Thinker Revolution. (Response)

[Kris X]

Anyone else sick of killing and bombings and hatred?

I sure am, war solves nothing and violence only causes pain. Why is it that our world leaders think fighting and shooting others is where the answer is, the solution. Everyday people, innocent people are dying left and right. What have we acquired in these murders? Nothing.

War, Violence, Pain...

They solve nothing but more hate and need for revenge. Life is too short to kill another man. Who has the right to treat people like toys in a 5 year old's playing game.

There's only one problem.

No one speaks up their honest feelings, their truth. If you can go out and destroy a human being you must feel something. Death is not a solution, I will continue to repeat this. A solution is peace. A compromise, a chance to set down the weapons and look your opponent in the face. Refusing to kill is a step in the right direction and an ease on the conscious.

Idiots are people who think that killing the innocent and scaring others with the deaths is a way to control. They are power hungry and perverted. Even more so are those who think that by starting a war against these people is a solution. Fact is, that's exactly what they wanted in the first place. They wanted death and violence and mass murders and by recoiling with war, you're stroking their pleasures. You are sinking to the murderers' level and killing.

Did not your mother ever tell you to stop fighting and make up already? Why haven't you listened to her yet? Now all you have is a pile of dead people. You are killing your own people. Killing them softly.

Think.

[Yeahduff]

The problem comes when what I hold as essential comes in conflict with what you hold as essential.

[Aster Azul]

No one speaks up their honest feelings, their truth. If you can go out and destroy a human being you must feel something. Death is not a solution, I will continue to repeat this. A solution is peace. A compromise, a chance to set down the weapons and look your opponent in the face. Refusing to kill is a step in the right direction and an ease on the conscious.

*hands Kris X a soapbox to stand on and a megaphone*

You go, Kris.

[Joel Fagin]

It's not as easy as that.

Humans are, by natures design, arrogant, racist, violent and warlike. What we tend to think of as basic "humanity" is cultural evolution, developed over thousands of years* and passed from generation to generation by social programming, by - basically - brainwashing our kids to believe as we do.

Other cultures haven't evolved down the same path as us. (You could also say they're not evolved as much but that's where the arrogance comes in to play.)

Our culture is largely pacifist. The cultures of the Middle East - or at least those sub-sections we're having problems with - are fanatical and deal in death both of their enemies and themselves.

And we can't change that without stealing their children, programming them with our cultural standards and putting them back. Australia tried that once and, man, did we get into trouble for it. America tries by forcing democracy on them. That rarely works, either. Generally, you have to let the culture evolve by itself. Forcing ours on to them just creates resentment.

So how do we fix it?

We can't. We absolutly can not do it. Not according to our own cultural standards. The only thing our collective conscience allows is war and only if we percieve that they started it.

Until there's a way to change the social and cultural programming of our enemies, war is inevitable.

- Joel Fagin

* Although most of the important stuff in the last two hundred.

[Kris X]

We can't. We absolutly can not do it.

It's thinking like this that stop a majority of people from stepping up and doing something.

The moment you say you can't, it will never happen just because you believe something can't happen.

Nothing is impossible.

[The Neko]

Nothing is impossible.

I think that nothing is quite possible, actually.

[Kris X]

Or rather: Impossible does not exist in my dictionary.

[Dutch!]

Good luck changing approximately 1 000 000 years of evolution in one single generation. We're a territorial, tribal creature. Much the same thing occurs in the animal world within species as well, although on a more low key natural level. Fortunately those other species have not developed highly efficient ways of culling the other tribe like we have.

If you want to go to the absolute basic level of life, it's survival of the fittest. This is just that premise taken to its bloody global extreme.

The world's a rough old place. I reckon the secret is to find a little way to make it a little better. It's much too big a job otherwise.

[Aster Azul]

It's definitely true that people give up to easily, though. You might as well try instead of writing something off as impossible before you even start.

As one person, you pretty much have to devote a good few years of your life to a cause to make a difference. But having done so you won't regret it. Better to really volunteer or speak out than to just be sarcastic and complain about how things will never change.

Joel brought up some good points about the nature of social change. You can't just tell someone they have to be different. You have to go in and get your hands dirty. Plus, most people don't learn anything unless you make them think that they're the ones who actually figured it out. It's a tricky business.

[Joel Fagin]

It's thinking like this that stop a majority of people from stepping up and doing something.

What else? What can we do? Idealism is all well and good but it simply doesn't work by itself. Human nature is too nasty and far, far too entrenched. It is what we are.

I concede this could easily backfire on me, but... How many violent movies, books, comics and games do you partake of? Not "too violent". Just "violent". People being hurt for entertainment.

Would you stop? On principle? To prove we can abandon our violent heritage? Would you give all of that up?

And even if you would, how many others do you think would?

Violence is human nature. We've made great headway against it in terms of our culture but not everyone else has. Unfortunatly, we're up against people who glorify it, who believe they go to heaven for enacting it. They believe that as absolutly as we believe in the right to own a car if we wish. You will not convince them otherwise for they have been as effectively brainwashed in believing that as we have in believing murder is wrong. The best and most effective thing to do is to let them grow out of it themselves. It's the only way it happens. It's how the brain works.

- Joel Fagin

[Kris X]

It's definitely true that people give up to easily, though. You might as well try instead of writing something off as impossible before you even start.

As one person, you pretty much have to devote a good few years of your life to a cause to make a difference. But having done so you won't regret it. Better to really volunteer or speak out than to just be sarcastic and complain about how things will never change.

Joel brought up some good points about the nature of social change. You can't just tell someone they have to be different. You have to go in and get your hands dirty. Plus, most people don't learn anything unless you make them think that they're the ones who actually figured it out. It's a tricky business.

Indeed.

[Kris X]

Yes, yes...Violence is human nature, but I'm not violent and I'm human.

And yes I partake in violent writing, but it's to reflect it's ugliness. The thing is...Violence can be taken way too far as you mentioned.

But to say a man cannot live without killing is a complete and utter lie, because it has been done already by tons of people who did not kill and were content not killing. It's called being passive to violence.

(Sleep time.)

[Dutch!]

Don't think anybody said anything about not being able to live without killing...mind you...hands up again anybody who's never killed something before. I predict a large absense of hands. But as a species, it is in our nature, not necessarily the specific individual.

Look at sport, any sort of game you wish to play. The idea is to win, to defeat your opponent. Unfortunately, the game some people in the world seem to want to play are a bit more high stakes than chess, although you could say the prize is somewhat similar. I just hope we don't spoil the game, or actually break the board.

Speaking of violence...I'm gonna watch the footy.

[Sortelli]

Anyone else sick of killing and bombings and hatred?

Yes.

Think.

There's no amount of thinking that's going to address anything. It's irrational to assume that because WE might like living peacefully that EVERYONE will like living peacefully. That's not thinking. It's not even logical.

It's all well and good to proclaim that we would turn the other cheek if we are struck, but what if it's not us who is being harmed? What if it's the kid down the street getting beaten savagely because of the color of their skin, or what religion they hold or just because their attacker is sadistic? Who are we to tell that victim to turn their cheek for the sake of peace, and who are we to stand by? Would it be wise to sacrifice ourselves along with the victim by letting the sadist thrash us both? Is there any logical reason at all to assume he'll stop just because he has more willing victims to lord over?

And if we do nothing, what will happen when the sadist comes for us, or whips the people he's abused against us? Think, indeed.

[AndrewTaylor]

Yes, yes...Violence is human nature, but I'm not violent and I'm human.

And yes I partake in violent writing, but it's to reflect it's ugliness. The thing is...Violence can be taken way too far as you mentioned.

But to say a man cannot live without killing is a complete and utter lie, because it has been done already by tons of people who did not kill and were content not killing. It's called being passive to violence.

But for that to work you need everyone to do it. If just one person decides, "hey, you know what, I'm going to bash you around the head with this two-by-four until you do what I say" that person will either kill you while you sit there doing nothing, or else rule the world until someone picks up a four-by-eight and starts fighting back.

Then he'll go and get a larger piece of timber and that's called an "arms race". Then other people will realise that violence can colve their problems if they have a big enough piece of wood, and pretty soon you're back to square one.

A person can be a pacifist. People plural can't.

There have always been, and will always be, people who won't respond to diplomacy and you need some physical restraint or threat to stop them hurting you.

[McDuffies]

Anyone else sick of killing and bombings and hatred?

Am I? I've been living in it for the last fifteen years.
Truly it's much more safe on this ground since 2000. At least now I know that there isn't going to be a war bursting out suddenly in some part of my country, and that noone's going to be knocking on my door and taking me away to the army. But it's far from safe, people are being killed in Kosovo on a daily basis. Even if I wanted to ignore that, I couldn't because following politic happenings here is not a commodity like in most of western countries, it's existential matter.
But a man gets used to it.
The disturbing thing with yesterday's London events is, no matter how strange it sounds, I had a consolation in fact that someone out there was living peacefully, not worrying for their existance. It was a factor of stability. Without it, you get the feeling that WWIII could burst out any minute.

I've learned this scenario very well: politicians and influential people cook up and later, common people pay for that. We payed multiple times for what our president did - were we ever asked whether I wanted him to do what he did in our name? Not likely. Yet, when the bill came out, we were the ones who were paying for it, not him. I believe that everyone, specially USA citizens, felt like paying someone else's bills at least once.

Kris, I respect your willing to actively change something, but I strongly believe that any efficient change must deal with causes, not consequences. And I don't think that anyone of us is really aware of the real causes that bring to all this violence of recent years (9/11, Madrid, London, Iraq, Kosovo...) Is it just a few hot-headed terrorists who go on to set up bombs for reasons that seem silly to us? Hardly likely. One of big world-scale changes in 90ies and later is arising hostility between powerful world countries (including USA, west europe and middle-east oil mogules). Right now, these countries are enemies, or allies by need. That's why various lunatics are so easy to snap and go on a killing spree. But noone can ever erase all lunatics from this world. The only solution is to change what makes them snap.

[Anywherebuthere]

Well, here comes Mr. Popularity.

To me, the western world doens't have the balls to take care of this problem. To us, we cannot imagine that war is prefered to peace. To us, doing horrible things is horrible. To us, we can coexist with people that are different from us. We are willing to give up a little to acheive peace.

These people, the people that do the bombings, not muslems in general but the extremists, KNOW this.

They know that if they bomb a train, we'll try and appease them, they'll know that we are more then content to just draw a line in the sand and say "allright, we'll stand here, you just take what you want and that's fine.

If you want to communicate with the extremests, there's only one way to do it, and it's in a language they understand, the language of violence. And it must be a language LOUD enough for them to hear you. You must make terrorism a non-option. Every time there is a terrorist action you must retaliate a hundred fold.

Honestly, that's what it WILL take to stop it. Every time they bomb a train, you give more of Palestine to Israel. Every time they kill a hostage you overthrow another "pro-terrorist" state. For ever eye they pluck out, you strike one of theirs blind. To quote the untouchables "they put one of yours in a hospital, you put one of theirs in the morgue, they bring knives, you bring guns."

THAT is the only language "they" get. You MUST be willing to do great, and swift retribution to make those that commit terrorist acts realize that they will acheive NOTHING by blowing up a building. That they stand to LOSE even more by committing the act then they can ever hope to gain.

Untill we are willing to do that. To retaliate furiously, and in some cases even BLINDLY, in a way that would make normal citizens wet themself at the mere THOUGHT of the act, you will NEVER be able to stop them.

[Sortelli]

anywhere: What actually worries me is that someday we'll be hit so hard that we will do that. . . we'll never lose to terrorists, but we might be provoked into flattening a huge chunk of the world and that doesn't sit well with me. I hope it never comes to that, and I worry it will if we don't handle this right.

[Helixdq]

Indeed confronting the causes of things is the problem.
People don't kill easily. Nobody does. Nobody goes to war out of blind hate without a cause to it this kind of goalless evil at the scale wars are fought dosen't exist. Even the people the world fears the most ( terrorists, americans, communists, nazis etc...) don't, it's always not being able to understand other people's pov (which is why ignorance of other cultures is so dangerous), not being able to accept the existance of povs opposite to your own, the end justifying the means.
Tolerance is not about accepting people you think are nice or ok, it's about accepting the ones you can't understand and you are certain to be wrong.
You have to ask yourself would you be a pacifist if someone you cared about was murdered ? Would you fight for a concept you hold as sacred (say democracy) ? How is it different fighting for a modern concept invented by some country's grandpa different from fighting for some big grandpa in the sky ?
"Terrorism" is just a means of waging war without the means at your disposal to confront a conventional army. They're soldiers nothing more nothing less, desperate people who's countries might be ocuppied, under threat, or simply don't exist anymore...
What would you do against an occupying force ? What was ok for the france reistance to do against the nazis, and what wasn't ?
Modern military doctrine, if you were courious to read any, recognizes it as such, it's just not something you're likely to see in the paper.
I personally am anti any time of war that doesen't involve defense. And defense to me means someone attacked you, you know who did it, and are fighting them, mainly to rob them of the possibility to do it.
It's not what's happening now...

[Warren]

But deep down, anywhere is probably right on the money.