Never Trust Anyone That Hasn't Been Punched.........
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
Most of those nations you mentioned failed to recognize their enemies and defended the established oligarchic cliques at the expense of their societies. This is the consistent underlying result of transnational oligarchic cohesion and alliances which today are as closely intertwined. This marriage is starting to unravel as the economic crisis coupled with war taxes these dirty unions to the hilt.
The fifth columns have been far more effective than any open upfront clash of arms in destroying nations from within. The CBC and CTV are more to be feared then any Islamic horde in Canada.
Off the top of my head, the Minoan Empire, the Hanseatic League, the Lombard League in large part, and FIFA.
And, nice false dichotomy. Berserk genocidal blood-drenched conqueror and daisy-weaving pacifist aren't the only options. Several successful empires fought only when attacked.
Usually. The only time people feel the need to make that argument is when a tradition has no other rationalization. Our societies are built on violence and oppression. Conservatives argue for traditional values because they benefit from that violence and oppression.
It's also a very selective list with no understanding of history beyond a 60 year old Western education, minus even the ones he should have heard of but deliberately left out because well if you call Russia or Germany a great civilization you might get the wrong idea about that violence and murder being awesome.
Yep. It's the logical fallacy of argumentum ad antiquitatem, which holds that merely because something is old, it must be good. Slavery, genocide, sexism, racial discrimination, religious persecution, child labour, and conquest are all "traditional." They kinda suck.
Well, it IS cherry-picking season. . .
I also left out the Triple Alliance, the Inka, the Maya Empire, and the Haudenosaunee Federation, because that would inevitably lead to a lot of racial BS I don't feel like dealing with.
During Christmas, I adorn my home with the usual pagan symbols of the holiday, despite not being a pagan. It's a tradition. There's no reason for me to do it other than that.
Exactly. Which is better a tradition of peace or a tradition of war? Which takes greater men and women to nurture and sustain? Which serves society better? What does fittest mean, fittest at armed conflict or fittest at the preservation of peace? I think any fool can bayonette another man in a trench but few can think and stay their hand in favour of reason. Who has never lost at war? Who always survives? Who grows fatter and fatter with every conflict?
Without the United States dominating the world by force. Would we know the peaceful time we have.
It's naive to think we have peace because we are peaceful. Colpy's article talks of those stupid innocent humans
We have peace because we have potential to be outright dominant with our violence, that nothing dares to anger us.
Less greed might equal less war. A contented individual does not seek altercations.
And how are you going to stop people from being greedy? It's one of our basic functions as humans.
Are you really wanting to discuss this or are you just looking to beat your chest and parade around?
Does watching the log on TV count?
Try reading the news sometime.
It's a tool nature has given us to survive. I'd say humans are doing very well in that department.
Like colpy's article says. You are so out of touch with reality you think you're greatest trait, the one that's made humans what we are today, a fault. Without greed humans would still be animal's.
The United states has 3 bombs for every human being on earth.
It's impossible to eliminate greed from humans. Without greed humans would not be humans. It's a big part of why we live the way we do today.