|
| Thread: Is war evil? And if so, is it nesscissary? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted January 13, 2011 01:18 AM |
|
|
|
it has been the case often.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 13, 2011 01:29 AM |
|
|
|
killing people who don't accept the "right way to live"
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted January 13, 2011 01:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
[It has often been the case to] kill people who don't accept the "right way to live"
Ah now I understand. Yeah I think history tells us exactly this, that those in power are often those who're willing to utterly destroy any opposition. I'm just not sure how relevant this history is, didn't democracy free us from this kind of oppression after all?
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 13, 2011 02:29 AM |
|
|
|
didn't they declare war to Irak to (officially) force democracy to them?
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted January 13, 2011 02:39 AM |
|
|
|
You may have a point there. I honestly don't know if Saddam needed to be removed and I don't know the methods they used, so I can't really say.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted January 13, 2011 05:25 AM |
|
|
Hey there guys. While I love that you have begun a well thought out discussion, please don't drag in a specific war and annalise it to death. I'm just looking for your opinion on war in general not, to put it somewhat crudely, "x war is wrong because of v, w, z." Still, I find it great that most members are talking to each other calmly and without insults or accusations!  Keep up the good work!
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted January 13, 2011 05:30 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
So yes, war is evil, but, in my humble opinion, we humans need it. To be, well, human.
ok, say it again when war reaches your country
Please re-read my post again. You might have been confused by the order I put my points in (Because I suck at organization  )
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 13, 2011 02:00 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 14:01, 13 Jan 2011.
|
Quote:
War is evil, but it is necessary for the human race to continue to have war. Why? Because war jolts humans out of any slumps they have, it causes humans to become more inventive, more creative and far more cunning. War injects that small bit of chaos into the boring order of life that allows us to make things such as vaccines for small pox and polio, since these were being developed as biological weapons (Yes, to wage more war... but the cycle is self propagating).
or war justifies slumps? (1984, George Orwell)
your point about inventivity has nothing to do with war itself but with egocentrism, people comparing themselves to each other and each trying to prove they are better than other people.
now, if people wouldn't be egocentric, that doesn't mean they would sit on their butt doing nothing, they would still do great things, but they would do them for free.
actually, the egocentric person isn't necessarily interested in providing a good work, he just wants to appear better thab the other people. so if sabotating their work is easier than doing better than them...
order in life is often superficial. it's like in "desperate housewives" from far, everything seems ordered, but in reality it is full of dramas.
Quote:
Many of the modern mechanical inventions that we have made were either created for or perfected by war. For instance, the automobile. If it can withstand a grenade, do you think a minivan will cause too much damage? Didn't think so. That automatic gear shift? So that the driver didn't have to worry about it in the middle of a combat situation. Steele ships were made to defend the crew better then a wooden ship could. Atomic power? Made to at first supply the factories to produce the weapons and equipment produced with more power, then the bomb was made from them. The list goes on and on.
so it is better to create for bad reasons that to not create at all?
Quote:
Also, though most people might think this is a paradox, war brings order. After a period of combat and innovation, a culture will naturally try to settle down and give its economic and military machines a rest, causing a temporary peace. If the country had fought (and won) a defensive war, then it will rebuild. If the country had won an offensive war, then it will consolidate its power and spread its influence to the conquered state and camp there, taking little or no offensive campaigns against another country.
it's not the war that brings order then, it's its end.
Quote:
Fighting for your life is no evil, self defense is completely natural and healthy. If you have to go extremely far to make sure your enemy doesn't come back to fight you again, then so be it. To feel safe and secure is a natural reaction, and every creature has it.
so, if you are paranoid, it is normal to kill everyone around you just so you can feel safe and secured? it is one of the possible reasons for wars actually.
and even if it's not the reason, the leaders will still make sure you fear the enemies enough to not hesitate to kill them.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted January 13, 2011 02:43 PM |
|
|
I have watched many interviews given by men from the 1st WW on up and all you have to do is observe their faces to know that war IS hell.My Uncles would not talk about the war they fought.
<Imo> I think this is the most difficult question that man faces concerning the future. Because unless every country takes a hard line against war and refuses the old, accepted and expected rules; how could this planet ever be at peace? There will always be those that kill for gain and those wanting "justice" or just plain ol' "pay-back". It seems the world needs those robots from the movie; "the day the earth stood still" that would successfully attack all aggression, (therefore victory by war be made impossible) for mankind to be "made to live at peace".
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted January 13, 2011 02:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
While I love that you have begun a well thought out discussion
I think that you'll see that it's close to always the same members who're behaving uncivil and the same members who're behaving civil.
Quote:
people comparing themselves to each other and each trying to prove they are better than other people.
now, if people wouldn't be egocentric, that doesn't mean they would sit on their butt doing nothing, they would still do great things, but they would do them for free.
actually, the egocentric person isn't necessarily interested in providing a good work, he just wants to appear better thab the other people. so if sabotating their work is easier than doing better than them...
I think you've a major point here, though I'm not certain what the word "better" contains when you're using it, I think it can contain pretty much anything, such as "I'm better because: I am faster, I produce more quality, I get a better wage, I have a bigger house, etc."
I think one of the reasons people who're pirating software often are out performing companies are not because software pirates have it easier. No it's because they don't do it for a profit, i.e. they do hard work because it's something that interests them and they do it on the same time that they need to make a living.
Imagine a world where we could cut off the need to actually have money to survive, a world where everyone could get the most basic needs fullfilled so they could focus on the things that actually interested them.
I think often, when someone talks of the negative aspects of immortality, one of the against arguments are that people would just lie down and do nothing, because they've all eternity ahead of them. In reality, I think only people who'd prefer to lie down adn do nothing would do this and those people should of course be allowed to do so, and in general, people would do what interested them, not out of need, but out of wanting to do it.
Quote:
Fighting for your life is no evil
Only if you, when defining good and evil, decide that the consequences of fighting for your life is less important(?) than your life. I think most would agree, but it only goes to show that morals are just another word of a way to control others, in my opinon.
Not that morals need to be bad, if you're willing to accept that there are no absolute morals and that the morals you decide upon are for only you and those who may agree with you,
In this way, morals simply becomes rules of how you live your life.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted January 13, 2011 11:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
or war justifies slumps? (1984, George Orwell)
your point about inventivity has nothing to do with war itself but with egocentrism, people comparing themselves to each other and each trying to prove they are better than other people.
Of course, that is the entire point me boy! War brings out the egocentric side of humans, causing them to work harder and be more inventive to show their enemy that "WE are better than YOU."
Quote:
actually, the egocentric person isn't necessarily interested in providing a good work, he just wants to appear better thab the other people. so if sabotating their work is easier than doing better than them...
Again, the point! Though I don't really like the sabatoge getting in the way of advancement, it shows how far people are willing to go so that THEY will be the first to make something. How THEY are going to be immortalized for this discovery or advancement. It shows a willingness to go to any means to ensure that you and your fellow country men will be ahead of the curve.
Quote:
order in life is often superficial. it's like in "desperate housewives" from far, everything seems ordered, but in reality it is full of dramas.
Then why do so many people seek it? Trying to find stability is human. Chaos is also human, so why do we look for order above chaos?
Quote:
so it is better to create for bad reasons that to not create at all?
[/qoute]
I'll leave this question to Oppenheimer (Creator of the Atomic bomb)
Quote:
it's not the war that brings order then, it's its end.
Yes, true enough. Though absolute order brings sloth and kills creativity.
Quote:
so, if you are paranoid, it is normal to kill everyone around you just so you can feel safe and secured? it is one of the possible reasons for wars actually.
and even if it's not the reason, the leaders will still make sure you fear the enemies enough to not hesitate to kill them.
Hahaha. You just reminded me of a movie where they used this exact same quote to justify waging war on Canada.  But yes, all countries will indeed do this to keep support for the war up. What would you do if you saw people being executed in the street? Especially if they were children. In modern day America, though, such pictures are taboo and are never shown, in fact, American media is almost dominated by celebrities and sports.
This is why I profess to all the world that I HATE THE MEDIA!!! Or, to be more exact, AMERICAN MEDIA!!!!!!!
Back to my point. No, I don't think that that much paranoia is healthy or natural. The meaning I meant to give out was that if you beet an enemy that has hurt you and that you know will just keep on hurting you unless you hurt them enough to make sure that they never come back for you again, you would naturally grind them into the dust. Would you just let a starved wolf that you barely defeated have the chance to get back up and try to tear your throat out again? No! You would finish the animal off, because you know that if you don't it will most definitely kill you.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted January 18, 2011 04:29 AM |
|
|
Hm, this thread seems to have died...
Just when I was getting to like it...
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted January 18, 2011 08:19 PM |
|
|
imho,war is evil and the most evil war is the war of survival.
When I think about gladiators and how they were put to fight for their lives,pity about humanity comes to my mind.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 18, 2011 08:37 PM |
|
|
What have gladiators to do with war?
That was just entertainment, like executions. What is sports now.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted January 22, 2011 03:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
imho,war is evil and the most evil war is the war of survival.
Then why do people fight so hard to preserve their own life/ way of life?
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 22, 2011 06:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Of course, that is the entire point me boy! War brings out the egocentric side of humans, causing them to work harder and be more inventive to show their enemy that "WE are better than YOU."
Again, the point! Though I don't really like the sabatoge getting in the way of advancement, it shows how far people are willing to go so that THEY will be the first to make something. How THEY are going to be immortalized for this discovery or advancement. It shows a willingness to go to any means to ensure that you and your fellow country men will be ahead of the curve.
it has nothing to do with creativity, it just a matter of comparing yourself to other people and trying to look better. it could very well mean to kill more people than them. nowadays, the trend seems to gain more money that other people, and not necessarily by providing quality work, quite the contrary often. you do not become powerful only by providing people with all they need, you need to make them depend on you.
Quote:
Then why do so many people seek it? Trying to find stability is human. Chaos is also human, so why do we look for order above chaos?
because it is relieving, people often don't like surprises. do you notice how we are more and more being monitored everywhere? that shows they are afraid, they want to keep their power and avoid any nasty surprise, but you can never control everything anyway, so is it worth living in fear?
moreover, the more you try to control everything, the more pressure you put on people, and forcing them to live the way you want can only create chaos in the end, unless maybe you successfully manage to turn everyone into a machine, but no one has succeeded yet, not even Hitler or Stalin. why did Stalin regurlarly killed people working for him? because he was afraid as well.
Quote:
Yes, true enough. Though absolute order brings sloth and kills creativity.
I don't know what is absolute order. it sounds like you mean inertia, but it can not happen, the universe is forever changing.
Quote:
Back to my point. No, I don't think that that much paranoia is healthy or natural. The meaning I meant to give out was that if you beet an enemy that has hurt you and that you know will just keep on hurting you unless you hurt them enough to make sure that they never come back for you again, you would naturally grind them into the dust. Would you just let a starved wolf that you barely defeated have the chance to get back up and try to tear your throat out again? No! You would finish the animal off, because you know that if you don't it will most definitely kill you.
not necessarily, some people would be unable to kill, even if it costs them their life. though, that makes sense, that seems like supposing some people are fundamentally evil. for having read some stuffs about religions (including true story), that doesn't seem to be the case. again that seems to be a problem with fear.
you are afraid because you think the other guy will kill you. and the other guy is afraid, because he knows you are afraid, and thus, guess what you are going to do. if you read stories about saints befriending dangerous people, you notice they aren't afraid of them.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted January 26, 2011 03:51 AM |
|
|
Whoa, sorry for not being here for so long, I just though that this thread had died...
Fauch: The only thing that I can find wrong with your argument is that attempting to defend yourself from something or someone that you know will kill you is evil. You, as a living being, have a right to defend yourself from death.
Other than that, congratulations, you have convinced me. I still hold that if you need to wage war, then you must and should have no qualms about it, but war is evil. Thank you Sah!
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted January 26, 2011 03:56 AM |
|
|
This goes back to the question of if it's evil to decide that others should die under certain circumstances.
You can put up a scenario where, if you defend yourself (a right you say?), you'll kill someone innocent and if not, you'll die.
In that case, it seems a bit far fetched to talk about a right to defend oneself, maybe it's too general to make a rule in such a regard?
The same can basicly been said, I believe, about anything that is thought to be an absolute "good" combined with anything that is thought to be an absolute "evil".
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted January 31, 2011 03:46 AM |
|
|
Most often, I believe, one is innocent towards a certain action, meaning said person did not commit said action.
However in this context, innocent basicly means that a person does not deserve whatever negative threatment that may be in store for him.
What defines what is deserved is completely subjective and depends on the moral codex of the person who recieves the question.
In this scenario, you can either let someone kill you [... by attacking you personally], or you can survive, i.e. avoid the attack, but in the process you'll killing someone innocent (and won't be able to harm the one who attacks you directly in any way).
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted January 31, 2011 05:23 AM |
|
|
You give me a choice between my own death and the death of someone I don't know (Since no-one I know is innocent by your definition). I have next to no problem letting this person die for me, sorry. If I can live, I will live. Any honest human would say the same.
Dieing for a cause when you could live is not the best decision you could make.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
| |
|
|
