Taijitu
Forum Meta => Archive => General Discussion Archive => Topic started by: Solnath on April 03, 2007, 07:34:00 PM
-
Some of you might consider this to be a trick question, but considering it seriously, would the world be a better place without violence in any of its known forms?
-
To quote his Majesty Napoléon I, Emperor of the French
" The currency of politics is power, and the greatest power lies in the ability to cause physical destruction. "
-
Yes, but it ain't gonna happen anytime soon and unfortunately there will always be certain extreme situations which call for some form of it.
-
Yes, however... well, see Prag. ^
Edit: I actually MEANT to click NO, but somehow in the process my mind got confused and clicked YES. Oh well... Violence should be used in the most dire of situations on the large scale (between nations). However, on a small scale (between people) it is inevitable. It is human nature to not agree with everyone. Primal instinct has us play-fight, just look at puppies or kittens or whatnot. They play to learn, and if one gets hurt, oh well, they learn to not do that. So YES, life without violence would be nice... but it won't ever happen.
-
"Who has a problem with me?"
"I do." BANG BANG! Two to the back of the head.
"I'll ask again. Who has a problem with me?"
No one says anything.
"Good, problem solved."
-
Violence is the force that keeps us human. If there were no violence we'd all be sitting in a circle watching Oprah and singing Kumbayah. And war is the highest, but most hellish, form of glory.
-
war is the highest, but most hellish, form of glory.
Um... are you serious Myrorian?
We must define violence to continue this discussion. I will use the Merriam-Webster Online dictionary as the basis for mine.
violence n.
1) a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse
b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure
c : responsibility for violence as defined in (a), deliberately, or through inaction
Violence is only useful to counter more violence. A world without violence would have no need for it.
An example of a case in which violence should be used is this one: http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=6161317 (http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=6161317)
We are human, and should behave as such; our ability to overcome our most primal instincts is what distinguishes us from animals. We lose our humanity through violence, unless it is justified in the way I suggested in the previous paragraph.
-
Who tends to be more respected in just about any country: A soldier or a hippie who throws rocks at soldiers?
Secondly, let's assume that Earth had no violence. Because it would have no violence, what if you get attacked in the woods by a bear? What would you do?
-
No war but class war!
-
@MHC...
My point was violence can be used to counter other violence. In your bear example it would of course be necessary to defend yourself.
And soldiers are respected because
1. They're willing to kill and die for their country
2. Most people desire their country to kill for a sense of superiority over other countries
Respect is invalid in this argument because we are dealing in hypotheticals.
-
"Who has a problem with me?"
"I do." BANG BANG! Two to the back of the head.
"I'll ask again. Who has a problem with me?"
No one says anything.
"Good, problem solved."
[/quote]
BANG BANG! Two to the back of the head.
oz says "I do..."
-
"Who has a problem with me?"
"I do." BANG BANG! Two to the back of the head.
"I'll ask again. Who has a problem with me?"
No one says anything.
"Good, problem solved."
BANG BANG! Two to the back of the head.
oz says "I do..."
Oz wins.
-
what would happen if there wasn't any violence?
there would be too many people, nothing interesting would happen and we wouldn't have any events at all. that's why violence is needed but killing people is a bit out of order. Nothing wrong with the Die Hard films though!! New Die Hard out in July
-
Remember, authority is violence.
-
Secondly, let's assume that Earth had no violence. Because it would have no violence, what if you get attacked in the woods by a bear? What would you do?
Present a well thought out argument as to why I shouldn't be eaten.
-
I, for one, heartily believe the world would be a better place if violence were to disappear. We do, of course, come to the immediate realization that it is unlikely if not impossible to eliminate it in its entirety (as voiced by Pragmia & Talmann).
I agree with Castavithius that human beings should attempt to curb our violent urges at the very least, if not squash them completely, as we are not mere animals incapable of denying our base instincts. Taking a vow of non-violence is an excellent way to begin, I think. As Ghandi says, "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."
what would happen if there wasn't any violence?
there would be too many people, nothing interesting would happen and we wouldn't have any events at all. that's why violence is needed but killing people is a bit out of order. Nothing wrong with the Die Hard films though!! New Die Hard out in July
You mean to say nothing is interesting that doesn't involve violence? Movies, books, music, painting, sculpture, theater, any of art's many forms... all boring, eh? Social interaction, contemplation, self discovery, family raising: worthless ways to spend your time? Inventions, historical milestones, great scientific discoveries, diplomatic conventions: not "events" worth mentioning?
Who tends to be more respected in just about any country: A soldier or a hippie who throws rocks at soldiers?
Secondly, let's assume that Earth had no violence. Because it would have no violence, what if you get attacked in the woods by a bear? What would you do?
I made the assumption that the question presumes human vs. human violence, but I could easily be incorrect. I've obviously no idea how Solnath intends it to be read.
-
I think the same drive that makes us violent, can also drive us to greatness. Would we have gone to the moon if we hadn't been trying to beat the Soviets? Plus, a lot of civilian technology originated with the military.
-
I think the same drive that makes us violent, can also drive us to greatness. Would we have gone to the moon if we hadn't been trying to beat the Soviets? Plus, a lot of civilian technology originated with the military.
In an odd way, I agree with you. There is no doubt the military and militaristic goals have led to a number of the biggest jumps in human science in the past. We can move beyond that, however. I just think we should harness our aggressive drive in a more constructive manner. Instead of doing great things to defeat someone else, do great things because you want to help people, advance the human race, learn, etc. There are so many reasons to pursue technological goals that don't involve hurting people or gaining dominance over them.
-
Secondly, let's assume that Earth had no violence. Because it would have no violence, what if you get attacked in the woods by a bear? What would you do?
The bear wouldn't attack you, because he wouldn't be able/willing to use violence either.
-
Gandhi is phull of phail.
-
Ghandi is overrated. He was only able to succeed only because two world wars had so weakened British military capacity that they were unable to respond with violence. Let's be honest; if the British hadn't been worn down by Hitler, Ghandi and his followers would have been mown down in the streets.
That said, I am against most types of violence.
Allama, I am against nation v. nation war because its function is to divide the working class. I am against person v. person violence because it is petty and ineffective in achieving the aims of the working class. I am against state v. person violence because its function is to intimidate the working class.
However, class warfare drives our society, and I am in full support of it. Its function is to increase class consciousness, and its end is the elimination of national violence, personal violence, and political repression. Without class on class violence, there would be no progress. National war is regresive; class war is sometimes progressive.
-
If the bear can't use violence, how can it eat? Killing plants is violence, on the smallest level. How are lions supposed to eat? If violence was to disappear, all order would fall apart. From the very discovery of fire we made it to scare off animals that were using violence against us. No violence = no humanity.
And yes, Gandhi is phull of phail. Men take what they want, not march on salt mines.
-
Seriously, Garth, I find your statements barbaric to say the least...
-
If the bear can't use violence, how can it eat? Killing plants is violence, on the smallest level. How are lions supposed to eat? If violence was to disappear, all order would fall apart. From the very discovery of fire we made it to scare off animals that were using violence against us. No violence = no humanity.
No violence = extinction of all species that rely on the consumption of others. Go green plants.
-
And certain protists and bacteria.
-
I see a clear distinction in those who voted and their differing outlooks on life. Interesting.
-
What do you mean specifically?
-
The ones who are in favor of violence are decidedly right-wing, while the opposite holds true for the non-violent.
-
This poll is badly worded. It's ambiguous, and it exercises in aboslutes.
For example, I would have to vote "no" in this poll because it includes all types of violence, and I support class warfare. However, Solnath might well mean person v. person violence, or state v. person violence, or state v. state violence, or a combination of all of them. We just don't know.
Which is why I haven't actually voted; I want Solnath to clarify what is meant by "violence."
A mantra of mine: when you don't know the answer, attack the question.
-
I agree. I would also have to vote no since war is a semi-good thing. Hitler got into power without violence, yet it was violence that brought him down.
-
All violence in any form.
-
I think the world couldn't exist without some form of violence. After all violence is force and force is used to survive. Be it the violence in killing another creature for food, or violence inflicted against an area to make it more convienent for people to live there. War makes sense on an evolutionary level because it is a kill off of the weak (or just the unlucky in many cases) and because it ignores the individual since that scale of logic does not support the perspective of the individual. On a person level it's a horrible attrocity because we can't see the larger picture, all we can see is smashed cities and empty spaces that used to be filled with friends and family.
I think as a society we could create a more balanced system and that with that more balanced system people would have more viable options before resorting to violence to resolve those problems. I believe (but as Socrates would say "Wisest is he who know he is not wise") that most people given a viable violent option and a viable non-violent option would choose the latter. As things stand right now a lot of people see things that they want (security, prosperity and all the various forms those concepts are expressed in) and they see no other way to get the things they want aside from taking them from someone else. We probably will never be a non-violent species but if we learnt to direct that violence in a more positive manner then maybe that'd lessen the rampant bullshit seen throughout our history.
-
I agree. I would also have to vote no since war is a semi-good thing. Hitler got into power without violence, yet it was violence that brought him down.
Just to play devil's advocate here, would Hitler have been half the monster he was if he had been unable to use violence as we are posing in our debate here? He'd never have been able to have his populace murdered and never have invaded Poland (or any other country, for that matter) as an army without violence would be ineffectual. He probably would have been exactly as awful a bigot and made all sorts of economic and social sanctions against the ethnic groups he hated, but would likely not have instigated a war.
Ghandi is overrated. He was only able to succeed only because two world wars had so weakened British military capacity that they were unable to respond with violence. Let's be honest; if the British hadn't been worn down by Hitler, Ghandi and his followers would have been mown down in the streets.
That said, I am against most types of violence.
Allama, I am against nation v. nation war because its function is to divide the working class. I am against person v. person violence because it is petty and ineffective in achieving the aims of the working class. I am against state v. person violence because its function is to intimidate the working class.
However, class warfare drives our society, and I am in full support of it. Its function is to increase class consciousness, and its end is the elimination of national violence, personal violence, and political repression. Without class on class violence, there would be no progress. National war is regresive; class war is sometimes progressive.
I don't believe Gandhi is overrated at all. How many people have the personal strength to lead a movement like he did? I don't value his wisdom simply because he was successful in his endeavors; that is almost a secondary point. I value it for its own sake. He had so much to say and so much to give to his community, it astounds me. I would respect him just as much if he and his followers had been "mown down" because they were fighting for a benevolent cause in a sanctified manner.
*WARNING* The following paragraph contains spiritual opinions that may be deemed offensive or just plain irregular. Pacifism tends to upset people. ???
That being said, I agree that class warfare often benefits society and makes the world a better place.1 However, I would not participate in it personally or support it in any way because I believe it would be damaging to my soul and to that of other people. Human beings do not have the right to make the decision to end another's life. No matter how wrong or "evil" someone is, they have a chance to change. It may not be bloody damn likely, but it can happen and they deserve that opportunity. The state of the body is temporary and if we must endure hardships here on Earth to keep from committing the greatest possible evil (i.e. killing people) I feel it is both necessary and worthwhile. I cannot help but place higher value on souls than on the condition of the world.2
However, I do sometimes sway from the black-and-white argument I just made. Sometimes killing one person (or a small number of people) can save the lives of many others and I am as yet unsure what I believe is right in such a situation. Probably neither course. To have the chance to rid the world of someone who causes much suffering and fail to take it seems wrong, but I cannot find it in my heart to condemn anyone to death. This is a moral quandary for me and I won't state an opinion on it as I do not yet have one. Any thoughts? I'm almost positive everyone will say it's okay to do it, but I'm curious.
Footnotes:
1Yes, I am a socialist. If we can find a way to make it work, the more communism we can work into our systems of government the better.
2This does not mean I am unconcerned with the state of the world or the Earthly human condition. Quite to the contrary, I believe it is our moral duty (and a personal desire) as members of the human race to improve the lives of others and end suffering however we can. You can find ways to help do that here (http://www.amnestyintenational.com).
-
I don't believe Gandhi is overrated at all. How many people have the personal strength to lead a movement like he did? I don't value his wisdom simply because he was successful in his endeavors; that is almost a secondary point. I value it for its own sake. He had so much to say and so much to give to his community, it astounds me. I would respect him just as much if he and his followers had been "mown down" because they were fighting for a benevolent cause in a sanctified manner.
But the point is to make change, not to feel good about the change that might have been made. Gandhi (sic) was a political genious to utilize the moment when his enemies were weak, when he could implement his program without fear of violent reprisal. However, his effect on world movements for change has been overal destructive. People try to apply his formula for change to situations where the State is able to respond with violence. Consequently, they are unable to effect change, and some of our best minds become little more than martyrs. The only practical lesson we can learn from Gandhi is to wait for our moment, seize it, and don't let it go.
And let's look at Mohandas' primary disciples: Martin and Mandela. Martin (Luther King Junior, obviously) was able to pull off nonviolence only because the United States was engaged in a cold diplomatic war, and not passing certain legislation could have seriously harmed the United States' image in the former colonies. Without the passage of the Civil Rights Act, we would probably have seen a few more Cubas, a few more Angolas, a few more Vietnams in this world; the Act was PR for the United States government. Nothing more.
Mandela used the same situation. At the time he was active, South African troops were repressing national liberation movements in Namibia, as well as engaging MPLA and Cuban forces in Angola. This same situation was what allowed the Bantustans to gain federal status in the first place; South Africa was simply too busy.
*WARNING* The following paragraph contains spiritual opinions that may be deemed offensive or just plain irregular. Pacifism tends to upset people. ???
That being said, I agree that class warfare often benefits society and makes the world a better place.1 However, I would not participate in it personally or support it in any way because I believe it would be damaging to my soul and to that of other people. Human beings do not have the right to make the decision to end another's life. No matter how wrong or "evil" someone is, they have a chance to change. It may not be bloody damn likely, but it can happen and they deserve that opportunity. The state of the body is temporary and if we must endure hardships here on Earth to keep from committing the greatest possible evil (i.e. killing people) I feel it is both necessary and worthwhile. I cannot help but place higher value on souls than on the condition of the world.2
There are many ways to participate in class warfare. One of the easiest and most effective is the general strike. Now, this is supposed to be similar to Gandhi's program of nonviolent direct action, but what actually happens is that the State intervenes with military force. What began as direct action at the point of production (yes, I :wb: IWW) ends either with a general bloodbath, or with the strikers defending themselves. Class warfare doesn't have to start out violent; in a very few cases, it may progress without violence. However, the class in power often makes it violent, and I believe that the working class has the right and duty to defend itself. To follow your example, the people in power make the decision to end peoples' lives; defending your life against such aggression is what makes class war successful. Otherwise, you just get martyrs.
That being said, it could be argued that the system of production itself constitutes a war upon the working class, which should resist it by any means necessary.
However, I do sometimes sway from the black-and-white argument I just made. Sometimes killing one person (or a small number of people) can save the lives of many others and I am as yet unsure what I believe is right in such a situation. Probably neither course. To have the chance to rid the world of someone who causes much suffering and fail to take it seems wrong, but I cannot find it in my heart to condemn anyone to death. This is a moral quandary for me and I won't state an opinion on it as I do not yet have one. Any thoughts? I'm almost positive everyone will say it's okay to do it, but I'm curious.
If you're using violence in self-defense, and you by some chance kill your attacker, does it not follow that it was the attacker who condemned himself to death? Just as the bourgeoisie forges the weapons that will destroy it, an aggressor condemns himself, eventually, to be the victim of somebody who strikes back. I'm not posting anymore, as this post is long enough as it is.
-
But the point is to make change, not to feel good about the change that might have been made. Gandhi (sic) was a political genious to utilize the moment when his enemies were weak, when he could implement his program without fear of violent reprisal. However, his effect on world movements for change has been overal destructive. People try to apply his formula for change to situations where the State is able to respond with violence. Consequently, they are unable to effect change, and some of our best minds become little more than martyrs. The only practical lesson we can learn from Gandhi is to wait for our moment, seize it, and don't let it go.
I agree that the point is to effect positive change; that is not what I was contesting. I was simply defending the fact that the movement would have a been a good purpose and Gandhi's vision would have been no less valid had it failed.
There are many ways to participate in class warfare. One of the easiest and most effective is the general strike. Now, this is supposed to be similar to Gandhi's program of nonviolent direct action, but what actually happens is that the State intervenes with military force. What began as direct action at the point of production (yes, I :wb: IWW) ends either with a general bloodbath, or with the strikers defending themselves. Class warfare doesn't have to start out violent; in a very few cases, it may progress without violence. However, the class in power often makes it violent, and I believe that the working class has the right and duty to defend itself. To follow your example, the people in power make the decision to end peoples' lives; defending your life against such aggression is what makes class war successful. Otherwise, you just get martyrs.
I wouldn't condemn non-violent measures to improve the balance of the classes, as it were. Strikes can be quite effective, even when the bourgeoisie squash them. Don't take martyrdom too lightly; often it's those groups that inspire others to greater action and get the message across that people won't stand for an injustice.
If you're using violence in self-defense, and you by some chance kill your attacker, does it not follow that it was the attacker who condemned himself to death? Just as the bourgeoisie forges the weapons that will destroy it, an aggressor condemns himself, eventually, to be the victim of somebody who strikes back.
In a direct self-defense situation where someone is being attacked I would say the best thing to do is attempt to save yourself without killing the attacker. This is, of course, not always possible and I have yet to formalize an opinion on this matter as well. One must be willing to shift one's position even if it is difficult to reconcile with one's convictions. Personally, I would not defend myself if it meant killing another person. Death would then be my choice. I cannot, however, say for certain that it would be wrong for others to choose a different path.
-
I am generally against violence in most of it's forms but I would use violence in defence and I do belive I would even go as far as killing someone who threaten my personal security or that of those I love without hesitation, I might also go so far as to kill in vengance if someone I love is hurt intentionally by anyone.
-
And war is the highest, but most hellish, form of glory.
:o :trout:
:drunks:
-
^that's just the kind of bullshit someone who hasn't seen the true face of modern warfare says, there is nothing glorious about war, it's just mud, blood, pain, death, fear and shit...
-
Who was talking about modern warfare? Bring back hoplites and war elephants!
-
^that's just the kind of bullshit someone who hasn't seen the true face of modern warfare says, there is nothing glorious about war, it's just mud, blood, pain, death, fear and shit...
Very true. Warfare has always been a brutal thing, much less of a romantic struggle between good and evil than it is so often painted as, but modern warfare has abandoned even the pretense of honor or glory. Individual skill or honor is much less valued by the "powers that be" than it once was, as it is often nearly irrelevant to the outcome of a conflict. It's all about how many people you can blow up with one weapon, or how much of a chemical agent you need to "neutralize" the opposition. Killing civilians used to be a horrible crime, but now they're thought of as necessary casualties, even if you kill more bystanders than soldiers. Beating the other side into total submission is the name of the game, and no one gives a rat's ass how you do it if you win.
"It has always been a mystery to me how men can feel themselves honored by the humiliation of their fellow beings."
-
And also, in modern warfare, most troops are nothing but cannon-fodder and mop-up crews, artillery in the form of howizers, mortars, missiles or close air support is what does the difference, and there is nothing glourious with being cut in half by a spinning 10lb shard of glowing artillery-shell or getting your lower body ripped to shreds by a land-mine
-
Agreed. Most countries say they respect and value their soldiers, but little do the people realize how they're being used in battle. We seem to favor the "throw a bunch of men at them and hope not as many of ours die in the explosions" method.
-
Right, not like that's ever happened before...if anything soldiers do get more respect now. Do you see lines of American soldiers marching blindly into a storm of militant fire? Or hordes of thousands of men running at each other and hacking themselves to pieces? (á la Braveheart).
Sure, its a different kind of warfare now, but they sure as hell lost more men in WWI ("over the top, lads!"), were waves of men were cut down, and thousands of soldiers where sent to their deaths. At least now there are reports of men dying at the worst in the dozen, not to the thousand.
But, yes, there are more civilian casualties now - oh wait, did I mention men of the mighty Hezbollah hide in schools full of children?
-
The World Wars are usually considered to be "modern wars" and I believe we were including them in our discussion.
-
The World Wars are usually considered to be "modern wars" and I believe we were including them in our discussion.
Oh. My bad. Well, the same tactic was used in the American Wars of Independence, American & English Civil Wars etc...so just substitute it for those. ;D
-
Oh. My bad. Well, the same tactic was used in the American Wars of Independence, American & English Civil Wars etc...so just substitute it for those. ;D
No worries! You are right that the cannon-fodder mentality has always existed, of course. I just think it's been tinged with more of a lackadaisical "if our men get caught in the line of fire, too bad" attitude in the past century, with less value and appreciation placed on individual lives. As weapons of mass destruction (God, I hate that term now) become the tactic-of-choice around the world we kill on a much grander scale.
-
Oh. My bad. Well, the same tactic was used in the American Wars of Independence, American & English Civil Wars etc...so just substitute it for those. ;D
No worries! You are right that the cannon-fodder mentality has always existed, of course. I just think it's been tinged with more of a lackadaisical "if our men get caught in the line of fire, too bad" attitude in the past century, with less value and appreciation placed on individual lives. As weapons of mass destruction (God, I hate that term now) become the tactic-of-choice around the world we kill on a much grander scale.
Agreed. But surely, if WMDs are only used as deterrents, they may in fact be saving soldiers having to fight (pull out of said country, or we'll nuke your ass). Therefore, perhaps it could be said that in some wacky, zaney way WMDs prevent violence?
-
If you consider slaughtering civilians to save your own soldiers "preventing violence", yes. Yes it can. :-P
But I jest (sort of). I know you probably meant threatening to use them. The problem with that is that you cannot make military threats you aren't willing to go through with, so you do have to be willing to kill innocents to use WMD's as a threat.
In all seriousness, in warfare how many armies actually use WMD's as deterrents only? How many bombs has the U.S. alone dropped on other countries? We don't even have to talk about anything recent, just look at all the bomber planes everyone had flying around in WWII. If we have it, we'll use it.
-
Uh-huh.
*Thinks back to Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within Zeus cannon killing Gaia*
At any rate, I don't mean to go off topic (sorry Sol) but, something that gets me really worked up is when people say to me, "We'll, its totally unfair that we don't let anyone else have nuclear bombs/missiles."
Well, you have to ask WHY you would let a country like Iran develop said weapons. I think the U.S. (not solely but most frequently) is justified in denying countries like Iran obtain nuclear weapons - for a nation that is unstable and wants to wipe Israel of the face of the Earth, why the hell would you let them have such awesome power at their disposal?
I also hear the term 'World Police' thrown about as well - and if being World Police means keeping nuclear weapons from manic religious nutcases like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who want to destroy the 'infidels', then so be it.
/End Rant.
-
Meh, going off-topic doesn't annoy me at all. You are having a decent discussion anyway. But I must detest, ever since the Cold War ended and nuclear weapons began finding their way into various factions' hands, things have gone from bad to worse. Hopefully, when some of the minor league players blows up Tel Aviv, people will wake up to see the reality of the threat. At least after the US nukes the shit out of Iran or the likes.
-
Well, problem with Iran is that they could hand of their nuclear devices to a terrorist entity or the like free of any formal ties to a state, and thus there would be no target for a retaliatory nuclear strike, voiding MAD. Now that is something to worry about.
-
^that's just the kind of bullshit someone who hasn't seen the true face of modern warfare says, there is nothing glorious about war, it's just mud, blood, pain, death, fear and shit...
Agreed.
(that was the reason I had to quote it) O:-)
-
While I agree with the statement that modern warfare has lost the romanticism that it used to have, I still stand by this quote.
" Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori. "
-
well, only as long as it's purely defence, as in on your country's OWN, undisputed soil.
-
Well, hopefully the future will be like Hellgate London, where humans run around in armour fighting demons. That's much more romantic then nuclear war, but just as destructive. Its a win win situation! Bring on the demons!
-
I don't want it to be like that. I want to be able to enter and exit buildings. :P
-
Uh-huh.
*Thinks back to Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within Zeus cannon killing Gaia*
At any rate, I don't mean to go off topic (sorry Sol) but, something that gets me really worked up is when people say to me, "We'll, its totally unfair that we don't let anyone else have nuclear bombs/missiles."
Well, you have to ask WHY you would let a country like Iran develop said weapons. I think the U.S. (not solely but most frequently) is justified in denying countries like Iran obtain nuclear weapons - for a nation that is unstable and wants to wipe Israel of the face of the Earth, why the hell would you let them have such awesome power at their disposal?
I also hear the term 'World Police' thrown about as well - and if being World Police means keeping nuclear weapons from manic religious nutcases like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who want to destroy the 'infidels', then so be it.
/End Rant.
Out of curiosity ... would you feel safe as Iran, with America having the nuclear bomb? The only nation so far who actually used it to wipe out 2 cities (not military camps or such, but cities) and who just recently invaded a neighboring country, under the pretense of it having WMD and links to Al Kaida? Both being claims, which so far have been seen to be well let's say it nicely ... a bit of a misunderstanding?
Oh and don't confuse a fundamentalistic, religious Government with an unstable one. Not being democratic may seem odd for some people in our beloved western world, but it doesn't necessarily make you a) evil b) unstable or c) loose you your rights to use atomic energy in a civil way, which is even granted in the NPT. You could argue, that since most of the United Nations are behind it, the Iran should just give in and accept it, but well America is the country which openly denies the right of the International Court of Justice in Den Haag (which is the United Nations court) to judge on possible warcrimes commited by US Soldiers.
So I guess you could say, from the viewpoint of the Iran and several other nations in this world, at least America should be one of the nations to give up their WMD too, cause they have certainly shown their willingness to use them and not to care to much about what the United Nations think.
Apart from that and back on topic, hmm sure violence had it's benefits, but praising them is a bit macabre. I don't think the inventions made during war, especially during the two worldwars have really been worth all the suffering, the pain and millions of dead people. Just imagine all the lives lost, all the brilliant minds killed, all the energy and ressources wasted... no I can't bring myself to see something good in it. Our short lifespan in combination with a certain arrogance, curiosity and the will to excel, to be important, is enough to further scientific development.
A world without violence would be better, because I think it's one of the things holding us back, cause why develop, why be civilized, if in the end we can solve all problems by falling back to the most primitive of all means. Just overpower and subdue everyone who thinks differently and if they still are stubborn kill them.
-
^ missed the point. No violence, no humans. :-P
-
sorry to be late to this thread but as a person who gains sexual/intellectual/physical satisfaction from violence i support it fully. without violence we wouldn't have BDSM, martial arts, nifty boots, character building experiences and many technologies. violence like many good things is great in moderation. also violence is one of the main driving forces of evolution and personal drive.
-
Well, I belive one has to separate consentual and non-consentual violence, the main variety that has been discussed here is the latter, wich is completely unnessessary no matter what, period.
-
but it prods advancement at a proper rate.
-
I know I would choose a world without non-consentual violence at the cost of slightly slower technological development any day.
-
So you'd rather live shorter as long as you're sitting in a circle singing Kumbayah?
-
Pretty much, yeah, I'd rather die of natural causes at 45 or 50 than living to 85 knowing that thousands of innocents, children, old and adults alike dying or suffering from senseless violence wich can ALWAYS be traced to greed or envy in the end.
Still, this is the only life I have and as such, I will use it to help as many as I can to reach the same living standards and to try to work to stop the spreading of hate and violence.
-
you make violence sound like an STD.
-
Non-consentual violence is worse than an STD imo.
(Though I don't see any problem with consentual violence as in S/M as that isn't any form of tresspass against anyone's personal integrity.)
-
Violence and dominance is the nature of man.
-
^ that's just BS violence and dominance is only the consequenses of greed, and as the thing that makes us human and differentiates us from animals is that we are able to place ourseves above our "nature" then actually only people who denounce violence can be defined as humans, the rest of us are just savage beasts regardless of how fancy gadgets we can use...
-
The reason we are higher than beasts is because of violence. If anything, those that realise violence is a necessary evil are more human than the utopists who want none.
And I sure as hell would rather live to be 80 and know there's violence. It's not against me or my friends and family, so why should I care?
-
Then I think we can agree to disagree, and frankly, you are so selfish that you disgust me Garth
-
I think the world would be fantastic if it was completely without violence. This does not make me a pacifist, because I think violence is necessary in this world to defend oneself against violence. But if the concept of violence, even among animals, did not exist... well we might have more people and more epidemics, but all the big population booms happened nine months after the soldiers left and nine months after they came home, right?
-
:D :clap: lol :clap: :D
-
"selfish that you disgust me Garth"
You are just as selfish to want to deprive every soldier of a job, and halt humanity's progress so you can go your life without knowing what violence is or how much it's needed.
-
Um...soldiers can find other jobs, and I don't see how in all of good creation you need violence for the progress of humanity. Indeed, violence often holds back that progress. Pretty hard to build a society when it keeps getting blown up.
-
violence is a nesictiy in life just like taking a crap and wanting to eat
-
Nearly every ancient invention came as a result of wanting to kill enemies. If it wasn't for the ancients, who would we be? Not to mention that the soldiers can't get jobs when the technological progress that makes jobs isn't there.
-
Now you are just being stupid Garth...
also, aren't you supposed to be christian? If so, where is the love of life and of your next?
-
Eh? Since when haven't other animals been violent? Excessive violence is a human thing, that's certain, but we only do it because for two main reasons:
1) We want more stuff!
People just can't stick to what they have, gotta have more, more, more. So what if it causes others misery? It's not us.
2) It's fun!
We like seeing others suffer. Gives us the feeling of power, like we have some significance in our lives. (Read: compensation.)
From these we can derive the third and possibly most frequent reason people kill people: Someone told them to. Whether it's God or government or the voices in one's head, how many times a person has just decided: "Shit, I'll go pop some caps in some asses"? Quite a few, but nowhere near the amount of ordered frags.
So if violence defines humanity, we're superior to animals because... we're dicks with small dicks.
God, I hope not. But maybe that's what separates some of us here from animals. With me, well, I'll go with the diversities in cultures, languages and sciences. And as for violence being the main driving force for science? BS, laziness prevails a hundred to none.
Why would better weapons have been developed if not for the sake of easiness? Shooting someone is easier - not to mention safer - than stabbing them, stabbing is safer than beating them. Bombing them with a nuke is easier and in the beginning a lot safer than actually bothering going to war at all.
Of the "main" inventions in human history, another example could be the wheel. Look at how lazy the guy (or girl, for those of you who don't value some healthy chauvinistic bias) who developed that was! Instead of wanting to carry stuff a mile or two on his back like other decent people of the time did, what did this guy/girl do? S/he made a wagon and pushed his/her stuff in it!
I was going to deduce from this that laziness is what separates us from animals, but that's not true:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Choloepus_hoffmanni.jpg)
Sloths beat humans easily in that subject. But what does separate us is the extent we're willing to go relax and be lazy and because we've strived to be more and more lazy for such a long time, we've created a society that's forgotten its original function and even though it still, subconciously, aims for that goal, the people in it have forgotten the essentials of it. Most probably the cavemen friends of the wheel-man/woman scorned him/her because s/he was lazy, just because they didn't appreciate the evolutionary and cultural value that individual had brought out to them.
So chill. My own thread so I'm allowed to side-track a bit. Violence is just one mean of reaching the aforementioned destination that can nay be reached, and a pretty childish one at such, because there are no real reasons to hurt one another. It's all in your head and if it in fact is there, well, have fun in the shallow end.
[/rant]
-
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :drunks: :clap: :clap: :drunks: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: ;D :clap:
-
I suspect the wheel was really invented because some caveman realized he could carry more clubs and stones in a wagon than he could by hand. :P
-
I suspect the wheel was really invented because some caveman realized he could carry more clubs and stones in a wagon than he could by hand. :P
Still laziness, Rom.
-
So chill. My own thread so I'm allowed to side-track a bit. Violence is just one mean of reaching the aforementioned destination that can nay be reached, and a pretty childish one at such, because there are no real reasons to hurt one another. It's all in your head and if it in fact is there, well, have fun in the shallow end.
The whole post was golden, but that part made you my hero.
-
beyond the fact the human race is the most guilty factor for extinction of other species, we also extinct ourselves as destroying cultures and such. I guess the most hurt are the true americans, 1st they get hit by the spanish who destroys theire culture, kills the most and enslaves the spared ones (most of the spanish that enslaved the conquered people were seeing as 'heroes of human rights'...the portuguese tried to enslave the tribes on the amazon, but since they didnt want to work, only sit and stare around, they just gave up. they had more hard working and cheaper slavering coming from Africa.
As following, the native americans splattered around what is now USA were then slaughtered by the americans for some more time.
Happens same thing at Africa, mostly held by the portuguese, we were masters of slave trading (horrible thing to be proud of), was then bought or stole by the English, turning those places in true english colonies, where they would spend their vacation exploiting the mines. Look at South Africa and tell me it's the same as the rest of Africa and i'll tell you'r insane. Same goes for India when colonized by the english, Indians play cricket? this is similar with something..japanese play baseball? oo right, Hiroshima and Nagazaki, and the fall of the Japanese emperor. I can say japan is one of the most prosper countries iw ould like to live on, they had 2 atomic blasts, so i guess destruction makes people smarter, EU prooves that..although their culture was severely hit during that time...poor guys, where are the samurais now? grown 4arms on the torso and have like 10 eyes around the head for atomic mutations? lol
Among other examples, we like to destroy, and the most we'r destroyed, the more smart we become..nice rule heh? i dont apply that rule to 9/11 somehow..theres no proof of it.