Basement X

Let's discuss it.

Is it necessary?--are you pro or con

Is 'terr0rism' war?

What do you think drives war? decides it

A nice juicy topic.

I am pro War, but that doesn't mean I like war. War doesn't just kills countless people (not just the soldiers and innocent civvies) but it also destroys the minds of many surviving soldiers, and civilians. It destroys countless families, homes and livelihoods. Countries are decimated because of it and have a hugely difficult chance of pulling themselves back together and creating safety for their people due to possibly worse factions trying to take steal power or civil wars the erupt because of it.

War is necessary because there are genuine evils in the world that can only be combated through mass violence and the only reason there are genuine evils in the world is because some people are dicks and need a good slapping. Essentially they need to be dickslapped to be shown the error of their ways; and none of that relativist bullshit about "just because it seems wrong to us doesn't mean its wrong to them so we shouldn't judge them and leave them be". If they refuse to stop their horrendous behavior they must be made to stop.

A lot of things are universally wrong and everyone knows this. People who want to hide behind relativism are just looking for an excuse to continue their shitty behavior.

And terrorism is not war. It's committing acts of violence against an unarmed populace that has nothing to do (at least directly) with whatever grievance the attacking party has. Committing acts of terror against the unarmed is just cowardice.

And finally what drives war is people. As long as they're are people there will be war.

I'd have to say I'm pro-war. [See Wally's post for details. ]

*sounds Junkogen horn*

Mr Wallstreet wrote:A nice juicy topic.

I am pro War, but that doesn't mean I like war. War doesn't just kills countless people (not just the soldiers and innocent civvies) but it also destroys the minds of many surviving soldiers, and civilians. It destroys countless families, homes and livelihoods. Countries are decimated because of it and have a hugely difficult chance of pulling themselves back together and creating safety for their people due to possibly worse factions trying to take steal power or civil wars the erupt because of it.

War is necessary because there are genuine evils in the world that can only be combated through mass violence and the only reason there are genuine evils in the world is because some people are dicks and need a good slapping. Essentially they need to be dickslapped to be shown the error of their ways; and none of that relativist bullshit about "just because it seems wrong to us doesn't mean its wrong to them so we shouldn't judge them and leave them be". If they refuse to stop their horrendous behavior they must be made to stop.

A lot of things are universally wrong and everyone knows this. People who want to hide behind relativism are just looking for an excuse to continue their shitty behavior.

And terrorism is not war. It's committing acts of violence against an unarmed populace that has nothing to do (at least directly) with whatever grievance the attacking party has. Committing acts of terror against the unarmed is just cowardice.

And finally what drives war is people. As long as they're are people there will be war.

Voilence can almost always be avoided through discourse, but self-defense /self-preservation are often used as scapegoats.

What 'bout religion in war? I think it plays a major major part through the ages.

Why can't we all get along? Is our scope off?

Discourse? Guess it depends who you're talking to...

Religion is just a tool to get the grunts out on the battlefield. Spreading religion is about spreading the power of the people who are at the top of that religion.

War is completely fucking stupid. It's the product of inferior minds.

I don't believe war is necessary at all. It's an overused and exploited tool. I think saying war is necessary is quite foolish. I could see violence as being said to be necessary. Violence seems to be quite natural. To manifest that violence in the form of war is something different.

I think the salvation of humanity or the eventual evolution of humanity has to be in some kind of future without war. But I think that requires a lot of people in terms of philosophical cultivation. But to say that war is a necessity that can never be purge from our systems is to give up and I think people with that kind of conviction might do better by themselves to just commit suicide. If there is no hope for humanity, then what's the point of living?

Religion is just used as an excuse. It's always really about money, power, or land. If religion wasn't around they'd find some other bullshit to rally people with.

I agree that as we currently stand as a people, war is sometimes necessary. To say it never is would be naive. I highly doubt there was any other way to stop Hitler once he got rolling (could've nipped it in the bud long before, but oh well).

War is never the right choice at the beginning of conflict, but once things are allowed to escalate to a certain point it becomes unavoidable. Going back to the Hitler thing, if Europe had been assertive and halted his progress when he took over Austria there's a possibility he never gains the momentum he needed. Once he got to a certain point (I'd say probably around the time he bombed the shit out of Poland and took France), war became necessary. Hopefully one day the need for it gets eliminated, I just don't see it happening any time soon.

/Wally put it WAY better than I did.

IrishCream wrote:
/Wally put it WAY better than I did.

I thought you did pretty well.

Humans will never end conflict, but ending war is maybe possible. I really don't know about that.

Fasheem wrote:I thought you did pretty well.

I love hearing that after sex

How "progressive" are you?

It's mostly a poll for US residents, but all can participate:

http://zedc3test.techprogress.org/issue ... _quiz.html

I got 292/400.

Very progressive

If you could travel back in time and be seated before Hitler, Napoleon or some other conqueror, would you try to talk them out of their possible future or would you just strike them down?

264, very progressive.

that's actually quite low by European standards.

Yeah, I was kinda surprised at that. Than again, I think they mistake 'progressive' with 'left-wing'. And since my views on economy are much more in line with 'right-wing' views, that balances me out.

relatively speaking most of you Euros are liberal.

which I think is good.

CountD wrote:How "progressive" are you?

It's mostly a poll for US residents, but all can participate:

http://zedc3test.techprogress.org/issue ... _quiz.html

307/400 - This makes me extremely progressive.

good grief, bisc!

Pretty much any question that asked if I thought the government or government spending were the solution, I put a 0. Needless to say that demolished my "score".