War

From WikiWorld

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Why is it?

War is a useless, immoral and destructive human activity.

Revolution is honorable when it is necessary to secure ones freedom. Yet, most often, passive resistance and international pressure work much better than killing people in winning a revolution.

The only thing good war has ever achieved is to halt aggression. But even here it has failed miserably. War creates cycles of unending retaliation, it does not end aggression.

Because of HumanAnimals

Because humans are aggressive. War is not immoral. War is HumanAnimals competing in the fiercest way against other HumanAnimals.

To claim 'ANYTHING' is immoral is to imply that your viewpoint has an exclusive insight into the Greater Right and that is diametrically opposed, Jim, to your viewpoint that the WE is always right. The vast WE of humanity supports War. WE believe in using violence to get our way when someone else is too stupid to cooperate, and therefore denies us our way. WE always devolve back to MightMakesRight in the end.

War is one SocialCollective's PoliceForce struggling against another SocialCollective's PoliceForce. So long as we continue to have our own minds and viewpoints, there will be clashes between viewpoints. So long as we are physical beings, some of those clashes will be made manifest in the physical world. When it is a police officer acting as a PoliceForce to remove a criminal, we are happy. Is the criminal? No. That being is living by their own viewpoint, same as anyone else. One SocialCollective has decided to act as CooperativeBullies to be able to do something physically to negatively reinforce their viewpoint onto the criminal. And you know how well that is believed to work.

When there are two or more groups (a band of cops versus a band of criminals), that then becomes War. War is collective versus collective.

If you think there is a difference between your local police force fighting with your local organized crime and one country's army versus another, you are mistaken. Only the scale is different. But the scale makes no difference to the innocent bystander that dies from a stray bullet, whether in a shoot out between the police and a mobster, or due to a bomb fragment going further then expected from the place it was dropped. Dead is dead.

---StarPilot


Violence is not the way

StarPilot makes a pretty large assertion: "WE believe in using violence to get our way when someone else is to stupid to cooperate. . . " I think that a majority of my friends and family would assert that violence is not the optimal path. What happens when things scale, and violence ends up being used more often. Why are our wishes to be non violent not heard? -- MarkDilley


War is conflict

StarPilot is right. When you think about it, it just matters on the amount of people. If you have one person dying from another person firing a shot, is that any different than 1000 people dying from another 1000 people firing shots? You just increase the numbers of army members... and you have more casualties on the other side. --KenSchry


War is still wrong

War is still wrong. Killing anyone is wrong. Collective murdering collective is wrong. We must celebrate and foster our diversity not destroy it. I

War has been necessary for self defense, and defense of the free world. It need not be necessary any longer. Already war is almost pointless, should we stand united against it, it have no allure or hope of benefit by it.

There is an important difference between a police action and a vigilante mob. Although at times the result might be the same, the vigilantes are antisocial in the larger scope. The nature of war is antisocial, while the police actions are social. I am not saying that police actions are always any better than vigilante actions but their nature is different. Police action is based on our SocialContract and balance of power. War is not.

Of course!

'Of course' we are not justifying war. War 'is' bad, killing 'is' bad. Whaddya thing we are, crazy? It just matters the scope you are looking at it, I am talking about the scale, you are talking about the action.

Outdated thinking

The US is setting its sites on Iran even before the result of the Iraq war is determined. The more enemies we make the more countries we will have to attack. As always with war, this conflict will lead to more retaliation and more war.

In the 18th century most everyone believed that slavery was a necessary evil. In the 19th century, however, slavery was eliminated. Similarly, those who support war as a means of resolving disputes now will become obsolete in this century. We can only pray that it happens before we wipe each other out.

War is the WE making up its mind

Incorrect. Slavery is still legal in Africa, Asia, and parts of the Middle East. It is not even considered an 'evil'. Merely getting some use out of an otherwise ignorant, unworthy of life, hairless ape.

Slavery is also still practiced elsewhere. There are several forms of slavery that are still legal, and there are several more forms that are practiced, even here in the enlightened states.

The further you get from the enlightened states, the closer you get to masses of people living on the edge, the more savage and narrow sighted people become.

The only time War will not exist is when no more then 1 person of the Human race is left alive, anywhere. Then, War will be no more. Unless we've taught it to our inorganic descendants...

Either one or more people acting to force others to act in a manner they choose is right, or it is wrong. Police are needed to negatively enforce upon criminals their own will (and make no mistake, it is the police force's will and no others).

Vigilantism is a cleaner form of collective enforcement, because the entire community is doing it. Otherwise, it is just a conflict between two individuals/groups.

War is not needed to destroy all of mankind. One human can do that, with the will and a bit of knowledge. War is completely unnecessary for one person to create mass destruction and extinction. To think that a War is going to cause our own extinction is very ColdWar, and very early 20th Century. Religious extremists, out to make sure that the prophesied end of time comes about are more likely. A really ticked off psychopath is more likely. But never from those collectives that still play at formalized War will not. That is because it isn't in their interest.

Remember. There is no evil. There is no wrong. There is merely a difference of opinion in the collective of WE on the best way to handle situations. As individual members of the WE, we may feel that such an action or activity is the purest form of evil there is, but that is just our individual opinion. One not supported by the WE.

War is merely one of the more apparent processes of the WE in deciding which opinion is the stronger weighted opinion.

---StarPilot


Slavery Bad! Vigilantism Bad!

'Slavery is no longer accepted as necessary to the human condition. You miss the point totally.'

'Vigilantism is NOT the entire community, I suppose it could be, but usually it is just a small mob of thugs or angry people, sometimes a mob, but not the entire community. As a whole community we agree that vigilantism is a crime and prosecute those who practice it.'

'I will not align myself with any WE that does not admit that war and slavery are EVIL'

'There is no bases for collaboration unless you have a SocialContract. Our SocialContract must defend humankind from slavery and war. Otherwise I want no part of it.'

'Just as slavery is no longer acceptable to civilized people, so war will be not acceptable in the future if we have the guts to admit that some things are wrong by nature including slavery, war and destruction of our planet. If we lack the moral character to admit that these are wrong and stand of the side that stands against such evil, we are humans lacking humanity. We are barbarians. We are born too late. The future despises such evil which robs humans of their inalienable rights. We should choose to be part of that future and not act like barbarians. -- JimScarver'


Have you checked the WE?

Time for you to punch out then, Jim. Because the WE accepts slavery, War, and the destruction of the planet as necessary states to its status quo. By living in this world and participating in our society, you support it as well. That's why it's time for you to punch out. If you don't, you are participating in those events. From the products you buy, to the shows you watch or listen to, to even using the net, it all supports our world, and most of the world is a horrid, barbaric place by your standards.

Slavery is practiced, today, legally, in over half the people of the world. You support that slavery every day you participate in the global economy, as their labor is used to collect and process resources that eventually end up in products in our global economy.

It's considered necessary to those people. You are all about consensus. THE MAJORITY OF THE WORLD DISAGREES WITH YOU. That means they are right, and you are wrong. Remember? That's CollectiveIntelligence.

You are completely off. You can decry that it shouldn't be that way, and that you believe that we should be beyond it. But you cannot invoke morality on the issue. This is the site that you have established that the morality is that of the Collective. The Collective says slavery is morally acceptable. If it wasn't morally acceptable, then the Collective wouldn't be doing it, and wouldn't support it. Not passively, as you are whenever you are participating in the global economy. And not actively, as practiced in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Russia, Europe.

Pull your self-righteous head out of your ass and look around. Trace back every product you use, and all their labor sources, and you will find that out of every dollar you spend, a portion of that goes back to those practicing slavery. Our world society practices slavery, and by participating in the world society, you participate and support it.

You've got a few choices left open to you about this:

  • Retreat from society, and live off the wild unclaimed land. (You cannot live off any owned land, not even governmental, as that land is owned by a participant in the world society, so you are still living off the enslaved sweat of others.)
  • Kill yourself. Once your processing is finalized, you will stop actively being a member of the world society, and no longer contribute to the enslavement of your fellow HumanAnimal.
  • Be a hypocrite. You can go on denouncing it, claiming there is some form of JimScarverExclusiveRight over the HumanCollective (very anti this site, and your own statements here, you know), and do nothing else. Then you are still an active participant in the support, and indeed further encouraging it.
  • Be an AntiSocial hypocrite. This is similar to normal hypocrite, but in this case, you are doing what you can to help aggravate the status quo in an effort to bring about some form of change.
  • Decide to ignore it all, and put your head back up your ass.

You've stated before you cannot just go off and live by yourself. So that leaves off being a hermit on unclaimed land. Just as well, the only officially unclaimed land is Antarctica. Hard living there.

So what else? If you have to participate in the HumanCollective, that means that you are supporting the HumanCollective. You have three real choices. Decide in your reality, no such thing still occurs in this day and age, and go about life with your head safely insulated by a good layer of your ass. Be a windy participant, claiming it's all barbaric how some humans are treated by their fellow humans, and go about passively supporting the status quo. Or get very AntiSocial about this, and try to actively disrupt it more then you passively support it.

This is the site about HumanCollective though. The WE. And according to our true global HumanCollective, slavery is necessary.

You are just drooling on yourself about vigilantism. If the majority of the community supports it, it isn't vigilantism, according to your previous statements and positions. That's what you so glowing support, as it is PoliceForce in action. It is still a conflict. It is still War between wills.

Their is no difference between vigilantism, PoliceForce, and War. You cannot logically believe in one without also believing in all three. And your version of vigilantism is nothing more then AntiSocial behavior, of a HumanAnimal trying to get what he or she thinks is their proper share, of bringing about what they personally believe is right.

I think you need to turn your keen mind upon the all those inconsistent and mushy beliefs. Your personal spirituality seems to be in conflict with your knowledge as well as what you know is the state of the HumanCollective.

We are the DeathEaters. We are the destroyers of worlds (although most of our damage is limited to this one so far), and each other. We are the greedy monkeys that will harm our fellow primates, passively and actively, so that we will have more, and we might live comfortably for a few short years. Our comfort comes at the cost of our fellow primates lack of it. Our entire economy is based on other peoples sweat and blood. Indeed, its direction and morals are set by those that live off the greatest vulture and leeches of our fellow primate's blood and sweat (that is what the UltimateTool is and represents, you know. Labor). This is what the HumanAnimal is. You can try to rise above it (and I encourage all to do so), but you must accept that you have, do, and will, no matter how you try, continue and will always be a HumanAnimal, that merely by living and participating in any society, inflict harm and suffering on all other HumanAnimals. Some, you will do so much more actively and directly then others. This is part of our YinYang. We can be kind and helpful to each other. But we very rarely can be so without being cold and cruel and destructive to others.

You have had your head buried in the sand, little ostrich. Shall you put it back in the sand, or stay and see what the world really is? It's an ugly place, just past our walls. And we help to keep it that way, when we do not actively fight the ugliness. That is the nature of the status quo. If you aren't fighting it, you are helping to maintain it. So what is your choice? Part of the problem, or part of the problem trying to arrive at a solution?

I welcome talk on plans on how to try and bring about a change. I would prefer the world to take a more (to my personal viewpoint and morality) enlightened viewpoint on such matters. But I have to smack you down for claiming you are not and never could be part of the problem. You are older then me, Jim. You've supported the status quo for far longer then I. The status quo has included this matters long since before you were born. And they will most likely continue to include them, as an accepted and necessary part of the HumanCollective, long after both of us are gone. However, I see no reason to not 'try' to hasten a change in that. A bit of vigilantism. A contest of our will versus a larger grouping in the HumanCollective.

---StarPilot


Future despises nothing

The future does not despise War or slavery. If it did, slavery and War would not have been around since 'before man'. Nature and the future both support slavery and War, or we would not find both things universally throughout the natural world. So long as there is life, there will be slavery. So long as there are different views, there will be War.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as inalienable rights. You have no rights. None. Neither do I. Out of our own self interests, we agree that we will treat each other in a certain way, as long as we see a benefit for ourselves in doing so. That is the truth behind the HumanCooperativeContract. I won't try to kill you if you don't try to kill me. I won't try to take your stuff if you don't try to take mine. Note that most of the time, we break from the terms of the HumanCooperativeContract, because we are lazy, weak willed, and/or see a personal advantage to do so.

Additionally, I see a problem in your SocialContract, if it calls for defending mankind from War. Any contest of wills, is War, although generally not on a large scale. You will need to define what qualifies as actual War, in the framework of your SocialContract. Also, the only way to fight and defend against War is War itself. That's a contradiction of your SocialContract, as then you are inflicting War on your fellow HumanAnimal.

---StarPilot

Civilized people don't want it!

Bull---- total bull. I am not in denial, I simply have made a choice. Just because something exists does not make it right. Talk about evil in the HumanAnimal all you want, I don't deny it. It does not mean it is okay to kill each other! Most people I know do not want war or killing or slavery. You are the only one I know who things those things are okay.


War != All Conflict

You are still missing the point completely. By your definition all conflict is war. Arguments like that have no bearing on what I am talking about, the aggression of one people against another called war. I am talking about the kind of war that generates retaliation and puts our civilization at risk of destruction. I can differentiate different kinds of conflicts and aggression. Those unwilling to take a stand on human rights, slavery, war, and sustaining our planet are collective barbarians. I will not be part of that WE. Instead I choose to promote the WE which happens to be a majority, not because it is a majority, that are willing to take a stand supporting human rights against slavery, war and sustaining our planet.

I am not talking about your definition of war. I can make a distinction between self defense, police action and the aggression of one people against another called war. If you can't make that distinction then please suggest some new terminology. When I say "war" I am not referring to conflict in general. Your arguments have no bearing on what I am talking about.

Civilization has rejected murder, yes there is still murder. No reasonable person advocates that it is okay for us to kill each other whenever we feel like it. Civilization has also rejected slavery, yes, there it still slavery, but is has been outlawed by the civilized world, it was outlawed without war in most places. War, in the sense that I am talking about, is one country going into another country and killing people. International law and police action will eliminate the potential of gain by such war. I am NOT referring to any other sort of war.

The most basic collaboration is that we won't kill each other. Well we do kill each other, but that does not make it okay. Next is that we won't enslave each other, well we do, but it is still wrong. Those who refuse to take a stand are the real promoters of death and slavery. Those that are willing to work against it are not the ones responsible for its existence. I will defend my freedom (our social contract) with my life but never endorse war that violates our social contract. If you are unable to differentiate individuals defending there freedom from military aggression against another country too bad for you. It seems to be a common disease in America. The only goodness in death is in how it serves life. The only goodness in war is how it serves peace. War cannot serve peace well as it only brings retaliation. Only international police action can stop war without promoting it. Just as we have criminalized murder and slavery we will criminalize war. You can not stop us, you are born too late.

You can say that we have no rights and that murder, war and slavery are okay. As a thinking social human being I choose a path of live and let live over murder, slavery, and endless cycles of retaliation. Up till now humankind has been unwilling to make a commitment against war. Now only America and a few rogue nations stand in the way. War is a negative sum game. Civilization is a positive sum game. We don't have to be stupid and allow endless cycles on retaliation, it is possible for us to stop the madness and act collectively with a collective intelligence rather than a collective stupidity. The WE I wish to be part of is the WE that unites against war and for the mutual defense of our SocialContract.

As you state clearly that you cannot distinguish evil from good, destruction from creation there really is not bases for discussion here. If the survival of humankind is not good, and its destruction is not bad, then obviously war is not bad either. That is a tautology that has NOTHING to do with the discussion here. This is the way is always was and always will be is not a bases for creating a better future. Civilization has progressed in spite of your negativity and will continue to do so. I seek to be part of a positive change to move toward a world where WE support all our individuals.

-- JimScarver

This page is War

Bullshit, Jim. Take a look at your statements and actions here. Instead of taking the peaceful path, you have retaliated with anger and hate. This page is War, plain and simple. You trying to impose your viewpoint on me. What does your retaliation bring? More aggression and more retaliation. This is the path to War as you call it. Making a distinction just encourages War, because you are not doing anything to retard it until it is too late because it is too big for you to do anything about.

'Well, IamAnAsshole. Intelligence is making distinctions, identifying differenciations. It is frustrating that your children must all go through the same learning process you did. It is frustrating that humanity must go through hell before a new civilization can emerge. I know it is possible for civilization to flurish sooner rather than later. We don't need more pain and suffering. Yet we are willing lambs to the slaughter.' --[JimScarver]

You do believe in killing. You stated you do. You believe in killing whenever you feel like it. That's what your 'condition: in self defense' means, as you cannot know it is in self defense. You cannot read another's mind, can you? Nor can you see the absolute future. See? You choose when you will kill, and you believe in killing.

'No knowledge is 100%. If I think you are threatening my life and kill you accidently I am responsible for that. I would prefer that your diesease was treated than to kill you anyway. My choice is not to kill you, it is to defend me. I grant you rights of a SovereignIndividual and expect the same from you.' --JimScarver

Hell, all civilizations on earth that was or are believe in killing. Many just decide to tax certain kinds of killing.

'Killing by nature is not civil. Civilization outlaws killing and works toward eliminating it.' --JimScarver

You believe that people dieing due to a PoliceForce killing them is somehow immune to creating feelings in the family and friends of the dead person? I find that hard to believe. It doesn't matter if the PoliceForce saw it as justified/self defense. So long as the victim's family doesn't see it justified, there will be some form of aggression and retaliation left in them.

'Police are to serve and protect, not kill. If they feel they must kill to serve and protect and screw up those angered can at least sue in a court of law. There can be revenge against the police. But this is not the same a revenge between nations that can cause WWW3. See the difference?' --JimScarver

Aggression leads to aggression.

'I am embarressed that my anger came though, sorry I hammered| you Star.' --JimScarver

Only the path of the pacifist avoids the retaliation and escalation. But that is only if they don't pass on the aggression. Just because you don't shoot everyone in sight when you are ticked off, doesn't make you a peaceful person. By responding to aggression and anger with peace and cheer, that is the way of avoiding War. Note, most people won't do this. I certainly have difficulty doing so.

'I tend to be a forgiving person. I do take some things very seriously though.' --JimScarver

What you seem to believe in, is ignoring viewpoints that disagree with yours. I thought this place was supposed to be about Collaboration? Oh, wait, that is HumanCollaboration. He with the biggest ego trying to get his way, rather then paying attention to the facts. You have to break the groups down below the individuals social tolerance threshold before they will act in a CollectiveIntelligence manner. Over their social threshold, then it is a CollectiveStupidity manner. Wasn't that the findings?

'In on line groups the pushy people had little influence. They only dominated in the face to face groups.' --JimScarver

Ok, Mr Killing Barbarian. What are you doing about the enslavement of your fellow humans? Nothing? Hoping it takes care of itself? That way supports the status quo, which includes that barbaric practice. So how are you 'actively' doing something against it? If you aren't, you are supporting it completely, so I will expect you to apologize. If you are doing something active, I'd like to hear about it. It may be a better option to what I am doing.

'I am taking a stand against it. I admit it is wrong and needs to be fixed. That may not be much, but it is the first step that must be taken so that the problem will be fixed.' --JimScarver

What's left out of your complaints? Oh yeah...

Good and Evil. These are not hardwired into the quantum, or anywhere else, you know. They are viewpoints from a particular framework. What our ancestors considered good and evil 400 years ago is different from what we consider good and evil. And I expect that what our descendants consider good and evil will be just as different.

'Absolutly. War was necessary in the past. You are correct. Most of the other colonies of britain got there freedom without war. We can't say for sure that that war was necessary. The pen played a greater role in that battle than the sword in the battlefield. All the great nations outlawed slavery without a war. I expect slavery would have been outlawed here by now without the civil war (which was not really about slavery anyway). But I shouldn'y try to be a monday morning quarterback on past war. The world was clearly not ready for outlawing war in those days. today, most of the world is ready. The US is a sluggard.' --JimScarver
'The quantum is information, existance is information, that which creates we can call good, that which destroys we call bad. We must stand up for creation over destruction or the nothing will consume us.' --JimScarver

You need to know the history as well as the present, if you want to make your best attempt at changing the future. If you ignore what was and what is, you might as well not bother trying to change the future. How can you realistically expect to change the future if you don't know the path we are on into the future in the first place? And if you want people to do what you want, to behave in ways you want to encourage, you need to understand people. And understand how to get their personal greed to work for you. Encourage what you like, tax what you don't. SkinnersLaw, right?

'okay...' --JimScarver

HumanCooperativeContract is that I won't do anything to you, so long as I see no gain in it. That's the truth behind all our collaborations. We can work together, let each other live in peace, so long as the pay off for me 'not' to screw you is not worth the risks. Everyone has their own set of priorities for this. Is it worth the trouble of killing you for your pocket change? No. That's why you can walk down the street in most places without worry about a random stranger killing you. But wear some $150 Nike sneakers in the wrong neighborhood, and then it is worth their trouble to kill you to get the sneakers for their eventual payout. That's why we have 'crime'.

'I really do get angry by this sort of fatalism. People are anti-social because we have a sick society. While we are HumanAnimals, we are social creatures, and all of us hate being bullied. This is a bases for collaboration beyond what you propose.' --JimScarver
'Look at BillOfRights' --JimScarver
"Of historical interest only. Might still worth reading as a statement about what America was supposed to be. But for those who believe the BillOfRights is still worth fighting for, we can only say, GetOverIt."
'It really pisses me off that people are so complacent about losing their rights. I guess that is where the warrior in me comes out. WE have not yet begun to fight' --JimScarver

You can preach your SocialContract all you like. But the reality, where we are, is the HumanCooperativeContract. Now, how do we go from HumanCooperativeContract to SocialContract?

'I yell and screem and rant and rave..... um, maybe that won't work....' --JimScarver

You want to sit and stew and spew more hate and aggression? I'm fine playing the game of demonstrating what War is, and why you cannot draw a distinction on it, and say it is only this or that.

'My father, brother, and son, support war. I am desparate to have civilization put traditional war behind it but powerless as long as so many are saying war is ineviable, lets get it over with. I may not be right, but they are surely wrong.' --JimScarver

JimScarver - Creator of wars; Killer of men, women, and children; enslaver of his fellow human beings; inflictor of misery; creator of hell. Anything else you want to deny you do? If you are a living human, this is certainly true of you. And me. And everyone else on this planet.

'Yeah and they say I am a liar too. but I don't think lieing is okay for me, I choose not to. Killing people is simply wrong but civilization is taking a long time to discover that fact. To kill is not to be civil period. Slavery is wrong and most people agree on that already, thank goodness. Killing and slavery may always happen to some degree, but as long as we stand united against them we can take actions objectively shown to reduce them.' --JimScarver

I am actively trying to bring about better things. I don't spend ALL my time on such, but I do try. And history is helpful in this. 50 years ago, a black man would have been lynched for talking informally or disrespectfully to a white woman in my local area. Today, I had the privelage of hearing one human being tell another to 'Fuck off and die'. That's a tremendously powerful thing. It took a lot for us to reach this point though. People actively doing something, not just sitting around and bitching about how they think it should be. That's what had happened for the previous 200 years. If you don't do something, then odds are against things improving.

'It is amasing how civil rights improved in the last century with the need for a war. The black Panther were certain that war was necessary. As usual, it was not.' --JimScarver

Don't get discouraged Jim. But you shouldn't fight War. Fighting War just adds to its power and strength.

'I suppose. But it is not okay that one people invade another people with tanks bombs and guns. Most people don't want war. I think we have to stand against it to stop it. The bullies if not controlled will always bully. We need to stop the bully.' --JimScarver

Now for a few choice quotes of yours. Time for some fun...

"Only international police action can stop war without promoting it." Humm... That's double talk for only War can stop War. Aggression and forceful imposing of one will over another. That's aggression. Which will cause more aggression and retaliation. That will lead to War as you call it, Jim. Remember SkinnersLaw? Or do you think that goes out the window because you get a group of people together to go bully someone?

'Police action does not have to be war. sometimes it will come to that, but police are to serve and protect, not kill or war. We can make a distinction between police action and war though they sometimes have a lot in common. International law is the whole world against antisocial behaviour. It is not one nation against another nation. We can still have retaliation against the whole world but we will eliminate the cycles of war between nations.' --JimScarver

"As a thinking social human being I choose a path of live and let live over murder, slavery, and endless cycles of retaliation." Pardon? You choose to actively support killing (when you feel like it), slavery (rewarding those that practice it by giving them some of your money: Remember SkinnersLaw?), and you answer relatiation with escalating retaliation. When are you going to start practicing this, Jim? Tomorrow? Aggression breeds aggression. Retaliation breeds retaliation. I think we've proved that here. Look to your actions. Those show a person's true nature. What are your actions saying about you here? From what I hear about you from people that know you, this must be where you release all your negativity, because they speak well of your in the person presence.

'I too realize that change takes time. I know there are StarvingBabies we could easily have fed today and there is slavery and murder in the world. That does not mean we have to say that these thinks are okay, because they are NOT OKAY. I'm getting hot again...' --JimScarver

"This is the way is always was and always will be is not a bases for creating a better future." You have to know the past and the present to be able to know how that will shape the future. Or do you disagree?

'Yes. And I am pushing for the future to come faster, before we kill more, before we enslave more. Complacency will not bring change. Yes, there is much more than rhetoric needed.' --JimScarver

"Civilization has progressed in spite of your negativity and will continue to do so." Whose negativity? :-D Are you always so easy to bait? This is a page about War, demonstrating War. What did you expect? Tips on how to improve your rose garden?

'Yes. I really have a problem with complacency in our collective action.'--JimScarver

---StarPilot

CHILDREN PLEASE!

You two...have acted like little children. While every point you bring up is true and good, your use of insults to further your point is atrophious. StarPilot, did you really need to say to Jim he's the "Creator of wars; Killer of men, women, and children; enslaver of his fellow human beings; inflictor of misery; creator of hell"?.

You want to recap? Fine. War 'is' a useless, immoral and destructive human activity. There's no damn argument about opinion, no right and wrong. For who wants war? The soldiers on either side don't want to go to war (I'm talking in general for pointless wars, some people are patriotic in defending their country), the family of the soldiers doesn't want it (Unless defending their country, then they are proud...), the government doesn't want it. So who the hell does? The conspiratorialists, do they want war for some reason of their own? Who knows, they are excluded from this.

So again Star, Jim, do you want war? Do you want the killing of innocents, the bloodshed, the slaughter? War is a good thing to discuss, but the first sentence covered war entirely.

War is a useless, immoral and destructive human activity." --KenSchry

Those who cannot think past war will be doomed to experience it, or lose someone close.

Pot, Kettle

You shot yourself in the foot, KenSchry. War is destructive. That we can agree on. But something cannot be immoral, if there is no right and wrong. And if War was seen as useless by both sides in a War, they wouldn't start the War in the first place.

And yes, I meant exactly what I said. Jim is, I am, you are. Every participating human in the HumanCollective is that, currently. And I suspect that it will be many generations before we are not. We need to bring wealth to all, and to make all of humanity feel as if it is ok to just be, and let their fellow HumanAnimal live in peace.

Jim, if the PoliceForce cause such hard feelings, there will be retaliation. Retaliation is how things grow into War. That was all I am saying. I may be in the almost unique position to have seen one person's minor act of aggression grow into a serious clan on clan sort of War. Aggression bred aggression. Violence bred retaliation. Anyone that has ever lived a tribal sort of existance (and there's plenty in the urban US as elsewhere in the world), can probably recall some such, if they survived long enough. It's basic to the UsAndThem attitude, and to the fact that AggressionBreedsAggression. I suspect it's hard-wired into us. Certainly the AggressionBreedsAggression is. That's a few billion years of survival instinct at work. When someone is being aggressive to you, get aggressive back. That's how you show you aren't easy prey. AntiBully defense, hardwired. You have to use your newer grey matter thinking centers to stop that impulse. To active that 'Rabbit before the Lion' instinct to be meek, and keep your InnerLion from roaring back.

Childishness? Certainly not. Jim and I are both strong willed people. We had a very serious point of disagreement on this matter. I didn't like how Jim was narrowly defining war, for a couple of reasons (one being it was very western, the minority viewpoint in the world, and two being what 'justifiable wars'. I think it is illogical to endorse a mixed field of wars and not others, as even in his justifiable wars, there will be those that suffer and oppose it that think it will be immoral and useless. I find the illogic of a site about consensus and improving harmony between humans supporting something (via its primary collaborator and agent) that is always about division, conflict, and maximizing harm to our fellow man to be 'blasphemous'. ).

This page starts as a Troll. Since it's War, I'm quite willing to bait the WarTrolls. The thread title alone is warning enough this whole thing is one big flame. Feel free to pile on whatever you want as well. I have no trouble setting it on fire as the flame fuel it is.

Right now, the HumanCollective, does not think War is immoral, useless, and destructive. It only thinks that when War happens to them at their home. War is always ok as long as it is somewhere else. It's like all the other vices of humanity. So long as it is over the hill/out of my sight, it is ok.

I do have family and friends fighting. I've lost family and friends before to such conflicts. I think it an utter waste. But whether a man dies in a 'Police Action' or a 'War of Liberation' or a 'War to Protect the Homeland', the man is still dead. His family and friends will no longer have the pleasure of his company. His children will no longer be able to see their dad.

Life is a precious gift to us. And we squander it so easily. And worse yet, we squander others more easily. This is the true crime, in my viewpoint. And yet, people want to say its because the UN doesn't approve. Heck, the UN wouldn't have approved of liberating France from German occupation. The UN is not the voice of Humanity. It is not the Democracy of the world. It is an organization where governments (the majority of which enslave their own people in forms of government that are not representational--- REMEMBER THAT!) of the world work to maintain the status quo when not working to improve their own standing at the cost of all others. They play at ZeroSumGames, not building FutureValue.

--StarPilot

We will have War for some time to come

To rail against what is currently happening with the Coalition and Iraq, I find immature at best, and idiotic at worse. If your goal is that all the world's people should have a say in what happens in the world, then you need to bide your time about Iraq. We will need to see if the Coalition truly does 'set the Iraqi people free', or just replace one tryanical regime with another.

So long as any man sees profit for himself in supporting the business of War, there will be those that want War at any costs. So long as there are those unhappy with their government, they will protest any action taken. So long as there are people that see there there are no boundary lines drawn on the world, there will be people that protests any action that will most likely lead to the death of their fellow brother or sister.

Jim, I believe, is a person that tends to see all people as his fellow brothers and sisters. Which is why he gets mad at the thought of them being harmed, exploited, and killed. A very noble view. I just find the fact that he differentiates from that view of others above his own interests to his own interests about others very interesting, and in conflict with his nobler views. Always interesting to see how people draw out and represent their conflicting interests and views.

And Jim, I don't think of it as a fatalist point of view. I think of it as pragmatic. The reality is that not all humans will cut your throat to get at what is yours, but there is enough such individuals out there that we have to protect ourselves. It isn't any different to having passwords as a verifier on logins. If there weren't such individuals, there wouldn't be a need for locks on your doors, or passwords on your logins. The only significant questions to me, about that, is what exactly is that proportion of people, and how do we decrease it? ---StarPilot


War is only bad when...

First, you are making assumptions. War is bad, when it is pointless. The WarInIraq has a point, to try to change the regime. But the War that is bad is such as when Russia invaded Afghanistan, pointless.

Don't speak for the CollectiveIntelligence if it is your opinion and you do not know anyone elses.

You only support war if it is not away from the US? I feel bad for you if you cannot see past your own HumanSelfishness.

How did you get on slavery? Jim is talking about War, you bring that up. If you want to talk about the immoralities of Slavery, create that page. This is a page about discussingWar. --KenSchry


War is always bad for someone

All War is bad. Pick the losing ideology point of view. "War is bad." War is always bad for someone. Maybe not you and me, personally, at this time, but it is always bad for someone.

The only War that came close to being not bad, had to be the first Gulf War. And even then, it was still bad for some people. Just most of those were not in the Coalition.

I shouldn't speak for the CollectiveIntelligence? How do you figure? Who is the elected representitive of the CollectiveIntelligence? How shall the CollectiveIntelligence communicate to us mere drones that comprise it then? Do you think I do not know anyone else other then my own viewpoint and opinion?

"You only support war if it is not away from the US? I feel bad for you if you cannot see past your own HumanSelfishness." What the hell are you talking about? People get mighty anti-war when it is in their midsts. They don't like themselves, their family, friends, and property to get damaged. That happens in a War. Do you think that American Civil War was useful, or a waste of lives and resources? Do you think that me killing all your relatives is useful or a waste of life? How about if I burn down your house, your church, and your school? If the war was going to happen in your home, then you are more likely to not support it or actions leading to it. Your tolerance will grow, to avoid having to fight that War. Especially if you have people dependant on you, such as children. That is simple truth. People tend to be alright with whatever the heck is happening elsewhere, as long as it does not affect them personally. That is just how it is. What was the last thing that happened in Iceland that you got excited about? Nigeria? Bermuda? New Zealand?

War is never truly useful. It does occasionally settle an immediate matter between viewpoints, but it is always aggression, and aggression breeds aggression, no matter what issue it might resolve immediately. There are always more issues that come out of a War then is settled by it.

WarInIraq has a point? We do not know that, yet. We will have to see what bears out of this in the future. So far, we've wasted a few of our and our allies lives, a bunch of Iraqi lives, a lot of fuel and bombs, and not done much else. The Administration is talking about putting a Shiite WarLord in charge of Iraq at this time. That's not doing anything but swapping one tyrant for another, if that is what we do. Still not 'Iraqi people deciding their own governance and fate.'. So... we shall have to wait and see what happens.

I got started on the slavery issue, picking on the fact that someone was speaking for the CollectiveIntelligence and stating it did not believe in slavery, War, etc. Continuing to do so further more demonstrated several issues and points.

I do believe that we can get the majority of humans to agree that War is bad, when it is in their neighborhoods, and happening to them. That is what history shows us, and I do not think you will be able to frame a significant point against that. The differentiation is where a person might see usefulness in War. Jim sees it being useful in defending his home, and in helping others defend their home or way of life. Do you agree or disagree with that? Regardless, you will still think that if someone brought such a War into your home, it is bad, and if you win, it was also pointless for them to have done so. Yes?

--StarPilot


You aren't allowed to talk!

You should not speak for the CollectiveIntelligence because it is your opinion, not a groups. You have your idea about War, the person next to you may have a different idea. There are no elected officials of the CollectiveIntelligence, because each person has the chance to speak their opinion. That is why I said, do not speak for everyone.

WarInIraq has a point, even if it may possibly be misguided or wrong. I'm not going to get into details with you about that point, you already know it.

Excuse me? You're saying War is bad now? Who objected to Jim's statement of "War is a useless, immoral and destructive human activity."? You are the one that said " War is not immoral." Are you changing your viewpoint to fit the new frame?

Do you know Jim believes in Slavery? I don't know if you have a StarPilotExclusiveLookIntoOtherPeoplesThoughts, but that was never stated. You are basing Slavery on a persons opposition to War.

War is different then defending your home. Would you have remorse about defending your home from theives and robbers? Change the scale, people invading your home, the US. War is always bad for someone, on either side. But things do change after a War, good or bad.

--KenSchry

Political History says War is bad, mostly

There is a very strong opinion in the CollectiveIntelligence that says "War is bad.". Any study of history on military matters, or of matters revolving around War will show this. For example, Japan's official position is War is so bad, they'll never fight another. Germany's official position is rather close to that. Much of Europe has similar feelings as well.

I was taking issue with the morality opinion/judgement. Mankind's average position concerning War has waffled a bit since we've first started recording our history. The current opinion seems to be, "War on my homeland is 'bad and useless'. War on foreign land is bad if it wastes 'my' resources. Otherwise War is neutral to me."

War is not different from defending your home. SOMEONE will almost always be defending their home when there is a War. This is one of the primary points in this discussion. If you say, 'Police Actions are ok. Defending your home is ok.', you are still endorsing War.

If a War has usefulness, then societies will continue to wage War. If you hadn't noticed, there's a strong movement here by a few of our outspoken contributors to OutLaw War. That will only happen when people realize that War is always bad for someone (and often it's for both sides of the conflict) and therefore useless to our greater SocialCollective. Dead people no longer contribute to their societies, and are no longer a part of the CollectiveIntelligence. If one side wins what they are after in a War, then their side's sacrifices may be viewed as worthwhile, to some. If their side loses, their sacrifices have been in vain.

Look at Korea, and Vietnam. Nam wasn't worth it, in the US National view. Why? We didn't win it. Korea? That's an iffy thing. We stopped something, but it wasn't finished. We may even see a renewal of complete hostilities in Korea before all is said and done in our lifetime.

What about the Spanish-American War? Was that worth it? War of 1812? The Indian Wars? The Banana Wars?

Name all the actions where the loss of American life was worth it. Go interview the family of those that were lost. Their spouses, children, grandchildren, etc.

Most people not involved or affected directly by a War, tend to have very shallow opinions about it. These opinions are generally one of the following three:

  1. Neutral - The vast majority. They don't particularly care.
  2. Object - Minority opinion. They object to the war, based on personal reasons. Can be because of their logical, moral, or emotional viewpoints.
  3. Support - Minority opinion. These people are not affected by the War, but support the War being fought/won, for their own various reasons.

Of those directly affected by a War, we find one of two opinions:

  1. The 'primary' opinion about a War, is that it wasn't worth it. This attitude you will find in great quantity and strength on almost all involved that did not win or profit by the War. Sometimes it is found amoung those who did profit or win.
  2. The 'minority' opinion about a War, is that it was worth the sacrifice. This is generally heard from War Hawks, Politicians, and those that directly profitted from the waging or due to the spoils taken from a War.

Note: Very rarely do you find someone directly affected that is neutral about the matter.

Jim brought up the 'Slavery and War is immoral, and is not tolerated by the WE.' That irritated me, because it was not true. The WE does tolerate it. At times, it can certainly be said to support such (to actively encourage it). At others, it simply doesn't work against them (passively supports them).

I know Jim believes in Slavery. He knows what the concept is, he understands a minimum about it. I also know that as a participating person in the HumanCollective that is the world economy, he participates in a system that employs such. Just as you and I do. I do not need to employ my psychic abilities to peek inside his head. This is the state of our HumanCollective as it stands today. And as it will stand tomorrow. And it will continue to stand for a very long time to come.

War does not always change things. Nothing significant changed after World War I. That's why we had a World War II. Nothing significant changed after the first Gulf War (Liberation of Kuwait). Often after a War, all that has changed is that some people are dead, some land has been ruined, and the seeds for the next War has been planted well, and taken root. But often the issues that was why the War was fought are still unresolved.

When I've had to defend myself, I understand that when I harm or kill someone, while that person may no longer try to kill me, others that he is involved/a member with may. The only way to prevent that, is to kill everyone he knows, or to not harm or kill him. Not everyone he is involved with will be perfectly reasonable and logical beings. Not everyone that may care about him will care that he broke into my house, looking to score a quick $50 or $100 in easily pawned items, and I killed him in self defense. But even with that much trouble, even when it is him or me, yes, I still feel bad for harming my fellow brother. What is the real difference between us? Where (and to whom) we were born. A matter of geography roulette, from a mere conscious entity viewpoint.

Scale up defending your home from others all you want. But scale doesn't change the HumanAnimal. Scaling it up, just provides more opportunity for more people to be harmed (directly and indirectly), and killed. Just more random violence, random destruction.

You are welcome to present information that you think more accurately shows the average CollectiveIntelligence viewpoint. But I believe I've presented all of them here, to some degree. We can disagree on the proportions of those opinions, but that doesn't seem to be what you are after in this discussion.

If there is a real and good point in the WarInIraq, then I don't know what it is. And I suspect that we will have to wait many years before we can truthfully and objectively evaluate it.

---StarPilot


We don't support Slavery!

There is a big difference between knowing about slavery and using it as a refrence in a discussion to supporting and believing in slavery. HumanAnimals may we be, we have the choice of whether or not to take that option. That is our HumanRight.

What 'are' we after in this discussion? We can say War is immoral, you object, we reach a stalemate. We have gotten to the heart of War, and found that never will both opinions be in agreement on that issue. War is always bad for someone, someone is always defending their home. --KenSchry


Non-violent resistance?

"Because humans are aggressive. War is not immoral. War is HumanAnimals competing in the fiercest way against other HumanAnimals."

This is a social darwinist argument. In this view we cannot aspire beyond the percieved position of other animals.

If it is true then the entire legitimisation process that all present nation states rest on, does not exist. The rule of law is a fiction.

This does not seem to be the case. Now the question arises is violence a valid technology to achieve political outcomes?

The jury is still out.

A interesting case is the Iraq war. There a renegotiation was sought, an Iraq that would be easier to negotiate with. This may have been achieved, but at what cost.

The resort to a military action, is an admission of the failure of law, achieved skillfully by the beligerants. This has damaged their moral position, no-one believes in the moral hegemony of the USA anymore, but are unsure what to do about it.

Might may not be right, but has achieved change.

MAD as a doctrine is dead. Terrorism is the flip side of legal war (see WarLaw), it may have been delt a physical blow, but the bolstering of the reasons behind terrorism may be incalcuable.

We may find ourselves in the not too distant future facing either creating a world where the military are dismantled, or living in a constant war zone.

It is our choice, can we evolve?

I believe in the position that to achieve a truly stable outcome only non-violence can be used. Presently I am investigating cellular automata theory of Stephen Wolfram, and the implications to Nash game Theory to see if there is a mathematical basis to my belief.

Also i refer to Gandhi who achieved much with non-violent methods.

It is indeed a difficult issue, but of course it is always easier to resort to violence. - AnewGo


There are many ways to compete

War is not the HumanAnimals only way of competing. Marathon running is competing. War is when one person disagrees on a subject with another person, or does something to offend the other country. Or in some cases to get what they want.

Look at the WarInIraq. Why are we there? WarAgainstTerrorism is an excuse to go into Iraq. Creation of a new Iraqi government is a tiny part, but the majority reason is the oil. If Iraq becomes a new nation with a US backing, they would either trade the Oil with the Us, or we'd just take it.

Gandhi lived in a different time. He stopped violence when they used pitchforks and flaming sticks. With today's weapons, you could hit a target with a missile from 100+ miles away. We live in an age where Nuclear winter is a very real possibility. The USW (well..) and other organizations will hopefully try to stop that before it happens --KenSchry


Rule of Law is fiction

"If it is true then the entire legitimisation process that all present nation states rest on, does not exist. The rule of law is a fiction."

The rule of law 'is' fiction. Remember, Law is a group's codified punishments for breaking a behavior. It takes not only the group that makes the Law, but also some group to impose the Law unto those that do not follow it. War is one of the consequences when one group decides to not follow another group's Laws.

Ultimately, all society breaks down into one group's will being forcibly imposed on another group's will to preserve the first group's status quo. We get the longest periods of peace between two groups when their viewpoints are complimentary. We get very many Wars when two groups viewpoints are exclusionatory. Compromise and tolerance are the keystones to everyone living in peace and harmony with everyone else. Note that this requires all people to buy into this. Otherwise, personal greed will manifest, as in not compromising, I get a larger share of things my way. This is exactly the sort of behaviour that will destroy the Utopia, turning it into a Distopia, and leading eventually to some form of War. There will be no War, so long as there is mutual compromise and tolerance.

---StarPilot


Violence is universally understood

"is violence a valid technology to achieve political outcomes?"

It always has been. It is one of the first 'political' methods that humans learn. Violence, and the threat of violence (intimidation), is universally understood by all humans. Unlike cooperation, unlike promises of a possible better tomorrow, violence is an immediate promise of a worse now. And a ruining of tomorrow.

Watch 2 year olds dealing with each other, sometime. You can catch them perfecting using violence and intimidation on each other for their own selfish goals. By the age of 2, human groups have already learned that people will try to avoid pain. Most of the time, they are merely aping what their elders have shown them, but even isolated from any elders that would employ any methods of 'retailation/punishment/intimadation', they learn that pain hurts, to avoid pain, and to use the threat of inflicting pain as a tool to get others to try to do what they want due to others wanting to avoid pain as well.

These leasons will come back to people, throughout their life. When you don't know what to do about something, you react in the first ways you ever saw or know about. Whether you were 14, or 4 at the time. Yes, we can learn to overcome 'bad' or 'improper' behaviours, but we have to be conscious they are there first, and that they are 'bad' or 'improper'. And then we have to work at changing ourselves so we will react differently. Not an easy thing to do over the number of humans in the world. ---StarPilot


Agreement is Law

"There a renegotiation was sought, an Iraq that would be easier to negotiate with. This may have been achieved, but at what cost.

The resort to a military action, is an admission of the failure of law, achieved skillfully by the beligerants."

The problem was that you cannot renegotiate with someone/group, when they are not willing to abide by the terms of the "agreements: (example: North Korea), or you have nothing that they cannot get elsewhere (example: Saddam's Regime in Iraq).

The best agreements are where both sides see that by following the agreement, they gain value that they otherwise could not gain otherwise.

If you have to 'enforce' the terms of an agreement on one (or more) party, this means that the party does not see that it is gaining value from the agreement that it cannot gain (of equal or greater value) by ignoring the agreement. If you have to have an external party enforce both sides of the agreement, this is nothing more then a low scale War, as no side in the agreement values it or desires it, only outside parties. If neither side values that agreeement, they will break it and no longer abide by it as soon as they can get outside the enforcement of the external party. And they will not be happy about that outside party using its might on them. One is once again adding to the aggression in the world...

All agreements depend on all those involved seeing extra value in abiding by them. Otherwise, they won't. This is basic to human behavior, whether as an individual or a group. A society depends on a certain level of cooperation, of people abiding by agreements in the long term, even when they no longer see a value in a particular agreement in the short term. This is why we utilize every PoliceForce we can to enforce agreements, as much as we can. Whether it's PeerPressure (the PoliceForce of a small group), Civil Law, or a PoliceForce to catch up the AntiSocial.

There is no Rule of Law. There is only a consensus of agreements that we agree with and abide by, day to day. The HumanCooperativeContract ("I won't do anything bad to you, so long as I see no personal gain to it.") Jim and I might scream at each other from time to time over a few issues, but neither of us are going to do something violent or cruel to each other. There is no gain in it for us, only work and detriment for ourselves down that path. A ConsensusByDefault emerges...

And in the matter of the WarInIraq, there was no Law. And all agreements by those that wished to be involved did fail. Too many different political groupings with too many counter issues active. You will note that we achieved a ConsensusByDefault on the matter of the Iraqi Regime. A Coalition of similar viewpoints decided on a course of action, and followed it. No other groups that had failed in reaching a compromise consensus felt strongly enough on the matter to oppose the Coalition. The majority of the Iraqi people did not even feel like disagreeing. Indeed they tactically supported the Coalition by not opposing it. Again, ConsensusByDefault...

War in many ways is the active face of ConsensusByDefault. Two or more viewpoints cannot settle peacefully on one or more issues. They are so strongly behind their viewpoints that they will contest the other viewpoint, and have to settle the matter physically. When such an event happens, it is indeed a failure of agreement. And agreement, after all, is merely Law.

---StarPilot


Why now?

"Marathon running is competing."

The Marathon is a ceremonial celebration of War. As a sport, for the average runner, it is a competition against the self, not against others.

"Why are in Iraq?"

National Self Interest AKA PersonalGreed. Reasons given:

  • The War On Terrorism is one of the many excuses there.
  • The main one was Weapons of Mass Destruction in the hands of a Madman. Remember? Those weapons may have been used on our allies, or they may have been given/sold to terrorists.
  • Human Rights - Helping our fellow man who was being tortured and oppressed.

But it was all just hot air. It was National Self Interest. Otherwise, we'd have ignored the issues as we have since the 1980's. The question as a citizen of the USoA to me is, what is it that my elected officials, whose job it is to protect my nation's self interest, what is it they know or knew but did not share with me, a voting citizen? There were many good reasons to help the Iraqi, after all, but why now and not before?

---StarPilot


Non-violent works only if they need you

"Gandhi lived in a different time."

You are darn straight he did. And the circumstances where different. The English needed the Indian to work, to maintain the Indian nation. If the Indians were not going to help, the English was fat out of luck.

This is a fact that is often overlooked when people point to peaceful/non-violent protest. Non-violent protest work best when one side needs the non-violent protesters assitance. If I go on a hunger strike for world peace, or for that matter, new Farscape episodes, not being a person that actively contributes to the world peace infrastructure, or the making of tv episodes, then my peaceful protest, and not assisting, means nothing to those who have the power over those matters. If the media decides to carry my story and protest to the public, then public opinion may be able to help tip the matter. But that's a big if. Groups that depend on the public goodwill (general public buying their products, making donations, etc) tend to be afraid of bad public opinion, and will therefore avoid situations that they think will lead to such. Those that do not care, will not be swayed.

---StarPilot

Protest in numbers is better

Exactly. If I go and protest the War by myself, then no one will know or care. If a group of 1000 goes to Times Square and protests, then some may say something about it. If someone was killed or injured in that protest, it is absolutly certain it would be on every major news station. The HumanAnimal takes a small perspective on what is important and not. --KenSchry

Ken, it isn't guaranteed, but the likelihood of media news covering the fact that people were hurt or even killed/died during/because of the protest is certainly greater then just covering a peaceful protest. "If it bleeds, it leads" is a well known phrase associated with the news. ---StarPilot

Personal tools