September 29th, 2002 Leave a comment Go to comments

Do I have a point? or am I just being a penis? I don’t think this guy has much. I bet he’s a hippy. I think this is what happens when you hand a small mind a quote with a big name, and let him embark on the process of free thought.

Him:

Albert Einstein once said:
“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.”

Me:
Einstein said a bunch of stuff. so did I. Once I said “what’s happening to my left nut?” (credit to bri for the stolen funny) and someone laughed. it was pretty cool. Half his discoveries wouldn’t have come about if it hadn’t been for war and it’s resultant environment. defending your country is defending your way of life. It’s honorable. To think otherwise is short sighted.

Him:
I don’t think murder is honorable. by your logic (iggdawg) Iraq should defend themslves from us because we are about to attack them. It is a cycle of violence that would never end. Ghandi said “an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.” What needs to be examined is the reasons for fighting with other nations. A few countries in the middle east hold over half of the worlds total amount of oil. Automobiles are the most profitable industry in the world and oil is their life blood. We are not considering bombing iraq just because they have weapos of mass destruction. Hell, we will be bombong them WITH weapons of mass destruction. The only solution I can think of is to annihilate the reasons for fighting. Why is that so many other countries never bother us?

Me:

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by firebirdheadface
I don’t think murder is honorable. by your logic (iggdawg) Iraq should defend themslves from us because we are about to attack them.
——————————————————————————–

Your definition of murder is skewed. you can’t go around defining terms on a whim. so lets stick with “defense of one’s country” instead of “murder” to avoid a naming conflict. so it follows:

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by firebirdheadface
I don’t think defense of one’s country is honorable. by your logic (iggdawg) Iraq should defend themslves from us because we are about to attack them.
——————————————————————————–

Yes. any country that is under attack should defend themselves. That’s just the way it is. if they do something to provoke us, they must believe whatever that action is was right. or they wouldn’t do it. much less stand by it. so they believe they are acting out of right for one motivational reason or another. it doesn’t matter. they think they are right. so when we retaliate, they should defend themselves. I don’t see anything wrong with that. Personally, viewing them as I do from my perspective, I wish they wouldn’t. I’d love to just overrun them. but that won’t happen. I’m not surprised or disgusted when they defend themselves. you could hardly expect any other reaction.

quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by firebirdheadface
The only solution I can think of is to annihilate the reasons for fighting.
——————————————————————————–

I’ll cry with delight when that day comes. but it won’t. Ever. Human nature drives us to up our positions in pecking order. it’s written into our genes and can’t be out-learned or out-evolved. teh reasons for fighting aren’t natural resources or money. those things are only tools of our desire to be on top. its that desire that drives us to war.

When someone invades my country I want our army to drive them off. why should we roll over and let them invade us? if someone comes into your house to take everything you own and kill your family what will you do? will you shoot the man or will you let him steal your things and slaughter your family? let him kill everyone. At least you’ll have your sense of moral satisfaction. even if all countries lay down arms, what would stop another faction from coming along and taking over everyone else? Lets all be complacent and pretend if we all hold hands and sing happy tunes that nothing will ever come along again and stir things up.

Work towards a utopia, but never shed an ounce of hope that it’ll ever come. and keep a gun under your pillow.

PS – I have a BS in physics, so I know a little bit about Einstein. he was a great scientist, but I’ll never quote the man on anything that’s not an equation.

So that’s what I had to say about that. sure it could have used a little refinement butI think I got my point across. He sounds so much like a hippy. I hate hippies… go back to your dorm and smoke a little pot. Listen to some G. Love while you tell your friends your half-assed philosophies on life. One time one of them was telling me how atoms are really planets and, like, it just keeps going on down like that. Niels Bohr is turning in his grave.

I hate hippies.

-IggDawg

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:
  1. October 1st, 2002 at 07:33 | #1

    War is necessary because economic systems fail.

    War is a natural rational extension of the more extreme failures of any economy within a given economic system. Also, war is the product of a valid rational decision set intersecting with an invalid or irrational decision set. You cannot argue with famine, nor madmen.

    An economy fails when it ceases to provide sufficient resources to sustain the growth-potential (note: not growth) of its members, thus guaranteeing a prolonged decline with minimal chance, within market lines, of reversing or halting the trend. Such problems are almost always caused by lack or constriction of resources and their solution almost always involves interceding beyond economic measures to restore the supply…or sidestepping the problem with technological innovations. Occasionally, when the supply cannot be increased or restored, the economy must seek to lower demand in order to survive, a decision rarely made willingly. Many of these failures are caused by lack of information and the ability to predict the future–decisions that are rational in the short term may or may not be rational in the unforeseen long term. Risk-weighing is, well, risky.

    A simple example of rational war caused by economic failure is that of two isolated farms with 4 members each that share a well. During times of plenty, each produces enough food to sustain itself and also make a modest profit selling the excess. Each plans against shortages by storing some seeds and food for themselves. However, when a drought comes and lasts far longer than ever before, each family exahusts their reserves. With only enough water to support one family and aid hundreds of miles away, the two families start trying to decide how to share the water. Things are civil enough, with each family emphathizing with the other. It appears that they each send two members for help, thus allowing the remaining 4 total people to survive. But before an agreement is reached, one of the first family’s members falls ill, with an illness that’s treatable but only if he gets more water than he’s been getting.

    Soon bickering develops, as Family two doesn’t feel that it’s their fault that he got sick. Plus, if he gets more water, there won’t be enough for them, even if they send the two members to get help. Family one says that it will just be a short term thing and to be reasonable and allow him to recover and they will do the same if one of the other family gets ill later on. This is definitely a possible point for conflict.

    But let’s say Family Two agrees to letting him have more water, getting less themselves. Finally, the man recovers, but by this point, family two is so weakened (note: conflict would become increasingly likely during this time) that they can’t haul the water back to their house. So they ask for help…but family one is still weakened from the illness and taking care of their man, so they refuse…only having enough strength to get their own water.

    Family Two, having little choice, decides to move closer to the water…or decides to build a funnel…or something. Family One gets supicious…or shares the idea and moves in.

    Can you see the conflict looming inevitable here? As the water level drops and the families get weaker and weaker, at one time or another, it becomes VERY rational to save oneself over that of the other. The other, naturally, will defend. Conflict ensues…and whoever wins, takes the resources.

    Neither are irrational provided that their survival is their ultimate goal, when push comes to shove.

    Hence, we’ll always have the possibility of war until we conquer the challenge of limited resources.

  1. No trackbacks yet.