Thread: F**k the Troops

Originally Posted by cygnus

well, i have a good idea of what i'm talking about because i don't have an ethnocentric education of culture or history. all of your arguments against what i've been saying have been an exercise in inflexible thinking and high praise for those whose actions perpetuate a backward and unnatural way of life. my perception of history has been no more "skewed by my bleeding heart" than yours has been warped by those who wrote the books. there is no "massive conspiracy to cover up any anti-military attitude" aside from (as i already hinted at) centuries of marginalization and genocide of those cultures who contradicted your military-centered way of being.

How did you know I go to school at Richwhiteman University? I thought everybody in a free society learned the same history, since there can only be one and there is usually a consensus on the truth. How did you avoid this ethnocentric education? If my history books are flawed, how did you get your information and why is it better than mine? Who are you to say war is unnatural? Humans have been taking part in premeditated violent acts since the beginning of time, one tribe against another. You aren't reading history with an open mind, you are squeezing it through a filter in your head. You are only hearing the things you want to hear.

Originally Posted by stonedape

LOLOL I don't support Obama. Obama is an ass. So is McCain. The only candidate that I had any respect for in the last election was Ron Paul. The world already is such that the brightest think it is foolish to vie for power, that's why they work as scientists, doctors, engineers etc. They do things that actually do help our society rather than working for the war machine. I stand by my conviction that men who seek power are fools.


There's no such thing as good nature vs bad nature. People aren't inherently violent, it is a technique that is learned in life. Why can't we control our emotions? I think that we can. I have learned how to, so I assume that others can do the same. You still have absolutely no evidence for your assertion that humans are inherently violent creatures who must fight in battles. Why must we fight? Give me one good reason. Your basically saying that we have to fight because we as a species are to lazy to make sense of our own feelings.

Controlling people is exactly the problem. People who are controlled by others have no control over themselves. People who are autonomous rather than controlled are able to process their emotions and resist that urge to smash peoples face in. People take advantage of the weak moral fiber of our society, not some docile nature. Are humans docile or violent, make up your mind?


Gnats evolving into pterodactyls, interesting. But They are a group of terrorists. They are not representatives of Iraq(fuck they aren't even from Iraq if I recall). They will continue to bug us regardless of weather or not we swat. We can't kill all the terrorists, because if we did someone would just start being a terrorist again. It's just like your argument about putting all the guns down. We can't beat people into submission, but we can create a society where people do not feel alienated from each other. If we had such a society these people wouldn't be attacking us because they wouldn't see us as a threat to their way of life.

I'm in no way suggesting that we ignore terrorism, only that we try understanding rather than fighting those that we share this planet with. Not starting wars=/=ignoring the problem. Starting wars=ignoring the fact the killing people is not a good way to deal with your problems.


What is going halfway across the world to fight the terrorists if not policing the world?

You really think that we should fight terror? That is the way you deal with fear, by fighting it?



I know that you are advocating war. War is violence. Therefore you are advocating violence. Violence is not sensible. We cannot sustain a society built on bones. You still haven't shown me any reason that the human race cannot go beyond the struggle of the jungle and live in a civilized manner.

"LOLOL I don't support Obama. Obama is an ass. So is McCain. The only candidate that I had any respect for in the last election was Ron Paul. The world already is such that the brightest think it is foolish to vie for power, that's why they work as scientists, doctors, engineers etc. They do things that actually do help our society rather than working for the war machine. I stand by my conviction that men who seek power are fools."

So basically you are an anarchist. No goverment and no military. Sounds like the life. Do you enjoy washing your clothes down by the river?

Science is the only respectable career for a man with brains huh? You do realize there are other types of intelligence don't you? Lets make a short list of some of the men and women you consider to be foolish: Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, Martin Luther King jr., Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Cosimo di Medici, Alexander the Great, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Mahatma Ghandi, Susan B. Anthony, Jesus, Robert E. Lee, James Longstreet, Ulysses S. Grant, Dwight Eisenhower, James Mattis, James Doolittle, John Adams, John Hancock, Alexander Hamilton, Bill Gates, James Madison, Leonardo Da Vinci, Caesar Agustus, Winston Churchill, and even your beloved Ron Paul.

Now, with a straight face, I want you to tell me that none of those individuals made a positive contribution to society.

"There's no such thing as good nature vs bad nature. People aren't inherently violent, it is a technique that is learned in life. Why can't we control our emotions? I think that we can. I have learned how to, so I assume that others can do the same. You still have absolutely no evidence for your assertion that humans are inherently violent creatures who must fight in battles. Why must we fight? Give me one good reason. Your basically saying that we have to fight because we as a species are to lazy to make sense of our own feelings."

There is such thing as good and bad natured. There are bad people on the Earth, do you not realize that or are you in denial? Im not saying they are born that way, Im saying they learn it. Bad upbringing or any number of things can cause it. And people are inherently violent, it takes a conscious effort on our part to avoid physical conflict. Individual people can control their emotions, Im very good at controlling mine, but others are not. That's the problem with large populations of people, they are filled with people who can't control their emotions and are prone to panic. I don't need evidence, you are a human, you should know. How is a jealous boyfriend likely to treat the man his girlfriend is cheating on him with? How do you react to a man setting up camp on your front lawn and living there? What if he refuses to leave after you ask him? Either you or the police must force him to leave. People aren't always agreeable. It is obvious to me that you are living in a Utopian fantasy, so wake up and come back to reality.

"Controlling people is exactly the problem. People who are controlled by others have no control over themselves. People who are autonomous rather than controlled are able to process their emotions and resist that urge to smash peoples face in. People take advantage of the weak moral fiber of our society, not some docile nature. Are humans docile or violent, make up your mind?"

What on Earth are you talking about? Humans are violent and we rule the Earth. A docile planet ruled by violent creatures will not remain docile.

"Gnats evolving into pterodactyls, interesting. But They are a group of terrorists. They are not representatives of Iraq(fuck they aren't even from Iraq if I recall). They will continue to bug us regardless of weather or not we swat. We can't kill all the terrorists, because if we did someone would just start being a terrorist again. It's just like your argument about putting all the guns down. We can't beat people into submission, but we can create a society where people do not feel alienated from each other. If we had such a society these people wouldn't be attacking us because they wouldn't see us as a threat to their way of life."

They may feel threatened by us, but they don't want a peace agreement. They want us to conform, comform or else! That is why your plan will not work. It's quite the predicament we are in, one that certainly does warrant violent force.

"I'm in no way suggesting that we ignore terrorism, only that we try understanding rather than fighting those that we share this planet with. Not starting wars=/=ignoring the problem. Starting wars=ignoring the fact the killing people is not a good way to deal with your problems."


I personally have spent quite bit of time studying these people and Middle Eastern culture. That fact that you think we can reach a diplomatic solution shows me that you do not understand them, so take your own advice. And what exactly am I supposed to understand about them knocking down my countries two tallest buildings while they were filled with people?

"What is going halfway across the world to fight the terrorists if not policing the world?

You really think that we should fight terror? That is the way you deal with fear, by fighting it?"

This conflict happens to be very relevant to our well-being. It's not policing the world but policing ourselves.

How else do you deal with terrorism? Appeasment? Compliance? That's what got us WWII. You can't treat terrorism like a personal emotion, because it isn't one.

"I know that you are advocating war. War is violence. Therefore you are advocating violence. Violence is not sensible. We cannot sustain a society built on bones. You still haven't shown me any reason that the human race cannot go beyond the struggle of the jungle and live in a civilized manner."

Fighting in a war and having a violent personal life are completely different. You called me a violent person, which happens to be untrue. I feel like I have thoroughly illustrated the nature of our predicament. We can live in a civilized manner, but not without war.