Dominance = denial

There are no doors in need of battering for those lacking a sub-conscious.

Get thee behind me Satan.

spendius.

laugh.....a lot of good that will do.....Satan works in mysterious ways

edited out because it no longer applies :wink:

Yeah-

He leads us into temptation and delivers us up to evil.

If you deconstruct the Lord's Prayer you get a mythic equation.Temptation=Evil.Purple hats included.

Have you got that book yet?

spendius.

not yet.......maybe I'll get it for Christmas.

I'll have to order.

For me dominance is the ultimate act of caring.

I know what's fair and what is best for other people. I would be unethical for me to let people do otherwise. People need my firm but just hand. Things just go better when people do what I say.

If people realised this, there wouldn't be any need for dominance, but the world being what it is, I don't think there is any onther way.

Gee whiz

Tomorrow already.

Time flies and the rest is lies.

spendius.

ok, ok........I'll do it already! But not now......I have to do some shopping....

Poor old ebrown_p eh?

Decisions,decisions,decisions.He must be a politician or drill sergeant.

Personally I try to avoid decisions.Then if I get myself dropped in it it isn't my fault.Besides,my mind is usually engaged on other matters of vastly greater import.Sometimes I feel that dominance is a strategy for the avoidance of such things.
Another thing I have noticed about dominant husbands is that their wives manipulate them with merciless cunning.That also happens to drill sergeants.And the supine electorate seem quite skillful in hanging politicians out in the sun to dry.

spendius.

Ebrown

Sorry to ask, but are you talking about yourself, or is this a quotation from Stalin?

People control others sometimes ?

Don't you think it is important for more advanced societies and more intelligent people to dominate those who are lesser?

Should we allow cultures who repress women to continue, or should we use our superior might to stop them?

If another country is ruled by a barbaric religion, don't we have an obligation to bring them democracy-- even if they resist?

What if certain states decide that they no longer want to be part of the Union, shouldn't we insist they remain with us knowing that they will have to accept our laws... even if we must subjugate them by force?

What if a country has practices we find abhorant for example child labor or jailing political prisoners without due process, aren't we morally driven to act?

Domination has been given a negative contation.

But domination is just the obligation of a people blessed with a superior culture and truer moral values to help lift a pitiful and needy world.

I wasn't talking about on a global scale... Alright, then, what if this culture which dominates other cultures are inferior in terms of morality? What if everyone wants dominance over the other? What would the world be if this desire for dominance rules over us? I'll tell you what, chaos.

Your example shows when a culture should dominate other cultures. You are right in saying that it is an obligation to stop those nations, but this is not always the case. Genghis Khan wanted dominance, and he slaughtered millions. Sometimes, dominance is needed to set things right, but often, it is a source of conflict and oppression.

Ebrown

First, there is the question how you decide what makes a society more advanced that another one. Or people more intelligent. You must have a criteria. But the real problem is that the criteria is always based in the values of the society you belong.
So when you say a society is more advanced than other, you are thinking of scientific and technological knowledge, because this is the standard value of your own society.

If you look to History you see that many societies have decided that they were more advanced than others, based on very different criteria.
Ancient Greeks, believed that only a greek could be a philosophe.
Germans believed they were superior to all other peoples, because of their culture - they said jews were unable to create.
People in the Middle East believe they are superior to US because of their religion.

You say that "people blessed with a superior culture have obligations".
Would you accept that Germany, a country that generated Kepler, Bach, Beethoven, Kant, Goethe, Heine, Wagner, Plank, Einstein, has the moral obligation to invade the US?

The most important thing is that there is a dominant power. There can be no moral standards without a dominant power to institute and enforce them.

The nature of things is that the dominant power that develops is the one with the greatest economy, invention and most advanced culture. To develop a military force requires industry and invention and grasp of technology. These things are simply not possible without a strong culture that provides a base to develop them.

There are a few examples of dominant powers with lapses in morality. But, have you noticed, based on the nature of things, they all failed within a generation and were replaced by a truly moral dominant power?

Except for a few exceptions, the morally superior power rises to the top, to be blessed by nature with deserved power.

This is the only way that is supported by reason. The alternative is immorality and chaos.

What may I ask is your definition of moral?

Were the aztecs moral?

the romans?

Were the british ethical when they created their emprire?

Never mind him, Einherjar........he just thinks he's better than everyone else and has some corner on truth. So he can join the crowd. Big surprise.......so does everyone.....

I've always believed coercion would only bring conformity and/or rebellion........but never a cooperative effort. These control freaks, they just don't get it.