Why do men like to kill men?

[Immanuel Can]

So, do we have consensus on the following?

Only some men like to kill men (e.g., professional soldiers and psychopaths).

War is Hell.

Everyone is dependent on others for survival.

The killing is done within a societal or tribal context.

We forgot:

"Women like to kill, too," and

"Civilization is conducive to freedom."

If anybody doesn't agree on those two, he sure should.

[henry quirk]

So, do we have consensus on the following?

Only some men like to kill men (e.g., professional soldiers and psychopaths).

Psychos, sure; not so certain mercenaries enjoy killing as much as they find violence easy and enjoy gettin' paid to enact it.


War is Hell.

Absolutely.


Everyone is dependent on others for survival.

Initially, yeah, but it's not a given for adults, no.


The killing is done within a societal or tribal context.

Nah. How is a war between free men and those who'd leash those free men tribal or societal. I'd call it a war of principle.

[henry quirk]

We forgot:

"Women like to kill, too," and

Some, yeah.


"Civilization is conducive to freedom."

Depends entirely on who's definin' civilization.

[commonsense]

So, do we have consensus on the following?

Only some men like to kill men (e.g., professional soldiers and psychopaths).

War is Hell.

Everyone is dependent on others for survival.

The killing is done within a societal or tribal context.

We forgot:

"Women like to kill, too," and

"Civilization is conducive to freedom."

If anybody doesn't agree on those two, he sure should.

RC and GIA, do you have any objections to the above?

[bahman]

So, do we have consensus on the following?

Only some men like to kill men (e.g., professional soldiers and psychopaths).

War is Hell.

Everyone is dependent on others for survival.

The killing is done within a societal or tribal context.

Very true.

[bahman]

We forgot:

"Women like to kill, too," and

Some, yeah.


"Civilization is conducive to freedom."

Depends entirely on who's definin' civilization.

True.

[Immanuel Can]

Depends entirely on who's definin' civilization.

I just mean very simple things, like division of labour (instead of everyone having to do everything alone), a market (a free one), and some respect for the rights and humanness of other people (such as no stealing their stuff).

[RCSaunders]

I debate to lose more than win. Can you dither out why?

Because you only bet on a sure thing.

[Immanuel Can]

I debate to lose more than win. Can you dither out why?

Because you only bet on a sure thing.

Okay, I shouldn't be amused...but I am.

[commonsense]

I debate to lose more than win. Can you dither out why?

Because you only bet on a sure thing.

Okay, I shouldn't be amused...but I am.

I understand it this way: when done skillfully it’s actually the best way to debate philosophy—you can learn much more from a winning opposing argument than you can learn from your own winning argument. And your losing argument forces you to be open to opposing arguments.

[RCSaunders]

I understand it this way: when done skillfully it’s actually the best way to debate philosophy

Should a philosophical discussion be a debate? Certainly the purpose of philosophy cannot be to win debates and convince others (unless you think it's some kind of evangelism). The discussion of philosophy, if it is to be of any real value to anyone, ought to be a simple exchange of ideas, well explained, so that all participants can judge what is discussed and learn or reject what is available.

There is nothing wrong with a little irony and humor and gentle teasing in such a discussion to keep it interesting. But winning debates? I don't think so. (Whose the judge, anyway?)

[Immanuel Can]

I understand it this way: when done skillfully it’s actually the best way to debate philosophy—you can learn much more from a winning opposing argument than you can learn from your own winning argument. And your losing argument forces you to be open to opposing arguments.

I agree.

Yet there are arguments you should lose, and those you shouldn't. You shouldn't lose arguments to people who don't have good reasons.

And you shouldn't lose arguments too easily. Because a person who can easily be dislodged from his own viewpoint probably never had a viewpoint worth having in the first place, right?

So yeah, you should be prepared to lose; but it should take nothing less that a powerfully-reasoned argument to achieve it.

[RCSaunders]

RC and GIA, do you have any objections to the above?

Whatever GIA agrees to, I'm sure I won't, but:

Only some men like to kill men. I disagree, because I think one would have to be a mind reader to determine what anyone, "likes." I can only go by what individuals choose to do, and there are many people, both male and female, who glorify war and cheer killing (ever attend an execution?) and make their professions out of it. I have no idea if they like it or not, but I have to presume they see some advantage to themselves in doing it.

War is Hell. I agree! There is no such thing as a, "just war," or a, "good war," and that the only consequence of any war is the death and ruining of innocents, the destruction of property, and the corruption of individuals and society.

Read Major General Smedley D. Butler's War Is A Racket, or any of my articles on war, such as, "Cost Of War," or, "American's Lust for War."

Everyone is dependent on others for survival. I absolutely disagree. I'm afraid that it is nevertheless true, that the vast majority of individuals living today could not survive a day if forced to depend on their own knowledge and competence and that they assume, because they could never survive on their own, that no one can. It never occurs to them that any individual incapable of providing for his own survival, is not going to be able to provide for anyone else's, and if everyone were as incompetent as they are, the race would long ago have gone extinct.

The killing is done within a societal or tribal context. I disagree. Except for the wholesale version of murder called war, the retail version is almost always quite individualistic. Like almost everything else human beings do, every individual's motives for what they do is uniquely their own. The one thing that is certain is, society doesn't make anyone do anything, whatever one does, they choose to do it.

[henry quirk]

Depends entirely on who's definin' civilization.

I just mean very simple things, like division of labour (instead of everyone having to do everything alone), a market (a free one), and some respect for the rights and humanness of other people (such as no stealing their stuff).

That works: let's do that.

[Greatest I am]

So, do we have consensus on the following?

1 ---Only some men like to kill men (e.g., professional soldiers and psychopaths).

2 ---War is Hell.

3 ---Everyone is dependent on others for survival.

4 ---The killing is done within a societal or tribal context.

I do not think it is that simple although you are on the right track.

1. Some, is likely true, as we can always find exceptions, even if only the insane.

I do hope that it is the vast majority though, as I think it is our instincts that tell us that our first priority is to survive, and to our instincts, that would include fighting to the death, but only when forced to do so. Our instincts default to cooperation when a vanquished foe is running away.

2. I agree. War is hell to most, but we sure love it, as the epitome of drama.
We have to help our instincts change their focus, if we can.

3. I agree.

4. Yes. We kill and compete within our tribes and in groups, sure, but we also kill those in the out group.

Regards
DL