WAR... what is it good for?

[Dubious]

Though we may be embarrassed to admit it but war, especially in the West, has been one of the main incentives among its "greater powers" for scientific and technological development...one thing leading to another also changing policies and politics in the aftermath even if not always favorably.

It's a complex subject but to say war is only destructive is too simplistic.

[QuantumT]

Imagine a nazi Europe.

War is only good for stopping something worse.

[Lacewing]

Much less stupid than all the crap in your opening

Your avatar suits you perfectly.

[-1-]

Lacewing said:

"And while we're at it, why do so many men attack with their penis? How is it that they can rationalize doing such a thing? Doesn't it sound ridiculously stupid? I can't imagine ever attacking anyone with my boobs."

I wonder if I should get mine registered, like a gun?

PhilX

I am guilty of carrying a concealed weapon.

Lacewing, you haven't seen the great Austin Martin movies? (I may have gotten the title wrong.) It's a spy movie, and some babes destroy people by dropping their bras, and shooting out of short gun barrels that are implanted into their mammary.

[-1-]

1. attacks that are meant for the sole purpose of destroying another and everything associated with them seems like a form of blind fury, lacking broader awareness.

2. Does waging war truly RESOLVE anything? (I'm not talking about the profitability associated with it.)

3. Can being SMARTER be more effective than using brute force?

2. It resolved the slavery issue in the USA; it resolved the anti-Semitic issue in Germany and central Europe; it resolved the capitalist exploitation issue in Czarist Russia.

1. Such attacks do not exist. There is always an economic consideration behind attacks, or else survivalist considerations.

Attacks for attack's sake don't exist, because as much as men like to destroy other men (maybe; this is debatable), they still know that to give some, they gotta get some, and they individually may become casualties. So it would be foolish to have cockfights between men, and men, as fucking dumb and stupid as they are, they still know this much.

3. Once brute force is starting to be employed, it is indeed the SMART that come out on top. This is one explanation for human's extremely more advanced intelligence above all mammals': humans had to outsmart the shrewdest, wiliest natural enemies, which were none other but other humans.

WWII was won by the Allies because they knocked the intelligence and the secret messages of the Germans. If you know every plan of the enemy, and they don't know yours, they are basically toast.

There were other reasons as well, I am not trying to diminish them, but the SMARTS was one major reason for the success of the All Lies.

[Noax]

So: the pacifism embedded in "Can being SMARTER be more effective than using brute force?" is unnatural, abnormal, and more than a little ignorant.

I was with you until your stupid conclusion, but that's no surprise... as "being smarter than brute force" goes against your leanings. I'm guessing you'd be stumped without a gun (or other weapon).

Henry might see only one solution to the limited resource problem, but to call the conclusion stupid is to assert that this "SMARTER" solution is better, except you don't indicate the smarter solution. So demonstrate that his solution is stupid by coming up with a plausible alternative, one that makes the 'smarter' group fare better than the war-like group. If you can't do this, then your stance is indeed one of ignorance. Unnatural and abnormal as well, but those are good things if said smarter solution works. Agriculture wasn't natural or normal either, but it was a nice medium term solution to the problem of limited food resources.

[Noax]

I am guilty of carrying a concealed weapon.

Better than open-carry I think.

[Lacewing]

It's a spy movie, and some babes destroy people by dropping their bras, and shooting out of short gun barrels that are implanted into their mammary.

Sounds very creative!

attacks that are meant for the sole purpose of destroying another and everything associated with them seems like a form of blind fury, lacking broader awareness.

Such attacks do not exist. There is always an economic consideration behind attacks, or else survivalist considerations.

How about holy wars? Or wars against race, gender, or lifestyle choices? There is nothing to be gained other than completely wiping out that which one doesn't feel should exist, right?

[-1-]

1. How about holy wars? 2. Or wars against 2B race, 2A gender, or 2A lifestyle choices? There is nothing to be gained other than completely wiping out that 3. which one doesn't feel should exist, right?

1. All holy wars had economic bases. The ideology is there to pull the unwitting masses to become soldiers.

2. There was never a war against gender or lifestyle choices. There were no wars between men and women with guns and many casualties. Same with lifestyles. Hippies were beaten sometimes by rednecks in the USA, and the Puritans had to flee England, but there was no WAR. If you open up the meaning of war to mean other as well as two sides killing each other, then you are bastardizing the language and philosophy, I am sorry to say.

Wars against races or more accurately, against ethnic minorities, have always existed for survivalist reasons. You want your DNA to survive, or its nearest and most accurate facsimile.

3. Which one does not feel should exist... again, a reason for war, or for a bar fight, or beating up some hapless lifestyle minority. This is not a war.

You have some good points, Lacewing, but you convolute them by lumping disparate events and behaviour only because they seem to find focus in your quest.

[Lacewing]

Can being SMARTER be more effective than using brute force?

...coming up with a plausible alternative, one that makes the 'smarter' group fare better than the war-like group.

I was making a statement of BRAINS vs. BRAWN. There is no specific solution to offer for all conflicts -- it depends on the situation and people involved, of course! My question was pointing out the potential of intelligence (and possessing broader awareness) outwitting those who are charging forth relying mostly on their arsenal of weapons. It's not an outlandish thing to consider... and it's certainly not ignorant.

If you and Henry cannot fathom such a thing, that demonstrates the limits of your thinking.

[Impenitent]

Austin Powers I believe...

think about it... humans by their nature are violent

why have police forces otherwise?

government is an extension of humanity (run by humans as well)...

war simply follows

-Imp

[Lacewing]

...

My opening post refers to an "attack/war mentality", and I mentioned a range of ways that is exercised. The topic title alone does not fully represent my post.

Your responses are focused on a specific idea of war, perhaps on a physical battlefield, with guns.

If you open up the meaning of war to mean other as well as two sides killing each other, then you are bastardizing the language and philosophy, I am sorry to say.

Dictionary definitions for "War" include: active hostility or contention; fight; to be in conflict or in a state of strong opposition, etc. And it is common for the word "War" to be used when talking about an uprising or struggle against something.

You are limiting the definition for your own purposes, and narrowing the scope of my post as you see fit. So, please clarify, how am I bastardizing the language and philosophy?

An attack/war mentality is used against all kinds of people and things, for reasons which may have nothing to do with money or acquisition... such as, for example, being based on the intoxication of power to destroy or to be "right" or "best", or the ignorance of fear and hate. Those are real reasons that mankind destroys others.

You have some good points, Lacewing, but you convolute them by lumping disparate events and behaviour only because they seem to find focus in your quest.

As I focused on communicating in my opening post, I want to know why men seem to like war and attacking... in MANY different forms, with whatever is at their disposal. Such behavior seems primitive and shallow, compared to using one's intelligence and expanding one's awareness. Most of the responses so far have been focused on answering the Topic Title alone. That's fine... and interesting... but I was addressing more than that.

If it seems too broad and disparate, I'm sorry. I see connections between the points I made. I see connections everywhere!

[henry quirk]

Yes, it does.

#

“...that demonstrates the limits of your thinking.”

No, your shallow objection demonstrates the artsy-fartsy nature of your thinking.


As for brain vs brawn: the fist directed by intelligence (strategy and tactic) gets the edge; the brain with no fist to wield is just three pounds of impotence.

Reason backed by demonstrable capacity for violence can lead to fruitful cooperation (this is the heart of diplomacy). Impotent reason (peace mongering and pacifism) is just fodder for the graveyard.


Agriculture: solely the result of reason backed firmly by a capacity to royally kick the ass of invaders.

[-1-]

...

My opening post refers to an "attack/war mentality", and I mentioned a range of ways that is exercised. The topic title alone does not fully represent my post.

Your responses are focused on a specific idea of war, perhaps on a physical battlefield, with guns.

If you open up the meaning of war to mean other as well as two sides killing each other, then you are bastardizing the language and philosophy, I am sorry to say.

Dictionary definitions for "War" include: active hostility or contention; fight; to be in conflict or in a state of strong opposition, etc. And it is common for the word "War" to be used when talking about an uprising or struggle against something.

You are limiting the definition for your own purposes, and narrowing the scope of my post as you see fit. So, please clarify, how am I bastardizing the language and philosophy?

An attack/war mentality is used against all kinds of people and things, for reasons which may have nothing to do with money or acquisition... such as, for example, being based on the intoxication of power to destroy or to be "right" or "best", or the ignorance of fear and hate. Those are real reasons that mankind destroys others.

You have some good points, Lacewing, but you convolute them by lumping disparate events and behaviour only because they seem to find focus in your quest.

As I focused on communicating in my opening post, I want to know why men seem to like war and attacking... in MANY different forms, with whatever is at their disposal. Such behavior seems primitive and shallow, compared to using one's intelligence and expanding one's awareness. Most of the responses so far have been focused on answering the Topic Title alone. That's fine... and interesting... but I was addressing more than that.

If it seems too broad and disparate, I'm sorry. I see connections between the points I made. I see connections everywhere!

You're right, I took the meaning of "war" too narrowly.

[-1-]

I don't understand the "attack/war mentality" ... attacks that are meant for the sole purpose of destroying another and everything associated with them ... Do they (men) instead measure their "intelligence" by the size of their weapons?

And while we're at it, why do so many men attack with their penis? How is it that they can rationalize doing such a thing? Doesn't it sound ridiculously stupid? I can't imagine ever attacking anyone with my boobs.

I look forward to all responses...

Although to my defence the quotes distilled in the first paragraph resemble only the war that I associated the question with.

The second paragraph is rape, obviously. That is not war. Aggression, brute force, causing bodily and psychological harm, but not war.

Maybe the condensed quotes in the first paragraph made me think this is about the war men wage.

After all, you specifically requested thoughts on the wars MEN wage. The other definitions, which you kindly supplied much later in the thread, I feel are not germane to your topic, because those wars do not restrict themselves to gender isolation by men in the activity.

My mistake. I apologize.