Apr 1 2013: Why does it have to be between a man and a woman? We have technology now to allow same-sex couple to have their own children. Two men and two woman can have just as intimate of a relationship as a man and a woman. And as for satisfying the needs of the family two men or two women are just as capable as bringing in an income as a man and a woman. And as for the emotional well being of any children in the family, as far as I know, the gender of a parent doesn't matter, it is the parent's personality and involvement with the child.
Apr 1 2013: This is probably due to how widespread the human race is and the complexity of what humans have to say. For example, if I yell loudly and angrily most humans, regardless of their native language, will be able to understand that I am angry. Other animals, as far as my knowledge goes, simply display simple ideas like this when they meow or bark.
Now if we later find out that dogs are actually reciting the events of the day when they bark to each other then we can all be impressed.
Apr 1 2013: I don't think that Democracy has ever claimed to be a peaceful form of government. Democratic nations are still nations, and all nations have their own interests and are willing to be violent to protect their interests.
Now as for the evils of "worse" governments, in all honesty it depends on the people in charge. Take, for example, Dictatorship you could end up with Hitler or you could end up with Cincinnatus, all Democracy allows is a choice between them. A Democracy could still choose Hitler and that government could commit horrific acts.
P.S. I'm not saying that Bush was Hitler; Hitler was just used as an example.
Mar 30 2013: I don't see it happening Wonjun. Kim Jong-un seems intent on further dividing the two nations. China will fight the unification, the last thing they want is a prosperous, pro-America, democracy at their border, which a united Korea most certainly would be due to South Korea's cultural dominance and population. Lastly, unless North Korea takes deadly military action against South Korea I don't really see the benefits of a united Korea for the South Korean people. They currently are an extremely wealthy state that heavily influences global culture and economics. Why risk losing that in an armed conflict? In addition, a united Korea would still have to deal with threatening actions from neighbors. An expanding Korea will likely strengthen tensions with Japan over the disputed islands of Takeshima/Dokdo. And again China will hate to have a shining example of successful and wealthy democracy at its doorstep.
In all reality I don't think a united Korea can, in the current balance of power in the region, exist. It seems more to be something that South Koreans and Americans like to fantasize about.
Aug 4 2012: I personally think that areas that are that influential and that have that much history should become international territory. Basically the secretary general of the united nations would act as the mayor of all of these places his role would be to keep the peace and to preserve the rich history of places like Jerusalem.
Aug 4 2012: I agree that we decide whether or not to use religion to organize good and evil actions I was not branding religion as evil. I was just bringing up the point that religion has been used to justify universally evil acts throughout history.
Now with that being said, you made the point that historians often have views on certain times in history that vary. While this is true, the same argument can be made about religion which you use in your argument. There are dozens of different faiths and within each religion there are different sects. Christianity is a perfect example, the interpretation of The Holy Bible from a Catholic point of view and an Unitarian point of view are vastly different. So in my opinion the "stories" ,as you put it, of historians should have as much weight in an argument as the religious writings of any faith, especially "stories" that are considered by most historians and archeologists to be fact.
I also disagree with your statement that history does not "give us any instruction on how to solve todays problems." Take the marriage inequality in the USA as an example. Now you seem like a deeply religious person so you may disagree with me, but I think that marriage inequality is a great injustice and when I see the hate that radiates from people who are against marriage equality I can't help but be reminded of the hate that radiated from the racist Americans who opposed racial equality. So my arguement is that we can draw from history in instances like this to realize that those who are against marriage equality now, will probably be on the wrong side of history and will later be thought of as one of the things that the USA has to be deeply ashamed of, much like we are ashamed of the racist actions and demonstrations that took place in the mid-20th century.
Finally, while I do have the deepest respect for my elders, I must ask that you show the same respect for me. Also, honoring your elders does not mean accepting everything they say as true.
Aug 4 2012: Don, I do not intend to seem rude or insult you but you need to read into history a bit more. Yes I agree that it is people in government positions who create most wars, but religion has for all of human history been used to manipulate people. Here is a few examples.
* The crusades were started when Alexis 1 of the Byzantine Empire feared that his empire would be conquered by the Arabs. So he called on his ally Pope Urban II. The Pope then used the fact that Jerusalem was under the rule of the muslim "infidels" to convince the monarchs and warlords of christian europe to invade the Arabian Empire and try to retake the "holy land". The monarchs and warlords used the same message to inspire soldiers to enlist and to get peasants to be compliant even though they were being oppressed.
*More recently the KKK and many racist people in America baselessly used religion to justify their belief that they were more advanced and all around better than African Americans, the same tactic that was used by Adolf Hitler to justify the torture and massacre of millions of innocent civilians.
In all of these instances religion (namely Christianity) was used as an excuse for terrible and evil actions. So yes religion is not the reason wars start, but without religion some in fact most bloodshed would not be tolerated and would have been brought to a halt faster than it actually was. That is what I think Salim meant by his comment.
Aug 4 2012: The world is smaller now then ever before, everyone is connected and everyone is blending. People are afraid of change, which is completely natural and people hate what they fear which is also completely natural. The conflicts of today are an inevitable evil and won't completely end ever, but they will die down over time as people become more tolerant. We just have to hope that we don't destroy each other before we reach that point.
Aug 4 2012: I am not completely sure that the religion side of spirituality is a sense. I think it is more a way for us to cope with the mind wrecking fact that we will die and that when we die on the "other side" there might be nothing but oblivion. I personally do believe in a designer but I can't help but think that my belief is born in my own fear of death.
On the other hand the set of morals that every human shares (with the exception of mentally disturbed people like psychopaths) Is definately important and is perhaps "sence" that has most contributed to the sucess of the human race. Our morals are what make us human which is why immoral actions are called inhumane.
TEDCred score: +0.90 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: Marriage is ....... ?
A reply on Conversation: How many languages is it possible to know?
Now if we later find out that dogs are actually reciting the events of the day when they bark to each other then we can all be impressed.
A reply on Conversation: What did the war on Iraq by USA achieve ??
Now as for the evils of "worse" governments, in all honesty it depends on the people in charge. Take, for example, Dictatorship you could end up with Hitler or you could end up with Cincinnatus, all Democracy allows is a choice between them. A Democracy could still choose Hitler and that government could commit horrific acts.
P.S. I'm not saying that Bush was Hitler; Hitler was just used as an example.
A comment on Conversation: Uniting Korea
In all reality I don't think a united Korea can, in the current balance of power in the region, exist. It seems more to be something that South Koreans and Americans like to fantasize about.
A reply on Conversation: The Middle East
A comment on Conversation: The Middle East
A reply on Conversation: What if, in a fine morning, you learn, "There's nothing called God"!
Now with that being said, you made the point that historians often have views on certain times in history that vary. While this is true, the same argument can be made about religion which you use in your argument. There are dozens of different faiths and within each religion there are different sects. Christianity is a perfect example, the interpretation of The Holy Bible from a Catholic point of view and an Unitarian point of view are vastly different. So in my opinion the "stories" ,as you put it, of historians should have as much weight in an argument as the religious writings of any faith, especially "stories" that are considered by most historians and archeologists to be fact.
I also disagree with your statement that history does not "give us any instruction on how to solve todays problems." Take the marriage inequality in the USA as an example. Now you seem like a deeply religious person so you may disagree with me, but I think that marriage inequality is a great injustice and when I see the hate that radiates from people who are against marriage equality I can't help but be reminded of the hate that radiated from the racist Americans who opposed racial equality. So my arguement is that we can draw from history in instances like this to realize that those who are against marriage equality now, will probably be on the wrong side of history and will later be thought of as one of the things that the USA has to be deeply ashamed of, much like we are ashamed of the racist actions and demonstrations that took place in the mid-20th century.
Finally, while I do have the deepest respect for my elders, I must ask that you show the same respect for me. Also, honoring your elders does not mean accepting everything they say as true.
A reply on Conversation: What if, in a fine morning, you learn, "There's nothing called God"!
* The crusades were started when Alexis 1 of the Byzantine Empire feared that his empire would be conquered by the Arabs. So he called on his ally Pope Urban II. The Pope then used the fact that Jerusalem was under the rule of the muslim "infidels" to convince the monarchs and warlords of christian europe to invade the Arabian Empire and try to retake the "holy land". The monarchs and warlords used the same message to inspire soldiers to enlist and to get peasants to be compliant even though they were being oppressed.
*More recently the KKK and many racist people in America baselessly used religion to justify their belief that they were more advanced and all around better than African Americans, the same tactic that was used by Adolf Hitler to justify the torture and massacre of millions of innocent civilians.
In all of these instances religion (namely Christianity) was used as an excuse for terrible and evil actions. So yes religion is not the reason wars start, but without religion some in fact most bloodshed would not be tolerated and would have been brought to a halt faster than it actually was. That is what I think Salim meant by his comment.
A comment on Conversation: What is the source of all this trouble?
A comment on Conversation: How could we use the fact we have seven senses to interpret our world and focus on social and economic issues as two sides of one coin.
On the other hand the set of morals that every human shares (with the exception of mentally disturbed people like psychopaths) Is definately important and is perhaps "sence" that has most contributed to the sucess of the human race. Our morals are what make us human which is why immoral actions are called inhumane.