New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  /

    Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.


Earliest MessagesPrevious MessagesOutline (8303 previous messages)

rshow55 - 10:19am Jan 29, 2003 EST (#8304 of 8313) Delete Message
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md01000s/DetailNGR.htm includes this:

Here's the crux of the message - not a very complicated one:

Bigotry comes from all sides - and nobody CAN see every other point of view. Few enough are clear about their own ideas.

Tolerance that is sophisticated enough to be workable is intellectually harder than intolerance, or pat answers.

I think if Jesus was alive today, he might cry out.

" Hey, you guys didn't get it the way I hoped you would about the Golden Rule -- you have to think , and think hard, to figure out how to make the Golden Rule apply to complicated circumstances, and real people. .

And you have to check to see that you haven't missed something, if things matter enough to be careful about."

Maybe that'd be all the new message that'd be needed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- rshowalter - 03:31pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#10 of 41)

The "Golden Rule" is a minimal standard, but very good for the basic interactions that peace and economic cooperation takes. Practically every religious and cultural group pays some lip service to the "golden rule." The form I remember reads

" Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. "

Few but the a tiny group of the most conscientious people today think of this in the literal, explicit sense world peace and prosperity needs.

The Golden Rule is less than a workable, comprehensive guide to living.

But now, it is worse used than it ought to be, since "others" in the rule is usually read to be "others within my group" and not "others in outside groups, as well." The point needs to be taught, with intellectually clear context, today.

For complicated practical cases the "golden rule" has to be subject to qualifications, especially when it applies outside a group. But the golden rule counts "when it really matters" ... "when cooperation is required" ..... "when things are going wrong." It isn't necessary or desirable, to do away with the tribal ties that bind and provide identity. But workable, nonpathological interfaces between tribes ARE required.

When peace seems impossible, these interfaces are lacking. The problem is emotional, of course, but it has a large intellectual content, too.

The "golden rule" is especially important when passions stand against it - when the people involved hate each other. It is then that the "golden rule" is most essential for complex cooperation and for peace.

How would you want an enemy to treat you? You'd be repelled if he attempted to embrace you. Instead, b you'd want clear communication, with clear, proportionate and credible threats and incentives.

You'd want clear rules of conduct agreed upon between you, that you could each abide by. So that you could cooperate, stay out of each other's way, maintain each other's dignity, and interact as efficiently and honorably as possible. Neither side would have to love, or forgive, or like the other. Neither side would have a right to expect it. What each side would want would be a way of living together in peace.

Friendship, if it happened at all, would come much later. First, livable patterns of peaceful interaction need to be fashioned. In the Middle East, and elsewhere these are needed. And they are possible only if all sides can remember that even their enemies are full, complicated, vulnerable, dangerous human beings.

rshow55 - 10:20am Jan 29, 2003 EST (#8305 of 8313) Delete Message
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

rshowalter - 03:32pm Jul 7, 2002 BST (#11 of 41)

It may be that in the Middle East, and other places where human cooperation goes grossly, perversely wrong, people are failing, at the level of intellect, imagination, and feeling, to understand what workable reciprocity must mean.

- - - - -

It seems to me that, for a lot of reasons - there is a "Golden Rule deficit" in the Middle East - for all sorts of reasons. When human arrangements meet the requirements of the Golden Rule, Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs, and Berle's Laws of power, thing can go much better from all sorts of points of view. The Iraqis, and others in the Middle East need to understand that better than they do. I think we do, as well.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs by William G. Huitt Essay and Image: http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/maslow.html

and

Berle's Laws of Power taken from Power by Adolf A. Berle . . . 1969 ... Harcourt, Brace and World, N.Y.

are described on this thread in 667 http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_0100s/md667n.htm

lchic - 10:30am Jan 29, 2003 EST (#8306 of 8313)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Showalter - when i said 'Chicago - Fantastic' (above), the link was the FILM with ZetaJONES RichardGERE .....

"" .... But a second world -- a pizazz-packed universe of slinky dancers, brassy singers and dramatic lighting -- exists in Roxie's imagination, and that's where the film's musical numbers unfold.

In Roxie's dream world her fellow inmates -- whey-faced women in shapeless prison shifts -- become seductive high-kicking dancers in S&M leather. ... "" > http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/entertainment/4861520.htm

~~~~~~

lchic - 10:51am Jan 29, 2003 EST (#8307 of 8313)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Showalter says there's a "Golden Rule deficit" in the Middle East.

~~~~~~~

There's also a Golden Rule regarding threads ... Never talk to 'strangers'!

    Why would 'a poster' who doesn't even know the 'unique' ID number of his purported Maths degree, want to meet-up with another poster .... now that stikes me as 'very strange' on a number of counts!

More MessagesRecent MessagesOutline (6 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense





Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us