don't want to date" group.
>> ^peggedbea:
chivalry:
what remains of it, for the most part, is part of the courting ritual.
...
i'm sorry you have bitchy, attractive, spoiled neighbors. but chivalry and feminism aren't the issue.

What else can "getting out of a ladies way" be if not chivalry? Chivalry was killed in the mainstream when feminists started complaining about it. It still exists in small circles where and when it can be used as a tool for sexual conquest (as it always was)..i.e. when a guy is after a girl who gets off on "a guy who opens doors for me or picks up the check or has good manners"

The problem in this situation is these women think all men want to court them at all times...hence the pompous sense of entitlement and selfish attitude they project towards men. I'd put them in the same group as the feminists who complain about guys opening doors for them - the "people I don't want to date" group.

>> ^peggedbea:
chivalry:
what remains of it, for the most part, is part of the courting ritual.

...

i'm sorry you have bitchy, attractive, spoiled neighbors. but chivalry and feminism aren't the issue.

I see chivalry sometimes as just a front. My grandfather (mother’s father) was a very courteous person (mainly to females) in public but he was the most sexist meanest asshole. I’m not saying however that men that do open doors for others are that way, but I’m just saying that it doesn’t automatically mean that person is a nice guy. Who knows, maybe that guy who wants his portion of the sidewalk is a nice guy after all…or he could just be a douche bag. Regardless, it’s unfair to judge someone based on some fake charisma.

P.S. Fuck putting on makeup and if the guy doesn’t offer to pay for the first date…honestly…that wouldn’t mean it would be our last.

This is why chivalry is dead. When it becomes expected, it's no longer chivalry, it's a chore. It's the same way the other way, though. (What do you call that? Femmalry). It's fundamentally distorting what you're like to get laid, and I don't like that. Better to present yourself the way you are, in my book anyway.

>> ^peggedbea:if we're on our first date and you make no attempt to open doors for me or pick up the check or have good manners, that's our last date. i'm not sure why that's how it is. i am perfectly capable of doing those things for myself, but courting rituals are important and that's part of it. on the same coin, i'm expected to reciprocate by pretending you're fascinating and funny, not being opinionated, smiling politely, wearing make up, smelling nice, looking presentable, making polite conversation and being more conventionally feminine than i normally am. it's just part of the deal. i also used to feel bad having someone else pay for my shit, but apparently if i try to pay for my own stuff on a first date that's a signal that i just want to be "friends". these are cultural rules and they exist and most people abide by them. it's cool. .

equality:
you don't deserve to make more money than me for the same job and the same quality of work just because you have a penis. i can do more with my life than pop out babies and clean up your shit. my thoughts, ideas, opinions, feelings are just as valid as yours, as yours are as valid as mine. and blah blah blah blah you know all that

chivalry:
what remains of it, for the most part, is part of the courting ritual. if we're on our first date and you make no attempt to open doors for me or pick up the check or have good manners, that's our last date. i'm not sure why that's how it is. i am perfectly capable of doing those things for myself, but courting rituals are important and that's part of it. on the same coin, i'm expected to reciprocate by pretending you're fascinating and funny, not being opinionated, smiling politely, wearing make up, smelling nice, looking presentable, making polite conversation and being more conventionally feminine than i normally am. it's just part of the deal. i also used to feel bad having someone else pay for my shit, but apparently if i try to pay for my own stuff on a first date that's a signal that i just want to be "friends". these are cultural rules and they exist and most people abide by them. it's cool.
after a relationship is established the rules get more lax, i can pick up checks, i can open some of the doors, i can get more opinionated, you can act like more of a pig. as far as household chores go, if both people work to pay the bills then the chores should be split and how a couple chooses to split them is up to that couple. but i'd guess you're better at moving heavy objects and opening jars than i am. and i'm probably happier to scrub the toilet and fold the laundry. and you're still responsible to make each other feel special sometimes, and sometimes that means the traditional gender role courting game comes back into play.

common decency:
everyone should make way for everyone else and hold doors open if you get there first. regardless of gender. it's just being decent. it's like saying "i acknowledge your existence and i respect you", anything less is sheer rudeness. if i make it to the door first, i open the door. if an elderly person is slowly edging ahead of me to the door, i pick up my step and open it. if anyone is carrying something heavy or cumbersome to the door ahead of me, i step up and get the door. it doesn't matter what their gender is. out in public men do end up going out of their way more often to open doors for me, it's not necessary, but i do smile and say thanks and acknowledge it. and i do think it's polite. but i certainly don't just stand there and wait for some strange man to move his ass and get out of my way or open this silly door. i'm teaching both of my kids to open doors for other people and help other people with things in public, but i do emphasize "opening doors for ladies" more with my son. because gentlemen are appreciated (or should be). but my daughter is getting heavily schooled in respect and courtesy as well.

i'm sorry you have bitchy, attractive, spoiled neighbors. but chivalry and feminism aren't the issue.

Here's a translation from here. It's actually for the lo
nger news video which is this video with a few extra minutes.

N - newscaster
T - teacher
P - police officer

The scene opens up, with the teacher's hand on the cop's torso.

T: Why do you want to put your hands on me?
P: I don't want to ma'am. (unsure of this) What have I done to you? [he walks out of the doorway to get some distance, not taking his eyes off her]
T: You put your hands on me a few times
P: Don't pull me. Be careful... [as they walk out and, I'm assuming she pulls his jacket/arm (view is blocked by his torso). He deflects her arm by grabbing it and pushing it to the left.]
T: [with her now free arm, she backhands the cop and says] Get the hell out of here or I'll slap the shit out of you! (Note: she doesn't curse, but that's about the closest translation I can come up with that conveys in English the true sentiment behind the words. The literal translation is "Go away from here because I will give you such a slap that you will not see yourself." See, it's just not the same Smile)
P: Ioooooooi. (A Romanian exclamation that conveys, in this case, "Oh no she didn't!") [Cop puts his glasses on. Queue Won't Get Fooled Again by The Who.]
T: Why are you putting your hands on me repeatedly? Why? (Or "a hundred times" to quote her exactly") [Teacher stands her ground, looking furious and aggrieved.]
P: [slaps the teacher]
T: [gasps! Puts her hand on her face, looking shocked. Starts a fake (at least to me it sounds fake) cry.]
T: [walks away crying, raises her arm slightly]
P: [flinches at the threat of another possible slap. Grabs the teacher's arm.]
T: [wails something intelligibly, possibly about gypsies]
[old batiked woman woman opens door of another classroom and says something about this having to stop]

N: The protagonists of this fight are a teacher and a police officer, and the scene is the school in Sanpaul from the county Mures. The two representatives of the state institutions started quarreling and exchanging slaps in front of cameras and in a place with children. (Oh noes, think of the children!!) The police officer had been called to settle a conflict in which the teacher was implicated, after several parents [cue scene of angry-looking parents in a wintry scene] from the town of Sanpaul had accused the teacher of being aggressive towards the other teaching staff. The angered professor also lunged at the reporter from Antena 3 (the channel broadcasting this). [Cue scene with teacher pushing jacketed and scarfed man]

Reporter: We have it on camera.
T: Good. (something intelligible) [Angrily] So I'll push you as he's pushing me!!

N: The parents of some children are unhappy that the teacher is violent in school.

[cue angry parents shouting angrily, not at aaaaaall angry like the teacher]

Woman in white, shouting: What kind of example is this for children, tell me!

[cut to head of police in the area]

Head: Madam teacher was here at the police precinct. She said that she was slapped by another teacher. She will go to the forensic expert and she will file a complaint.

N: The teacher is defending herself and maintains that she is the one who is being aggressed by her colleagues.

T: [very serene and nonchalant] It was about discrimination. I'm very sorry for the incident, but I didn't aggress any teacher. Everything was planned. (As in, this was done to make her look bad.)

N: The Education Minister has started an administrative inquisition in the case of the teacher, and sanctions can be as grave as excluding her from teaching. And as far as the police man who slapped her is concerned, authorities have declined to respond.


There's no question she's nuts. Whether the cop should've done what he is is the only debatable point, though he did stun her enough to get her to stop her crap without any kind of tasering or true physical force. In another vid, she gets called up by a TV show for an interview and basically denies hitting anyone even though it was caught on camera, and then starts yelling at the host for not letting her talk. That vid is here, but nothing to see since it's just a video of a phone call. Translation for it is a good read though, which is here.

Another variant on this is to have someone put their thumb and forefinger through the gap between an open door and its hinges, then have them hold an egg.

Dance with me across the ocean floor
Sail away to heaven's open door
Step right up you're the next contestant
In this sweet charade
Take a number, wait while I twist your fate

On the mating game
Mating game

Hold me close enough to drink my rose
The devil in my pocket turned to gold
Sorry to warn you, you're in a daze
Tonight I'll love you, but tomorrow go away

Step right up who's the next contestant
In this sweet charade?
Take a number, wait while I tease you sane

On the mating game
Mating game

Transcript:

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations — that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize — Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela — my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women — some known, some obscure to all but those they help — to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 43 other countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict — filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

These questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

For most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations — total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations — an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize — America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide and restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts, the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies and failed states have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed and children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: It merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naive in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other people's children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another — that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths — that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human feelings. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions."

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations — strong and weak alike — must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates — and weakens — those who don’t.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait — a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention — no matter how justified.

This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America’s commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries — and other friends and allies — demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali — we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant — the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior — for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure — and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo or repression in Burma — there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point — the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet all too often, these words are ignored. In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists — a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values.

I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please, choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America’s interests — nor the world’s — are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side.

Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach — and condemnation without discussion — can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution’s horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable — and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights — it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that is why helping farmers feed their own people — or nations educate their children and care for the sick — is not mere charity. It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action — it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All of these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more — and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination, an insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are, to understand that we all basically want the same things, that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities — their race, their tribe and, perhaps most powerfully, their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint — no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith — for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The nonviolence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached — their faith in human progress — must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith — if we dismiss it as silly or naive, if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace — then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago: "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."

So let us reach for the world that ought to be — that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he's outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that — for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by arvana.

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/A-Cat-Figured-Out-How-To-Open-Doors

http://www.videosift.com/video/A-Cat-Figured-Out-How-To-Open-Doors