status quo, status quo, and the fact that we've had nations for the past few thousand years.

People just have a violent nature I think, here's the most recent example I remember:Also, some people are continuously exposed to situations which are more likely to 'trigger' violent behaviour than others. So while we may be able to control these urges to punch people in the face all the time, I can imagine that given a certain situation, there would come a point that I would 'crack' or lose all hope and resort to who-knows-what kind of violence even if it's not the best thing to do for my cause, if by that time I still have a cause to live for at all. In such conditions the violence can rapidly escalate once it has begun.

As for these people who 'care in a negative and destructive way'... They probably think they fought for a sacred ideal, for what is right, and that it is taboo to disagree, compare it to Bush's "You're either with us, or against us..." if you will, see how neutrality is not an option? Not agreeing makes you 'evil' because you're standing in the way of the 'greater cause'; and once you are an enemy, you're worth more to them dead than you are alive - whether you're anonymous or not.

In other words, you have to be delusional to go to war and think you will actually accomplish something... Unfortunately many things can make a person delusional.

Yeah, but Bush is just trying to hold up the so called status quo. Hard as it may seem to believe, nobody wants war. It cost money, lives, and jeprodizes a countries education system. And what Mole mentioned trying to suppress things, we all try and we are all out of balance, and thus insane. Everyone is insane, and I'm not being sarcastic either.

Wow, that IS hard to believe...

I mean, what are all those troops doing in Iraq then? They cost money too; they must be there for a reason. If you want to keep a status quo, not doing anything just might be a better plan than moving a couple of hundred thousand troops to surround an entire country, and then having some CNN slime tell people that the economy would benefit greatly from a war in Iraq, and that the 'uncertainty' is killing the economy worldwide... That all sounds like someone is setting up a war to me...

Could be I'm totally missing your point though.

Mole: So we are 'naturally violent'. How incredibly convenient! That means we never have to excuse our own actions - we've only been following our nature after all. Sorry, but that doesn't work for me. Even though I might be using 'violence' as a figure of speech, the last time I actually did use violent means was more than ten years ago - when I was a kid. Now you hinted that we're suppressing our nature. Might be true, but did you consider how 'natural' we're living on the whole? It's also not natural to build houses to live in. Sleeping under the open sky or - if you're lucky enough to find a cave which is not occupied by a bear or anything else physically superior - under a 'natural roof' is what we should do, isn't it? No, that can't be it. It's not natural to kill your own species! Animals don't do it. They might kill other species for food, but killing their own kind is limited to some weird cases like the Black Widow which is clearly a different trigger (breeding). The mass murdering we call 'war' is clearly an invention of 'human civilization' and not natural! You said it yourself, these people are fighting for ideas. Theories made up by humans, theories they put above life itself. You can't explain somethingt like this in 'nature' where life and survival is the most important thing. Conclusion: Punching someone in the face to see who is the 'stronger one' might have been natural for humans, but killing one another is not.

Tuss: Sorry, but I'm with the Mole on this one. I don't believe 'nobody' wants a war. War has been good for economy for the last 3000 years! At least for the 'winners' economy...

Okay, I never said following your nature was the 'normal' thing to do; being normal and functioning correctly in a society has everything to do with 'self-discipline'. I do believe violence is in our nature however...Birds build nests you know... I really can't see any difference between a nest and a house and I never will. But, this point matters little to the discussion.Now that's just outrageous: check this out: it's not natural to walk! Plants don't do it! There's more to nature than animals you know, which brings me to the next point...Well, here we totally differ... to me the fact that we kill our own species is about the only thing exclusive to humans (and a few extinct primates, I believe), it's what makes us human in the first place. It's sad that it should be something this cruel that separates us from those other animals we call 'animals', but I believe it is more or less natural for humans to kill each other... My guess is that we are the only beings blessed/cursed with a consciousness that can speculate on how we would profit from the death of one of our own. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop doing it though, as I said before "we've only been following our nature after all" is the truth, but it's not an excuse. A rapist probably also only follows his nature and that doesn't legitimate his actions, and the same thing counts for an exhibitionist or whatever... So my point is, we have a sort of innate drive/possibility to kill members of our own species, and although we've been trying to restrain it for centuries and centuries, there's still some cases in which this goes horribly wrong... After all, imperfection is also human.Well, I think the bottom line of this can be explained by nature; people only need those 'theories' to justify their killing, to fool themselves into thinking they're doing the right thing; but in fact to me it's the same as two of the aforementioned primates going for a fight to see who bashes who's head in first.Now for my conclusion: ( 1 ) The reason we kill one another does lie in nature itself, call it a built-in 'option' of our organism that we have the 'choice' to kill one of our own. ( 2 ) 'Ideas' are used to talk people into doing this, as if they change/justify the barbaric character of the act of killing one another. ( 3 ) This is all very depressing.

So this is outragous? Come on, you know very well humans belong to the group of the mamals which are animals. Where is 'our' relation to plants though? It exists, but it is far more far fetched. And this leads to the next point in which you draw the same parallel between humans and animals - strange how you can utterly bash this point down once and then immediately use it yourself. (Not even mentioning the fact that your comparison is seriously flawed: my point was that there are no animals which kill their own species while your example merely points out there are some living organisms which don't walk - but not all.)

The 'only thing which makes us human' is obviously the ability to theorize about things without actually doing them. No other 'living organism' (baaaaaad - you only mentioned animals - how could you?) has such an ability. Therefore, even though your theory makes sense seen within itself (taking the basic assumption for granted), I can't agree with it. The murdering is an effect of the ability to theorize ( "what would be if this group/being didn't exist anymore...." ). It is the human ambition always to have desire for more than you already have - the jealousy towards what others have. The ability to imagine how it would be to be on that 'higher level'. Without it, everybody would be satisfied.
That is not to say I'd like to be like that. It would be an incredibly dull life - even though we wouldn't notice it then of course, because we couldn't imagine what it would be like to be able to imagine alternatives (err....).

These primates were the first step away from 'natural' behaviour. They didn't fight to see who kills whom, but because they were an 'advanced species' for their time - a species with the ability to consciously or even unconciously make decisions based on considering basic alternatives. Fighting to see who is stronger (and this who could kill whom if it came to that) is something many animals do. Just think of dogs fighting - but it always ends with the weaker one offering its throat to the superior one. Unless there is human influence involved, the stronger dogs never takes this opportunity. If this dog would be able to consider what could happen in the future (the same other dog 'threatening' its position again), it might simply kill its opponent. But that would require human abilities in the first place.

So much for the explanation of my theory. I don't say it's more valid than yours. I just believe it's more logical, because it also takes into account most humans never kill another human in their whole life. Sure, you could also explain that with your 'restriction' theory, but I'm sure there are many people who have never felt the urge or want to kill somebody. I don't think there is anyone who would never like to use violence in some way - but killing is an entirely different question.

Now this is just silly... A lot of species in nature kill their own kind for various reasons. 2 examples: Lions who take over a pride from another lion immediatly kill the baby-cubs of the previous dominant male to force his lionesses in heat (would be like a stephfather killing his stephchildren to make his new wife horny ); there are as far as I know various tribes of apes of the same species in afrika (among other places) who fight wars just like we do over territory (only on a smaller scale cause the can't throw A-bombs, just rocks and branches). So my conclusion is that war is a totaly natural phenomenon coming from our primal insticts. I'm not saying it si ethicly right to wage war but then again ethics and nature are two different things altogheter so... One of the reasons why man seems to have so many war/conflicts both on a micro- amd a macro-scale is I think to be mainly contributed to three main reasons (and a lot of variable small reasons of course):
1. Man nolonger has any natural enemies (unless you count disease and natural disasters as enemies) and these wars we wage help keep the populationnumbers down, extending the time we have untill this planet is depleted ('cause we all know that at our current rate, it won't be long 'till that happens)
2. We wage our wars on a somewhat larger scale then primates or other animals (seeing as we have tanks, aircraft, S.A.M.-sites, machine guns, bombs, bio-weapons, ... and animals have teeth and claws mainly (although some do use sticks to bash the competitions head in...)
3. Where as far as I know animals only fight over territory-disputes or for succesion, we fight for any reason which comes to mind (a bit exagurated I know...) like religion, politics, ideals, ... but I'm willing to bet that if animals had the capacity to come up with such a scala of abstract ideas, they'ld probably kill each other over it too...
anyway, just my two cents...

Edited by Pada1 at 16:27 on March, 14th 2003

Of course it doesn't explain why people start killing. However, this perception lowers the degree where killing is aceppted as a "solution" of some problem. The problem comes first, the consideration of possible solutions afterwards. The reasons to start killing vary, while killing itself is a constant option how to act/react. And this option is used earlier when you have an anonymous mass of victims.


and


Interesting thought. However, I partially disagree. I think humans are not the only animals who have a consciousness that makes them see the consequences of their actions; they're just the only species that can apply this consciousness in the long run. For example, two wild animals struggling for food: Both are intuitively aware that they will, if they "win" the fight, have a better condition than before, i.e. they will get the food. Otherwise they wouldn't fight. But, I agree, they are not able that the death of their "enemy" would probably make the hunt for food easier next time.



This behaviour is not a "natural" component of humans. In "natural condition" (not sure about the translation; I mean the term frequently used in philosophy to descibe a human's naive consciousness right after birth), no one can have the aim to be on a higher level than others, which means egoism. Therefore, egoistic behaviour is a consequence of socialisation in a society that rewards egoism, such as capitalism.

This just in...



at http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/13/sprj.irq.congress.france/index.html

So I guess she came to the conclusion, that since France is USING it's freedom to oppose war and death, that it doesn't apprciate it. It seems like the only way to appreciate the freedom one "got" from others dying, you must want other people to die, too.

As for the killing being natural, I think it depends on what you think is natural. i.e. is intelligence natural? One must figure where to draw the line before one decides whether killing is natural or not.

I want to know where the French get off being this arrogant, they get invaded during wars that they aren't even participating in (See the Thirty Year War).
Who harboured terrorists for years thats right the French, who still tested their nukes in the pacific even though the rest of the world said no, once again the French.
So how come the French can condem the Americans, fine if they don't want to enter into the war but do go playing the we're so righteous song, because it's crap.
As you can see the French annoy me greatly

Pada: See my above posts for answers to your examples - you'll see I already covered the same cases. So much for 'silliness'.

Tapuak:Animals struggling for food is something I'd put under 'instinct'.

Possibly, but I'm still convinced greed is a trait of human nature. Babies (who are the only ones in this 'natural condition' ) also don't have the ability to think about alternatives at all, so the requirement for egoism/greed isn't fulfilled by them. Their 'conciousness' for these things has yet to develop fully. Why this is is of course a matter of speculation. Personally, I think it's a combination of different aspects, but nature is amongst them.

sterge: That is exactly the view I don't understand. I don't believe the French and Germans suddenly all turned into pacifists, especially not their governments. I don't understand how people can suddenly praise these governments ( "Weiter so, Schrödi" ) when it is obvious they'll go to war the next time immediately again (obvious from their 'militaric' stance on basically everything concerning foreign politics, their huge arsenals of weapons,...).
But I also can't follow the train of thought you present! What exactly are you critisizing? That the French aren't 100% pacifists and that they don't destroy all their weapons? You have my full support then! It doesn't sound as if you mean that though. It sounds more like something in the line of this silly joke Tuss quoted. It is one question to acknowledge the French government is a nationalist and militaristic one (sure it is), but why can't they decide differently in one special case?
Then you come up with really, really silly examples (sorry, but it's true): the Thirty Year War? Do you know when that took place? That was several hundred years ago! And even if it had been only recently - what's the point? Being involved in wars isn't anything special for an old European country - after all, Europe has been the 'battlefield' for almost every big war in history! That doesn't make it right, but what is your point on this?

Now I see a flaw in your defense, but of course it could be a misinterpretation by me... In my entire post I speak of humans as a separate group, not part of the 'animals'. Since you wrote "Animals don't do it" I assumed you meant "animals not including humans" because otherwise that statement would be incorrect... So for this to be correct you have to split humans and the other animals up in two groups with different properties: for me that division means you cannot make inferences about what is 'natural' human behaviour based on the 'natural' behaviour of 'animals'. Therefore, saying something isn't natural for humans because animals don't do it is a bit of an 'overgeneralization', and yes I do find that outrageous for someone who usually shows some logic in his thoughts, and yes I do believe it is equally incorrect as my "plants don't do it" (you point out that a sub-part of nature doesn't run around killing each other, I point out another sub-part of nature doesn't walk but that doesn't give me or you the right to say what's natural based on what a 'part' of nature does). You simply cannot decide what is natural for x based on what y or z does. Unless of course you include the humans in the group of the animals, in which case "animals don't do it" is a lie, so when you say "you know very well humans belong to the group of the mamals which are animals", I don't consider that a valid argument as that would be a denial of your original statement... because we all know humans do 'do it'.

Your attempt to find an error in my logic is extremely lame given the fact that you leave 'your' animals in the sentence but replace 'plants' by 'some living organisms'. If I put them back (a) or change'em both (b) in your original sentence, you'll see what I mean:

(a) my point was that there are no animals which kill their own species while your example merely points out there are no plants which walk.

(b) my point was that there are some living organisms which don't kill their own species while your example merely points out there are some living organisms which don't walk.

All four look like the exact same reasoning to me... no formulation trick will change that.

My next point was an attempt to point out the difference between humans and animals, so exactly the opposite of making a parallel. It is in no way the same argument as you used before: while you try to make an inference about human behaviour from animal behaviour, I wanted to further emphasize that I consider the two to be different (and that makes the inference impossible).

Obviously I did that because 'animals' (and by this I still mean (all animals - humans)) are the only ones so close to us; other lifeforms are separated from us by many, obvious differences which were unnecessary to mention here. I don't see why that is so baaaaaad and I also don't see any relation to the error I think/thought I saw in your original logic...

Anyway, it's all just theory and everyone's entitled to their opinion of course, but as Tuss said, it all depends on how you define 'natural'. From your "humans belong to the group of the mamals which are animals" I think I see now why we differ... you seem to think humans are in fact animals (and I do admit they are very much alike), but animals that do 'unnatural' things; while I need to split 'em up in two groups to keep thinking clearly... Your logic seems to me like you alternatingly choose to include or exclude humans from the class of 'animals'.

Also, I'd like to point out although Pada1's examples are valid, one of them is comparable to the Black Widow (context of procreation) and the other one is about primates, the animals closest to humans which have been proven to learn in a cognitive way (I mean they too can speculate on different solutions for problems before trying them, like a chimp that's got un unreachable banana over his head and a box at his disposal: he won't try random tactics, but instead you'll see him observing and thinking until he suddenly 'finds' the correct method and then executes it - by positioning the box and jumping from the top of it).

Anyway, I'm going to give this a rest now, just wanted to defend myself against your attempts to undermine my reasoning.

[Edit: Mr Creosote and Pada1: sorry to repeat the same criticism Mr Creosote mentioned but I didn't catch that post while typing my own.]

[Edit 2: It's the final one, I promise... Mr Creosote: I'd like to point out that I - of course - agree that our consciousness seems the most advanced, and indeed this abstract thinking is at the base of why we (could) kill each other, but we never 'invented' killing each other, seeing the benefits of killing one of your own just comes naturally with that consciousness... So we're basically defending the same point, but at another level.]

Edited by The Mole at 15:03 on March, 15th 2003

I'll save me huge quotes - I'll just call everything you said after the first quote 'first point' and what you said after the second quote 'second point'. Also, thanks for answering Pada's post in a decent way - I was 'slightly' sarcastic about it

On the second point, you're pointing out animals are 'our' close relatives. That's a scientific fact - biologically, humans are mammals, no matter what anyone thinks about it 'philosophically'. On the first point, your argument against mine is based on the assumption all life counts the same when doing comparions - no matter how close the relationship is. That is what I tried to point out in my last answer in an ironic way. It's contradictory. Anyway, you understood my point and I understood yours - the rest is just bickering about secondary matters of speech.

My stance on this whole war situation has changed. Us Brits are now in a position where our hospitals are short of doctors because 100's have been shipped to the gulf.

Its going to happen, theres jack-shit anybody can do to stop it so lets just get it over and done with quickly becuase my mother needs a hip operation and the queue is getting longer

If the US were hell-bent on bombing Iraq then why didnt they......

...remove all their troops from Kuwait last year therefore tempting Saddam to invade them again and then there wouldnt be all this UN stalemate crap, there would be a justified reason to bomb them and nobody (even the French) would bat an eyelid.

Frankly I am seriously pissed off with the fact it costs me £100 a year for a TV licence in England and 70% of TV broadcast is bollocks about a war 10,000 miles from my house that will no doubt have little ramifications on my life. I'm sick of the media, its going to happen, better to get it over quickly.

Anything to save us from another bloody news bulletin!!!!

I don't care who posted that, I don't want to get into an argument here. I only wanted to point out that wolves eat each other when food is really scarce, and some kind of animals eat eachother as soon as one of them is injured. Too bad that I can't remember the name, but I think the specie is related to the dog again.

Then stop watching TV! Seriously, the past 2 months I've watched no TV except what the weather was going to be for the next day.

I changed my basic stance on war and peace, too. Us Germans are now in a position where our policitians are constantly working on a solution for Iraq/USA/Britain and out own internal problems come short.

Its going to happen, theres jack-shit anybody can do to stop the USA so lets just get it over and done with quickly because I know people who are unenmployed and need job programs.

If the US were hell-bent on bombing Iraq then why didnt we......

...attack their homeland already, because they've been doing that constantly over the last ten years. The USA and Britain are warmongers and they thus have to be exterminated. They're threatening the freedom of the world's population and they won't give in.

Frankly I am seriously pissed off with the fact it costs me ? 38,50 a month for a TV licence in Germany and 90% of TV broadcast them showing the ugly faces of two wannabe usurpors called Bush and Blair whose decision have no influence on my life. I'm sick of the media, the invasion of the British Isles is going to happen first, better to get it over quickly.

If you find sarcasm in this post, feel free to use this knowledge.

This is unblievable... Exactly the behaviour we've been discussing here happens right afterwards.







:o

Hey, the entire US government will be imprisoned soon for preparing the attack of an independent country and mass murder. UN troops are on their way to the White House with handcuffs ready. After that, they'll proceed to Downing Street and capture Tony Blair. Schröder will be punished for supporting the illegal attack by allowing the aggressors to use Germany's infrastructure to prepare the war.

That's how it would be if the UN laws, which the US, Britain and Germany agreed to when the joined, were enforced in practice.