Provided a powerful incentive to settle the Cuba thing peaceable-like.What about nukes?
Provided a powerful incentive to settle the Cuba thing peaceable-like.
Wut BL?
As for the OP, the guy is trying to blow rainbows up everyone's a$$ by ignoring Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan (twice), Africa, Central America, Kosovo, Chechnya, too name a few. Long peace my a$$
Honor's not fictitious, it's synthetic. lol But, you're right; people do tend to massively misunderstand it, mistake it for other stuff, and mislead with it.Wut BL?
Non-state societies did have a higher rate of violence, yes.
One of the criticisms levelled at modern societies is the fictitious notion of honour. It explains why the southern states are typically more violent than the northern states. The southerners took more time to get out of 'I challenge you to a dual' mode, where dudes would get into gun fights because their honour was at risk.
Later in the book, Pinker shows how catastrophe during the Cuban missile crisis was averted because both Russia and U.S. avoided a game of saving face.
Yeah, he does seem to be AWOL. Shoot him a email and check on him maybe?Mr. Leaf.
Usually when there is a remark about some pimple, action, incident and such on British history (as mentioned by Old Medic), BL is sure to correct anything needing correcting. ;-)
Yep. The only one that beats those two for bloodiness is the Islamic/Christian war. (Kinda says something about aggressive religions, huh?)Compared to the two world wars all of those are like little skirmishes.
Wtf is a constant state of low grade war?
Honor's not fictitious, it's synthetic. lol But, you're right; people do tend to massively misunderstand it, mistake it for other stuff, and mislead with it.
Yeah, he does seem to be AWOL. Shoot him a email and check on him maybe?
Yep. The only one that beats those two for bloodiness is the Islamic/Christian war. (Kinda says something about aggressive religions, huh?)
Both parties already had just as destructive forces even without the bomb. The bomb also doesn't explain why many democratic nations who don't posses it avoided quarrels as well.
One example is Spain and Canada who avoided significant conflict over their dispute over flatfish.
I recall a certain instance where a trawler was only too eager to get underway (with red smoke still puffing on her foredeck) upon a low approach with bomb bay opened
This whole thread seems to have the purpose of bolstering a western civilization that isn't. The argument is that the democratic west has been disinclined to violence, which is so patently false because they are welded together in a monolithic corporate financial marriage which declines to eat it's own body parts when lesser nonalighned entities exists to feed it.
Wut BL?
Non-state societies did have a higher rate of violence, yes.
One of the criticisms levelled at modern societies is the fictitious notion of honour. It explains why the southern states are typically more violent than the northern states. The southerners took more time to get out of 'I challenge you to a dual' mode, where dudes would get into gun fights because their honour was at risk.
.
Occasionally.... Maritime Command did Fisheries, ice, search and rescue, drug traffic, environmental and a few other patrol duties more often than it was looking for submarinesYou served in Canadas Cod War?
Me Gilbert, Gibson over there.Yer a thousand years and several hundred millions of bodies out of sync with reality Mr Gibson.
Like I said, there's a difference between actual decrease in violence and a decrease in the rate of it.Here is more of the overarching theory behind our general decline in violence. Feel free to call bs, but also give counter examples or point out the logical flaws in this rationale.
“Reductions in violence got their start when governments became large and powerful enough to curb violence among their citizens. The threat of violence from without turned people away from violence, and the habit of behaving peacefully soon became second nature, thus leading to still less violence. However, this still left the very significant problems of the violence that governments committed against their own citizens, and also other states. Later, reason was used to question this state of affairs, and suggested that this deplorable situation could be improved by way of reforms such as democratic governments, more trade between countries, and efforts to form an international community. The same philosophy that led to these arguments simultaneously maintained that all people are created equal, and that all people should have the right to pursue their own happiness as long as they do not infringe on other peoples’ right to do the same. This philosophy led to reductions in violence against those of other races, religions and ethnicities, and also led to less violence against women children and animals. The rational argument in favour of the fundamental equality of all people was helped along by the fact that people were increasingly being “exposed to new peoples and cultures, which allowed them to see first–hand that all people really are fundamentally the same, and which opened up their empathy towards them.”
Excerpt From: A. D. Thibeault. “An Executive Summary of Steven Pinker's 'The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined'.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.
Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewBook?id=834277620
Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewBook?id=834277620
Me Gilbert, Gibson over there.
Anyway, not everyone on the planet is stuck in the religion Monetary.
Like I said, there's a difference between actual decrease in violence and a decrease in the rate of it.
According to this bunch:
CSP Global Conflict Trends
up until around 1990, armed conflicts increased rather steeply and then declined, but not quite as steeply. So only in the past 2 decades has it declined.
Me Gilbert, Gibson over there.
Anyway, not everyone on the planet is stuck in the religion Monetary.
Like I said, there's a difference between actual decrease in violence and a decrease in the rate of it.
I know. But it is misleading.I consider the decrease in rate as a decrease in violence.
Um, specifically I think the total number to reflect on whether there is actually more or less violence in total rather than relate it to population size.I already know you consider the the total number to reflect the level of violence.
Yeah, you're right, the number of violent incidents is irrelevant.If the population remained constant, then I would consider total instances as relevant.
Here is more of the overarching theory behind our general decline in violence. Feel free to call bs, but also give counter examples or point out the logical flaws in this rationale.
http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/longpeace.pdf
The "Long Peace" is a statistical illusion, Nassim Nicholas Taleb