Total Posts:77|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is war inevitable?

OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 7:21:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
By "inevitable" I mean grounded in man's essential, unalterable nature. Do wars arise from personality defects in leaders or some deeper, natural cause? Or do they arise as an inherent aspect of relations between states or from some other issue? I'll post my response later, but it's still an issue I'm fairly undecided about as of now.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 7:27:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Conflict and disagreement are natural among intelligent creatures. However, war arises because people are violent and impulsive. People believe that physical coercion is the easiest way to get what they want.
"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
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 7:28:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
War is basically a stretching of the muscles. You can train yourself to not do it, but it is natural. Natural does not mean good, but it means that, without constant checking, it will occur.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 7:30:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
War is an effect, not a cause. Itself, war is not grounded in our natural tendencies. It is, however, one effect of some of our tendencies, which themselves are our nature.
Sapere Aude!
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 7:32:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Conflict and disagreement are natural among intelligent creatures. However, war arises because people are violent and impulsive. People believe that physical coercion is the easiest way to get what they want.

So you'd lean towards psychological defects in the leaders?

War is basically a stretching of the muscles. You can train yourself to not do it, but it is natural. Natural does not mean good, but it means that, without constant checking, it will occur.

I'll agree it's natural, but could we find some way to repress it for an extended period of time?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 7:33:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'd say we can with democracy: that's the point, a good system of accountability stops things like war a lot.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 7:35:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hmm....that really depends on our ability to defy what comes naturally. I mean this in the sense that it depends on how well we as people can overcome our natural predilection for anger as a response to wrongdoing--whether perceived or real. I think it's POSSIBLE to prevent war for extended periods of time--but I think it's damn difficult.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 7:36:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 7:35:03 PM, CiRrK wrote:
War is inevitable and something to be embraced ;D
Why should senseless slaughter be embraced?
Sapere Aude!
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 7:38:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
People naturally value themselves, and by extension those like them, over others so conflict will naturally occur. I don't understand how this is even a question given that thousands of years of human history indicate constant warfare.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 7:39:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There should be a national referendum for war, we should restore the Ludlow Amendment. No one wants to send their sons and daughters to go die for the state's vain and selfish reasons. The thing that annoys more than anything is how people don't realize that we're no longer a democracy whenever there's a foreign emergency. The Congress assumes it's oligarchic powers,....the president assumes his dictatorial privileges, and everyone goes with it like nothing's wrong. War after war, they never seem to get it.

It should have clicked when the government invented the draft. It should have clicked in Nye Report on WWI.
"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
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 7:41:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hmmm...I believe war can possibly be ascribed to both natural tendencies as well as to factors that, while within human grasp, may be considered separate from the question of human nature or the basic essence of the self---that in coalition make war inevitable. I also suppose that while it is possible to prevent the precarious state of war through extended periods of time--such efforts can stifle any factors that ultimately propel or convince the decision to wage war.

Some bits of speculation, I suppose.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 7:41:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 7:39:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
There should be a national referendum for war, we should restore the Ludlow Amendment. No one wants to send their sons and daughters to go die for the state's vain and selfish reasons. The thing that annoys more than anything is how people don't realize that we're no longer a democracy whenever there's a foreign emergency. The Congress assumes it's oligarchic powers,....the president assumes his dictatorial privileges, and everyone goes with it like nothing's wrong. War after war, they never seem to get it.

It should have clicked when the government invented the draft. It should have clicked in Nye Report on WWI.

I don't get it. It isn't ok for Congress to send off other peoples kids to die, but it's ok for 51% to send off the other 49%'s to die?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 7:42:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 7:39:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
There should be a national referendum for war, we should restore the Ludlow Amendment. No one wants to send their sons and daughters to go die for the state's vain and selfish reasons. The thing that annoys more than anything is how people don't realize that we're no longer a democracy whenever there's a foreign emergency. The Congress assumes it's oligarchic powers,....the president assumes his dictatorial privileges, and everyone goes with it like nothing's wrong. War after war, they never seem to get it.

It should have clicked when the government invented the draft. It should have clicked in Nye Report on WWI.

I don't think we need to go that far. Why don't we just go back to the way things should be--back when Congress declared war, like it's meant to be? The Executive Order is bad. However, a referendum also is too, allowing the nation to fall to tyranny of the majority, whereas minority beliefs have a stronger voice in Congress than in the common arena.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 7:44:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 7:41:44 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:39:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
There should be a national referendum for war, we should restore the Ludlow Amendment. No one wants to send their sons and daughters to go die for the state's vain and selfish reasons. The thing that annoys more than anything is how people don't realize that we're no longer a democracy whenever there's a foreign emergency. The Congress assumes it's oligarchic powers,....the president assumes his dictatorial privileges, and everyone goes with it like nothing's wrong. War after war, they never seem to get it.

It should have clicked when the government invented the draft. It should have clicked in Nye Report on WWI.


I don't get it. It isn't ok for Congress to send off other peoples kids to die, but it's ok for 51% to send off the other 49%'s to die?

You take the lesser of 2 evils. Neither are okay. Given a realistic goal to minimize the injustice in declaring war, the public should be involved rather than just Congress. 500+ old men that have to worry about will have no problem sending children with their lives ahead of them to a foreign destitute country to murder and destroy.

I'm really not sure what your point is.....It's better than Congress declaring war.
"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
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 7:45:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 7:41:44 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:39:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
There should be a national referendum for war, we should restore the Ludlow Amendment. No one wants to send their sons and daughters to go die for the state's vain and selfish reasons. The thing that annoys more than anything is how people don't realize that we're no longer a democracy whenever there's a foreign emergency. The Congress assumes it's oligarchic powers,....the president assumes his dictatorial privileges, and everyone goes with it like nothing's wrong. War after war, they never seem to get it.

It should have clicked when the government invented the draft. It should have clicked in Nye Report on WWI.


I don't get it. It isn't ok for Congress to send off other peoples kids to die, but it's ok for 51% to send off the other 49%'s to die?

http://www.jollygoodshow.org...
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 7:45:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 7:38:38 PM, thett3 wrote:
People naturally value themselves, and by extension those like them, over others so conflict will naturally occur. I don't understand how this is even a question given that thousands of years of human history indicate constant warfare.

Could it be argued that "constant warfare" can be linked more to the period's social organization rather than basic human nature???
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 7:46:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 7:42:41 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:39:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
There should be a national referendum for war, we should restore the Ludlow Amendment. No one wants to send their sons and daughters to go die for the state's vain and selfish reasons. The thing that annoys more than anything is how people don't realize that we're no longer a democracy whenever there's a foreign emergency. The Congress assumes it's oligarchic powers,....the president assumes his dictatorial privileges, and everyone goes with it like nothing's wrong. War after war, they never seem to get it.

It should have clicked when the government invented the draft. It should have clicked in Nye Report on WWI.

I don't think we need to go that far. Why don't we just go back to the way things should be--back when Congress declared war, like it's meant to be? The Executive Order is bad. However, a referendum also is too, allowing the nation to fall to tyranny of the majority, whereas minority beliefs have a stronger voice in Congress than in the common arena.

I'm not following your reasoning. Why is Congress less tyrannical than the American majority? What is it about oligarchy you find more appealing than democracy?
"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
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 7:46:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 7:44:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:41:44 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:39:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
There should be a national referendum for war, we should restore the Ludlow Amendment. No one wants to send their sons and daughters to go die for the state's vain and selfish reasons. The thing that annoys more than anything is how people don't realize that we're no longer a democracy whenever there's a foreign emergency. The Congress assumes it's oligarchic powers,....the president assumes his dictatorial privileges, and everyone goes with it like nothing's wrong. War after war, they never seem to get it.

It should have clicked when the government invented the draft. It should have clicked in Nye Report on WWI.


I don't get it. It isn't ok for Congress to send off other peoples kids to die, but it's ok for 51% to send off the other 49%'s to die?

You take the lesser of 2 evils. Neither are okay. Given a realistic goal to minimize the injustice in declaring war, the public should be involved rather than just Congress. 500+ old men that have to worry about will have no problem sending children with their lives ahead of them to a foreign destitute country to murder and destroy.

I'm really not sure what your point is.....It's better than Congress declaring war.

Lol, generalizations.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 7:47:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 7:46:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:42:41 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:39:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
There should be a national referendum for war, we should restore the Ludlow Amendment. No one wants to send their sons and daughters to go die for the state's vain and selfish reasons. The thing that annoys more than anything is how people don't realize that we're no longer a democracy whenever there's a foreign emergency. The Congress assumes it's oligarchic powers,....the president assumes his dictatorial privileges, and everyone goes with it like nothing's wrong. War after war, they never seem to get it.

It should have clicked when the government invented the draft. It should have clicked in Nye Report on WWI.

I don't think we need to go that far. Why don't we just go back to the way things should be--back when Congress declared war, like it's meant to be? The Executive Order is bad. However, a referendum also is too, allowing the nation to fall to tyranny of the majority, whereas minority beliefs have a stronger voice in Congress than in the common arena.

I'm not following your reasoning. Why is Congress less tyrannical than the American majority? What is it about oligarchy you find more appealing than democracy?

It's not oligarchy. It's representative democracy. My point is that in a representative democracy, the voice of everyone is MUCH more likely to be heard than in the public at large.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 7:48:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 7:46:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:44:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:41:44 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:39:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
There should be a national referendum for war, we should restore the Ludlow Amendment. No one wants to send their sons and daughters to go die for the state's vain and selfish reasons. The thing that annoys more than anything is how people don't realize that we're no longer a democracy whenever there's a foreign emergency. The Congress assumes it's oligarchic powers,....the president assumes his dictatorial privileges, and everyone goes with it like nothing's wrong. War after war, they never seem to get it.

It should have clicked when the government invented the draft. It should have clicked in Nye Report on WWI.


I don't get it. It isn't ok for Congress to send off other peoples kids to die, but it's ok for 51% to send off the other 49%'s to die?

You take the lesser of 2 evils. Neither are okay. Given a realistic goal to minimize the injustice in declaring war, the public should be involved rather than just Congress. 500+ old men that have to worry about will have no problem sending children with their lives ahead of them to a foreign destitute country to murder and destroy.

I'm really not sure what your point is.....It's better than Congress declaring war.

Lol, generalizations.

Please don't turn this thread into another squabble between you and/or Thett3 and Ike.:)
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 7:50:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 7:44:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:41:44 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:39:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
There should be a national referendum for war, we should restore the Ludlow Amendment. No one wants to send their sons and daughters to go die for the state's vain and selfish reasons. The thing that annoys more than anything is how people don't realize that we're no longer a democracy whenever there's a foreign emergency. The Congress assumes it's oligarchic powers,....the president assumes his dictatorial privileges, and everyone goes with it like nothing's wrong. War after war, they never seem to get it.

It should have clicked when the government invented the draft. It should have clicked in Nye Report on WWI.


I don't get it. It isn't ok for Congress to send off other peoples kids to die, but it's ok for 51% to send off the other 49%'s to die?

You take the lesser of 2 evils. Neither are okay. Given a realistic goal to minimize the injustice in declaring war, the public should be involved rather than just Congress. 500+ old men that have to worry about will have no problem sending children with their lives ahead of them to a foreign destitute country to murder and destroy.

Congress can't have a successful war if the people are ultimately against it. Ex) Vietnam, Iraq. And unlike "the people" who usually pull their votes out of their @sses and are moved by emotion (I dont know of any surveys on the matter, but I imagine the majority of the population would have Ok'd war with Iran during the hostage crisis, for example). Congress is moved by their desire for reelection, which includes decent policy procedures. Congress also has unique access and knowledge of national security matters that "the people" simply don't.

I'm really not sure what your point is.....It's better than Congress declaring war.

I disagree
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 7:52:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 7:45:15 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:38:38 PM, thett3 wrote:
People naturally value themselves, and by extension those like them, over others so conflict will naturally occur. I don't understand how this is even a question given that thousands of years of human history indicate constant warfare.

Could it be argued that "constant warfare" can be linked more to the period's social organization rather than basic human nature???

Maybe, but humans are the people who organized those warlike societies, so yeah
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 7:52:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 7:47:50 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:46:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:42:41 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:39:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
There should be a national referendum for war, we should restore the Ludlow Amendment. No one wants to send their sons and daughters to go die for the state's vain and selfish reasons. The thing that annoys more than anything is how people don't realize that we're no longer a democracy whenever there's a foreign emergency. The Congress assumes it's oligarchic powers,....the president assumes his dictatorial privileges, and everyone goes with it like nothing's wrong. War after war, they never seem to get it.

It should have clicked when the government invented the draft. It should have clicked in Nye Report on WWI.

I don't think we need to go that far. Why don't we just go back to the way things should be--back when Congress declared war, like it's meant to be? The Executive Order is bad. However, a referendum also is too, allowing the nation to fall to tyranny of the majority, whereas minority beliefs have a stronger voice in Congress than in the common arena.

I'm not following your reasoning. Why is Congress less tyrannical than the American majority? What is it about oligarchy you find more appealing than democracy?

It's not oligarchy. It's representative democracy. My point is that in a representative democracy, the voice of everyone is MUCH more likely to be heard than in the public at large.

representative democracy is a glorified oligarchy.

Also, in the case of war declaration,...dude, they are not representing anyone else but themselves. If the goal is to have the people's input, then why not get it from the people themselves on a matter THIS important? On regular bills, representation is fine. On war, the PEOPLE are risking THEIR lives. They deserve a direct say.

I'll debate you on this if need be
"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
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 7:52:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 7:50:54 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:44:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:41:44 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:39:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
There should be a national referendum for war, we should restore the Ludlow Amendment. No one wants to send their sons and daughters to go die for the state's vain and selfish reasons. The thing that annoys more than anything is how people don't realize that we're no longer a democracy whenever there's a foreign emergency. The Congress assumes it's oligarchic powers,....the president assumes his dictatorial privileges, and everyone goes with it like nothing's wrong. War after war, they never seem to get it.

It should have clicked when the government invented the draft. It should have clicked in Nye Report on WWI.


I don't get it. It isn't ok for Congress to send off other peoples kids to die, but it's ok for 51% to send off the other 49%'s to die?

You take the lesser of 2 evils. Neither are okay. Given a realistic goal to minimize the injustice in declaring war, the public should be involved rather than just Congress. 500+ old men that have to worry about will have no problem sending children with their lives ahead of them to a foreign destitute country to murder and destroy.

Congress can't have a successful war if the people are ultimately against it. Ex) Vietnam, Iraq. And unlike "the people" who usually pull their votes out of their @sses and are moved by emotion (I dont know of any surveys on the matter, but I imagine the majority of the population would have Ok'd war with Iran during the hostage crisis, for example). Congress is moved by their desire for reelection, which includes decent policy procedures. Congress also has unique access and knowledge of national security matters that "the people" simply don't.

I'm really not sure what your point is.....It's better than Congress declaring war.

I disagree

The only problem is that it doesn't matter as long as the Executive Order is around.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 7:54:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 7:52:05 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:45:15 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:38:38 PM, thett3 wrote:
People naturally value themselves, and by extension those like them, over others so conflict will naturally occur. I don't understand how this is even a question given that thousands of years of human history indicate constant warfare.

Could it be argued that "constant warfare" can be linked more to the period's social organization rather than basic human nature???

Maybe, but humans are the people who organized those warlike societies, so yeah

Hmm...that is true, indeed. However, could you state that social/economic conditions may have permitted...increased chances of warfare?

I do agree that the human animal is one that is prone to violent urges...and tendencies.;)
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 7:56:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 7:54:59 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:52:05 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:45:15 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:38:38 PM, thett3 wrote:
People naturally value themselves, and by extension those like them, over others so conflict will naturally occur. I don't understand how this is even a question given that thousands of years of human history indicate constant warfare.

Could it be argued that "constant warfare" can be linked more to the period's social organization rather than basic human nature???

Maybe, but humans are the people who organized those warlike societies, so yeah

Hmm...that is true, indeed. However, could you state that social/economic conditions may have permitted...increased chances of warfare?

I do agree that the human animal is one that is prone to violent urges...and tendencies.;)

Absolutely yes.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 7:57:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 7:56:52 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:54:59 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:52:05 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:45:15 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:38:38 PM, thett3 wrote:
People naturally value themselves, and by extension those like them, over others so conflict will naturally occur. I don't understand how this is even a question given that thousands of years of human history indicate constant warfare.

Could it be argued that "constant warfare" can be linked more to the period's social organization rather than basic human nature???

Maybe, but humans are the people who organized those warlike societies, so yeah

Hmm...that is true, indeed. However, could you state that social/economic conditions may have permitted...increased chances of warfare?

I do agree that the human animal is one that is prone to violent urges...and tendencies.;)

Absolutely yes.

How would you describe the essential nature of man then????
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2012 7:58:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/22/2012 7:52:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:47:50 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:46:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:42:41 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/22/2012 7:39:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
There should be a national referendum for war, we should restore the Ludlow Amendment. No one wants to send their sons and daughters to go die for the state's vain and selfish reasons. The thing that annoys more than anything is how people don't realize that we're no longer a democracy whenever there's a foreign emergency. The Congress assumes it's oligarchic powers,....the president assumes his dictatorial privileges, and everyone goes with it like nothing's wrong. War after war, they never seem to get it.

It should have clicked when the government invented the draft. It should have clicked in Nye Report on WWI.

I don't think we need to go that far. Why don't we just go back to the way things should be--back when Congress declared war, like it's meant to be? The Executive Order is bad. However, a referendum also is too, allowing the nation to fall to tyranny of the majority, whereas minority beliefs have a stronger voice in Congress than in the common arena.

I'm not following your reasoning. Why is Congress less tyrannical than the American majority? What is it about oligarchy you find more appealing than democracy?

It's not oligarchy. It's representative democracy. My point is that in a representative democracy, the voice of everyone is MUCH more likely to be heard than in the public at large.

representative democracy is a glorified oligarchy.

Also, in the case of war declaration,...dude, they are not representing anyone else but themselves. If the goal is to have the people's input, then why not get it from the people themselves on a matter THIS important? On regular bills, representation is fine. On war, the PEOPLE are risking THEIR lives. They deserve a direct say.

I'll debate you on this if need be

I don't think I'll ever understand you Ike. In any event, thett raises good points. Congress has access to more knowledge, more information than the people, as does the President. And again, I bring this up, you continue to drop the factor of the minority opinion being heard. If the minority opinion has to fight for itself in the public, it gets shouted down and beaten. In Congress, it's given its own forum, its own time, its own personal voice. Minority opinion also has powers such as filibustering, which further ensures the hearing of the minority voice. And in a situation like WAR, sending the young to die, I think the minority opinion should be given a HELL of a lot of precedence.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus