Obama: "I'm ready to negotiate with you, Iran." Iran: "Fuck you."

[tw]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

I read things like that quote I highlighted and I go off thinking of the Mayans who were intelligent. They disappeared but their intelligence didn't save their civilization from disappearing so I am not so sure if intelligence is the panacea.

Mayans did not have two militaries with nuclear weapons and a 'big dic' mentality. 'Big dic' thinking in both militaries believed use of nuclear weapons would solve all problems.

Civilizations die for other reasons. I believe the Mayans built cities adjacent to soils that eventually would no longer grow enough crops. The Spartans simply used war as a solution for all problems - therefore their numbers diminished to maybe 20,000. Rome may have been undermined by using so much lead water pipes and drinking glasses while their enemies learned Roman and other better techniques.

Intelligence alone does not guarantee survival. Nobody said that. But intelligent thinking is necessary for survival.

To overtly encourage and want war with Iran is just dumb. And yet here we are again confronting the same reasons that created "Mission Accomplished". From the same people. Some just never learn the lessons of history.


skysidhe - your quotes are cited only to engage everyone.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by tw

skysidhe - your quotes are cited only to engage everyone.

This is remarkable to me. And I like it. It's the first time I've seen you post anything that could be construed as an effort to consider the feelings of the person you're responding to. You seems to want skysidhe to know that you're not attacking her. You're being kind to her. It's a little emotional of you, tw. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

This is remarkable to me. And I like it. It's the first time I've seen you post anything that could be construed as an effort to consider the feelings of the person

Feelings and emotions were never considered. What I read and replied to is nothing more than a logical statement. I saw no emotion or feeling posted. And I replied with same.

Posted was, "I appreciate you trying to engage me though."

Since that (a possible conclusion based only in facts) was not my intent, I posted a logical reply. "your quotes are cited only to engage everyone."

Nobody's emotions were considered, seen to be relevant, or inserted in any of those posts. skysidhe provided 'reasons why' for the scope and context of those replies. To better understand the underlying intent. To better understand what was being posted. That is only what I read.

I don't know why you saw any feelings in those posts. I saw none. I saw logic with reasons to better understand the reply. Nothing more.

Totally confuses me why you saw any emotion in my post. Let me restate that because that is literally the point. I have no idea why you saw emotions when I intended none to exist. I say this often. If you saw any emotion, you have installed your own biases into that post. When I chose to post with intent to hurt, et al, well, you knew it then AND you knew why.

A simple rule. If you perceive emotions, then you may have completely missed the logic. Keep rereading until you understand the text. Too many see emotions only because own biases or emotions were applied. Seek only what is stated. Too many use emotions to discover a hidden agenda.

[glatt]

Well, then I guess I was wrong.