so what your implying is that you see the need for war sos why cant we let you be, cause if we cant ..do we wanna war with you, right? thus contradicting ourselves.....this is what you beieve--or i am reading it--not me i really despair ou dont see it and want you too. i dont want to shoot your head off, cuase that's be silly. war is VERy VERy ignoreant. but you aren't seeing it is. you assume its writ into 'our' genes. THAt is the belief that keeps you believing its the right course of action you wont step out of the box. let them kill YOU,,,,,why not. have you ever killed anyone wes morris? just curious. just that you seem to promote war..anall, wonder if you KNOW what it feels like to kill. i am very interested
NO. I'm saying that value is subjective and that diverging value leads to war. You don't read what I write. You read what you want to hear. You apparently take whatever spin allows your mind to support its presumption "people who contradict me regarding the topic of war are stupid". Your presumption rears its ugly head eh? Because you ignore what I'm saying, you presume it's ME with a comprehension problem. I understand exactly what you're saying. The problem with your assertions is that they are unfounded - based in pure idealism. I'm the dose of realism your mind pretends isn't valid. You feign superior comprehension in order to justify your denial. No, that would be BRUTAL and VISCERAL, and you're too much of a pussy for that kind of shit. For the most part, I am too. I don't like that aspect of life, but can adapt to it when necessary. You make this assertion with absolutely no rational support for it. War is not a person and therefore cannot lack knowledge. It is not necessarily an act FROM ignorance either. Why should I? I think the assertion "war is ignorant" is a non-statement. It's like saying "the plumbing is dumb". How stupid is that? I think the problem is that war is thought of as something by itself... as if it's somehow detached from the situation that leads to it. War is part of nature's cycle of what generally appears as brutality to humans and should be taught as such. How do you know? Have I said that? What I've said is that war resolves divergence of value. You don't seem to remotely comprehend what that means. That it is the right course of action is highly circumstantial and dependent on perspective. LOL. I can't step out of a box that only exists in YOUR mind. Do you want to die? I don't. I have a family to care for, plus I like my life. I would kill to protect my family, don't doubt it. Not that I know of and I hope I never do, but I can't say it could never happen. Threaten my family and all bets of civility are off. Happy to oblige. Talk about ignorance. You are stuck in the box you've made for others. It's funny that people who don't SHUN war cart blanche are apparently "promoting it" in your mind. It's quite telling. Perhaps you'll reflect on that for a few moments. No, I have no desire to kill or be killed. That doesn't mean I wouldn't to protect that which I value, like my family. Yes, but not apparently very able to comprehend what I've said.
whay do you sue terms like 'pussy' to dmean people you consider weaker than yourself. that kind of lingo is jail-lingo is..macho, strutting yout yer tits lingo, what med or WARRR DOOOO.......am i warm clever dick
yes. i ruined it with my fkin spellin. 'med of war'....?? look morris. if you cmae to my house. and began bad muthin my family and attackthing thm, i'd probably cripple you if not kill you. self defense. of course i would try and reason with you first, etc. but i wouldn't let you harm my loved ones but we aren't talking about that, and about self-defending ourselves walking on the street. we are talking organized war. can you not see the difference?
I called myself a pussy too, so obviously I don't reserve the term for "those weaker than myself". "pussy" is common term. resorting to criticizing that choice of terms further exposes your denial and apparently inability to deal with reality.
okay, you've stopped callin my pussy for two secs....but THEN 'begin' to patronize me by claiming i have an inability to deal with reality. so i then ask you...cause your the accuser....can YOU deal wid it? can you deal with your reality? what would that mean? do you think?
It's the same shit on a larger scale, all complicated by culture, interaction of related individual perspectives, mandates and all kinds of shit.. but ultimately it's the same thing. To a state, their "family" is the populous. They have a mandate to protect them. When they percieve a threat, they are bound by their mandate to take action to avert it. Sometimes that calls for war.
I'm not patronize you at all. It seems from what you present here, that your idealism severely clouds your ability to comprehend the conversation As far as I can tell, yeah. In what capacity? My comment about not dealing with reality was in reference to your idealism. I think it would mean reaching an understanding of how things ARE, rather than how I insist they should be. I used to be an idealist too, which makes it easier for me to recognize now. It's the arrogance of youth and all. It's hard to understand that no matter how much you don't like reality, pretending it isn't that way doesn't change it. Acceptance of some of the more grim realities of life is not easy to attain. What would good be though, were it not for bad?
well dudey, you are not talkin to a youth....though by saying that i am not putting youths' potential for intelligent insight, and life experience, down you are callin my an idealist, because i will not accept the way things ARE. right? for who?....for you? why whats the matter? are you starving to death? what's the matter? i know people are starving in this world. should i just accept that or speak out about it?...isn't it more REAL to be NOt happy about exploitation of people, and trashing of Nature and the whole schbangle that A mindset is doing to others and Nature?......its written in your myth. in ypur presumptions. i am exploring it. and pointing you to it. are you interested in finding out or are YOU an idea-list. stickin to the IDEa of the myth spun to you by the warring brigade shit dude. to me, seriously, you are naive. you dont know the HALF what you heroes are doing have done intend to do. and you call ME an idea-list also. whatabout your MIND. what about exploring it. ....ooops i forgot. they're doin a 'WAR against 'drugs' aren't they? tell me....what DONT they war against?.....shittin on the poor. do they war against THAT?
Well, I don't know about him, but I think you're an idealist because you can't UNDERSTAND the way things are - the realities of the world. Understanding and accepting are two different things. Idealism is a wonderful fantasy ...but that's all it will be unless one can make it work within the realm of the realities of the world. To say that wars should stop is also to say that all conflict should stop and that's also saying the all disagreements should stop. And yet, here you are disagreeing! And, disagreeing with a tone of aggression and anger. >"i know people are starving in this world. should i just accept that or speak out about it?..."< Well, hell, everyone is SPEAKING OUT about it ....that won't do anything to solve the problem. DOING something about it will. Everyone knows that people are starving all over the world ...and the reason those people are starving is because NO ONE WILL DO anything about it. And just look at you/your post .....you think typing a bunch of words on a screen will somehow help those starving people! I would also point out, like I did before, that the obvious tone of anger in your post is the very thing that begins conflicts. If you want to stop wars and conflicts, then angry retorts are not the way to do it. Baron Max
Baron Max... "Well, hell, everyone is SPEAKING OUT about it ....that won't do anything to solve the problem. DOING something about it will. Everyone knows that people are starving all over the world ...and the reason those people are starving is because NO ONE WILL DO anything about it." I know what you're saying and agree with it to some extent, but I wanted to comment. There are a TON of people DOING something about it, but doing SOMETHING isn't good enough. Throwing money at the problem doesn't solve it, because it's corruption that jacks the process. Somewhere along the line of intention and action, someone steals what is given. As I see it, that TOO is an inevitable side-effect of human nature. Those starving in africa will always be starving in africa until they rise up and kick the asses of those who would steal their food, or someone does it for them. Here imperialism might be good if it weren't for the fact that taking over most african countries would probably have a larger down side than up side. It's a problem with culture, not lack of action... but lack of effective action. The problem is in this case that as far as I can see, there is no possibility for effective action... as warlord types are a facet of the culture. You get rid of one, another stands up and starts shooting at you in the name of soveriegnity. *sigh* So if they don't want their children to starve, they're going to have to kick someone's ass for their sandwich.
This thread has lost all meaning let me try and sumarise the 2 sides... side 1: War is unavoidable as somthing will always cause it? side 2: If nothing caused war in a perfect world there would be no war? Correct me if im wrong.
there is wesmorris' ideology in a nutshell... this explains alot. ok so to get food they need to kick someones ass to get it. so someone will end up dead as the sandwich cant provide for the 2 of them? well how about people up north give them their sandwiches as they have a surplus of them? a world in which rich countries help sustain the poor ones would be ideal , world resources are shared and wars are avoided. Im not saying its possible im saying it would be good. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Man im actually really tired of this discussion can we come to a climax of ideas...it dosnt seem like wer going anywhere. Wesmorris sumarise your Ideology concerning war and ill elaborate mine into it, then you can tell me if it sounds good or not.
Confusion unnecessary. Put me into a kill-or-be-killed situation from which I cannot escape, and I will preserve my own life with whatever violence necessary. A pacifist worthy of the appellation will not knowingly place himself in said situation. In contrast, a bloodthirsty psychopathic Marine hungers for little else than murdering those people his superiors order him to. Jaybee.
Wouldn't you think that who is might ? .....Oh wait... I get it, you're a marine Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The difference is that he VOLUNTEERED. And did so knowing full well his job might entail committing state-sponsored Murder. Jaybee.
