>> ^messenger:

@Truckchase
You and I agree, I think. I especially like what (I believe) your quote is getting at, which is that we need to understand our enemy. I don't think we do. If we did, then we'd never get mad at them, nor even frustrated like a teacher at students who aren't catching on to the easy stuff. We would understand where they were coming from and why they continue to oppose us.

That's not AT ALL what Sun Tzu is getting at. He was a pragmatist. A pragmatist Chinese war strategist. If you understand yourself and you understand the enemy, then you crush the enemy under your boot like the worm he is.

In this case doubly so. The creationists started the war against evolution and they will pay sooner or later. Reason may have started the war against religion, but since it's got reason on its side (duh) it will prevail too. Unfortunately, reason can be used even when you're religious, so it may take a while.

I'm a pacifist, but this is a war that we must see through or we will never be able to live true to ourselves. The war is truly against mental slavery, and just like physical slavery religion is the first enemy we must face.

Seen on reddit:

As much as you believe you're right, they believe they're right. Honestly, neither of you KNOW. One side's has more brains than the other, the other side has more heart than the other, but no one KNOWS. 150-200 years ago modern science KNEW that blood-letting would cure your diseases. Hell, 100 years ago science KNEW that there was no reason to wash your hands before surgery. They probably have a very good idea, but who knows what we'll discover in the next 100 years that makes us look like cavemen did 6000 years ago. (intentional date troll there, calm down)

That's exactly why religion is dangerous: it evolves and adapts (like every meme), but it never gets better at reflecting the world unlike science. In fact, it doesn't want to reflect the world better. Christianity still holds the same basic worldview as a Jew born (around) 2000 years ago. I wouldn't trust what a scientist said an hour ago, let alone what a non-scientist said 2000 years ago.

Also, I must correct something. Only religious people believe they're right. Scientists KNOW they're right. At least they know they're more right than religious people. They know that because they know they don't know shit, whereas religious people believe they know shit, hence they can't know that they don't know shit.

@messenger, @Sketch

I don't disagree with your sentiment at all; I find it quite frustrating at times as well, but I stand by my assertion that it won't help to be confrontational. I expect this shift will literally take generations to come about. Arguing with individuals in an effort to "convert" (perhaps de-convert) them rarely works, regardless of how sound your reasoning is.(as you have both noted) Everyone wants to win. Everyone wants to make up their own mind. For a lot of adults, it's quite simply too late to make such a radical change in their concept of existence. The young aren't as rigid, however, and this belief structure can diluted from one generation to the next. I assert the most effective way to change minds over time is to change our culture, and we're well on our way. The beacon of truth shines brightly on its own, while lies take significant maintenance. The more (effectively) open our society becomes the more difficult it will be to spread the influence of obvious lies. This will require work on our part, however, to call out specific, organized and systemic deception efforts over the course of our lives. We've got a long road ahead of us, but it should be interesting if nothing else.

That ad campaign is interesting; that's the sort of effort that we can aspire to in our daily lives. Not confrontational, but when the situation arises, let others know they're not alone with their doubts. Movements need leaders, and we're all capable of that role if we can be disciplined and patient enough.

I don't normally do quotes because it's easy to take someone out of context for your own purposes, but I especially like this one as I interpret it to pertain to this situation:

"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle." -Sun Tzu

Edit: Example of more constructive, (in terms of construction and delivery) yet just as scathing (in terms of content) criticism. Starts @ 8:07... man I envy the Hitchslap ability...

I don't really call that playing dirty. He gambled, played with their heads, and won. I'm pretty sure Sun Tzu has a line in The Art of War about not doing what the enemy expects you to do.

Thing is though, a play like that only works once.

>> ^SunTzu:
Really?? A man flying around the planet at thousands of miles an hour, a man who puts his life in danger to further the knowledge of mankind. A man who probably speaks at least four languages with english not even being his second, and three posts just about his accent? Did I wander into youtube by mistake?


Nothing is fucked here, Sun Tzu. Come on, you're being very un-Sun Tzu.

Ya, my friend and I were war gaming about this the other day, running things out to their logical limits. I have no doubt that the spending we did during the cold war most likely kept us safer then not spending it. However, it seems the when one nation finally "looses" and can't afford to keep up the game anymore, the power structure on the other side can't ever dislodge itself. The result is the spending that wasn't meant to last forever does, and the self destruction of that nation is destined as well.

In other words, the rise of two super powers means the eventual fall of two. It is a form of entropy related to the unstable condition they educe in each other. It might very well be that the cost of long term success is eventual failure; that all systems, no matter how good, if they intend to survive will end up imploding. It was kind of a neat topic

In reply to this comment by jwray:
Defense contractors get public money
Defense contractors buy political influence
Political influence puts more public money into Defense Contractors' hands
Defense contractors buy political influence
Political influence puts more public money into Defense Contractors' hands
Defense contractors buy political influence
Political influence puts more public money into Defense Contractors' hands
Defense contractors buy political influence
Political influence puts more public money into Defense Contractors' hands

And so on. That's why our military spending is outrageously inefficient and excessive, and we keep fighting wars that are irrelevant or counterproductive to our national security. No-bid contracts and cost-plus contracts should be explicitly forbidden by the constitution. The military should stop privatizing essential components of their operation and paying orders of magnitude more than it would cost to do in-house.

>> ^rougy:
"America" is not addicted to war.
The war profiteers and the Pentagon pricks who kiss their ass, they are addicted to war.

And these profiteers and Pentagon pricks run America. They are America. Not the people. It doesn't matter who you vote for; it doesn't change a goddamn thing.

>> ^brycewi19:
I think he made that speech on 12/1/09 instead of 1/12/09. Bush still had 8 days left in his presidency on January 12th.


Ahh.. that'd be my Australian date formatting. I'll make that easier to read.

Your video, Rep. Alan Grayson Quotes Sun Tzu in light of Escalation, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^Fade:
Yea yea yea, the problem is that without 'War' America has no economy. America is as addicted to war as it is to oil and cheap credit.


I wouldn't put it like that but yeah, America needs war just like Rome did.

Sun Tzu, hes like totally dead...how good of a general could he of been. /sarcasm

>> ^poolcleaner:
It's not about what particular sport, it's all about the techniques used.


Indeed. But I look at Football like Chess on grass. You have your set pieces, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. This is a classic strategy that is the very heart of Football: Show your opponent one thing, hit him with something else entirely. It's why the screen-pass is a staple in every coach's playbook (fake going down-field while the defensive linemen drool at the possibility of a sack, while blockers set up in front of the receiver of a short pass), why running out of a 4-wide formation can put a defetnse on its heels (show a defense a passing formation, then run the ball instead), and why the Tackle-Eligible play works, even when Warren Sapp is called into the offensive formation (who's going to try and throw a pass to someone who's a starting defensive lineman?)

As Sun Tzu said: "All warfare is based on deception."

This is almost as cool as the Music City Miracle, the last-ditch play that put the Titans in the Super Bowl against Kurt Warner's Rams (where McNair would come one yard shy of winning).

In reply to this comment by rasch187:
Kafka was Czech, not Polish.

And he certainly wasn't a philosopher, just a brilliant writer.


thanks for the clarification on kafka's place of birth,thought it was poland.
but i disagree with you in saying that kafka was not a philosopher.
aristotle,socrates,nicodemus,sun tzu?....no.
but are not all writers,and especially poets, constantly perfecting their craft in condensing the real,and unreal,into a concentrated vision of truth?
they gaze unblinking at the void and expose their souls for all to admire...or admonish.
that, my friend, takes courage few have.
is that not..
in essence..
the very core of philosophy?
before you can think..you must LOOK..
before you can FEEL..you must experience..
we all are tiny gods in our own way.
petty philosophers tinkering with the creation that is our life.
but the greats...
neitzsche,hegel,jung,tielhard etc etc,
ah..they had BALLS.
they stared into the abyss unflinching.
sighs..
i wax melodramitic here..
but i cant help it.
kafka's poetry is infuriatingly obtuse at times,but his genius in rare moments cannot be denied.
but to be honest...
it's J Keats who always makes my feeble attempts appear small,fragile and
a stunning tribute to pure hackery.
that man WAS poetry.
interesting that both kafka and keats died of consumption.
in any case..
thank you my friend for setting me straight,
and allowing an old man to babble about his heroes.
till next time..
namaste.

> If the USA had preempted Pearl Harbor, might the reconstruction of Japan have turned out as badly as present day Iraq?

that begs the question:
if the usa had attacked first, would we still have won?

i think sun tzu would smile on your closing statement, j.

lol @ Sun Tzu as Moses

Your thinking of Sun Tzu "The Art of War" It was poetry not letters. It doesn't really work in English though.

I have to agree with farhad2000. The bomb throwing from both sides is drowning out every reasonable idea, thought and there potential.

Marinara No matter your views I guarantee you violate your own morality and personal ethics on a daily basis. If you purchase anything from China you are helping them pay for abortions (not always by choice mind you) or pay for the bullets that cut down 12 defenceless civilians in the hills in Tibet. The fund you speak of uses there stock to get onto boards and shareholders meetings to voice there concern and ask for change. 1000 men yelling at a building and holding signs does nothing but 1 man in a shareholders meeting can demand answers and look for solutions.

No one is perfect and its not something that can be attained if you believe it can your not any where near reality.