First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
War Ethics
Posted 5/6/11

DomFortress wrote:


Sonovabitch wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

I strongly disagree, especially when there are alternative methods of population control other than war. While some animal species are so good at it, they practice population control naturally.


Pertaining to humans and their general lack of control, we could use a bit of war to thin out overabundance, since education is working so well for them. Perpetuation of war happens much through new generations and their lack of insight or close-mindedness to it.

Unethical as it is to see war as being population control, there is the grimness of this reality which will be accepted due to the fact that our aggression is hardwired. The Earth will rely on our mindless rage to keep us from exhausting natural resources, since not everyone will become updated to renewable resources. They will just steal them from someone else calling it ethical.
Again I strongly disagree, when the fact is well educated women drastically reduces population growth. That, combining with the women's right and freedom to control their own reproductive function, not only reduces population to a sustainable level, but also reduces crime rate by eliminating unwanted births. Furthermore, war has the characteristic of escalating wasteful consumption of resources. So it's ironic that war as a system actually demands overpopulation for furthering its effort.

Finally, your aggression being biologically "hardwired" hypothesis is but a myth. When there's the fact that human empathy is evolutionarily favored by natural selection.


I stand corrected.

I wonder if we should then consider eliminating the resources for unethical war, such as our inability to manage where aggression is directed. An ethical war can be against the lack of a system supporting what I will call "social restraints," so people do not feel the need to mingle unnecessarily and unproductively. Everything is taken out of proportion when all people seem to do is destroy for their own gratification. Especially since destruction is brought on by the creation of life without it having an initial purpose through preparation.
Posted 5/6/11 , edited 5/6/11

Sonovabitch wrote:



I stand corrected.

I wonder if we should then consider eliminating the resources for unethical war, such as our inability to manage where aggression is directed. An ethical war can be against the lack of a system supporting what I will call "social restraints," so people do not feel the need to mingle unnecessarily and unproductively. Everything is taken out of proportion when all people seem to do is destroy for their own gratification. Especially since destruction is brought on by the creation of life without it having an initial purpose through preparation.
I left out this when I made my last comment. If you wish to moralize the ethics behind war, you must do so within the context of survival, meaning self-defense. And the fundamental philosophy in any and all human ethnic cultures regarding self-defense, is to never ever make the first strike. Case in point, I combined the Karate principle of "Karate ni Sente Nashi" and Aikido's "True victory is victory over oneself", in order for myself to understand why the need for proportionality in war.

And aside from creating new meanings toward unnecessary conflicts, there's also the practice of honoring alternative values other than the sensationalized yet unrealistically deified image of war culture. When humanity is capable of far greater than just that.
Posted 5/6/11

DomFortress wrote:


Sonovabitch wrote:



I stand corrected.

I wonder if we should then consider eliminating the resources for unethical war, such as our inability to manage where aggression is directed. An ethical war can be against the lack of a system supporting what I will call "social restraints," so people do not feel the need to mingle unnecessarily and unproductively. Everything is taken out of proportion when all people seem to do is destroy for their own gratification. Especially since destruction is brought on by the creation of life without it having an initial purpose through preparation.
I left out this when I made my last comment. If you wish to moralize the ethics behind war, you must do so within the context of survival, meaning self-defense. And the fundamental philosophy in any and all human ethnic cultures regarding self-defense, is to never ever make the first strike.

And aside from creating new meanings toward unnecessary conflicts, there's also the practice of honoring alternative values other than the sensationalized yet unrealistically deified image of war culture. When humanity is capable of far greater than just that.


You waited to make that point as though you had a nuke being prepared for an attack. Your defense is completely sound.

War culture breeds war children. I myself could be called one, living in a warlike country that I do, with the use of video games amounting to war simulation for training the mind to kill, also observed in numerous other territories. I can see no ethics in breeding a warlike race, unless they are taught the fundamental point you expressed called self-defense.
Posted 5/6/11 , edited 5/6/11

Sonovabitch wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Sonovabitch wrote:



I stand corrected.

I wonder if we should then consider eliminating the resources for unethical war, such as our inability to manage where aggression is directed. An ethical war can be against the lack of a system supporting what I will call "social restraints," so people do not feel the need to mingle unnecessarily and unproductively. Everything is taken out of proportion when all people seem to do is destroy for their own gratification. Especially since destruction is brought on by the creation of life without it having an initial purpose through preparation.
I left out this when I made my last comment. If you wish to moralize the ethics behind war, you must do so within the context of survival, meaning self-defense. And the fundamental philosophy in any and all human ethnic cultures regarding self-defense, is to never ever make the first strike.

And aside from creating new meanings toward unnecessary conflicts, there's also the practice of honoring alternative values other than the sensationalized yet unrealistically deified image of war culture. When humanity is capable of far greater than just that.


You waited to make that point as though you had a nuke being prepared for an attack. Your defense is completely sound.

War culture breeds war children. I myself could be called one, living in a warlike country that I do, with the use of video games amounting to war simulation for training the mind to kill, also observed in numerous other territories. I can see no ethics in breeding a warlike race, unless they are taught the fundamental point you expressed called self-defense.
If anything, I only managed a draw. I didn't deny the existence of war culture, so that I can confront it head-on. You did a admirable performance in representing your own argument, and for that I'm honored.

BTW, I made another hidden hand in my last comment. Case in point, I combined the Karate principle of "Karate ni Sente Nashi" and Aikido's "True victory is victory over oneself", in order for myself to understand why the need for proportionality in war.
Posted 5/6/11

DomFortress wrote:


Sonovabitch wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Sonovabitch wrote:



I stand corrected.

I wonder if we should then consider eliminating the resources for unethical war, such as our inability to manage where aggression is directed. An ethical war can be against the lack of a system supporting what I will call "social restraints," so people do not feel the need to mingle unnecessarily and unproductively. Everything is taken out of proportion when all people seem to do is destroy for their own gratification. Especially since destruction is brought on by the creation of life without it having an initial purpose through preparation.
I left out this when I made my last comment. If you wish to moralize the ethics behind war, you must do so within the context of survival, meaning self-defense. And the fundamental philosophy in any and all human ethnic cultures regarding self-defense, is to never ever make the first strike.

And aside from creating new meanings toward unnecessary conflicts, there's also the practice of honoring alternative values other than the sensationalized yet unrealistically deified image of war culture. When humanity is capable of far greater than just that.


You waited to make that point as though you had a nuke being prepared for an attack. Your defense is completely sound.

War culture breeds war children. I myself could be called one, living in a warlike country that I do, with the use of video games amounting to war simulation for training the mind to kill, also observed in numerous other territories. I can see no ethics in breeding a warlike race, unless they are taught the fundamental point you expressed called self-defense.
If anything, I only managed a draw. I didn't deny the existence of war culture, so that I can confront it head-on. You did a admirable performance in representing your own argument, and for that I'm honored.


Ethically, we both displayed self-defense. Our little war of intellect was proof of this just concept, and it may well serve to gift people with its benefit.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 5/6/11
I frown on the fact that people have not realized that war in it self is only a creation of are own. Meaning the societies, and leaders of the societies make war what it is.

We as members of that society have the power to change war into something a lot more passive of game like if we truly wanted to. \
But the trouble is people in today's society have it in their heads that war needs to be bloody, Violent, Ext.

If we changed are society we can also change the concepts and rules to war.

. Countries/societies/cities if wanted to could find other ways to solve their border disputes.

One would be to remove all military and weapons of mass destruction from this world.. go to a simpler way of warring.. AKA Competition, contest between individuals, groups, animals, etc. for territory, a niche, or a location of resources. It arises whenever two or more claims are made for said ideal, or object. (kinda like the old tv show Robot Jock. ) turning war into a safe sporting advent would promote more peaceful interaction in between groups, without costing nations billions in war funds, plus a few billion more in war relief.
Posted 5/6/11 , edited 5/6/11

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

I frown on the fact that people have not realized that war in it self is only a creation of are own. Meaning the societies, and leaders of the societies make war what it is.

We as members of that society have the power to change war into something a lot more passive of game like if we truly wanted to. \
But the trouble is people in today's society have it in their heads that war needs to be bloody, Violent, Ext.

If we changed are society we can also change the concepts and rules to war.

. Countries/societies/cities if wanted to could find other ways to solve their border disputes.

One would be to remove all military and weapons of mass destruction from this world.. go to a simpler way of warring.. AKA Competition, contest between individuals, groups, animals, etc. for territory, a niche, or a location of resources. It arises whenever two or more claims are made for said ideal, or object. (kinda like the old tv show Robot Jock. ) turning war into a safe sporting advent would promote more peaceful interaction in between groups, without costing nations billions in war funds, plus a few billion more in war relief.
Why compete for the unrealistic concept of "ownership" over Earth's finite resources, when none of us made Earth itself? Thereby nobody can lay legitimate claim on something that they had no part making. While even the most territorial animals in nature understand and practice the act of sharing. Furthermore, you're mutilating the natural function of play itself into something less social, by saying it's something akin to war.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 5/6/11

DomFortress wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

I frown on the fact that people have not realized that war in it self is only a creation of are own. Meaning the societies, and leaders of the societies make war what it is.

We as members of that society have the power to change war into something a lot more passive of game like if we truly wanted to. \
But the trouble is people in today's society have it in their heads that war needs to be bloody, Violent, Ext.

If we changed are society we can also change the concepts and rules to war.

. Countries/societies/cities if wanted to could find other ways to solve their border disputes.

One would be to remove all military and weapons of mass destruction from this world.. go to a simpler way of warring.. AKA Competition, contest between individuals, groups, animals, etc. for territory, a niche, or a location of resources. It arises whenever two or more claims are made for said ideal, or object. (kinda like the old tv show Robot Jock. ) turning war into a safe sporting advent would promote more peaceful interaction in between groups, without costing nations billions in war funds, plus a few billion more in war relief.
Why compete for the unrealistic concept of "ownership" over Earth's finite resources, when none of us made Earth itself? Thereby nobody can lay legitimate claim on something that they had no part making. While even the most territorial animals in nature understand and practice the act of sharing. Furthermore, you're mutilating the natural function of play itself into something less social, by saying it's something akin to war.


unrealistic? Do not Lions have their own territory? Do the not compete over land, and mates? I think it is quite natural!

You do remember wen I was speaking to you about a high bread governing system ideal I have.
If I could change the world by removing the governments then placing them under that kind of system... than maby your ideals would be more plausible and realistic in terms. But in today's society Your ideals just can not function and you know that.

You do remember are little debate on a improved government system right? It was a little bit ago.. maby i should go back and find out what thread I was posting it on hmm.
Posted 5/7/11 , edited 5/7/11

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Why compete for the unrealistic concept of "ownership" over Earth's finite resources, when none of us made Earth itself? Thereby nobody can lay legitimate claim on something that they had no part making. While even the most territorial animals in nature understand and practice the act of sharing. Furthermore, you're mutilating the natural function of play itself into something less social, by saying it's something akin to war.


unrealistic? Do not Lions have their own territory? Do the not compete over land, and mates? I think it is quite natural!

You do remember wen I was speaking to you about a high bread governing system ideal I have.
If I could change the world by removing the governments then placing them under that kind of system... than maby your ideals would be more plausible and realistic in terms. But in today's society Your ideals just can not function and you know that.

You do remember are little debate on a improved government system right? It was a little bit ago.. maby i should go back and find out what thread I was posting it on hmm.
And are we lions? No, so why should whatever that worked with lions goes the same for humans? Are you not making naturalistic fallacy? Thereby allowing me to draw relevancy between humans and bonabos, which is comparatively more evolutionarily relevant than humans and lions.

Moreover, your assumption about lions and other animals in the wild is but layman's stereotypes compared to experts' observation. Therefore your argument is moot due to data corruption caused by your own confirmation bias.

And before you reject my ideal altogether, you should try to recall just exactly what my ideal was, within the context of debate which is war ethics. Not government.
75430 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 5/7/11
War is a human invention. Its two models in nature are Male mating battles, and predation. War swings between those models with things like 'rules of war' and 'counting coup' on one hand and 'total war' on the other.
Posted 5/7/11
i believe war should never be an answer to a question
war doesn't prove which side is right, only which side is more powerful, where's the justice in that?
all war does is make victims of the innocent, and leave many dead or maimed
as Preyar said (and the guy in the intro to Fallout 3) "War never changes"
its always a dark spot in history
Posted 5/7/11
War is war, use it as a means to the end like it has been used. Just don't drag it out too long, otherwise the resources you acquire isn't worth what you lost.

I think you should always win a war, no matter the cost. If you are invading then the problem with civilian casualties is because of moral highground, not because of how effective it is. You should cull any unnecessary factors, and once you occupy you should make regular examples. This is what happens when you try to reclaim what you lost, this is what happens when you don't listen like you should.

I'm a very brutal person, so I doubt few actually share this mentality. War is always a grey area, not gray or light. It's always about resources. War will never be fought out of the simple or singular excuse of 'revenge/retribution/justice".

War ethics is just for having conscience, or to have morals or the support of nation(s). The whole concept is idiotic to me, it's like half-assing. If you go to war you make sure you win, even if you have to break a dozen or so eggs, you still get an omelet at the finish line.


What's so wrong with killing, when it is war? War is used as a more obscure method to thin out, and I personally play with the thought it is darwinism at work. Which I believe it is.


War ethics is meaningless if you try to be a shining crusader, but saturation in unnecessary cruelty is also meaningless. You kill the opposition, you don't drop nukes on them or completely kill everyone. An example would be the two nuclear drops on Japan, if you follow the example of "This is what happens when you go to war with us" though. Nothing wrong with setting an example, after all. However, I don't agree with overbearing on 'setting an example' when it could potentially ruin resources you can gain and use.

War ethics is just a nice way to say "We're taking a few things, but we'll be as gentle as possible because we want everyone to think we're the good guys."

.



Posted 5/8/11 , edited 5/8/11

DomFortress wrote:


Lauriet wrote:

War is war, use it as a means to the end like it has been used. Just don't drag it out too long, otherwise the resources you acquire isn't worth what you lost.

I think you should always win a war, no matter the cost.
If you are invading then the problem with civilian casualties is because of moral highground, not because of how effective it is. You should cull any unnecessary factors, and once you occupy you should make regular examples. This is what happens when you try to reclaim what you lost, this is what happens when you don't listen like you should.

I'm a very brutal person, so I doubt few actually share this mentality. War is always a grey area, not gray or light. It's always about resources. War will never be fought out of the simple or singular excuse of 'revenge/retribution/justice".

War ethics is just for having conscience, or to have morals or the support of nation(s). The whole concept is idiotic to me, it's like half-assing. If you go to war you make sure you win, even if you have to break a dozen or so eggs, you still get an omelet at the finish line.


What's so wrong with killing, when it is war? War is used as a more obscure method to thin out, and I personally play with the thought it is darwinism at work. Which I believe it is.


War ethics is meaningless if you try to be a shining crusader, but saturation in unnecessary cruelty is also meaningless. You kill the opposition, you don't drop nukes on them or completely kill everyone. An example would be the two nuclear drops on Japan, if you follow the example of "This is what happens when you go to war with us" though. Nothing wrong with setting an example, after all. However, I don't agree with overbearing on 'setting an example' when it could potentially ruin resources you can gain and use.


War ethics is just a nice way to say "We're taking a few things, but we'll be as gentle as possible because we want everyone to think we're the good guys."
Just what were the resources being fought for during the Korean and Vietnam Wars? Some sorta PR stunts?

What twisted excuse of a Darwinian are you? When you took the "survival of the fittest" quote completely out of the context of natural selection, and mutilated the theory of evolution beyond recognition, with your stupid false negative confirmation bias and arrogance. Nature does not favor the strong when it comes to fitting in, while it only rewards the most adaptive and sustainable biosphere with continual survival. Therefore it doesn't matter what you believed to be right, the objective reality is that you're simply unaware of just how wrong you were. You should had won a Darwin Award for your own stupidity, so loose the "tough guy" act when I'm not falling for it over the Internet.

And about your stupid "setting an example" excuse? Well that's not even the logic behind the incendiary bombs, which BTW killed more civilians and caused more collateral damage, than the two A-bombs combined.

So never mind your "meaningless" psychobabble, when your straw man fallacy on war ethics doesn't fly with the logic of tit-for-tat. Thus ultimately your bonehead garbage is gobbledygook for a whole lot of nothing in the long run, even a 9 years old can tell you why the need for war ethics as a moral oversight. Because you are now an institutionalized power with a God-like oversight of invulnerability. And I can't help but to worry about our collective future inspired by arrogance and an illusion of overconfidence, while there are obvious social benefits from within our power of vulnerability.


Uh, hey. I want to know what gives -you- the right to throw around 'stupidity' and 'objective'. Aren't you arrogant yourself for doing that? I want to know what twisted excuse for a trash talker you are, how's that for a counter-question?

Reported. Because I'm tired of your incapability to acknowledge faulty logic, degradation of site members, and freqient harassment. You actually spending half of that post hyper-linking and trash talking is just cementing the fact you're more of a cyber bully then a logician. I've seen logicians, philosophers, and academically superior people remain modest enough to not pick a post and talk down to it just because it doesn't suit your logic. Because it doesn't suit your perspective.

How is fallacious logic offensive to you? How is people being illogical and subjective always warranting a lecture from you? You talk just to talk down, and that's about it. There is a fine line between correcting and trying to conform everyone to fit your perceptions. Which is, guess what?

Faulty. Now go talk down to yourself and try to rationalize it. Maybe extended discussion will get some life back into it once you stop hounding people.
Posted 5/8/11


As it is an ethic in war, your self-defense is rightful. However, he will, in the context of debate, use any anger you might feel to make you irrational. We call it "putting people on the defensive" so they lose sight of the finer points in a discussion. This is a suitable tactic for a confrontation, though many might consider it dirty.
Posted 5/8/11

Sonovabitch wrote:



As it is an ethic in war, your self-defense is rightful. However, he will, in the context of debate, use any anger you might feel to make you irrational. We call it "putting people on the defensive" so they lose sight of the finer points in a discussion. This is a suitable tactic for a confrontation, though many might consider it dirty.


So, he's doing exactly what I said to do in warfare, but in the form of debate.....

Ah-huh.... He's starting to make less sense now.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.