Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is War Natural?

Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 3:46:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I personally believe that war is not only natural because of our "alpha-male" trait, but also encouraged because of social darwinism and natural selection. In essence, war is just natural selection played out on a grand scale. To deny war undermines the entire basis of the human condition. Humans are naturally programmed with a "fight or flight" response which activates when threatened. War also helps humans or groups promote their superiority over other groups which is natural.

Thoughts?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 3:51:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 3:50:33 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Yes it's natural, even chimps will wage war. Doesn't mean it's good or desirable.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 3:56:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
But if it is part of the social darwinism and natural selection, then it is obviously desirable.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:02:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 3:56:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
But if it is part of the social darwinism and natural selection, then it is obviously desirable.

How is social darwinism even remotely desirable? Also, natural selection selects for some traits, but they are not necessarily the best ones. The human race could potentially have been much more intelligent if war and conflict did not exist becuase the more intelligent would not have been eradicated by the physically superior in the early days of our existence.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:03:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:02:25 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:56:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
But if it is part of the social darwinism and natural selection, then it is obviously desirable.

How is social darwinism even remotely desirable? Also, natural selection selects for some traits, but they are not necessarily the best ones. The human race could potentially have been much more intelligent if war and conflict did not exist becuase the more intelligent would not have been eradicated by the physically superior in the early days of our existence.

How is social darwinism not desirable?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:04:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 3:56:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
But if it is part of the social darwinism and natural selection, then it is obviously desirable.

Evolution doesn't necessarily act in desirable ways. It just acts.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:05:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:04:07 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Evolution doesn't necessarily act in desirable ways. It just acts.

Evolution doesn't act. Come on, Tim. You have Mises as your avatar, for God's sake.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:06:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:04:07 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:56:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
But if it is part of the social darwinism and natural selection, then it is obviously desirable.

Evolution doesn't necessarily act in desirable ways. It just acts.

But the end result is always superior.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
shift4101
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:06:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You are presupposing naturallism is a good thing, and desirable. Tossing everything that humans have worked for with our smart lil' brains out the window.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:06:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:04:07 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:56:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
But if it is part of the social darwinism and natural selection, then it is obviously desirable.

Evolution doesn't necessarily act in desirable ways. It just acts.

lol no. Evolution acts on whatever helps that species survive in that environment best, its tool of course being natural selection. Evolution does not provide one with undesirable traits unless we vacate the region for which it was designed.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:06:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:05:19 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:04:07 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Evolution doesn't necessarily act in desirable ways. It just acts.

Evolution doesn't act. Come on, Tim. You have Mises as your avatar, for God's sake.

Lol sorry about the wording. Would the word occur suffice?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:06:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 3:56:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
But if it is part of the social darwinism and natural selection, then it is obviously desirable.

A doctrine that contends that the poor deserve to suffer and die and should not be helped is morally deplorable.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:07:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:06:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:04:07 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:56:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
But if it is part of the social darwinism and natural selection, then it is obviously desirable.

Evolution doesn't necessarily act in desirable ways. It just acts.

lol no. Evolution acts on whatever helps that species survive in that environment best, its tool of course being natural selection. Evolution does not provide one with undesirable traits unless we vacate the region for which it was designed.

Undesirable according to what standard?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:07:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:06:50 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:56:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
But if it is part of the social darwinism and natural selection, then it is obviously desirable.

A doctrine that contends that the poor deserve to suffer and die and should not be helped is morally deplorable.

No. It is beneficial to all of society if resources are not allocated onto those who will not use them effectively in favour of society.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:08:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:06:01 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:04:07 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:56:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
But if it is part of the social darwinism and natural selection, then it is obviously desirable.

Evolution doesn't necessarily act in desirable ways. It just acts.

But the end result is always superior.

In specific situations and contexts. The dodo bird evolved to match its environment, for example, and when it was confronted with humans, it was unable to cope because of that evolution.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:09:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:07:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:06:50 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:56:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
But if it is part of the social darwinism and natural selection, then it is obviously desirable.

A doctrine that contends that the poor deserve to suffer and die and should not be helped is morally deplorable.

No. It is beneficial to all of society if resources are not allocated onto those who will not use them effectively in favour of society.

Seriously bro Fvck society. Society does not anymore rights than those if the individuals that make it up.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:09:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:07:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:06:50 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:56:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
But if it is part of the social darwinism and natural selection, then it is obviously desirable.

A doctrine that contends that the poor deserve to suffer and die and should not be helped is morally deplorable.

No. It is beneficial to all of society if resources are not allocated onto those who will not use them effectively in favour of society.

Yeah, because the poor are not part of society, and spending money to help a moronic, lazy son of an aristocratic family is beneficial to the common good.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:09:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:07:47 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:06:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:04:07 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:56:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
But if it is part of the social darwinism and natural selection, then it is obviously desirable.

Evolution doesn't necessarily act in desirable ways. It just acts.

lol no. Evolution acts on whatever helps that species survive in that environment best, its tool of course being natural selection. Evolution does not provide one with undesirable traits unless we vacate the region for which it was designed.

Undesirable according to what standard?

according to the standard of survival. What other standard matters?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:09:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:08:05 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:06:01 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:04:07 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:56:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
But if it is part of the social darwinism and natural selection, then it is obviously desirable.

Evolution doesn't necessarily act in desirable ways. It just acts.

But the end result is always superior.

In specific situations and contexts. The dodo bird evolved to match its environment, for example, and when it was confronted with humans, it was unable to cope because of that evolution.

That does not prove anything. External forces interred with the Dodo Bird too quickly for it to evolve. Evolution does not happen over a short period of time. However, the evolution that occurred to make the Dodo Bird match its environment was beneficial.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:09:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:09:07 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:07:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:06:50 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:56:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
But if it is part of the social darwinism and natural selection, then it is obviously desirable.

A doctrine that contends that the poor deserve to suffer and die and should not be helped is morally deplorable.

No. It is beneficial to all of society if resources are not allocated onto those who will not use them effectively in favour of society.

Seriously bro Fvck society. Society does not anymore rights than those if the individuals that make it up.

Society has no rights at all; the people within a society are the ones with rights.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:10:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:09:07 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:07:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:06:50 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:56:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
But if it is part of the social darwinism and natural selection, then it is obviously desirable.

A doctrine that contends that the poor deserve to suffer and die and should not be helped is morally deplorable.

No. It is beneficial to all of society if resources are not allocated onto those who will not use them effectively in favour of society.

Seriously bro Fvck society. Society does not anymore rights than those if the individuals that make it up.

Society encompasses all individuals and should therefore be given more rights than an individual.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:10:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:09:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:08:05 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:06:01 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:04:07 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:56:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
But if it is part of the social darwinism and natural selection, then it is obviously desirable.

Evolution doesn't necessarily act in desirable ways. It just acts.

But the end result is always superior.

In specific situations and contexts. The dodo bird evolved to match its environment, for example, and when it was confronted with humans, it was unable to cope because of that evolution.

That does not prove anything. External forces interred with the Dodo Bird too quickly for it to evolve. Evolution does not happen over a short period of time. However, the evolution that occurred to make the Dodo Bird match its environment was beneficial.

My point was that it was only beneficial in a specific context; it does not necessarily lead to superior results overall.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:11:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:09:58 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:09:07 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:07:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:06:50 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:56:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
But if it is part of the social darwinism and natural selection, then it is obviously desirable.

A doctrine that contends that the poor deserve to suffer and die and should not be helped is morally deplorable.

No. It is beneficial to all of society if resources are not allocated onto those who will not use them effectively in favour of society.

Seriously bro Fvck society. Society does not anymore rights than those if the individuals that make it up.

Society has no rights at all; the people within a society are the ones with rights.

That is your position. I have a different one.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:11:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:10:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:09:07 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:07:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:06:50 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:56:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
But if it is part of the social darwinism and natural selection, then it is obviously desirable.

A doctrine that contends that the poor deserve to suffer and die and should not be helped is morally deplorable.

No. It is beneficial to all of society if resources are not allocated onto those who will not use them effectively in favour of society.

Seriously bro Fvck society. Society does not anymore rights than those if the individuals that make it up.

Society encompasses all individuals and should therefore be given more rights than an individual.

The individuals posses rights. Society does not have any rights because it is simply the collection of people. We should not serve society; we should serve the people within it.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:11:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:10:58 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:09:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:08:05 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:06:01 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:04:07 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:56:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
But if it is part of the social darwinism and natural selection, then it is obviously desirable.

Evolution doesn't necessarily act in desirable ways. It just acts.

But the end result is always superior.

In specific situations and contexts. The dodo bird evolved to match its environment, for example, and when it was confronted with humans, it was unable to cope because of that evolution.

That does not prove anything. External forces interred with the Dodo Bird too quickly for it to evolve. Evolution does not happen over a short period of time. However, the evolution that occurred to make the Dodo Bird match its environment was beneficial.

My point was that it was only beneficial in a specific context; it does not necessarily lead to superior results overall.

You cannot compare internal evolution with rapid external forces competing with the internal evolution.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:11:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:09:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:07:47 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:06:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:04:07 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:56:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
But if it is part of the social darwinism and natural selection, then it is obviously desirable.

Evolution doesn't necessarily act in desirable ways. It just acts.

lol no. Evolution acts on whatever helps that species survive in that environment best, its tool of course being natural selection. Evolution does not provide one with undesirable traits unless we vacate the region for which it was designed.

Undesirable according to what standard?

according to the standard of survival. What other standard matters?

I'm asking why that standard is necessarily the correct one.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:12:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:11:40 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:10:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:09:07 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:07:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:06:50 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:56:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
But if it is part of the social darwinism and natural selection, then it is obviously desirable.

A doctrine that contends that the poor deserve to suffer and die and should not be helped is morally deplorable.

No. It is beneficial to all of society if resources are not allocated onto those who will not use them effectively in favour of society.

Seriously bro Fvck society. Society does not anymore rights than those if the individuals that make it up.

Society encompasses all individuals and should therefore be given more rights than an individual.

The individuals posses rights. Society does not have any rights because it is simply the collection of people. We should not serve society; we should serve the people within it.

If we serve individuals on a one-by-one or a group by group basis, society will be ineffective. If we serve society as a whole, it will be much more effective.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:12:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:11:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:10:58 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:09:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:08:05 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:06:01 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:04:07 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:56:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
But if it is part of the social darwinism and natural selection, then it is obviously desirable.

Evolution doesn't necessarily act in desirable ways. It just acts.

But the end result is always superior.

In specific situations and contexts. The dodo bird evolved to match its environment, for example, and when it was confronted with humans, it was unable to cope because of that evolution.

That does not prove anything. External forces interred with the Dodo Bird too quickly for it to evolve. Evolution does not happen over a short period of time. However, the evolution that occurred to make the Dodo Bird match its environment was beneficial.

My point was that it was only beneficial in a specific context; it does not necessarily lead to superior results overall.

You cannot compare internal evolution with rapid external forces competing with the internal evolution.

Yes, I can, because it proves that evolution does not lead to an overall trend towards superiority, which is what you were implicitly arguing.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2012 4:13:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/4/2012 4:12:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:11:40 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:10:46 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:09:07 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:07:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/4/2012 4:06:50 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/4/2012 3:56:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
But if it is part of the social darwinism and natural selection, then it is obviously desirable.

A doctrine that contends that the poor deserve to suffer and die and should not be helped is morally deplorable.

No. It is beneficial to all of society if resources are not allocated onto those who will not use them effectively in favour of society.

Seriously bro Fvck society. Society does not anymore rights than those if the individuals that make it up.

Society encompasses all individuals and should therefore be given more rights than an individual.

The individuals posses rights. Society does not have any rights because it is simply the collection of people. We should not serve society; we should serve the people within it.

If we serve individuals on a one-by-one or a group by group basis, society will be ineffective. If we serve society as a whole, it will be much more effective.

When has serving society as a whole ever helped more than a few people? This is just a justification used to oppress the poor.