I must agree with you, but it would be nice if "this great nation" stopped presenting itself to others and to itself as The Hero, and a long-suffering, Dude, Where's My Respect? hero in a world where everyone is Holding Out for a Hero, at that. And yeah, I too find Karma catching up with the USA frightening and depressing as hell, because I don't trust Russia or China to be good at world domination. Hegemonies are good for peace: everyone can focus their hatred on one center (except the center in question is aware of this and loves playing all the factions against each other)... I fear we may have a case of Vetinari Job Security here...
No, I would also like you to stop being imperialists and to help everyone prevent the other big shots from being imperialistic.
And yes, I consider what Germany, France and the UK are doing in Europe to be mildly imperialistic. The current situation in Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland is a direct result of the economical policies they imposed.
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?How about not doing any conquering in the first place?
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?You're complaining that a group of people thinks they're doing the right thing when you think otherwise?
Fight smart, not fair.Please elaborate.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Again with human nature. Words need not fail, that's what intelligence is for. In fact, that's why humans are so smart in the first place: the process accelerated exponentially from apes trying to outsmart the food and bitches out of each other.
edited 11th Jan '11 7:37:06 AM by RawPower
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?It doesn't have to be that way, so don't act as if it does.
edited 11th Jan '11 8:08:04 AM by RawPower
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?Why?
Also, why do you say "unfortuately" when you sound as if you enjoy things being that way. Could it be that you refuse to face the reality that the policies you have always endorsed are wrong?
edited 11th Jan '11 8:09:22 AM by RawPower
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?Actually, from studying anthropology I can tell you that Kino's right. Humans Are Warriors is true in Real Life; we're killing machines, able to outsmart our prey and anything threatening us, killing them quickly and efficiently and simply running them down if tactics fail. After humans became dominant in every sense on the planet, the only thing that could threaten humans became... humans. I forget the term for it, but the way we're wired says that on average a human is only capable of thinking of around a hundred and fifty people as individuals with their own hopes and ideals. When you don't sympathize with something and it's a threat or holding something you want, you kill it. That has been a part of humans since the beginning and it will be nearly impossible to breed it out of us.
My name is Cu Chulainn. Beside the raging sea I am left to moan. Sorrow I am, for I brought down my only son.This mostly. You seem to expect people not to think of themselves as The Hero regardless of their actions.
Diamonnes (or however that's spelled, don't worry, I'll get it eventually), most people think of it as The Monkey Sphere.
edited 11th Jan '11 8:26:19 AM by Deboss
Fight smart, not fair.Of course, it makes them comfortable with themselves to believe there was no choice. Their not searching for other solutions is motivated.
![]()
![]()
It has been part of humans from the beginning to be vegetarians and constantly hug trees. At some point our diet consisted mostly of flowers. Obviously we've evolved away from that. We can evolve further. The "it's near impossible to change that", you obviously pulled it off your ass. And humans being only able to care about 150 people is a theoretical calculation that turns out to be wrong. The neighborhood. The town. The city. The nation. Units we rally around. People we die for. Do we even know them? I suggest the next step, ZA WARUDO.
edited 11th Jan '11 8:35:53 AM by RawPower
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?Usually when someone says unfortunately, they tend to disagree with the proceeding statement. That being said, my likes or dislikes have no bearing here; if anyone is refusing to face reality it's you. People try to get along, when that doesn't work they argue, if all else fails they kill. That's how it's been; and unless there's a drastic change, that's how it 'will'' be.
And you base that view from a people designed to be violent without any consideration of the number of pacifist people that exist. The inevitably is perpetuated solely by people who want to be violent in the first place, not in any failing of the peace process. If nukes were to start flying between all the violent people and it actually managed to kill them all (which is not possible but let's pretend it is for the sake of argument), the only people left are pacifists.
Within the proper frame of rules and institutions and agreements, this doesn't happen. Because things are set up in such a way that resorting to violence and force is way, waaaay more costly to you than anything you could lose in a disadvantageous deal. People back down. There are short-term and long-term calculations. There is a balance of power. Vengeance need not be violent. And an unwilling servant is useless.
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?Nah, modern calculations on the issue show that if the US and Russia launched their arsenals we'd only lose like a few billion due to the resulting starvation and civil strife. :D
In any case, violence only happens in a framework designed for it. Some places have more violence than others, some countries go to war more often than others. Some things are an effect of geography, others about resource instability, and still others from cultural indoctrination. If it is readily possible to reduce violence through pacifist policies, then I do not see why violence is "inevitably". Clearly, it can be reduced, by what reasoning have you that it cannot be eliminated? Even if it is not eliminated, but reduced to supremely low levels (ie. only crime or random crazy people in the street), would that not be a better place to live than one where we're in constant arms races and espionage related subterfuge?
It's not even an idealist concept, I just think it plain unfavourable to the long-term survival of the human race to struggle down a path of constant violent competition when the game is not zero-sum.
edited 11th Jan '11 9:26:56 AM by breadloaf
The only rules that really stick are the rules of physics.
And there would be survivors in a nuclear war.
Fight smart, not fair.

I compared us to China and Russia because they happen to be the next two most powerful countries in the world, and best positioned to take over pre-eminence from us. Same for Stalin and Hitler- we're not as bad as those guys that almost took over the world (and we were a principle reason they didn't). Also- if "we're not as bad as our grandparents" isn't a valid basis for pride in oneself, then what is? Can any country in the world, or any individual for that matter, really claim any better? Come on, Raw, your expectations are too high- we're just people, not a country of saints. That said, the goal now is to replace the US as sole superpower with a global system that best serves the maximum number of people.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.