From: alias@removenetserver.org   
      
   On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 03:42:42 -0800, FixinDixon wrote:   
      
   [note: this post has not been edited for speeling even though the errors   
   are glaring at me in Pan.. its a damned holiday people.. cut a guy some   
   slack.]   
      
   >> > Peace is the absence of conflict.  What is neccessary to have Peace   
   >> > is the understanding and notion of Conflict.  It's existence is not   
   >> > neccessary, only it's potential for existence.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> I can agree on the wider scope of conflict rather than war but I am   
   >> stil unsure if you mean only "understanding" or "potential" or both.   
   >   
     No matter what Mankind does, it will always have the potential for   
   > conflict.  If peace is to be finally achieved, it must be via an   
   > educated understanding of the nature of conflict (and thus the absence   
   > of it, peace).  [oh, that sounded vaguely Platonic...it wasn't meant].   
   >   
   >   
   u consistently make unsubstianted and patently untrue statements without   
   making the slightest effort to back them up.   
      
   it sort of pisses me off..   
      
   maybe thats my inner core of "conflict" rising to the forefront..   
   unavoidable evidently.. i won't worry about it too much.   
      
   as to the matter at hand:   
      
     No matter what Mankind does, it will always have the potential for   
   > conflict.   
      
   no matter what?  what u mean is "whatever i can concieve of it doing" ..   
   fortunately we are not all limited by ur conceptions.  though.. i don't   
   see a "peaceful mankind" in the near future myself either..   
      
   > If peace is to be finally achieved, it must be via an educated   
   > understanding of the nature of conflict (and thus the absence of it,   
   > peace).   
      
   the understanding of conflict is not necessary for peace.  this is similar   
   to saying that an understanding of mass is needed for gravity.  brute   
   facts simply *exist* independant of ur opinion of them.  get used to it..   
   its not changing any time soon.   
      
   "to appreciate peace u must understand conflict" may have hit the mark..   
      
   similar statement.. huge difference in meaning.   
      
   [snipped mad junk, yo.]   
      
      
      
   >> > Humans ARE animals first, primates second.  We evolved to be the way   
   >> > we are (hairless bipedals with language and technology) because we   
   >> > could fill a niche.  Problem is, we've filled it a bit too well.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Do you mean we are no longer evolving?   
   >   
   > As a species, yes.  'Mankind' went through several species before homo   
   > sapiens sapiens came about.  I don't doubt that, as long as we don't   
   > destroy the planet, other species will evolve, but a species cannot   
   > evolve within itself.  It can only create new species.   
      
   not true.. unless ur going to mire us in a discussion of definitions and   
   nonsense along those lines.. clearly the intent was to suggest that we   
   (human beings) are in a constant state of evolution..   
      
   evolution, being a process that takes place on a time scale beyond ur   
   objective reckoning, may not appear to be ongoing.. but yeah, it is.   
      
   species, genus, whatever.. their the next step.  the one that evolves from   
   us.  the one we're evolving into.. unless the great magnet has already   
   concluded its expirement in high IQ chimps and we're the last version.   
      
      
      
   ..   
   alias   
      
   happy turkey day! and death to the unbelievers!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)