Why do men like to kill men?

[Greatest I am]

Given that sex was at issue, if you prefer to a female to a male for sex, that desire will definitely have you behave in a particular way. You will try to find a female partner every time you feel like a little nooky.

So, if you desire to have sex with a female, and you know that female is syphilitic or has the clap, you'll have sex with her just because you feel like a little nooky? I don't believe you would.

What I said was, you "must choose whether or not to indulge that desire on the basis of what is really in your own best interest. If getting the drip or going blind are really in your best interest," you might choose to let your desire be your guide, but I'm sure you wouldn't.

I do not believe anyone is, "hardwired," for any kind of desire, but even if we were, a desire for something is never a good basis for a choice. Almost every self-destructive thing anyone has ever done was because they had a desire to do something that their own best reason would have convinced them was a mistake, but they let desire make their choice for them, and suffered the consequences.

[/quote]

Let a guy know when you change the goal posts.

When I was young, my best buddy was given a dose by a girl. When he finally got rid of it, guess what he did.

He went back for more.

As to being hard wired or not. If you do not believe you have instincts hard wired into your DNA, then you deny reality.

All animals have hard wired instincts. Instincts are demonstrable and irrefutable.

Regards
DL

[RCSaunders]

Given that sex was at issue, if you prefer to a female to a male for sex, that desire will definitely have you behave in a particular way. You will try to find a female partner every time you feel like a little nooky.

So, if you desire to have sex with a female, and you know that female is syphilitic or has the clap, you'll have sex with her just because you feel like a little nooky? I don't believe you would.

What I said was, you "must choose whether or not to indulge that desire on the basis of what is really in your own best interest. If getting the drip or going blind are really in your best interest," you might choose to let your desire be your guide, but I'm sure you wouldn't.

I do not believe anyone is, "hardwired," for any kind of desire, but even if we were, a desire for something is never a good basis for a choice. Almost every self-destructive thing anyone has ever done was because they had a desire to do something that their own best reason would have convinced them was a mistake, but they let desire make their choice for them, and suffered the consequences.

Let a guy know when you change the goal posts.

When I was young, my best buddy was given a dose by a girl. When he finally got rid of it, guess what he did.

He went back for more.

I never said most people would make right choices, only that if the didn't they would pay consequences. I happen to agree with H.L. Mencken, 99 percent of human race are idiots and hopelessly superstitious.

"I have little belief in human progress. The human race is incurably idiotic. It will never be happy." [Letters of H.L. Mencken (1961)]

[Letter to Upton Sinclair, 14 Oct (17)] So long as there are men in the world, 99 percent of them will be idiots, and so long as 99 percent of them are idiots they will thirst for religion, and so long as they thirst for religion, it will remain a weapon over them. I see no way out. If you blow up one specific faith, they will embrace another. [<i>The New Mencken Letters [1977]</i>]

As to being hard wired or not. If you do not believe you have instincts hard wired into your DNA, then you deny reality.

All animals have hard wired instincts. Instincts are demonstrable and irrefutable.

What a lot of other people write and say is hardly demonstrable and irrefutable evidence of anything. All animals except human beings certainly have instinct and if you want to believe you are some kind of throw-back chimera that is part volitional (human) and part instinctive (animal), that's fine with me. I suppose it is comforting, if you don't want to be responsible for your behavior, to be able to blame something else, other than your choice, for it, like instinct.

[Greatest I am]

I suppose it is comforting, if you don't want to be responsible for your behavior, to be able to blame something else, other than your choice, for it, like instinct.

I am not sure where you got that notion when responsibility for actions never came up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRHetRTOD1Q

That is twice now that you take off on a tangent.

You want to think you do not have what every other animal has, instincts, so we are done here.

Thanks for the chat.

Regards
DL

[commonsense]

If you cannot explain our history, then you cannot discount our love of violence, killing and war.

Not true.

I can discount lots of discountable motivators, one at a time, but the task would be too tedious to bear.

I will, however, give it a go by trying to discount one randomly chosen reason for war. Let’s take a look at greed, for example.

Again, there would have to be at least two parties involved. One has something that the other one covets, something that appeals to the former’s sense of greed. An offer is made for purchase. The offer is rejected. Counter offers are made and dismissed.

The greed of the first party is so strong that threats begin to fill the air. The second party’s fear of the first is so great that counter threats begin to fly back and forth.

The threats escalate and a minor incident becomes the cause of incremental acts of aggression. A war is born.

So, I think it turns out that greed is not discountable after all. In fact, greed might be what explains all wars throughout the centuries. Or greed might be one of many factors that ignite war. Even jealousy or envy.

But not love.

[henry quirk]

If you cannot explain our history, then you cannot discount our love of violence, killing and war.

Not true.

I can discount lots of discountable motivators, one at a time, but the task would be too tedious to bear.

I will, however, give it a go by trying to discount one randomly chosen reason for war. Let’s take a look at greed, for example.

Again, there would have to be at least two parties involved. One has something that the other one covets, something that appeals to the former’s sense of greed. An offer is made for purchase. The offer is rejected. Counter offers are made and dismissed.

The greed of the first party is so strong that threats begin to fill the air. The second party’s fear of the first is so great that counter threats begin to fly back and forth.

The threats escalate and a minor incident becomes the cause of incremental acts of aggression. A war is born.

So, I think it turns out that greed is not discountable after all. In fact, greed might be what explains all wars throughout the centuries. Or greed might be one of many factors that ignite war. Even jealousy or envy.

But not love.

War is not fought for warring's sake. Always, it's a means, a method, never an end.

[Immanuel Can]

Whose law do you live by? Yours or the law of the land?

You didn't answer my question. You just asked me a different one.

Could you answer it now?

Because your answer was the answer to your own question.

I don't know when you started following the law of the land so only you can answer that question.

Your answer is "when you started following laws?" That's your answer?

You mean you think "freedom" means lawlessness? You think "freedom" is inherently antisocial? You think there's no way to reconcile living among other human beings in a society, and being a free person?

Just asking.

[Greatest I am]

If you cannot explain our history, then you cannot discount our love of violence, killing and war.

Not true.

I can discount lots of discountable motivators, one at a time, but the task would be too tedious to bear.

I will, however, give it a go by trying to discount one randomly chosen reason for war. Let’s take a look at greed, for example.

Again, there would have to be at least two parties involved. One has something that the other one covets, something that appeals to the former’s sense of greed. An offer is made for purchase. The offer is rejected. Counter offers are made and dismissed.

The greed of the first party is so strong that threats begin to fill the air. The second party’s fear of the first is so great that counter threats begin to fly back and forth.

The threats escalate and a minor incident becomes the cause of incremental acts of aggression. A war is born.

So, I think it turns out that greed is not discountable after all. In fact, greed might be what explains all wars throughout the centuries. Or greed might be one of many factors that ignite war. Even jealousy or envy.

But not love.

+ 1

You triggered this memory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTBx-hHf4BE

You make a good point in blaming our selfish gene. It is the root of war.

It defaults to cooperation in us, but the conditions you put, imposed by our overly greedy leadership, both political and religious, has us ignore our better instincts that would have us trade instead of kill.

Regards
DL

[RCSaunders]

War is not fought for warring's sake. Always, it's a means, a method, never an end.

At least there has to be some plausible excuse the gullible public will accept before they will send their children to be killed and crippled in some far-off hell hole. But there are men for whom war itself is the purpose of their life, including mercenaries, professional military, and the entire military arms industry, who will do anything to ensure there is perpetual war.

[RCSaunders]

I suppose it is comforting, if you don't want to be responsible for your behavior, to be able to blame something else, other than your choice, for it, like instinct.

I am not sure where you got that notion when responsibility for actions never came up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRHetRTOD1Q

That is twice now that you take off on a tangent.

You want to think you do not have what every other animal has, instincts, so we are done here.

Thanks for the chat.

Regards
DL

Touched a nerve, did I? Sorry, it was unintended.

[Greatest I am]

You didn't answer my question. You just asked me a different one.

Could you answer it now?

Because your answer was the answer to your own question.

I don't know when you started following the law of the land so only you can answer that question.

Your answer is "when you started following laws?" That's your answer?

You mean you think "freedom" means lawlessness? You think "freedom" is inherently antisocial? You think there's no way to reconcile living among other human beings in a society, and being a free person?

Just asking.

We all have a free will, but not freedom.

You are always free to break the rules and live with the consequences. Vigilantes do just that.

Are you, or can you be free of society? As Socrates said, who would make your shoes. Meaning of course that we are tribal and all rely on each other.

If you think you have the freedom to live on your own, tell us how long you would last in the bush on your own.

Freedom, IMO, should be written as freedumb, just to show us how foolish of an idea it is.

Are you denying that you rely on others?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

War is not fought for warring's sake. Always, it's a means, a method, never an end.

At least there has to be some plausible excuse the gullible public will accept before they will send their children to be killed and crippled in some far-off hell hole. But there are men for whom war itself is the purpose of their life, including mercenaries, professional military, and the entire military arms industry, who will do anything to ensure there is perpetual war.

+ 1

Being a soldier is a profession. You can only be good at it if you like what you do. You should be pleased in killing the enemy, then you're a real soldier.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I suppose it is comforting, if you don't want to be responsible for your behavior, to be able to blame something else, other than your choice, for it, like instinct.

I am not sure where you got that notion when responsibility for actions never came up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRHetRTOD1Q

That is twice now that you take off on a tangent.

You want to think you do not have what every other animal has, instincts, so we are done here.

Thanks for the chat.

Regards
DL

Touched a nerve, did I? Sorry, it was unintended.

You did, but only because I argue with many Christians who have abdicated their responsibilities for their action by using Jesus as their scapegoat.

I have paid a high price for doing my duty to try to have my government step up to it's duty, so yes, I am touchy on this issue.

I fought the law and the law won, but they cheated.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

You mean you think "freedom" means lawlessness? You think "freedom" is inherently antisocial? You think there's no way to reconcile living among other human beings in a society, and being a free person?

Just asking.

Let me add a thought to my last post to you.

Have you read the book or seen the movie -- Lord of the Flies?

What it shows is why we have chosen security under law instead of freedom.

Regards
DL

[RCSaunders]

We all have a free will, but not freedom.

Speak for yourself. At this very moment there are thousands of individuals living their lives exactly as they choose.

[henry quirk]

But there are men for whom war itself is the purpose of their life, including mercenaries, professional military, and the entire military arms industry, who will do anything to ensure there is perpetual war.

They're makin' money by way of war, not makin' war for war's sake.


If you think you have the freedom to live on your own, tell us how long you would last in the bush on your own.

Some of us are well-skilled at self-relyin'. I get that someone who isn't might feel leashed to society. Fortunately, it's never too late to learn... 🏕