Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: War and Humanity

  1. Top | #11
    Senior Member OLDMAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    NB
    Posts
    657
    Archived
    2,107
    Total Posts
    2,764
    Rep Power
    44
    People don't fight wars....nations do. It's not like 200 million Russians rise up against 350 million Americans. We are trapped by our own invented system. But go ahead and feel free to denounce all the citizen ships of the world. Don't pay your taxes or stand for the anthems and see what happens to you.

  2. Top | #12
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    10,776
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    28,989
    Rep Power
    53
    OLDMAN splits the hair joins famous splitters of basic units. Humans fight wars. National sentiments are responsible for causing them.

  3. Top | #13
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The North
    Posts
    9,111
    Archived
    9,514
    Total Posts
    18,625
    Rep Power
    45
    Conflict is a necessity in a world with limited resources. A species evolving in such world will be adapted to that reality. Even in a robust economy people compete: jobs, resources, relationships, housing yadda yadda

    You can't extricate conflict from a species that has a survival and reproductive imperative.

  4. Top | #14
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,210
    Rep Power
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by rousseau View Post
    Conflict is a necessity in a world with limited resources. A species evolving in such world will be adapted to that reality. Even in a robust economy people compete: jobs, resources, relationships, housing yadda yadda

    You can't extricate conflict from a species that has a survival and reproductive imperative.
    Again, war is only one way to resolve a conflict. Indeed, it does not actually resolve the conflict, that happens at the negotiation table. All the killing is so that one side will have an advantage at said table. Let's not glorify that particular negotiating strategy - slaugtering innocent bystanders, that is - beyond its honestly earned merit.

  5. Top | #15
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The North
    Posts
    9,111
    Archived
    9,514
    Total Posts
    18,625
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by rousseau View Post
    Conflict is a necessity in a world with limited resources. A species evolving in such world will be adapted to that reality. Even in a robust economy people compete: jobs, resources, relationships, housing yadda yadda

    You can't extricate conflict from a species that has a survival and reproductive imperative.
    Again, war is only one way to resolve a conflict. Indeed, it does not actually resolve the conflict, that happens at the negotiation table. All the killing is so that one side will have an advantage at said table. Let's not glorify that particular negotiating strategy - slaugtering innocent bystanders, that is - beyond its honestly earned merit.
    War is one method of conflict resolution. Any sane person will obviously advocate against it's use, problem being the bolded - people are at best selfish, at worst sociopathic.

  6. Top | #16
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    24,128
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    120,880
    Rep Power
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by rousseau View Post
    Conflict is a necessity in a world with limited resources. A species evolving in such world will be adapted to that reality. Even in a robust economy people compete: jobs, resources, relationships, housing yadda yadda

    You can't extricate conflict from a species that has a survival and reproductive imperative.
    Again, war is only one way to resolve a conflict. Indeed, it does not actually resolve the conflict, that happens at the negotiation table. All the killing is so that one side will have an advantage at said table. Let's not glorify that particular negotiating strategy - slaugtering innocent bystanders, that is - beyond its honestly earned merit.
    War is actually a subclass of a more general case--the use of force.

    At it's most basic level you can't take it off the table, it's part of most negotiations--although often in the form of calling the cops if the negotiating tactics break the law. The fact that the cops would be called in many cases pushes the actual use of force almost completely out of the picture, but it's still the threat of force that causes this. (For example, slavery. An employer can't just grab someone and chain them to a machine and expect to get away with it. Only the potential use of force stops the scumbags from doing this.)

  7. Top | #17
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    21,362
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    31,839
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by rousseau View Post
    Conflict is a necessity in a world with limited resources. A species evolving in such world will be adapted to that reality. Even in a robust economy people compete: jobs, resources, relationships, housing yadda yadda

    You can't extricate conflict from a species that has a survival and reproductive imperative.
    Again, war is only one way to resolve a conflict. Indeed, it does not actually resolve the conflict, that happens at the negotiation table. All the killing is so that one side will have an advantage at said table. Let's not glorify that particular negotiating strategy - slaugtering innocent bystanders, that is - beyond its honestly earned merit.
    War is actually a subclass of a more general case--the use of force.

    At it's most basic level you can't take it off the table, it's part of most negotiations--although often in the form of calling the cops if the negotiating tactics break the law. The fact that the cops would be called in many cases pushes the actual use of force almost completely out of the picture, but it's still the threat of force that causes this. (For example, slavery. An employer can't just grab someone and chain them to a machine and expect to get away with it. Only the potential use of force stops the scumbags from doing this.)
    There are a number of highly dubious assumptions here. Force is generally not on the table, unless you are dealing with psychopaths. Of course, psycopathy is not rare, so some negotiations can be expected to involve them. But most don't.

    Your mischaracterizing of psychopaths as 'scumbags' doesn't help either - it's based in your commonly expressed but false belief that there are 'good guys' and 'bad guys', and that this dichotomy is a useful one. It's not.

    Ultimately you are making the same argument that the religious nutters do, when they say 'without God, what's to stop people from raping and murdering whenever they feel like it?'.

    You simply replace 'God' with 'violence or the threat of violence'. But the vast majority of people need neither Gods nor violence in order to behave in a civilized and moral fashion. Indeed, apart from the mentally ill, everyone acts according to his morality in a way that they consider 'good'.

    Without the threat of violence (or hell), I rape and kill as much as I want - and the amount I want is 'none at all'.

    There are not 'good guys' and 'bad guys', there are just people who share your moral framework, and people who have a different moral framework. Within their own framework, everyone (apart from the mentally ill) is one of the 'good guys'.

    And in a civilized society, very few people need the threat of violence to prevent them from gross violations of the golden rule. What you perceive as 'bad guys' are people who either set their priorities differently from you - and as a result choose to punish moral transgressions that you do not recognize as immoral; Or who are misinformed, and as a result choose to punish behaviours that they falsely believe to breach their personal moral code.

    Most violence and crime is perceived by the perpetrator as either punitive, or self defence.

    Even slavers resolve the moral question of whether it's OK to "just grab someone and chain them to a machine" by first establishing the firm belief that the slaves are not 'someone'. Animals are not entitled to the same protection as humans, so by declaring your victims to be non-human or sub-human, you can justify enslaving them. Nobody enslaves someone simply because nobody threatened to use violence to stop them.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 128
    Last Post: 05-16-2016, 05:14 PM
  2. I weep for humanity
    By bilby in forum Miscellaneous Discussions
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 01-02-2016, 06:31 PM
  3. Cards Against Humanity
    By ZiprHead in forum Freethought Humor
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-03-2015, 09:56 PM
  4. 5000 Gods worshipped by humanity
    By Questions in forum General Religion
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 10-22-2014, 08:15 PM
  5. ISIS, TMNT and other crimes against humanity.
    By Duke Leto in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-10-2014, 05:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •