NationStates Jolt Archive

Why? Just answer me that, why?

If you are Christian, you should know our Lord commanded us to turn the other cheek. Buddhist are supposed to be non-violent. Islam condemns violence, and Judaism's famed 10 Commandments says specifically you shall not kill. If atheist or agnostic, logic suggests that the whole of humanity would be better, and your own personal goals better reached, without the use of violence or killing.

The war hawks on the right, in the US I should say, espouse that civilian deaths in Iraq are or such little consequence that we don't even keep track. Such deaths are just collateral damage, regrettable, but in the pursuit of whatever goal we're after this week, acceptable.

It bothers me to think that some years back, Bin Laden might have said the same about the World Trade Center. 3,000+ innocent lives, but they were acceptable collateral damage in a strike against his enemy.

Why are those 3,000+ lives worth more than 10,000+ Iraqis?

The radical left has decided that killing in the name of environmental activism, either by direct action, ala ELF, or indirectly by causing the lost of jobs and towns, is ok.

It bothers me to think of those fathers and mothers who are stopped from working due to a fly, stopped from being able to bring food home, or from clearing a firebreak.

Why is a fly worth more than a human life?

The world runs the gambit from oppressive dictatorships, to oppressive group communism. The so called bastions of freedom are at each other's throats, indeed are at each other's throats internally. Our so called democracies seem to disenfranchise whole swaths of the population for political gain.

Why do we not listen to each other?

We're killing the planet we live on, or stopping people from living in order to save part of it.

Pro-lifers scream about abortion, that it is killing innocent children, yet refuse to help those same children when born, condemning many of them to a life of poverty, abuse, and neglect.

Pro-choicers scream that it is only the woman's choice and no one else's, without confronting the sorrow of abortion, what it means, or trying to prevent it from needing to happen in the first place.

One group would strip a way out from victims of rape and incest, not to mention health risks. The other would grant easy access for 'Oops, I did it again' pregnancy relief.

Race, gender, sexuality, religion, all are being used to oppress by the oppressors AND the oppressed! And this is not just one country, this is world wide!

Humanity is a young species, in terms of our own planet, and yet, after so many millennia, have we learned NOTHING? The great religions of the world call for peace, understanding, and brotherhood, and we ignore the call. It makes logical sense that helping each other is only helping ourselves in the long run, but we cling to the illogic of war, poverty and death.

All these wrongs exists out in the daylight, and yet instead of trying to work together, we'd much rather fight over it, them, differences, beliefs, the past, and the future.

Why?

Mankind seeks domminance, power. Supreme command. And man will do anything to get it. It's just human nature.

1. Why not?
2. forty-two!

Why do we not listen to each other?


I'm sorry ... I was texting my vote for Constantine to be the next American Idol ... did you say something?

Fear is irrational, and overrides all higher-level emotions. When people are different, and they don't understand, then they are afraid. And this fear overrides any rational comprehension that killing is wrong. Humans are just higher-functioning mammals, after all.

If anybody says I'm not peaceful, I'll kick their ass! :mad:

If anybody says I'm not peaceful, I'll kick their ass! :mad:

Ah you're the icon of peace...

If atheist or agnostic, logic suggests that the whole of humanity would be better, and your own personal goals better reached, without the use of violence or killing.

The war hawks on the right, in the US I should say, espouse that civilian deaths in Iraq are or such little consequence that we don't even keep track.

First, who decided that pacifism was the inevitable conclusion of "logic" as best for humanity? Who are you quoting here?

Second, not doing "body-counts" doesn't mean civilian deaths are of little consequence, only that doing a count doesn't accomplish anything. In past conflicts, weighing success or failure by often-flawed body counts has caused problems. Dropping the counts isn't the same as dropping all concern for casualties.

because if we didnt have these problems then we would have other problems, there is no such thing as a utopia. the very concept of a utopia is flawed as it contradicts itself everytime a new person thinks up a new concept of wat a utopia should be. therefore if we didnt have racism, poverty, global warming, we would have other problems, and u would be raving about them instead of these ons

Why?

Because lah.

oh and also

"All these wrongs exists out in the daylight, and yet instead of trying to work together, we'd much rather fight over it, them, differences, beliefs, the past, and the future."

whos going to decide wats right for the entire world??? U??? sounds like a dictatorship to me. the reason we have conflicts is because noone is ablsolutly right, so we try to get the best out of things by arguing over things, and war is a consequesce of extremes of view.

We're no different than animals except we have guns etc, while animals use watever weapons they were born with to kill

It's actually a good question, you guys!!! If no one answers this seriously, I'm coming over and strangling all of you to death!!!

oh and also

"All these wrongs exists out in the daylight, and yet instead of trying to work together, we'd much rather fight over it, them, differences, beliefs, the past, and the future."

whos going to decide wats right for the entire world??? U??? sounds like a dictatorship to me. the reason we have conflicts is because noone is ablsolutly right, so we try to get the best out of things by arguing over things, and war is a consequesce of extremes of view.

We're no different than animals except we have guns etc, while animals use watever weapons they were born with to killOkay, except Cafeteria World.

It's actually a good question, you guys!!! If no one answers this seriously, I'm coming over and strangling all of you to death!!!

I totally agree. :/

It's actually a good question, you guys!!! If no one answers this seriously, I'm coming over and strangling all of you to death!!!

I dunno, I answered it seriously. A bunch of hand-wringing based on generalizations doesn't leave one much to work with..

First, who decided that pacifism was the inevitable conclusion of "logic" as best for humanity? Who are you quoting here?

Second, not doing "body-counts" doesn't mean civilian deaths are of little consequence, only that doing a count doesn't accomplish anything. In past conflicts, weighing success or failure by often-flawed body counts has caused problems. Dropping the counts isn't the same as dropping all concern for casualties.

I am not advocating pacifism here. Pacifism is rejecting violence even when violence is occuring. I am asking why violence must occure in the first place. WHY are we killing each other in other words. I am not quoting anyone here as there is no need to, you have proven the logic of working together yourself. Any human group, from families, to gangs, cities, and nations prove that it is far better to work together than to go it alone.

As for the second, it is a bit of over generalzation I admit, but listening to talking heads and reading the posts on this board, it seems to be an article of faith for some people. But my question is more along the lines of why are some lives considered more valuable than others? Is not all human life equal?

We are all hypocrites thats why. Stick by your word and do something about it.

Why? Just answer me that, why?

If you are Christian, you should know our Lord commanded us to turn the other cheek. Buddhist are supposed to be non-violent. Islam condemns violence, and Judaism's famed 10 Commandments says specifically you shall not kill. If atheist or agnostic, logic suggests that the whole of humanity would be better, and your own personal goals better reached, without the use of violence or killing.

Actually the Lord commanded us not to murder. Killing is fine as long as it is self-defense, defense of family, etc. But murder is never okay. I'll never translate that commandment to not be killing because the Lord has commanded us to kill in defense too.

The war hawks on the right, in the US I should say, espouse that civilian deaths in Iraq are or such little consequence that we don't even keep track. Such deaths are just collateral damage, regrettable, but in the pursuit of whatever goal we're after this week, acceptable.

It bothers me to think that some years back, Bin Laden might have said the same about the World Trade Center. 3,000+ innocent lives, but they were acceptable collateral damage in a strike against his enemy.

Why are those 3,000+ lives worth more than 10,000+ Iraqis?

Some people think their own citizens are worth more than another countries...sad...


Pro-lifers scream about abortion, that it is killing innocent children, yet refuse to help those same children when born, condemning many of them to a life of poverty, abuse, and neglect.

Pro-choicers scream that it is only the woman's choice and no one else's, without confronting the sorrow of abortion, what it means, or trying to prevent it from needing to happen in the first place.

Yeah, Pro-lifers seem contradictionary. Pro-Choicers sometimes do wish to prevent it so you are wrong.(Hillary Clinton said so herself so I have evidence of the Pro-choicers).
Few Pro-lifers act always in their line of thinking sadly. Seems only sometimes are children worth alot...before they are born?

All these wrongs exists out in the daylight, and yet instead of trying to work together, we'd much rather fight over it, them, differences, beliefs, the past, and the future.
Why?

Because Humanity is falling under Satan's grasp. He does everything he can to split us up. He even makes many Deny he exists so it becomes easier to corrupt others.

Also There are many false teachers that say one thing and do another which makes people not know who to listen to at all.
Example: Catholic Preist rather than confront issue of Preist doing abuse to children they moved them to another place (Do the Catholic have a name like area, ward, or region...like district or something). They would rather pretend everything was okay that confront the issue.

When good man stand by and do nothing; evil flourishes...

Communism is corrupted by greed so it rarely works. i'd go on, but I got to get to class.

ah, so many people happy to just give up. Yes, a utopian society may not be possible, but when you give up trying it does become impossible. The same with just attributing things to human nature: the moment you do and just leave it at that it does become unchangeable. This is called complacency. This is called giving up. Congratulations, all of you nay-sayers just proved yourselves right.


P.S: Pepe Dominguez, NERVUN himself most likely decided for himself that pacifism was a logical product. And just because he didnt quote it from anyone, doesnt make it any more or less correct or incorrect

because if we didnt have these problems then we would have other problems, there is no such thing as a utopia. the very concept of a utopia is flawed as it contradicts itself everytime a new person thinks up a new concept of wat a utopia should be. therefore if we didnt have racism, poverty, global warming, we would have other problems, and u would be raving about them instead of these ons
I did not ASK for utopia, it's very name means nowhere after all. There are always problems, yes. MY question is why the hell humanity seems to think that the best solution to said problems involves beating other people over the head.

oh and also whos going to decide wats right for the entire world??? U??? sounds like a dictatorship to me. the reason we have conflicts is because noone is ablsolutly right, so we try to get the best out of things by arguing over things, and war is a consequesce of extremes of view.

We're no different than animals except we have guns etc, while animals use watever weapons they were born with to kill

I don't claim to have the answers to the world, nor would I ever want to be in charge of the world. Hell, I have enough problems in ruling my own life. But in answering your charge here, we're supposed to be BETTER than animals. We have the power to ignore our animalistic urges and show humanity.

And yet, we don't. That is my question, why don't we?

I am not advocating pacifism here. Pacifism is rejecting violence when when violence is occuring. I am asking why violence must occure in the first place. WHY are we killing each other in other words.

That's not a definition of pacifism that I'm familiar with. Pacifism is as much about preventing violence as it is rejection of violence in response to some threat from another. Pacifism isn't just about saying "War 'X' is wrong" after it has already begun. Pacifists usually believe that violence in any form is unjustifiable as a violation of individual autonomy, or that mediation can never completely fail, etc. Pacifists don't need a current conflict to lean on.

Why we're killing each other is a question of politics and/or psychology. If you're a pacifist, you believe, possibly, that war can never be justified. If you're not, then we're killing each other because, sometimes, we have to. Of course, you also have your "realist" school such as you find with Hobbes, in Leviathan, Section XIII, who insists on a psychological state of nature that dictates conflict, in the absence of an "overawing power," which clearly doesn't exist, either in the UN or in any single political force...

One day Mal-2 asked the messenger spirit Saint Gulik to approach the Goddess and request Her presence for some desperate advice. Shortly afterwards the radio came on by itself, and an ethereal female Voice said YES?

"O! Eris! Blessed Mother of Man! Queen of Chaos! Daughter of Discord! Concubine of Confusion! O! Exquisite Lady, I beseech You to lift a heavy burden from my heart!"

WHAT BOTHERS YOU, MAL? YOU DON'T SOUND WELL.

"I am filled with fear and tormented with terrible visions of pain. Everywhere people are hurting one another, the planet is rampant with injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers imprison sons, children perish while brothers war. O, woe."

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THAT, IF IT IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO?

"But nobody Wants it! Everybody hates it."

OH. WELL, THEN STOP.

At which moment She turned herself into an aspirin commercial and left The Polyfather stranded alone with his species.

Human = Glorified Animal.

Glorified Animal = Greed + Competitive Instincts.

Thus Human + Technology = War, Mass Death, Excessive Greed.



Humans think they are better than other animals. They are not. Humans are just animals with access to technology, technology which can be used to kill other animals thus giving them the edge they need to remain the dominant species.

Everything humans do is just as much based on learned behaviour and basic instincts as most other social animals. We've just made everything we do so completely unnecessarily complicated that our mannerisms appear unique.

When you get up in the morning, you adjust your appearance. Some of you may even throw on unhealthy amounts of chemicals, females especially. There is no logic to adjusting your appearance in such a manner, it accomplishes nothing. You do it because you have an instinctive desire to attract a mate.

I think the figure stands at something like 90% of the planet's wealth is in the hands of 10% of the planet's population. Why? That's not logical, after all; the other people need it more than we do. Humans operate on greed just as much as any other animals. Greed allows them to survive a lot easier, thus satisfying the primary instinct. It's also the source of skyrocketing obesity levels, and the reason communism can never work.

Males especially, though females often included, are continuously vying for dominance. The so-called debates on this forum are prime examples. They aren't actually debates, they are competitions to see who can score the most points against the other. I have seen only a very, very small handful of actual civilised, mature debates. This is instinctive too, and it is the same basic instinct which creates national borders, patriotism and war.

Those humans who think that acting on basic instincts is wrong are no different than those who either don't care or agree with acting on them, they just like to think they are. This is the only thing which makes humans different to animals. People like to think they aren't animals. Idealism is a wonderful concept, but frankly, as morals are little more than learned behaviours which can vary from culture to culture, species to species, there is no such thing as 'the right thing to do'. By all rights, the 'right' thing would be to continue acting on instincts, as this is the most natural thing to do. But even that is a matter of interpretation.

P.S: Pepe Dominguez, NERVUN himself most likely decided for himself that pacifism was a logical product. And just because he didnt quote it from anyone, doesnt make it any more or less correct or incorrect

If you're going to state, as fact, that pacifism is always the best way to further everyone's interest, without giving any justification yourself, a quote would help. You're claiming something is plainly true, just as I might claim 30% of people in Ohio wear straw hats daily. Proof would be nice in either case.

One day Mal-2 asked the messenger spirit Saint Gulik to approach the Goddess and request Her presence for some desperate advice. Shortly afterwards the radio came on by itself, and an ethereal female Voice said YES?

"O! Eris! Blessed Mother of Man! Queen of Chaos! Daughter of Discord! Concubine of Confusion! O! Exquisite Lady, I beseech You to lift a heavy burden from my heart!"

WHAT BOTHERS YOU, MAL? YOU DON'T SOUND WELL.

"I am filled with fear and tormented with terrible visions of pain. Everywhere people are hurting one another, the planet is rampant with injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers imprison sons, children perish while brothers war. O, woe."

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THAT, IF IT IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO?

"But nobody Wants it! Everybody hates it."

OH. WELL, THEN STOP.

At which moment She turned herself into an aspirin commercial and left The Polyfather stranded alone with his species.

Huh? What?

One thing I can never understand is why us humans, despite the fact that we're given such brilliant minds, choose to destroy, or at least impede, each other. I know it has something to do with the "Me Syndrome" but it still makes absolutely, positively no sense.

I dunno, I answered it seriously. A bunch of hand-wringing based on generalizations doesn't leave one much to work with..Okay, I won't strangle you either. But seriously, to the rest of you! Someone asks a serious question and you answer it lightly?

I have to sign off, so I can't give my own opinion :(. But this is a good post NERVUN, it'll make an interesting debate.

Huh? What?
You obviously haven't read the Principia Discordia.
:(

One thing I can never understand is why us humans, despite the fact that we're given such brilliant minds, choose to destroy, or at least impede, each other. I know it has something to do with the "Me Syndrome" but it still makes absolutely, positively no sense.
A fellow named Joseph Campbell proposed that modern man lacks a proper mythology to define his place in the universe, and in relation to the universe. Some have carried foward ancient mythologies (religions, occult practices, etc) that no longer adequately serve their purpose, especially in light of advances in knowledge through science. I look at it like this: if and when mankind as a whole reinvents the capacity to relate spiritually to the universe, the rupture will heal and sanity will return.

Of course, then at that point I get called a "New Ager", whatever that means.

Why? Just answer me that, why?
It bothers me to think of those fathers and mothers who are stopped from working due to a fly, stopped from being able to bring food home, or from clearing a firebreak.

Why is a fly worth more than a human life?

Why?
What the hell has a fly got to do with anything? What fly? Where?
I'm confused. :confused:

You're not talking about the human fly, are you?
"help me! help me!"

Why are those 3,000+ lives worth more than 10,000+ Iraqis?


Because they're Americans.

Americans long ago decided an American is worth more than any other kind of human. Just ask any American if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified, and a lot of the times you'll get the reference to Pearl Harbor. Why were 3000+ lives worth more than 100,000+ Japanese?

Basically, people act as if the nation is an extension of their own genetic heritage. It is natural for people to favor their own relatives more than strangers. If we pretend the USA is "relative" and anyone else "stranger," it is then natural to want to protect USA lives before anyone else's. Nationalism is like natural genetic inclinations, except perverted through tricking the human mind into accepting 'culture' as a new form of 'family.'


Why is a fly worth more than a human life?


I missed where this part was relevant? I didn't quote it and I failed to understand. Flies? Er?


Why do we not listen to each other?

Because we all hate each other and communication is crude.



All these wrongs exists out in the daylight, and yet instead of trying to work together, we'd much rather fight over it, them, differences, beliefs, the past, and the future.

Why?

All the problems you see are the result of civilization itself and won't be solved without 'solving' civilization too. I'm an advocate of global destruction.

Guess it's human nature after all:

We're the only omnivorous predator who has managed to conquer pretty much every single space on this planet in a very short time and dominate over every other species by means of violence...

IMHO it all breaks down to hatred, intolerance, rejection of knowledge and common sense, greed, powerhunger, shortsightedness...

The human brain is far developed when it comes to technical solutions - but look at what we do with those inventions... we're still the monkeys sitting in the trees ruled by the most basic, basest emotions - armed with nukes!

When it comes to emotions, our reason, intellect and sense is just "switched off" and often enough what I'd like to call "survival instinct" takes over, because those emotions and instincts secured our survival this far - too bad that if we all don't lighten up it's exactly that what will kill us all...

Throw in some group dynamics and peer pressure (we're gregarious animals after all) and your gullible, uneducated, intolerant mass will cheer to pretty much everything as long as they are not personally involved or targeted. Even then it's more or less "better them than me" mixed with "survival of the fittest"...

Problem is that humankind still sees itself as creation's crowning glory - what we seem to forget is that this planet could very well do without us (but we treat it like can do without it)... But hey, we're on the best way to selfextinction (first time that ever happened in a couple of hundred million years as far as I know)...

If only mankind had put its focus on how to help one another instead of developing a gazillion ways to kill each other, just imagine the progress that could have been made in medicine, education, foodstuffs, nature,...

I always say - only to tease though - that God should have taken the whole weekend off after such a great week's work of creation: after Friday afternoon, it didn't get any better, huh? Whatever he did on Friday night, it sure wasn't beneficial to mankind... free will seems like a crazy idea sometimes -

(By the way: The dots on each paragraph were put there intentionally because as good as the question is - to be able to answer it would mean to completely understand human nature and that is yet impossible. We're still all but scratching the surface...)

Edit:
I forgot this: Thank you, NERVUN, to ask this question and start this thread. It shows great insight and gets one thinking (those who don't wanna think ought to be divinely forced to contemplate on it even longer!).
Most religions incorporate the basic principle of the golden rule and the request to love your fellow earthling - because (just as you said) when everybody wins, I win too; when I win, not necessarily everyone else will...
Most religions also incorporate rules to make cohabitation possible in the first place... Looking forward to more thoughts of this kind!