Cyprus-Forum.com

[mem101]

This probably isn't directly relevant but I'm afraid human beings ARE animals, Kifeas. We evolved from less efficient species into what we are today. Our specific species has been around for 50000-100000 years and if you look at the evolution of animal life and the evolution of our own species you will see that it is evolution itself as a whole that is logical rather than human beings in particular. It could be argued that human beings are much less logical than other animals because we do not maintain any kind of equilibrium with our environment and will soon get o the bottom of the barrel so to speak. Following from that argument would it then not be logical to conclude that humans are amoralistic because throughout the last century we have proceeded ruining the planet with a complete disregard for future generations and for the habitats of the animals we share our planet with.

I do agree that provided we manage to survive the approaching apocolypse-esque trials that things will change for the better because evolution is a system of continual improvement.

Anyway sorry if this is a bit of topic. Probably a subject for a different forum altogether really.

[Bananiot]

I am not sure I agree with you mem. Evolution does not have an aim as such. It is a blind process based on natural selection where the better adopted organisms survive along with their genes. There is no moral lesson to be gained from evolution, it could be that in the future, those humans that survive in the changing environement we live in, are far worse than we are.

[Piratis]

Humans are of course animals with bigger brains and therefore higher intelligence than other animals of this planet.

Human beings by nature are not more or less "moral" than other animals. I see morals as a set of rules that humans developed through the centuries and some of these "rules" like human rights and democracy can help human beings to achieve a better quality of life.

The problem starts when a group of people that have power decide that they can brake these rules to benefit themselves on the expense of others. However always what goes around comes around, and those that violated the rules to gain on the expense of others can find themselves as the victims.

Therefore in the case of Cyprus there are only 2 ways:

1) The way that both sides play by the rules. (democracy, human rights etc)
2) The way that no side plays by the rules.

I believe that choosing (1) would be the best for all of us in the long term. Choosing (2) can only have short term benefits.

[Kifeas]

Here we go again, Kifeas wrote:

Lupusdiavoli, I do not know your background, where you live and where you come from. I do not share any of your views and ideas, neither does the vast majority of the GC society does! There are a few exceptions like Bananiot, but that is all about it. Thanks god, maybe only 1-2% of GCs.

In another topic, a couple of days ago he was more generous. He elevated us to 5%. Anyway, what I find interesting is the serge of bravery which is the trademark of all of Kifeas writings which is based on the assumption that by being a thorn in the side of the big boys you can solve your problems. The same people who are pursuing arrogant policies today were of the same philosophy back in the 60's. Their mistakes then cost us half of Cyprus. Their arrogance today (keeping wee Cyprus in splendid international isolation) can only bring more misery.

I only said you, both extremist fractions, account for 2-5% of the society, and not 5%! I see you continue your favourite sport of misrepresenting others’ posts, like you did the other day where you wrote that:

Kifeas has stated on a number of occasions that democratically elected officials should not be criticised. I suggest he opens the democracy book and read it from the beginning.

Find me where have I ever made such a remark!

No wonder no one takes you seriously!

[lupusdiavoli]

“Macedonian Nicatora”

I have my doubts whether we can attribute a common characteristic of that in concern to a whole nation. It depends on the issue I suppose. I don’ t mind about the “carpet” anyway. Simply I set forth that judging from a sole incident the whole even mathematically results to false conclusions.

Ancient Greek civilization is fundamental in many ways and in many fields.

To declare my position on the issue of that puppy state “FYROM” I should say that Greeks as usually overreacted thought I keep in mind their obvious weakness, speaking in terms of foreign policy, to make good even a puppy artificial state. The latter will survive as long the interests it serves by creation exist. In the expense of Greece certainly among others ie. Servia. Their culture is a mixed up problem.

Ah Kifeas,

You have such a respect of high ideas. The issue of human rights and their existence or non existence is a theoretical one and u obviously do not have in mind the relevant debate academically speaking. The same runs for issues such as ethics and the same. You know just the tip of the iceberg regarding this issue. You have the average beliefs that are spread as common knowledge on issues being the norm of an era. I don’ t blame you for this. I find most amusing beliefs like yours. The revisionist will always find common believers for many reasons.

Look to your sentence “…the only wish I can personally have for such a kind of person is for the worst to happen to him!...”

Is that a hymn to human rights believer? I enjoy it the most when I can spot such contradictory arguments. One who declares his faith in the most supposed to be precious right, a human to deserve by nature as a human a bundle of rights nonetheless you wish for another human the “worst”

Ah this is human nature my “friend”. Who is a humanist me or you? Who accepts human nature as it is. Hard and full of passion. Ready to hate, to enslave and destruct?
Imagine if you had the power in your hands? Ah, I am not sure at all whether I could stop you to harm me by holding in hand the notorious “human rights”.

“Darwinistic” perspective? Wrong again. Such ideas go back centuries and their origin can be actually discovered in ancient Greek thought tradition. You should know better but modern Greeks have such a twisted understanding for the past. As if their whole background is consisted by the platonic non existent ideas and those idealistic norms of Socrates.

I have never said that human beings are not logical. But yes they are driven by “survival” instincts. And yes they are animals. You do not understand your same language. Let me show u. Animal in greek is identified as “zwon”. Well “zwon” is simply the creature which is full of life and strength. You should be happy if somebody is calling u “animal” actually. And the most basic instinct of a zvon is to be alive, to live, that is to survive.

Is it your right to regard me, as a subhuman creature or at least a corrupted hypocrite? Ah, your are so amusing!

So you have the monopoly of morals and high values so you are in the legitimate position to judge others like this? Wishful thinking.

There is a rational problem with your equation; for somebody to judge presupposes that the one who is to be judged accepts the regulations and the laws of the judge. Obviously I don’ t recognize any of these. You should better read something about the fundamentals of just trial.

The last is the most amusing; “…things have changed and will continue to change for the better, simply because humans are logical beings and not animals….”

It is the most humorous way of reading history. Teleological one. Find a dictionary to find is meaning. It derives from the greek word “telos”, the end. Hence you read history as having or pursuing some end, which in your eyes points to the best, the excellent. If that is the way history evolves it means that at a certain point it cannot go further since it will reach excellency.

Imagine my friend freezing history!

Only humans can see such a meaning in history. Animals more wisely prefer to live and dye.

Mem 101, I agree partially with you. I put the same above in a different way. My opposition has to do on the path of history.



Babaniot.

We agree.

[ge0rg10]

Mem,

The weak die and strong survive and they pass on their good genes and slowly the animals change, this is not logic, this is luck! You say "We evolved from less efficient species into what we are today." where are the species that evolved from monkeys that then evolved into us. This is the Theory of evolution dont forget, can some one prove to me that we evolved??? find me the missing link and i'll believe you! you then say that our species have been around for 100000 years... lol that is 90,000 years before the last ice age, this cant be true.

lupusdiavoli

““Darwinistic” perspective? Wrong again. Such ideas go back centuries and their origin can be actually discovered in ancient Greek thought tradition. You should know better but modern Greeks have such a twisted understanding for the past. As if their whole background is consisted by the platonic non existent ideas and those idealistic norms of Socrates.”

Stop nit picking if you disagree with his opinion then fine but as Darwin was credited with the theory of evolution saying darwinistic perspective is correct, who cares about its origin. Cypriots today care too much about origin, forget it and look towards a united Cyprus.

“You do not understand your same language” this is funny as it makes no sense. Your ‘own language’ maybe… dunno

[Bananiot]

This is developing into an issue on evolution, but never mind, it is an evolution of the thread. Georgio, for the many, the "theory" of evolution simply means that the different species have common ancestors. The term "theory" does not mean hypothesis (common mistake made by the layman) but it refers to a formulated general law or principle or even the causes that explain a phenomenon. Thus "theory" is a complex of interrelated ideas regarding the forces and processes that have to do with evolution. The fact that organisms have arisen from a common ancestor is not a theory but a fact. Evolution started as a theory but it has become a reality because the observations that pay tribute to the fact are unquestionable. Any doubts on evolution have disappeared since 100 years ago. Granted, in the USA the Creation theory has made a comeback but not as a scientific issue but rather as a social phenomenon of a reactionary ideology that threatens the very basis of public education.

Kifeas, you have on numerous occasions resorted to the argument that the elected President should not be criticised and, once, rather stupidly, you suggested that I should be careful because I am a government employee and thus I should keep my mouth shut. Well, I told you before, Papadopoulos has not appointed me, I won my place at work with my hard work.

I am not going to go back and find the thread but those that read us can testify to the above.

[Kifeas]

Lupusdiavoli, having declared yourself to be a cynical amoralist, I am not surprised at all by your above little essay! However, your above little essay is nothing more than a profound bunch of sophistries (i.e. plausible but fallacious argumentations –according to the dictionary,) that if it would have made any sense to me whatsoever, and if I had the time, I would have bothered to ruin fairly easily.

Not only you employ sophistries, but you also like to split hairs. You even go as far as trying to teach me Greek! Yes indeed “Zo-on” (animal) in Greek translates as “living-being, and this by default includes humans!” However, this is the literal or etymological meaning of the word. The figurative (symbolic) meaning includes all living-beings, but humans! However, here we do not speak Greek, and the word I used was that of “animals!” And if animals were humans, then there would have been no need to have a separate word for them. The reason we have another term to distinguish animals from humans is simply because humans are social, as well as logical “animals!” And because humans are social and logical animals (“Zoa”) they understood long time ago that they should come together and form family and community bonds, and in our times national, international and transnational bonds (UN, EU, CoE, etc!) The reason they came and still come up with such inventions is simply because they realised, long time ago, that their survival is better maintained and enhanced in this way; instead of living in conditions of complete lawlessness and anarchy, i.e. “the law of the jungle” in which animals live and function.

I suppose you do not have a problem with humans forming such kinds of family, national, international and transnational bonds. Or you do?

If you do not have any problem with the above, then I suppose you also agree that such bonds to be formed and serve their purpose, there must be some commonly understood and adhered code of contact and some legal framework based on which these bonds are established, otherwise if they were all based on loose ground and mere political goodwill, as you assume and propagate, their existence would have being problematic, dysfunctional and useless. That is why national and in our times international laws are enacted, and that is why the UN Charter and the declaration of human rights were invented and signed by nearly all nations. What are human rights? They are a predetermined minimum set of rights that each human should enjoy and equally respect (except your self who does not believe in them and does not find them useful,) which have become laws, national and international. If you do not believe in them, then you do not believe in international laws and consequently neither in national laws. In a nutshell, you are a lawless anarchist, and even worst, a cynic amoralist!

[lupusdiavoli]

ge0rg10

Even if someone tries to explain you the evolution theory he shall fail. Thinking of it some species never evolve. They were 2nd or 3rd class rate when they lived the island and they remain the same only just a little bit more mixed up and confuse, mostly on issues of origin.

Babaniot explain nicely the concept of theory’s origin and its essence. You do not care others do and find it most significant. What do you care about a united Cyprus. You’ ve got your flag already. Stick to that your own flaw … dunno.



I did not have in mind that argument of Kifeas, not criticizing the president! Yeap, the starting point of “his” democracy.

Kifeas,

Ah, you were touched when I made reference to your “essay.
May be sophistries have “bad” meaning to you but I feel flattered by such comment.

Ah, so “Zo-on” (animal) in Greek translates as “living-being, and this by default includes humans! this is the literal or etymological meaning of the word. The figurative (symbolic) meaning includes all living-beings, but humans.

I like the above I have to say.

Do you find the English language to have more strength than Greeks? This is something to think about, meaning myself since the accuracy of Greek lang. –at least ancient Greek- is well known. Anyway.

Animals are social too you know but this is not my central argument from the beginning. The confrontation origins from the different perspective we have on Cyprus issue.
My basic argument was that it is one of political nature. Politics and foreign policy according to me are not governed or not regulated by ethics or the same.

Again and again I set forth that even your most precious human rights come to be in terms of enforcement an issue of power.

The opposite view, like yours, seeks to implement ethics, moral, human rights and politics. It considers them to be interconnected and I don’ t.

This is the debate. You turned a theoretical debate in a personal one wishing me all the “best”.

“I suppose you do not have a problem with humans forming such kinds of family, national, international and transnational bonds. Or you do? “

Do u expect any answer to the above?

Read now your following argument.


”If you do not have any problem with the above, then I suppose you also agree that such bonds to be formed and serve their purpose, there must be some commonly understood and adhered code of contact and some legal framework based on which these bonds are established, otherwise if they were all based on loose ground and mere political goodwill, as you assume and propagate, their existence would have being problematic, dysfunctional and useless. That is why national and in our times international laws are enacted, and that is why the UN Charter and the declaration of human rights were invented and signed by nearly all nations. What are human rights? They are a predetermined minimum set of rights that each human should enjoy and equally respect (except your self who does not believe in them and does not find them useful,) which have become laws, national and international. If you do not believe in them, then you do not believe in international laws and consequently neither in national laws. In a nutshell, you are a lawless anarchist, and even worst, a cynic amoralist!”

You starting your argument by explaining the origin of the regulated society, from city to state etc. Yes the existence of laws comes to be essential. But the issue is not of one of internal affairs but about Cyprus issue where interest predominate, thus politics and not human rights and the same.

Yes u do have UN Charter and the declaration of human rights etc. Unless you achieve the creation of a universal court to enforce them you have nothing except documents to be interpretated by those who have the control. Even “human rights” as a term is misleading. Legally speaking they are civil rights. This is the term being used by the western societies and they baptized them to “human”. Historically they were the spearhead of the bourgeois against the aristocracy.

I ask you again can you simply enforce them? No. The reality and the historic experience proved again and again that this is not the way the REALITY OF FOREIGN POLICY runs.

Otherwise you have to create a universal state. One planet, one Law. Do u find this possible? May be you do. I find it boring and yes in such a case I will gladly be a lawless anarchist, and even better, a cynic amoralist!

The reason behind this is simply that I do not accept nobody to posses the one and only true. And the worst behind having one law is the assumption that only one true exists. Then those who will be the ruler of that single true will be your master. You may obey him I won’t. Call it as you please at least I will not hide my weakness whispering “it’s my right”.

[ge0rg10]

This is developing into an issue on evolution, but never mind, it is an evolution of the thread. Georgio, for the many, the "theory" of evolution simply means that the different species have common ancestors. The term "theory" does not mean hypothesis (common mistake made by the layman) but it refers to a formulated general law or principle or even the causes that explain a phenomenon. Thus "theory" is a complex of interrelated ideas regarding the forces and processes that have to do with evolution. The fact that organisms have arisen from a common ancestor is not a theory but a fact. Evolution started as a theory but it has become a reality because the observations that pay tribute to the fact are unquestionable. Any doubts on evolution have disappeared since 100 years ago. Granted, in the USA the Creation theory has made a comeback but not as a scientific issue but rather as a social phenomenon of a reactionary ideology that threatens the very basis of public education.

You have stated your case and were quick to disregard mine but you have yet to show me my missing link. I am not being an asshole I am genially interested and would like to see the proof that goes along with your argument. I know what theory means but if it they were curtain it would be a law. for example the Law of conservation of energy is a law, becuase it applies to everything and no one can argue with it.

ge0rg10

Even if someone tries to explain you the evolution theory he shall fail. Thinking of it some species never evolve. They were 2nd or 3rd class rate when they lived the island and they remain the same only just a little bit more mixed up and confuse, mostly on issues of origin.

Babaniot explain nicely the concept of theory’s origin and its essence. You do not care others do and find it most significant. What do you care about a united Cyprus. You’ ve got your flag already. Stick to that your own flaw … dunno.

Babaniot did explain it very nicely, The fact of the matter is that Darwin went to the school that I am currently at and I have studied him as part of school history as well as in biology class. The Cypriots are only confused on their origin because they are brainwashed like someone. 2nd, 3rd rate ha ha ha one of the head rocket scientists at nasa is a Cypriot, that tennis guy is a Cypriot and hell george Michael is a Cypriot! For an Island of this size Cyprus and the Cypriots are very well known and well respected. We are first class and first rate! Oh and again you don’t make sense:

“You do not care others do and find it most significant”

What the hell does this mean??? Proof reading maybe?

And finally what flag have I got to stick my flaws on??? What have you been smoking? one of the rules of this forum is to speak English but hey I don’t understand what the hell you are on about. you speak rubbish.... damn sure of it!!!!!