What exactly IS humanism?

[MKSheppard]

I've been flipping through the Humanist at my college library to get a handle
on what this philosophy is like

http://www.thehumanist.org/

What's with all the attention to stuff like the Global Land Mine ban
in back issues, building an economy off of sustainable environmental
principles, and focusing on the WTO/IMF protests by anarchists, etc

From what I've been reading, it sounds like Humanism is another codename
for the Green Party, AKA watermelons: Green on the outside, Red on the
inside.....

My two most vomit-inducing articles I picked were:

The LIVING HUMANISM section in the JULY/AUGUST 2002
issue titled "200,000 Times"

It was a cry-fest by the grandson of a Hiroshima survivor wailing on
about the 200,000 lives lost on that August Morning in 1945.

Fucking moron doesn't realize the Japanese were training boys and
girls to be suicide troops for the defense of the Home Islands - to rush
the american troops on the beaches with BAMBOO SPEARS. Or how
their civilians on Okiwana jumped to their death rather than face US
forces.

Interesting link on Operation DOWNFALL, the planned US invasion of
the Home Islands:

http://sandysq.gcinet.net/uss_salt_lake ... psecrt.htm

The Japanese had closed their schools and sent the kids to mobilize
for the invasion of Japan..."One Hundred Million will die for the Emperor
and Nation" was the slogan bandied about Japan. They had even picked
the correct places to build fortifications and concentrate their divisions:
the same beaches we picked for our invasion forces.

The Second Vomit-Inducing article was by this kid who saw the WTC
attacks from NYC in person, and it was pretty good, but his closing
paragraph was beyond belief...."I sat down and cried when I
learned America had begun bombing Afghanistan."

That fucking cunt saw the WTC fall before his eyes, and he had to
escape the goddamn dust cloud, and he's crying over the deaths
of the same fuckers who ordered the attacks? WTF?

Reading this Humanist magazine has left me with a bad impression
over the entire movement. Are all humanists not such rabid green
party whackoes? I know Mike isn't one, but what about the
overall movement...

[Darth Wong]

I've been flipping through the Humanist at my college library to get a handle on what this philosophy is like

http://www.thehumanist.org/

Humanism's roots: A cultural and intellectual movement of the Renaissance that emphasized secular concerns as a result of the rediscovery and study of the literature, art, and civilization of ancient Greece and Rome.

Humanism's values: A system of thought that centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth. Concern with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans.

Humanism's morality: based on human rights.

What's with all the attention to stuff like the Global Land Mine ban in back issues, building an economy off of sustainable environmental principles, and focusing on the WTO/IMF protests by anarchists, etc. From what I've been reading, it sounds like Humanism is another codename
for the Green Party, AKA watermelons: Green on the outside, Red on the inside.....

You are generalizing based on a particular set of humanists.

It was a cry-fest by the grandson of a Hiroshima survivor wailing on about the 200,000 lives lost on that August Morning in 1945.

Fucking moron doesn't realize the Japanese were training boys and girls to be suicide troops for the defense of the Home Islands - to rush the american troops on the beaches with BAMBOO SPEARS.

And YOU don't realize that the general population wasn't going for it, and that these programs were fringe exercises.

Or how their civilians on Okiwana jumped to their death rather than face US forces.

They jumped to their death at gunpoint. Small detail you forgot to mention.

The Japanese had closed their schools and sent the kids to mobilize for the invasion of Japan..."One Hundred Million will die for the Emperor and Nation" was the slogan bandied about Japan.

And since the population of Japan was only 70 million at the time, this was obviously empty posturing. You act as though this was a serious military plan. The existence of extremist wackos or over-the-top propaganda campaigns hardly proves your implicit argument that the Japanese were collectively beyond reason, or that there's nothing wrong with annihilating 200,000 civilians.

Did you know that they were engaged in peace negotiations with the Americans? Their defensive strategy was intended to buy time and leverage at the negotiating table. They had no illusions about winning or sacrificing the entire nation. If they were as insane as you say, the A-bombs wouldn't have forced their unconditional surrender.

The Second Vomit-Inducing article was by this kid who saw the WTC attacks from NYC in person, and it was pretty good, but his closing paragraph was beyond belief...."I sat down and cried when I learned America had begun bombing Afghanistan."

Yes, many humanists tend to be peaceniks. Oh no, they're all evil!

That fucking cunt saw the WTC fall before his eyes, and he had to escape the goddamn dust cloud, and he's crying over the deaths of the same fuckers who ordered the attacks? WTF?

Maybe he's crying over the little kids who will be blown up. American TV didn't show the footage of kids whose arms and legs had been blown off by American bombing. Canadian TV did. War is ugly business; nobody in his right mind cheers it, even if he thinks it's justified.

Reading this Humanist magazine has left me with a bad impression over the entire movement. Are all humanists not such rabid green party whackoes? I know Mike isn't one, but what about the overall movement...

The overall movement has many shades and variations. But at its core, its basic essence is human rights, human needs, human interests (not those of nations or imaginary deities). Hence the name.

[Patrick Degan]

Reading this Humanist magazine has left me with a bad impression over the entire movement. Are all humanists not such rabid green party whackoes? I know Mike isn't one, but what about the
overall movement...

So...going by that brand of "logic", I must conclude that every time David Duke runs for office as a Republican, I should assume the whole of the Republican Party to be racist Nazi assholes?

[MKSheppard]

So...going by that brand of "logic", I must conclude that every time David Duke runs for office as a Republican, I should assume the whole of the Republican Party to be racist Nazi assholes?

This was an informal poll that consisted of flipping through the pages of
The Humanist and looking at the general content of each issue. Anyway,
I'd class The Humanist as a solidly left-wing rag, same way Mike or you
would classify The New American (The John Birch Society Magazine) as
a solidly right-wing rag

[HemlockGrey]

Did you know that they were engaged in peace negotiations with the Americans? Their defensive strategy was intended to buy time and leverage at the negotiating table. They had no illusions about winning or sacrificing the entire nation. If they were as insane as you say, the A-bombs wouldn't have forced their unconditional surrender.

Do you know the basic demand the Japanese where making?

1) War criminals tried in Japanese courts
2) Occupation limited to the fringe territories
3) Imperial military dismantled by the Japanese government

I think it's fairly obvious why these are frankly unacceptable demands. An outright invasion or long blockade might have forced their surrender; but the A-Bombs were the quickest, the fastest, and the surest way. In that way, they were indeed justified.

[MKSheppard]

You are generalizing based on a particular set of humanists.

Got me there.

The existence of extremist wackos or over-the-top propaganda campaigns hardly proves your implicit argument that the Japanese were collectively beyond reason, or that there's nothing wrong with annihilating 200,000 civilians.

Did you know that they were engaged in peace negotiations with the Americans? Their defensive strategy was intended to buy time and leverage at the negotiating table. They had no illusions about winning or sacrificing the entire nation. If they were as insane as you say, the A-bombs wouldn't have forced their unconditional surrender.

Actually they were still for continuing the war, until the Emperor himself
finally intervened. He had been a figurehead for pretty much the entire
war as the military government had run the place.

And did you know that a second "Divine Wind" hit during the projected
schedule for the invasion of Japan?

On October 8th, 1945, a Massive typhoon struck the coast of
Japan, causing the loss of over 250 American ships and craft
of all kinds. If we had invaded, it would have struck us the
same way it annhilated the Mongol invaders in 1281.

Gee, what are the odds of that happening? Fanatical resistance would
have immediately redoubled, and we'd have to fight yard for every fucking
bloody yard of Nippon. Go take a look at the casualty figures
for Okiwana. That wasn't Nippon proper, and they certainly were fanatical
fighting over something that wasn't even the Home Islands.

Maybe he's crying over the little kids who will be blown up. American TV didn't show the footage of kids whose arms and legs had been blown off by American bombing. Canadian TV did. War is ugly business; nobody in his right mind cheers it, even if he thinks it's justified.

I watched people jumping from the 100th floor and above on that
September morning. Those kids probably lost their arms and legs
to old land mines planted by the Soviets, Northern Alliance, Taliban,
or whoever was fighting ATM for the country of Afghanistan. So don't
excuse me if I cry crocodile tears for them.

The overall movement has many shades and variations. But at its core, its basic essence is human rights, human needs, human interests (not those of nations or imaginary deities). Hence the name.

Uh huh, it seems Humanism is an offshoot or survivor of the pre-1914
world, back when European civilization still believed in reason, logic,
and that humanity could solve any social ills as long as we put our
minds and reasoning skills to it. That was upset severely by the slaughter
of WWI.

[Steve]

Many Japanese leaders wanted to end the war, true, but the Japanese Army and the junior officers refused to accept that they'd lost. If there was peace, they wanted to keep the lands they still held, and they wouldn't accept no for an answer; just suggesting surrender was to them treason.

Keep in mind that even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, there were still Army officers that wanted to fight on! They even tried to stop the Emperor's radio broadcast.

The people of Japan would have died in the millions, and not just because of those who would be compelled (by force if necessary) to sacrifice themselves against the American invaders, but because of famine and the effects of the US leveling of Japan's infrastructure, and the fact that they were so low on oil that they'd never be able to keep what transport infrastructure they had left running.

The atomic bombs were necessary, both to secure victory (by shocking the Emperor into acting despite the very real threat of what the junior officers would do to those who suggested surrender) and to make sure Stalin didn't snatch Hokkaido. Would you prefer a "South Japan" and a "North Japan" (the latter being Communist), with Tokyo divided as Berlin was?

That doesn't mean we should take pleasure in their use, of course. We should be saddened by it, and we should reinforce our commitment to never using those horrible weapons again without a very damned good reason to.

Ultimately, war is evil. It is a savage, brutal affair that destroys lives and entire countries, impoverishing the survivors and creating a ripple effect still felt years after the last gun went silent (even today France is suffering from her losses in WWI).

However, sometimes, I am sad to say, war is a necessary evil. Necessary because some evils, greater evils that do just as much damage as war or more, can only be expunged by violent means. But, just as I stated above, we should never desire such a means to be necessary, nor purposely try to find a reason to exercise it.

BTW, I'm sorry for going Off-Topic.

[Steve]

"It is well that war is so terrible. We would grow too fond of it." - Robert E. Lee, at the Battle of Fredericksburg

[cabal_88]

<Race-hate slogans deleted- DW>

[HemlockGrey]

No, you see, humanism is directly opposed to things like that.

Dumbass.

[Steve]

KILL ALL NON WHITES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, if I killed anything, it'd be scum like you.

[Tosho]

KILL ALL NON WHITES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LISTEN HERE YOU LITLE SHIT-HEAD YOU'RE THE ONE WHO NEEDS TO DIE, I SHOULD DECAPATE YOU WITH A KATANA JUST TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY.

IN A WORD KUTABARE.

[SWPIGWANG]

sigh, I'd perfer humanist weeny over right wing idiots anyday.

Idealism is so looked down on nowadays. What is the good of realism when all it says is that there is nothing we can do and the world would be screwed up forever and ever.

[Stormbringer]

sigh, I'd perfer humanist weeny over right wing idiots anyday.

Both disgust me. One side wants to kill every one that disagrees, the other side will let them.

[victorhadin]

It's odd this should come up, as I just bought the 'New Humanist' (apparently a separate but related publication) yesterday out of curiosity. There was a certain amount of opinionated stuff in there regarding the various authors' feelings over world affairs, but it hardly came off as 'red'.

There was, however, a very interesting-looking article in there about US Christian evangelists and why the current religious right in the US seems keen on supporting Israeli expansion. I haven't read it all yet, but I think I will tonight.

[Stormbringer]

It's odd this should come up, as I just bought the 'New Humanist' (apparently a separate but related publication) yesterday out of curiosity. There was a certain amount of opinionated stuff in there regarding the various authors' feelings over world affairs, but it hardly came off as 'red'.

It's MKSheppard everything that he disagrees with is red or facist or gay orr something like that. Look at his title for god sake!

[MKSheppard]

It's MKSheppard everything that he disagrees with is red or facist or gay orr something like that. Look at his title for god sake!

Whatever. That title was a childish thing done by Wong. I've been over to
the other side, man. From 1985 to '96 I was a perfect Democratic party
robot. You know what they say about converts having 100x the fiery belief
than the regular believers...

Anyway, it seems that after the cold war ended, and faced with the utter
failure of the Marxist philosophy that had guided their lives, a lot of rabid
leftists invaded the environmental movement and judging from what The
Humanist shows, i'd have to say they've been invaded too.

Hell, when The Humanist bases several entire articles off Michael Bellesiles'
fraud that claims that gun ownership in the US is a recent invention, I add
a tick mark next to "Is this rag marxist?"

When I see a article that goes on and on about how 10% of the global
population consumes somefink like 75% of the goods and oil, etc, I add
another tick mark.

There was this article titled "Watch on the Right" that was full of
indignant rage over the Army's "railroading" of a Conscentiuous
Objector during the Gulf War, conviently neglecting to tell you that
this doctor had signed up for the fucking NATIONAL GUARD and
had taken an oath, as well as accepting MONEY from the Guard,
and then when it comes time to pay the piper, she refuses to go
off to the Gulf War...Another tick mark added.

Eventually, I ended up with tick marks all over my mental slate
after flipping through two years of THE HUMANIST. The rag is
dyed-in-the-wool MARXISM but with a "catchy" name.

[MKSheppard]

I'm flipping thru it here....

http://www.newhumanist.org.uk

So far from my initial scan, it appears to be far more moderate
and center-of-the-road than "THE HUMANIST" here in the states...

Basically, it focusses more on the theological questions
conerning Humanism and the bankruptcy of the
monotheist religions (in their opinion), rather than so-called
social justice issues

http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/issue01su ... icit.shtml

Hmm, rather good talk about how british PMs have become almost
virtual dictators of the UK, and how unique the American system
of Checks and Balances is.

(takes out pen and gives NEW HUMANIST a good tick mark)

[Stormbringer]

It's MKSheppard everything that he disagrees with is red or facist or gay orr something like that. Look at his title for god sake!

Whatever. That title was a childish thing done by Wong. I've been over to
the other side, man. From 1985 to '96 I was a perfect Democratic party
robot. You know what they say about converts having 100x the fiery belief
than the regular believers...

I'd say every one that gotten a title has deserved it and you are no exception.

[White Cat]

"Although war is cruel and brutal, it is also dangerous and stupid."
-- Yakko Warner

[victorhadin]

The New Humanist had an article I quite liked called 'Vote Pilate'. It basically looked upon Pontius Pilate as a character who had all the choices but refused to move for his belief against outside influences and compared it to modern UK politicians (Blair and co) who respond more to public opinion than their faith. It ended by saying that, frankly, this is vastly preferable to a theocratic government or politicians that respond to faith alone.