You don't know crap about humans.
You have not even made any relevant point.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Might Makes Right. How to Survive Capitalism.
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
You have not even made any relevant point.
No I am saying that theories of chaos and order are irrelevant to situationals such as war.
Moreso that the only thing that can be proven as fact are anything based on empirial scientific experiment. You cannot say that war is or is not inevitable becuase you cannot prove it through experimental testing.
Your ideas abut war being chaos are not logical. They are one of thousands of rationalizations for the purpose of convincing yourself that war is inevitable. It is a result of brainwashing. Nobody is discussing your reasons about how war is inevitable. It is possible to give thousands of reasons why war is inevitable. It is a circular argument that goes nowhere. Brainwashed people use circular reasoning over logic in order to think. They think in contradictions. They cannot tell the difference because their brain comes up with rationalizations to fill in illogical gaps.
Your argument along with thousands of others make no difference from the facts at hand. War is not inevitable, but there are thousands of ways to rationalize that it is inevitable.
The question is not whether chaos has anything to do with war. The question is why are you rationalizing excuses to make war inevitable. If it's not that excuse, it's another. You know nothing about order, chaos, decay, and entropy of systems.
I am NOT defending inevitabilty of war. The idea of prolonging
peace-periods is of my greatest consideration. I am not trying to PROVE something with logic. Reasoning has made us really advanced but,
unfortunately, extremly emotionaly numb and unaware of our energies.
I agree with you that we are slaves of one system in which people who play the main roles simply don't care, you know...THEY DON'T CARE.
We just need to USE the energy that constantly streams trough
our planet-solar system-universe,instead of drilling the plates,making
nuclear plants, destroying water ecosystems with power plants etc...
I don't know much about chaos...That state is a very lame or no argument
for proving that one DOESN'T UNDERSTAND the big picture.
Typical western academic arrogant mindset.
You really know something if you can explain it to the plain folks, you know, not form a bubble
around yourself and breed arrogance.
Go to the 3rd World countries and try to explain to ignorant peasant your slave-brainwashing theory.
Try to make them think about it trough your perspective. I have 1000 of reasons to explain
your mindset but I rather go out and seek a peasant and help him with his garden and try to
chat with him about "that power plant across the road" and his deforming potatoes.
Last edited:
This has nothing to do with western or eastern mindesets as the facts remain the same regardless of anybody's mindset. Cycles of chaos and order have nothing to do with temporalities. You are confusing specifics and universals. War/peace is not a universal. War cannot abide by the cycle. The only reason you are mentioning the cycle is that humans are preprogrammed to believe that war is inevitable. Therefore, they rationalize up any excuse UNWILLINGLY to defend it. Why choose to make excuses to defend the inevitability of war
(a limited slave mindeset) over coming up with reasons on how we can achieve exerlasting peace (mindset paradigm of taking responsibility).
1. If I wanted to sit here and convince myself that war is inevitable, I can create thousands of excuses of why war is inevitable.
2. If I wanted to get up, and pursue everlasting peace, I can throw the question of war inevitability out of the window, and pursue the inevitability of everlasting peace without question. Is war inevitable? It's not that I or anybody has an answer to that question. It is that I refuse to acknowledge a question that cannot be answered, and take action towards to total end of war as we know it.
Which mindset should an intelligent individual choose?
#1
#2
(a limited slave mindeset) over coming up with reasons on how we can achieve exerlasting peace (mindset paradigm of taking responsibility).
1. If I wanted to sit here and convince myself that war is inevitable, I can create thousands of excuses of why war is inevitable.
2. If I wanted to get up, and pursue everlasting peace, I can throw the question of war inevitability out of the window, and pursue the inevitability of everlasting peace without question. Is war inevitable? It's not that I or anybody has an answer to that question. It is that I refuse to acknowledge a question that cannot be answered, and take action towards to total end of war as we know it.
Which mindset should an intelligent individual choose?
#1
#2
2#, ofcourse
Ok, let's not about argue abut inevitabiliy of war anymore.
The last thing I want to happen to us is another war.
The idea of prolonging is peace-periods is positive and dynamic.
It is a question of seeking balance, compromises, the idea
you can propose to any enemy which enabels you to start
right away with forming bodies, costums, federations that would
stop the slaugher. You have to start with 2,3 people,
than the idea starts to spread in concentric circles.
But,for example,USA has "modified" the Geneva convention in a way
that is just absurd.
If you think that you are gods and rulers of the planet,than nothing can stop you from destroying life and building weapons of mass destruction.
The problem is,again, dehumanization and greed.
"pursue the inevitability of everlasting peace without question"
is not a dialog-based idea. it's not about finding common
need for peace and stability that stops the anger and slaughter
in a given situation.
Ok, let's not about argue abut inevitabiliy of war anymore.
The last thing I want to happen to us is another war.
The idea of prolonging is peace-periods is positive and dynamic.
It is a question of seeking balance, compromises, the idea
you can propose to any enemy which enabels you to start
right away with forming bodies, costums, federations that would
stop the slaugher. You have to start with 2,3 people,
than the idea starts to spread in concentric circles.
But,for example,USA has "modified" the Geneva convention in a way
that is just absurd.
If you think that you are gods and rulers of the planet,than nothing can stop you from destroying life and building weapons of mass destruction.
The problem is,again, dehumanization and greed.
"pursue the inevitability of everlasting peace without question"
is not a dialog-based idea. it's not about finding common
need for peace and stability that stops the anger and slaughter
in a given situation.
Last edited:
It's not necessarily war. It's a question of human on human violence. From the first act of human on human violence up until the present day format of war and violent crime. Human on human violence is not a format of balance, but can be seen as a glitch. The elimination of glitches represesnts the progress of civilization. As we grow, our capacity to eliminate glitches grows. This is an exponential acceleration of progress.
Humans have 2 choices. Apologism and Meliorism. Apologism is the belief that there is nothing we can do about anything. Meliroism is the belief that human intention can and natrually will guide humanity's progress.
One of today's dillemas is of progressing onward into a civilization that considers human on human violence a thing of the past. Just as slavery which although we know exists in many form, it is none the less becoming more and more a thing of the past. These are intelligent questions that require very intelligent answers.
Human evolution is a progressive movement. Not an aspect of the cycle of order and chaos. Decay is an aspect of the chaos/order cycle.
As civilization evolves, there will eventually come a time when human on human violence is not just something that we have no comprehension of, but something we unintentionally prevent from manifesting as a result of our evolved psychological conditioning.
What I am basically saying is that the issue is not as much about war whereas it is ultimately about human on human violence.
1. Should we consider human on human violence a problem (glitch)? I would.
2. Or should we consider it an inevitable aspect of our nature or an inevitable aspect of reality? The ongoing meme would abide by the second. As long as we abide by the second paradigm, there is no reason to solve it.
As long as we abide by the first paradigm, we can look into solving it. What are the factos involved in human on human violence? What specific actions can we take to intentionally put a stop to any act of human on human violence from ever happening again? What can I do to control my own behavior?
Humans have 2 choices. Apologism and Meliorism. Apologism is the belief that there is nothing we can do about anything. Meliroism is the belief that human intention can and natrually will guide humanity's progress.
One of today's dillemas is of progressing onward into a civilization that considers human on human violence a thing of the past. Just as slavery which although we know exists in many form, it is none the less becoming more and more a thing of the past. These are intelligent questions that require very intelligent answers.
Human evolution is a progressive movement. Not an aspect of the cycle of order and chaos. Decay is an aspect of the chaos/order cycle.
As civilization evolves, there will eventually come a time when human on human violence is not just something that we have no comprehension of, but something we unintentionally prevent from manifesting as a result of our evolved psychological conditioning.
What I am basically saying is that the issue is not as much about war whereas it is ultimately about human on human violence.
1. Should we consider human on human violence a problem (glitch)? I would.
2. Or should we consider it an inevitable aspect of our nature or an inevitable aspect of reality? The ongoing meme would abide by the second. As long as we abide by the second paradigm, there is no reason to solve it.
As long as we abide by the first paradigm, we can look into solving it. What are the factos involved in human on human violence? What specific actions can we take to intentionally put a stop to any act of human on human violence from ever happening again? What can I do to control my own behavior?
What specific actions can we take to intentionally put a stop to any act of human on human violence from ever happening again? What can I do to control my own behavior?
Controlling ones own behavior is not enough, everyone's behavior must be controlled. I.e., if someone feels it necessary to assault you, you can meekly do nothing and let him kick the shit out of you ....but that does nothing to stop HIS violent behavior.
Thus, if you wish to control violence in the world, you must control EVERYONE'S violence. And to do so is pretty tough ...without making everyone feel, think and act exactly like everyone else. Is that what you want? Robots?
Baron Max
No it is not. That is what the law is for. That is what human rights are for. There are crime and punishment techniques for preventing human on human violence. Current crime and punishment techniques incorporate human on human violence such as police brutality and death penality.
There are ways to respectfully apprehend criminals. All humans whether criminal or not have the right to be treated respectfully by police who are paid by taxpayer money. This means that while on duty, police have to abide by an code of conduct that prevents them from having personal feelings against those they arrest. They must be objective at all times, and respectful at all times.
Unfortunately, our police system has no such code of conduct. The result is a culture of standard human on human violence. The death penality is also human on human violence.
As long as the authorities do not have their acts together to uphold the elimintation of human on human violence within the borders of their jursdiction, human on human violence will continue. As long as authorities use human on human violence to enforce the elimination of human on human violence, it will never be eliminated. It is simply chasing your own tail.
But you are right, not allowing human on human violence among a community of humans is something that must be enforced within the law no matter how peaceful a community is. Freedom is not being free to hurt others. Freedom is the lack of freedom to violate the rights of others along with the equal lack of freedom to violate your rights. One of which is the right to be free of human on human violence. As well as the right to live without the threat of human on human violence within ones's State which is established with the specific responsibility of protecting these rights.
There are ways to respectfully apprehend criminals. All humans whether criminal or not have the right to be treated respectfully by police who are paid by taxpayer money. This means that while on duty, police have to abide by an code of conduct that prevents them from having personal feelings against those they arrest. They must be objective at all times, and respectful at all times.
Unfortunately, our police system has no such code of conduct. The result is a culture of standard human on human violence. The death penality is also human on human violence.
As long as the authorities do not have their acts together to uphold the elimintation of human on human violence within the borders of their jursdiction, human on human violence will continue. As long as authorities use human on human violence to enforce the elimination of human on human violence, it will never be eliminated. It is simply chasing your own tail.
But you are right, not allowing human on human violence among a community of humans is something that must be enforced within the law no matter how peaceful a community is. Freedom is not being free to hurt others. Freedom is the lack of freedom to violate the rights of others along with the equal lack of freedom to violate your rights. One of which is the right to be free of human on human violence. As well as the right to live without the threat of human on human violence within ones's State which is established with the specific responsibility of protecting these rights.
No it is not. That is what the law is for. That is what human rights are for. There are crime and punishment techniques for preventing human on human violence.
I don't know if you've noticed, but the law and the courts DO NOT prevent violence, they only punish the violent ones AFTER the violence.
But you are right, not allowing human on human violence among a community of humans is something that must be enforced within the law...
But the law only works AFTER the violence occurs, not before! So your idea doesn't change anything.
Freedom is not being free to hurt others.
No, you're wrong. One can't control every person's actions BEFORE the fact. If they do, then you're essentially taking away that person's freedom to act as he see fit ..even if that means violence against another.
Freedom is the lack of freedom to violate the rights of others along with the equal lack of freedom to violate your rights.
Then you're controlling the FUTURE acts of individuals ..how can you do that? How can we monitor everyone's thoughts of violence towards others, then apprehend them BEFORE they can act?
I think you need to think long and hard about what you're suggesting. It's something that, as I see it, simply won't work, can't work, in a free society. It may not be nice to contemplate, but without the freedom to harm someone else, one does not have freedom! It's an odd concept, but you should think about it before you respond to quickly.
Baron Max
No. Laws against violence are to prevent violence. Human on human violence is against the law. Freedom is protection from violence. Freedom is not being free to commit violent acts upon others. Freedom is the lack of freedom to commit violent acts against others.
The question of whether or not we should prevent violence is one thing. If the answer is no, than there is no point in preventing violence. If the answer is yes, then the next question is how to prevent violence.
Do humans have natural the right to commit violent acts against other humans? Do you have natural the right to murder somebody? Do you have the natural right to walk around chopping peopl's limbs off? Do others have the natural right to do the same to you?
Do humans have natural the right to commit violent acts against other humans? Do you have natural the right to murder somebody? Do you have the natural right to walk around chopping peopl's limbs off? Do others have the natural right to do the same to you?
Laws against violence are to prevent violence.
Then how are so many murderers getting away with it?
Human on human violence is against the law.
It don't stop the violence now, and there are tons of laws against it already.
Freedom is protection from violence.
So ...we'll all have armed security guards with us at all times for our protection against violence????
Freedom is the lack of freedom to commit violent acts against others.
So freedom is actually taking away some of our freedoms which exist even now in the present day? Interesting concept, huh?
Baron Max
Do humans have natural the right to commit violent acts against other humans? Do you have natural the right to murder somebody?
The "right"???? I don't know what you mean by that, especially in this context. But, yes, we DO have the freedom to do it ...how you can't see that is totally beyond me.
Even by preventing a person from committing a future violent act is a loss of that person's freedoms as granted by the Constitution of the United States of America. How can you propose that loss of freedom??
Baron Max
There's no such thing as a natural right. Rights are man-made. No humans, no ethics.
"What are the factos involved in human on human violence? What specific actions can we take to intentionally put a stop to any act of human on human violence from ever happening again? What can I do to control my own behavior?"
This reminds me of great thinkers, like Aristotel, or Plato. But their theories
were also evolving. Aristotel had some an interesting ideas about human
cardiovascular system, but they were proved wrong.
I would like to help you..to integrate my point of view so we could clear
out the missleading concepts. It is a process in which the thinker
has to find people who will "belive" in his idea, philosophy,
at least 2 people, that an idea could evolve.
This reminds me of great thinkers, like Aristotel, or Plato. But their theories
were also evolving. Aristotel had some an interesting ideas about human
cardiovascular system, but they were proved wrong.
I would like to help you..to integrate my point of view so we could clear
out the missleading concepts. It is a process in which the thinker
has to find people who will "belive" in his idea, philosophy,
at least 2 people, that an idea could evolve.
Humas have their place in nature. They are a part of it. If you kill human you destroy life/ "the big plan" , you are damaging the whole system.
Humans have done more to destroy the planet than all of the other animals combined. And yet you imply that they're "the big plan". Does that mean that "the big plan" is to destroy the planet totally?
"Damage the whole system"? Humans damage the whole system ...no other animal specie has done more damage than humans ..yet you don't want any of them killed?
Hmm?
Baron Max
You're an idiot. I already explained this in my last post moron.Then how are so many murderers getting away with it?
You are too stupid to learn how to read. Stop asking moronic question that have already been addressed. This question has already been answered. Retard.So ...we'll all have armed security guards with us at all times for our protection against violence????
Last edited:
Humas have their place in nature. They are a part of it.
If you kill human you destroy life/ "the big plan" , you
are damaging the whole system.
I agree, the destruction of human life affects the ecosystem. I never said that humans do not exist in nature, though. I said that rights do not exist in nature without humans.
I agree, the destruction of human life affects the ecosystem. I never said that humans do not exist in nature, though. I said that rights do not exist in nature without humans.
Well, of course they don't exist without us in nature.
We can all agree that "human rights" are human convention.
It is kind of thinking we need to root out. It is based on
abstract-static/noun-based/subject-object conceptional
thinking which is good just for economy, science and basically - calculating.
But we are not only reasonable, we can understand far more
complex things without reasoning them out. If we use verbs and
nouns that direct us toward seeking our connection with the
Earth, concepts of Marriage, Heaven, Hell, King, Premier, they all
fall apart, mostly because they have no connection whatsoever
with natural occurences.
Does that mean that "the big plan" is to destroy the planet totally?
"Damage the whole system"? Humans damage the whole system ...no other animal specie has done more damage than humans ..yet you don't want any of them killed?
Hmm?
Humans have done more to destroy the planet than all of the other animals combined.
Baron Max
Some have, Baron Max, but not everyone. If all humans were real parasites,
we would all just multiply, with no questions asked. But we are not.
The ruling class wants us to feel like there is enough of goods for
multiplying for millions of years, and here jumps lixluke with his brainwashed
slave-memes....
The truth is we have 20-30 years till things get really "heavy".
You may think that we are the worst thing that has ever happened to Earth,
but soon we will find out that we are irrelevant for it's survival and
continuation of life.
Last edited: