---

It comes down to that I don't think there's value in war. Do you disagree?

---

Thats not the discussion.

-------

Punctured bicycle on a hillside, desolate,
Could nature make a man of me yet?

I figured you wanted to show that, being ignorant of how it feels to be in a war, we are missing on something important/fundamental/inherent in our lives.

And I argued that it's no big loss.

---

Then what was the thought behind this topic back when you created it?

I figured you wanted to show that, being ignorant of how it feels to be in a war, we are missing on something important/fundamental/inherent in our lives.

And I argued that it's no big loss.

---

maybe. But your last question led away from that none the less.

I mean unless you want me to repeat myself, read the op and my replies.

-------

Punctured bicycle on a hillside, desolate,
Could nature make a man of me yet?

---

I figured you wanted to show that, being ignorant of how it feels to be in a war, we are missing on something important/fundamental/inherent in our lives.

---

---

Your posts don't give me 100% certainty as to what you originally meant.

---

I figured you wanted to show that, being ignorant of how it feels to be in a war, we are missing on something important/fundamental/inherent in our lives.

---

That's how I understand them. If I'm correct, then I believe that whether there's value or not in war is a very relevant question, since why would you feel like you missed out on something if war had no value?

---

But youre talking about war as a whole, politically.

Im speaking about it in relations to individuals and the core of life.

-------

Punctured bicycle on a hillside, desolate,
Could nature make a man of me yet?

---

It's a one-way communication, therefore a failure.

---

That sounds like nancy pansy bullshit you'd learn in a Philosophy crash course at Community College. For a start, one-way communication is not necessarily a failure to communicate. Secondly, reciprocal violence (ie. war) fits the definition of two way communication. Thirdly, violence can sometimes be a fantastic means of communication.

Simply because these simple facts offend your tender sensibilities does not mean that they are rendered invalid.

Not to mention unproductive.  

Says who? You? You're probably a pussy who's never used violence against a bully. Well, let me tell you that doing so is incredibly productive, far more productive than just talking or 'attempting to compromise'.  
The Indonesians also found that violence against the imperialistic Dutch was rather productive. The Allies found it productive to employ violence against the Japanese.  

And as the old saying goes: Why give a man a fish, when you can give him a gun so that he can steal the fish from his neighbour?

It arises from the inability to reach a compromise.

So communication only occurs when both parties reach a compromise? Does that mean that 99% of discussions on Golivewire are not acts of communication?

Post edited at 8:57 pm on Nov. 10, 2008 by mountain hare

---

At first I meant war to be the result of a failure in communication, then violence (for similar reasons, explained in my previous post).

But if you ask, the man's death is a failure in a sense. The failure of others in peacefully solving whatever conflict brought the soldier's life to an end. His, or his government's, failure in choosing to go or being made to go to war. And finally, the part of human nature that makes us aggressive beings and the inability to overcome it is a failure.

As to

---

Is this moment in time, this view of 'life' a failure?

---

, I don't know what you mean.

---

So you hate human beings for being capable of violence. In order to remain consistent, you should hate all of nature, since almost all organisms employ violence against another in order to survive or obtain territory/resources/status.

In a world of limited resources and land, violence is sometimes desirable, nay, inevitable. The existence of violent tendencies in humans is not evidence of some sort of 'failure', but more along the lines of a survival mechanism that triggers during appropriate times in successful and competent organisms. You see this behaviour all the time in mammals, when resources become scarce their is inter-species killing.

If human beings acted according to instinct, instead of forming abnormal social constructs that promote international peace and conspiracy against mother earth, then they would be killing each other more often. Which would mean fewer humans, which would result in far less damage to the environment and biodiversity.

---

But youre talking about war as a whole, politically.

Im speaking about it in relations to individuals and the core of life.

---

---

Quote: from ElephantStone at 1:24 am on Nov. 11, 2008

---

But youre talking about war as a whole, politically.  

 Im speaking about it in relations to individuals and the core of life.

---

Hmm... I think the reason for the misunderstanding was that I imagined there was a hidden message behind your words, like an additional conclusion of what you've said, whereas you simply wanted to point out that being in war brings unique experiences. Roughly speaking, is that right?

---

No. Omg read the op again. I said theres more to this than there is, or something along those lines.

-------

Punctured bicycle on a hillside, desolate,
Could nature make a man of me yet?

---

For a start, one-way communication is not necessarily a failure to communicate.

---

---

Secondly, reciprocal violence (ie. war) fits the definition of two way communication.

---

---

Thirdly, violence can sometimes be a fantastic means of communication.

---

---

Says who? You?

---

---

You're probably a pussy who's never used violence against a bully.

---

---

Well, let me tell you that doing so is incredibly productive, far more productive than just talking or 'attempting to compromise'.

---

---

And as the old saying goes: Why give a man a fish, when you can give him a gun so that he can steal the fish from his neighbour?

---

---

So communication only occurs when both parties reach a compromise? Does that mean that 99% of discussions on Golivewire are not acts of communication?

---

---

war is a way of life, it's human nature. but i still don't think that war will profit us anymore than peace will.

---

Funny the way you put it...
War is about profit. Or gain.

Also funny how every complains about the war in iraq
but complains even more about the high gas prices...

Operation Iraqi Liberation
O.I.L. surely you see the irony.

-------
Out of all the stars glistening in that brilliant night sky.
I want to shine the brightest of them all.

---

Quote: from lisma at 12:03 pm on Nov. 2, 2008

---

 war is a way of life, it's human nature. but i still don't think that war will profit us anymore than peace will.

---

Funny the way you put it...
War is about profit. Or gain.

Also funny how every complains about the war in iraq
but complains even more about the high gas prices...

Operation Iraqi Liberation
O.I.L. surely you see the irony.

---

You know Chris Gray died in Afghanistan, right?

-------

Punctured bicycle on a hillside, desolate,
Could nature make a man of me yet?

---

Quote: from mountain hare at 5:48 am on Nov. 11, 2008

---

For a start, one-way communication is not necessarily a failure to communicate.

---

I didn't say that. I only stated that one-way communication in case of a bullet in the head was a failure (since it isn't an exchange of ideas, but an enforcement of ideas of one party).

---

Secondly, reciprocal violence (ie. war) fits the definition of two way communication.

---

I didn't say it didn't.

---

Thirdly, violence can sometimes be a fantastic means of communication.

---

Subjective.

---

Says who? You?

---

No, my alter ego. Duh.

---

You're probably a pussy who's never used violence against a bully.

---

I guess that would in turn make you a gangsta stepping over still-warm corpses of inferior gangstas?

---

Well, let me tell you that doing so is incredibly productive, far more productive than just talking or 'attempting to compromise'.

---

I didn't say there weren't situations in which one simply had to resort to violence, but don't forget that along 'producing' the effect of, say, getting rid of a bully, you add to the combined amount of violence in the world. This may sound a bit silly - in other words, violence is an ongoing chain reaction - whatever you put into it, you can be quite sure it'll pop up somewhere else. This shouldn't be ignored.

---

And as the old saying goes: Why give a man a fish, when you can give him a gun so that he can steal the fish from his neighbour?

---

We don't live in the Stone Age any more. Give the man a rod and teach him how to use it. (By the way, are you a troll? The above statement, in its stupidity, reeks of a troll.)

---

So communication only occurs when both parties reach a compromise? Does that mean that 99% of discussions on Golivewire are not acts of communication?

---

Again, I was merely referring to the bullet example you provided.

---

You seem to be throwing out all sorts of statements and approaching this topic in a very unorthodox way, seemingly in an attempt to disprove war in general and the emotions and feelings resulted from it, in an attempt to be right, or prove modern society's thoughts or values of war, when they just dont apply in reality.

Step down when youre wrong, and I dont entirely sypport everyhting from the person you are quoting.

-------

Punctured bicycle on a hillside, desolate,
Could nature make a man of me yet?

---

Quote: from mountain hare at 5:48 am on Nov. 11, 2008

---

For a start, one-way communication is not necessarily a failure to communicate.

---

I didn't say that. I only stated that one-way communication in case of a bullet in the head was a failure (since it isn't an exchange of ideas, but an enforcement of ideas of one party).

---

Secondly, reciprocal violence (ie. war) fits the definition of two way communication.

---

I didn't say it didn't.

---

Thirdly, violence can sometimes be a fantastic means of communication.

---

Subjective.

---

Says who? You?

---

No, my alter ego. Duh.

---

You're probably a pussy who's never used violence against a bully.

---

I guess that would in turn make you a gangsta stepping over still-warm corpses of inferior gangstas?

---

Well, let me tell you that doing so is incredibly productive, far more productive than just talking or 'attempting to compromise'.

---

I didn't say there weren't situations in which one simply had to resort to violence, but don't forget that along 'producing' the effect of, say, getting rid of a bully, you add to the combined amount of violence in the world. This may sound a bit silly - in other words, violence is an ongoing chain reaction - whatever you put into it, you can be quite sure it'll pop up somewhere else. This shouldn't be ignored.

---

And as the old saying goes: Why give a man a fish, when you can give him a gun so that he can steal the fish from his neighbour?

---

We don't live in the Stone Age any more. Give the man a rod and teach him how to use it. (By the way, are you a troll? The above statement, in its stupidity, reeks of a troll.)

---

So communication only occurs when both parties reach a compromise? Does that mean that 99% of discussions on Golivewire are not acts of communication?

---

Again, I was merely referring to the bullet example you provided.

---

You seem to be throwing out all sorts of statements and approaching this topic in a very unorthodox way, seemingly in an attempt to disprove war in general and the emotions and feelings resulted from it, in an attempt to be right, or prove modern society's thoughts or values of war, when they just dont apply in reality.

Step down when youre wrong, and I dont entirely sypport everyhting from the person you are quoting.

-------

Punctured bicycle on a hillside, desolate,
Could nature make a man of me yet?

---

So you hate human beings for being capable of violence.

---

---

The existence of violent tendencies in humans is not evidence of some sort of 'failure', but more along the lines of a survival mechanism that triggers during appropriate times in successful and competent organisms.

---

---

If human beings acted according to instinct, instead of forming abnormal social constructs that promote international peace and conspiracy against mother earth, then they would be killing each other more often. Which would mean fewer humans, which would result in far less damage to the environment and biodiversity.

---

Mine is to go forward - find out and pinpoint the deep down causes of humanity's and planet's issues and address them directly. It would evidently require lots of thinking, but hell, we've got developed brains.

Both suggestions are revolutionary and it's unlikely they'll come to be in the near future, so I suppose we can drop the subject.