Sounds like a perfect description of a flawed nature to me. I'm glad you have moral instincts, Sonic, but countless unbroken millenia of conquest (this last century has not been different) suggests that you have humanity's story wrong.

_________________
GO HAWKS!!!

Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!

Follow me on Twitter at @17power

I'm not saying humans are "good natured." Humans, like any other animal, are in their nature supposed to defend the family and the group that they are apart of. If you need additional resources for your survival than sure nature would say to go out and get it. But to give an excuse for war because it's "in our nature" is ridiculous and wrong.

The biggest problem we have connecting is religion. Religion tells us that we have to live a specific way, believe a specific way, convert others who are not this way and that any other way of thinking is wrong and will send you to hell. If you have two groups who have this same belief, this same unbreakable belief in which neither can be proved right or wrong (or if they were, just ignore any evidence or make up different reasons for why this or that), then this will lead to conflict. And this conflict with such staunch belief systems will lead to war. If they look differently, even easier.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Sometimes you don't have the choice. Sometimes war is forced upon you. Sometimes your only choice is between fighting back or surrendering.

Of course, you might just be one of those pansy asses who would avoid conflict at any cost. Some people would rather let their family get raped than kill the rapist. Some people would rather watch children die than allow teachers to fight back against school shooters. And some people would rather allow their country to be victimized than declare war.

December 7th, 1941, the Japanese just bombed Pearl Harbor. You're the President. What do you do? "We don't need war, we don't have to have it. It's just a seemingly easier way to resolve things than most have the intelligence or patience to do." If someone like you had been President, we'd probably be speaking German or Japanese now.

_________________

You're confusing what I'm saying with what you think I'm saying based on what you believe I am.

Like I said before, war is a result of human actions. It's not human nature like sex or breathing or a needing of a mother at a young age.

Obviously conflicts can not be resolved unless both sides are willing to. The unfortunate and just response to the bombing; war. If someone like me had been President I wouldn't have been ignoring the Japanese for all those years as they invaded much of China and Asia. I'm not against war, I just don't think it's absolutely necessary if the two parties aren't trying to impress their deity.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Excuse me but doesn't Jihad translate to "holy war"?

What I believe you are is based on the things you say. Nothing you have said would lead me to conclude you wouldn't kill someone threatening your family with bodily harm, but there are people whose strong beliefs in pacifism would lead them to sacrifice themselves or their families rather than their principles. Not surprisingly, they have rhetoric similar to yours about guns.

If you are saying that war is not a biological need the way eating and breathing is, I agree with you. But I think you are grossly oversimplifying the subject. The fact that Muslems and Jews have incompatible religious belief systems does not mean that both sides are fighting to "impress their deity." For Israel, it's more about survival than anything else. They just want to be left the hell alone. For the Muslims, I'd be more persuaded that war is primarily religious in nature if so many things about it didn't scream "political" at me*. India & Pakistan = political, not religious. Kashmir isn't considered holy land, it is just contested land. Ireland & Ireland = political. China & Nepal = political. (Interesting question -- can an ostensibly atheist government engage in a religious war?)


*With Muslims, I will grant that for many peons, it is or can be religious. With Muslim leaders, however, it is a calculated political decision to recruit mentally retarded people or children or willing saps to be weapons, and to target civilians among the people they hate. I'd have more respect for their religious fervor if they blew their own damned selves up.

_________________

Don't you think if Muslims and Jews didn't have different God's that much of this conflict could be put to rest?

If you don't think India/Pakistan is not based in religion then you obviously have no idea what it's about. You're joking about Ireland right? Catholics vs Protestants? Come on.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Islam is hardly unique in that respect. You don't think that Americans who murder abortion clinic doctors and staff are not coached to do so by their "religious leaders"? What about Westboro Baptist Church? So far they are non-violent, but they exhibit hatred and bigotry as well as anybody.

_________________
Talent can get you to the playoffs.
It takes character to win when you get there.

I never said religion had no role. But some of you are talking like all would be well in the world and no wars anywhere if there were no religious differences. What I'm saying is most of these conflicts that have religious components also have equal or bigger political components. In Ireland, Catholics and Protestants weren't trying to convert each other, or kill each other for that matter. The conflict was between the separatist IRA and their supporters, and the British government. The dispute between India and Pakistan is territorial, not religious.

Technically, the Muslim god is the Jewish god. ("Allah" is simply the Arabic word for God.) Their argument is about prophets and history... and land. From Israel's perspective, there would be no conflict if other countries and political groups would just allow them to exist. When quantifying the motivation of Muslims, it's obvious that the activists among them are motivated by hate, which can be the byproduct of religious fervor -- but it can also be the byproduct of political fervor. I have no doubt that many/most of footsoldiers in the Muslim movement believe they are doing the will of Allah by following the instructions of their leaders. But I also believe those leaders are driven as much politically as they are religiously.

Seriously, sutz, you're comparing Islam with Westboro? And crimes against abortion clinics with terrorist attacks? Actually, those aren't bad comparisons. Where you are way off the mark is in implying that either Westboro or abortion clinic crimes represent any kind of significant percentage of Christian believers. Most Christians think bombing abortion clinics is a crime, and that Westboro is a bunch of wingnuts who twist the Bible into something unrecognizable to the vast majority of Christians.

Go ahead, compare the number of Christian-inspired abortion clinic crimes to the number of Islam-inspired terrorist acts. Tell me again how unique Islam isn't.

_________________

It's a difference of degree only.

_________________
Talent can get you to the playoffs.
It takes character to win when you get there.

How can I argue with you if you never admit being wrong?

You can't honestly think that Kashmir is that important that that's why they are fighting? It's a beautiful place but you have obviously no idea the history of Pakistan and India if you think it isn't 100% based in religious disagreements.

And how can you be so fucking wrong on Ireland?

Just please god read something.

I never said all would be well in the world without religion. Never argued that.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012