Quote:
Originally Posted by OccultHawk
I think you're changing the question when you don't agree with the answer. In your original post you said "genetically predisposed to war, fighting, and conflict". Then it kind of softens to is it just human nature or just our way.
|
No I don't think so. I originally responded to Mr Charlie's completely baseless and hippy response, asking him to back it up. He then went into some stuff about how we're all hard or softwired to do this or that. As he was getting hung up on the semantics of the word I explained that I think we are genetically, historically and instinctively predisposed towards war. It's in our blood. I don't see where I changed anything, I just explained further what I think of it. Perhaps it was worded in a way that confused some people, so I redefined it for them.
The basic premise remains. If Mr Charlie, or anyone else, had replied, as some did, with what I would consider more informed and well-thought-out answers than "look into your heart" (Neo, can I get a puking emoticon please?) then I would have been prepared to discuss it more. But a line like that is worse than childish. There's no basis for it. You might as well say "every person is a rainbow". It's claptrap. Sorry, but it is. And look into your heart and you might find some dark demon looking back at you. Not everyone is pure inside, as MC seems to think.
Edit: I've nothing against you MC but when you post something like that you set yourself up for ridicule.
Edit two: I think the only possible way peace can be achieved, a lasting peace, would be for every person (male at least, women don't seem so warlike) to be lobotomised, then nobody would care about what anyone did, or have the incentive to do anything. I certainly would never want to see that, but with a shared history like we have, I cant' see us changing any time, and certainly not voluntarily.
Look at it this way: a man finds a rock in the middle of a forest. He decides "This is mine!" and stands guard over it, night and day. Another man comes up and asks what he's doing. The first man tells him and advises the second man he can either join him in protecting the rock, leave, or he will fight him. The second man decides to join, and stands guard over the rock too. When a third man appears, they attack him and drive him off. Word gets around and before you know it, there's a horde of men attacking, others joining to defend, the rock that nobody even wants.
Stupid, yes, but it illustrates the lengths men will go to to protect what they believe is theirs, and how they will spill blood to retain it. Replace the rock with a country, any country, does it now seem so silly?