Violence and the Alien

[Demiurge]

Dushan, overreaction indicates a psychological weakness. However, failure to take action against legitimate threats indicates a weakness of will.

 

[Dushan S]

It's not a case of weakness, it's a case of having one's eyes open too wide to ignore all the disgusting/perilous aspects of the modern world, and being willing to go to any means necessary to dispel such things.

Yes it is. To see other human being as a threat, just because it is different than you, can be based only on fear...and fear is presumption that even before you know someone’s intentions he is against you, he is your enemy. It is psychopathic behavior, and it is well documented, I don't feel like I really need to elaborate on this, or prove that point. Everyone is free to educate himself on this matter.
Not that I am not aware of the role that ethnic groups have in today’s world, or that I think that having hundreds of thousands of immigrants that are not integrated into society is not a problem. But to look at them as an "alien threat" is just the same as shooting sick man with gun because you are scared you will get sick too, instead of taking him to hospital.
There are non-aggressive ways to integrate people into your culture, and if there are problems, society as a whole is to blame, not immigrants. If nothing else, who has let them come in to your country in the first place? So now if there is a problem, deal with it. It can be solved in more peaceful and efficient ways.

Violence is by itself a negation of value and integrity of other human being. It is just out of question for me. I don't feel like I would like someone to beat the shit out of me, so I won't do that to other people. Simple as that.

And finally immigrants are from parts of the world that are kept in poverty and constant warfare in games played by more powerful, rich countries as is your own, probably. We have internet and computers to chat about this because someone else is starving on the other side of this planet. Who can blame those people because they want to have a small piece of happiness we have? No one would immigrate in your homeland if they can live decent life in theirs.

This is rather basic and rather silly, taking into account that we live in a causal system within which we're made up of genetics and environmental experience and thus our ethnic roots are inherent to all our actions.

If something is basic, that does not means that it is naive, quite opposite, that means it is clear, easy to understand, and solid ground you are building on. Having basic humanity does not makes you silly, but civilized and spiritual. There are some natural laws, deep morality independent from lows of society, for example not killing your fellow human, remember?
Ethnic roots have their place in our lives, but if every individual would have enough self-consciousness, we could use our ethnic roots to our benefit and avoid to use our differences as something that is fueling our inner fears of unknown and different. I can change myself if I can't change the world. I don't want to have hate inside poisoning me, why should I hate anyone?

Finally, I am from country that has gone thru terrible times thru its history because of religious differences, so it is just plain stupid for me seeing another example of "We should destroy them, before they destroy us, they are enemy because they are... not .... , as we are" logic.
I know where that logic can lead, and thru history it has never ended god for either side. So why then, again?

 

[Dushan S]

It's true that genetics and enviornmental exerience shape who we are, and through that, determine the ways in which we will react to new situations. But ethnic roots, although they are the start of this chain, and have a large influence, aren't necessarily the deciding factor. Saying that every action, every descision we make is because of our ethnic roots sounds fine in logical terms, since ethnicity is one of the few influences we will never be able to escape or change. However, the influence of ethnicity affects each individual in a different way. It just doesnt make sense to believe that all people of a certain ethnicity act / think a certain way. Why? because even if everyone had exactly the same DNA, we would all respond and think differently for any situation, because of the experiences we've been through. Unless we were able to vividly share all the experiences of our lives with each other, we would be individuals, seeing everything from our own perspective, not from the general perspective of whatever ethnicity we fall under.

Ethnicity is a physical manifestation.

I agree. It is true that our ethnical, racial, genetical roots and origins can have significant influence, but, why that should be considered a problem at all? Difference can be a good thing, because it enables as to learn more thru contact with people different than we are. It can be blessing or a curse, but it is our responsability.
Highest possible ideal is to be free human being, free of society programming, free to use our heritage but not to be dependent on it.

Violence is certainly justified when the alternative is destroying our environment and other such things, which are indirect forms of often genocidal violence in themselves.

It is like saying that killing a thief is only solution to problem of theft. Naturally there are ways to protect ourselves without killing everyone that looks like he could rob us.

Dushan, overreaction indicates a psychological weakness. However, failure to take action against legitimate threats indicates a weakness of will.

I absolutely agree with you. But in most cases that action should solve problem, right? As far as I remember, nothing was ever solved by violence. If there is a problem you should act, but there are different ways of actions. Are you familiar with aikido? There are possibilities to even beat our enemy without hurting him substantially, and use excessive force.

 

[no country for old wainds]

It is like saying that killing a thief is only solution to problem of theft. Naturally there are ways to protect ourselves without killing everyone that looks like he could rob us.

Sorry, I meant "only alternative". At the end of the day, killing the people who are killing everyone passively is better than having everybody die, period.

nothing was ever solved by violence.

This is an old and useless cliché, there have been plenty of productive problem-solving wars in the past for example.

Yes it is. To see other human being as a threat, just because it is different than you, can be based only on fear...and fear is presumption that even before you know someone’s intentions he is against you, he is your enemy. It is psychopathic behavior, and it is well documented, I don't feel like I really need to elaborate on this, or prove that point. Everyone is free to educate himself on this matter.

Your definition of fear is, err, way off. The actual definition is "a feeling of agitation and anxiety caused by the presence or imminence of danger" and has nothing to do with knowing a person's intentions or villainising a person.

There are non-aggressive ways to integrate people into your culture, and if there are problems, society as a whole is to blame, not immigrants.

Nobody's claiming that an alien presence is to "blame" here, any action against them wouldn't be as punishment, only to protect that which is greater than the welfare of the individual. If there are non-violent answers, perhaps those would be preferable, but if there aren't, violence is certainly better than doing nothing.

If nothing else, who has let them come in to your country in the first place?

Obviously it's too late for that...

Violence is by itself a negation of value and integrity of other human being. It is just out of question for me. I don't feel like I would like someone to beat the shit out of me, so I won't do that to other people. Simple as that.

This is a typical Christianity-derived thought process which is frankly unnatural, animals don't like being eaten but that doesn't mean they should stop eating other animals, similarly I'd rather kill somebody who's passively killing me than lay back and accept it.

There are some natural laws, deep morality independent from lows of society, for example not killing your fellow human, remember?

Absolute crap. Many past societies didn't believe half the things we take as objective - indeed they held so called "objective" values which are in conflict with ours. This dispels the idea that such morals are in human nature, and those few values that virtually all societies have held onto can be explained by their functionality instead of claiming some kind of inherent "goodness". The only other explanation for your opinion is that you feel such morals have been set by the Christian God, which is easily questioned for many many reasons, and is frankly arrogant, but let's not get into that. Bottom line: I have no support whatsoever for your notion of "deep morality", and when we take into account that most non-Christianesque societies generally functioned a whole lot better than ours as well, I have little support for most of those "deep morals" themselves.

 

[Dushan S]

Absolute crap. Many past societies didn't believe half the things we take as objective - indeed they held so called "objective" values which are in conflict with ours. This dispels the idea that such morals are in human nature, and those few values that virtually all societies have held onto can be explained by their functionality instead of claiming some kind of inherent "goodness". The only other explanation for your opinion is that you feel such morals have been set by the Christian God, which is easily questioned for many many reasons, and is frankly arrogant, but let's not get into that. Bottom line: I have no support whatsoever for your notion of "deep morality", and when we take into account that most non-Christianesque societies generally functioned a whole lot better than ours as well, I have little support for most of those "deep morals" themselves.

I guess that most people have many psychological "small boxes" , using them to classify other people and what they say so they can handle it more easily.
I am not christian more than I am atheist or Buddhist. If you don't feel basic humanity as a part of yourself, if you don't feel that causing pain to other person is wrong, than I am sorry, what can I say? I don't feel it because I am influenced by social values, religion, or something like that, but because of my own awareness, and this is my own experience.
Also what you are saying is pure intellectual, and would not hold water in real world. If I would point a gun to your head or if you would witness to the death of close ones, or if you would end up in situation that you had to kill another human being, even in self defense, you would be forced to change your opinion, confronted with this terrible experience.

This is an old and useless cliché, there have been plenty of productive problem-solving wars in the past for example.

It would be nice to see more of arguments from you, just saying "it is cliché" and then having sentence without explanation does not says much.
I have never heard for any productive war, ever, in any way. Some things may have been solved during or after the war, but you can see that society, individualism, freedom, free flow of information etc are all result of peaceful society. Countries that are ravaged by war need a long time to recover. Also, for one problem "Solved" by war there is always an example of society that has done it better, without war.

Your definition of fear is, err, way off. The actual definition is "a feeling of agitation and anxiety caused by the presence or imminence of danger" and has nothing to do with knowing a person's intentions or villainising a person.

Use your logic. And what is a cause of that feeling you are talking about? Subjective assumption about other human or situation, based on many things. It does not have to be logical or realistic in any way. If someone starts repeating that Pakistan is planning to drop atomic bombs on CNN for enough time, people will start to fear and hate all Pakistans in their neighborhood all over USA, and maybe even embrace idea of eradicating all Pakistans. So it is just that, fear. No real need for fancy definition.

Nobody's claiming that an alien presence is to "blame" here, any action against them wouldn't be as punishment, only to protect that which is greater than the welfare of the individual. If there are non-violent answers, perhaps those would be preferable, but if there aren't, violence is certainly better than doing nothing.

Yes but you are presuming that there is a problem that can be only solved with violence. And that does not have to be true. Whole difference is that I have never seen a problem that can be only solved by violence, actually, I don't even see that violence can solve anything really, it can be just a temporary method for defense in very rare situations, and than again, peaceful solution is needed after.

Obviously it's too late for that...

Yes, but I am talking about responsibility. If you take a cat (no pun to any immigrants intended) to be your pet, than you are responsible for her wellbeing, you can't shoot her because you were irresponsible and let her get used to scratch your stereo with nails, or because he shitted in the middle of your room because you didn't make her get used to go to bathroom. It is a responsibility of a society.
If you were right, then we could go further with that logic, and for instance, if majority of society agrees that longhair head bangers are not welcomed, everyone could go outside and beat the shit out of anyone having metal T-shirt and longhair. You could always have majority taking radical actions against minority that is "inappropriate", right?
If immigrants are living in your country than you have let them become part of your society. If this part is non functional, you have to work on it. This is responsibility of a society as a whole.

This is a typical Christianity-derived thought process which is frankly unnatural, animals don't like being eaten but that doesn't mean they should stop eating other animals, similarly I'd rather kill somebody who's passively killing me than lay back and accept it.

Hehehe...LoL. Well I feel like I am step or two up from the animals in a matter of self-awareness and intelligence, and I would like to believe that you are too. If you feel like you are equal to an animal psychologically, than why not, you can live by their "natural" laws. I have no problem with that.

 

[no country for old wainds]

I guess that most people have many psychological "small boxes" , using them to classify other people and what they say so they can handle it more easily.
I am not christian more than I am atheist or Buddhist. If you don't feel basic humanity as a part of yourself, if you don't feel that causing pain to other person is wrong, than I am sorry, what can I say? I don't feel it because I am influenced by social values, religion, or something like that, but because of my own awareness, and this is my own experience.

If you have the arrogance to claim that your little *revelation* promotes you to a higher ground morality-wise, what can I say? It's clear when one looks at history that what one feels as "basic humanity" is actually shaped by the society we live in. For someone who claims not to be Christian you're certainly sounding like one.

Also what you are saying is pure intellectual, and would not hold water in real world. If I would point a gun to your head or if you would witness to the death of close ones, or if you would end up in situation that you had to kill another human being, even in self defense, you would be forced to change your opinion, confronted with this terrible experience.

Certainly not. I'm familiar with death, you're being presumptuous.

It would be nice to see more of arguments from you, just saying "it is cliché" and then having sentence without explanation does not says much.
I have never heard for any productive war, ever, in any way. Some things may have been solved during or after the war, but you can see that society, individualism, freedom, free flow of information etc are all result of peaceful society. Countries that are ravaged by war need a long time to recover. Also, for one problem "Solved" by war there is always an example of society that has done it better, without war.

For a start, I severely oppose individualism. Acting like we're not all part of an ecosystem has unbelievably perilous results. Secondly, the freedom of modern western society is fairly illusory, we're only "free" on a physical level. Thirdly, war is congruent with survival of the fittest and other such natural processes; it's only inherently counter-productive from the individualist's perspective. But regardless, the original point was that if a war was the only alternative to, say, killing everybody then I'd support it in a flash; violence is not the ultimate "evil".

Use your logic. And what is a cause of that feeling you are talking about? Subjective assumption about other human or situation, based on many things. It does not have to be logical or realistic in any way. If someone starts repeating that Pakistan is planning to drop atomic bombs on CNN for enough time, people will start to fear and hate all Pakistans in their neighborhood all over USA, and maybe even embrace idea of eradicating all Pakistans. So it is just that, fear. No real need for fancy definition.

I could still argue that fear doesn't have to play a part, but I'll take a different line. You act as if fear is never justified - why? If a man with a bazooka broke into my mum's house I'm sure she'd be terrified, does that make the threat any less real? What you seem to be claiming is that intolerance (call it fear if you like) of any person or group of people at any time is inspired by mere paranoia, which is ridiculous all things considered. Suppose Pakistan actually was planning to drop atomic bombs on CNN, to continue with your example.

Yes but you are presuming that there is a problem that can be only solved with violence. And that does not have to be true. Whole difference is that I have never seen a problem that can be only solved by violence, actually, I don't even see that violence can solve anything really, it can be just a temporary method for defense in very rare situations, and than again, peaceful solution is needed after.

Let's say a man is making my wife cry weekly, and I know about it. A banal example, but let me continue. Let's say I ask him to stop, I try to bargain with him, I try to get the police to stop him, etc but to no avail. Say I'm not particularly caring about people's feelings nor do I believe life has inherent value (to destroy the "but your guilt would make it counter-productive" argument), so I killed him and nobody found out about it. This would be a productive act from my perspective because I would no longer be having my money stolen. Now, in this society there would of course be legal consequences, but that system is precisely what I stand in opposition to and it's certainly not objective. If things are only counter-productive because the law makes them so by issuing harsh consequences, I'll damn well fight to change the law.

Yes, but I am talking about responsibility. If you take a cat (no pun to any immigrants intended) to be your pet, than you are responsible for her wellbeing, you can't shoot her because you were irresponsible and let her get used to scratch your stereo with nails, or because he shitted in the middle of your room because you didn't make her get used to go to bathroom. It is a responsibility of a society.

Oh I agree that society should have been responsible from the outset, but on the other hand, one could say that it's also the responsibility of those who realise the mistake to correct said mistake before it becomes too ruinous.

If you were right, then we could go further with that logic, and for instance, if majority of society agrees that longhair head bangers are not welcomed, everyone could go outside and beat the shit out of anyone having metal T-shirt and longhair. You could always have majority taking radical actions against minority that is "inappropriate", right?

Ah, but if those headbangers were infecting my culture with destructive values I'd have no problem with removing them by force if necessary. Just beating the shit out of them to no end is obviously pointless, nobody here is talking about violence for violence's sake, and nobody is trying to punish.

Hehehe...LoL. Well I feel like I am step or two up from the animals in a matter of self-awareness and intelligence, and I would like to believe that you are too. If you feel like you are equal to an animal psychologically, than why not, you can live by their "natural" laws. I have no problem with that.

Interesting you should end on this note. Feeling that we are in some way above nature has been a terrible flaw in human thinking for a long time now, and the majority of the world's problems come about as a result of us discarding either our environment or the natural processes which would allow us to flourish within it. I also have great doubt that, put into practice, you'd tolerate me living by natural laws, as your "basic humanity" more than likely stands in opposition to them.

 

[Dushan S]

If you have the arrogance to claim that your little *revelation* promotes you to a higher ground morality-wise, what can I say? It's clear when one looks at history that what one feels as "basic humanity" is actually shaped by the society we live in. For someone who claims not to be Christian you're certainly sounding like one.

You don't need sarcasm. We are individuals, more or less, and I do not look at you as a result of social influences. You are different, and you are individual, and I think you are aware of your free will. My humanity is my choice, and is based on my own experience. There are influences shaping us, but we are the ones choosing what influences we allow to change us for good or bad. Some people can't and I do think that more than 50% of population (and even more) are just programmed robots of flash and blood, but they have let that happen, even that is their choice. And if I look "Christian" to you, that is result of you having limited experience, and presumption about people. Maybe your experience could be limited, you never know

Certainly not. I'm familiar with death, you're being presumptuous.

Ok, you are right, I can't be sure about that, this was my presumption based on fact that most of people having knowledge of death and loss because of their experiences have quite opposite views than yours.

Thirdly, war is congruent with survival of the fittest and other such natural processes; it's only inherently counter-productive from the individualist's perspective.

It seems to me that you have a bit archaic idea about "survival of the fittest". In some other times it could be connected with force and violence. But today, it is clear that fittest can be the person that is most socially adapted, or more intelligent, or person with more self-awareness. Fact is that persons that have common sense but tend to love and help to their fellow humans are loved and helped by others too, most of the times. So I think "fittest" in this age can be far from meaning you are giving to it.
Also have in mind that in other times, there were civilizations wiped out because of their idea of solving problems or defending their identity and culture with arms. On the other side, some people would just accept their conqueror, and then in time assimilate newcomers in their own, stronger and older culture.
So I really think it is far more sophisticated that "stronger will survive" logic.

But regardless, the original point was that if a war was the only alternative to, say, killing everybody then I'd support it in a flash; violence is not the ultimate "evil".

Yes, it was, I just don't see possibility of that in real world. I don't think that there is a real situation where violence is only solution left. If we talk about hypothetical situation, that most probably won't happen, then it is completely another thing.

I could still argue that fear doesn't have to play a part, but I'll take a different line. You act as if fear is never justified - why? If a man with a bazooka broke into my mum's house I'm sure she'd be terrified, does that make the threat any less real? What you seem to be claiming is that intolerance (call it fear if you like) of any person or group of people at any time is inspired by mere paranoia, which is ridiculous all things considered. Suppose Pakistan actually was planning to drop atomic bombs on CNN, to continue with your example.

"Justified" is inadequate word for me. It is ok to be scared when threat is real, you are right. But you don't have to. And if you are not, there are better chances to survive and do the right thing in right time. Also that makes you less prone to paranoia and politically colored suggestions on a higher level, as it was case with hypnotizing American nation that it is justified and normal idea to go around the globe invading other countries.
When talking about ethnical groups, I do think that ethnical group does not accept values of society and refuses to become a part of it, or if nothing else to live according to laws of society can't be left on its own, but something has to be done about it, maybe even something radical, like extradition of those people out of the country, but most of the times, it is not whole ethnic group of immigrants making problems.

Let's say a man is making my wife cry weekly, and I know about it. A banal example, but let me continue. Let's say I ask him to stop, I try to bargain with him, I try to get the police to stop him, etc but to no avail. Say I'm not particularly caring about people's feelings nor do I believe life has inherent value (to destroy the "but your guilt would make it counter-productive" argument), so I killed him and nobody found out about it. This would be a productive act from my perspective because I would no longer be having my money stolen. Now, in this society there would of course be legal consequences, but that system is precisely what I stand in opposition to and it's certainly not objective. If things are only counter-productive because the law makes them so by issuing harsh consequences, I'll damn well fight to change the law.

Well again, you have no steps in between, but in your example you act too nice and weak at the beginning and then you are overreacting. You can beat the guy, you can destroy his car, you can make him cry or teach him a lesson in a hundred possible ways. You can make him very afraid and make your point of not coming near to your wife. I was not saying that you should not defend yourself or act as a pussy, just want to say that I don't think that direct violence is not an option most of the times, and when it is, you should have a sense how far you should go. You don't have to kill someone.

Ah, but if those headbangers were infecting my culture with destructive values I'd have no problem with removing them by force if necessary. Just beating the shit out of them to no end is obviously pointless, nobody here is talking about violence for violence's sake, and nobody is trying to punish.

Yes but I was giving you example that we should not be so sure about our subjective idea of right and wrong. If we agree that violence is an option, the innocent people would get hurt more often than not, because people tend to have prejudices based on so many things.

Interesting you should end on this note. Feeling that we are in some way above nature has been a terrible flaw in human thinking for a long time now, and the majority of the world's problems come about as a result of us discarding either our environment or the natural processes which would allow us to flourish within it. I also have great doubt that, put into practice, you'd tolerate me living by natural laws, as your "basic humanity" more than likely stands in opposition to them.

I agree with you about problems caused because of lack of understanding and respect for the nature. But I can still be free and individual and remain a part of the nature, maybe our misunderstanding is because I understand “individualism” more in a psychological sense, person that is more aware of himself and world around, that is free to act based on his own experiences and views. It is actually ideal in a lot of different religions and in a modern psychology, from K.G. Jung ideas to Gauthama Buddha teaching.
I am note "above" the nature, as everything else, I am part of it. But I don't eat shit for diner because millions of flies like to do that. Flies are part of nature, there are millions of them, so they must be right?
Most of the creatures we call animals (Whales, dolphins and some apes being partly exceptions) have no self-awareness. They cannot choose what to do, and they are kind of pre-programmed machines of flash and blood. Also, I guess you have noticed that species are not overwhelming another species, they live in a balance. If wolves eat all sheep’s, then they would die of hunger too, right? Being more strong and deadly than sheep, wolf is not fit to survive more than sheep is.
Gift of being human is gift of being able to be objective, to choose, and to step out of mechanistic behavior. If we like, we don't have to act on instincts and based on what culture and society are telling us, we can act differently, according to our increasing knowledge and awareness. It is a freedom of not being a small part of big machinery, but being individual, still acting in harmony with society and nature, but keeping his individual nature. So in some sense, I am giving my best to reach to my full potential, and to break free from chains of social and genetic heritage. And this is what I wish for all other people. If advancing our mind is unnatural than it could be taken as unnatural that our ancestors started building houses or using tools, instead of living in caves. It is against nature in the same sense, because there are no houses, pizzas or internet in nature.
Hope I got my views across better, so I am not taken as a Christian preacher anymore.

 

[no country for old wainds]

You don't need sarcasm. We are individuals, more or less, and I do not look at you as a result of social influences. You are different, and you are individual, and I think you are aware of your free will.

My humanity is my choice, and is based on my own experience. There are influences shaping us, but we are the ones choosing what influences we allow to change us for good or bad. Some people can't and I do think that more than 50% of population (and even more) are just programmed robots of flash and blood, but they have let that happen, even that is their choice.

Nonono, I'm aware that I more than likely don't have free will, and that growing up in a society derived from believing in a deity, Christian values and knowing little about evolution is all that's made me feel like I have. I strongly believe in determinism (but not that there's a consciousness driving it, or that its path is necessarily knowable); that I would always have made the choices I make because of my genetics and environmental experience up to that point. You're being presumptious again.

And if I look "Christian" to you, that is result of you having limited experience, and presumption about people. Maybe your experience could be limited, you never know

You think in a Christian manner even if you don't literally believe; that was my point. I'm sure you're the type who thinks that there probably isn't a God but that Christianity has a good effect on the world morality-wise.

Ok, you are right, I can't be sure about that, this was my presumption based on fact that most of people having knowledge of death and loss because of their experiences have quite opposite views than yours.

You're not the first. People struggle to understand how one can look at things so "heartlessly", yet a little while ago people would've thought exactly the same about anybody who didn't believe in heaven, whilst nowadays it's tolerated as normal by the majority. This is another example of how things people take as a given nowadays won't necessarily be taken as a given in two hundred years time and weren't a couple of thousand years ago, as well as how people tend to twist the "truth" to make themselves feel better, and in turn why one must question even the concepts that seem deeply real and embedded in oneself.

It seems to me that you have a bit archaic idea about "survival of the fittest". In some other times it could be connected with force and violence. But today, it is clear that fittest can be the person that is most socially adapted, or more intelligent, or person with more self-awareness. Fact is that persons that have common sense but tend to love and help to their fellow humans are loved and helped by others too, most of the times. So I think "fittest" in this age can be far from meaning you are giving to it.

What is fittest in context with our society is irrelevant when our society is unfit in context to the world; fitness as a whole is an ability to survive via adaptation to the environment - modern societies mostly stand against natural selection which has worked since day one, instead cluttering the world with billions more people than it can hold, and paving the way for our extinction. The very notion of "fittest" in a natural sense has been lost to egalitarianism, and fear of death/pain (---> humanism) causes us to see war as terrible even though it's seen throughout nature and furthermore; it allows species to evolve and thus survive. Ironically, the humanist individualism rampant in our society is going to lead to the most terrible (albeit passive) genocide in known history.

Also have in mind that in other times, there were civilizations wiped out because of their idea of solving problems or defending their identity and culture with arms.

This is due to incompetence rather than the inherent counter-productivity of war.

Yes, it was, I just don't see possibility of that in real world. I don't think that there is a real situation where violence is only solution left. If we talk about hypothetical situation, that most probably won't happen, then it is completely another thing.

Similarly, if there are many solutions but violence seems the most effective, I also support it. We are but tiny parts of a greater ecosystem, leaves on a tree, better to peel away a few leaves than let the tree die.

Our disagreement in this case is over what the most productive solution might be; you maintain that violence is never a solution for anything, which just doesn't seem to hold up. If a man is about to kill your baby and you're standing twenty metres away with a gun, you're not going to have any option but to blow his head off, or at least incapacitate him with a bullet in one way or another. This is necessary violence, and the situation is in many ways a microcosm of various larger scale problems.

"Justified" is inadequate word for me. It is ok to be scared when threat is real, you are right. But you don't have to. And if you are not, there are better chances to survive and do the right thing in right time. Also that makes you less prone to paranoia and politically colored suggestions on a higher level, as it was case with hypnotizing American nation that it is justified and normal idea to go around the globe invading other countries.

When talking about ethnical groups, I do think that ethnical group does not accept values of society and refuses to become a part of it, or if nothing else to live according to laws of society can't be left on its own, but something has to be done about it, maybe even something radical, like extradition of those people out of the country, but most of the times, it is not whole ethnic group of immigrants making problems.

If, as you say, something does have to be done about such things, do you say that because you're frightened? You can't say no without contradicting your earlier comments, and you can't say yes without seeming somewhat hypocritical and essentially calling yourself counter-productive. I imagine the answer's no, and I continue to question the idea that fear is the basis for all actions against the presence of a threat to society.

Regardless, you've started looking at whether or not immigrants are a problem having accepted that it could conceivably be worthwhile to take radical action if they are, which suggests you're starting to accept my thinking on that side of things.

Well again, you have no steps in between, but in your example you act too nice and weak at the beginning and then you are overreacting. You can beat the guy, you can destroy his car, you can make him cry or teach him a lesson in a hundred possible ways. You can make him very afraid and make your point of not coming near to your wife. I was not saying that you should not defend yourself or act as a pussy, just want to say that I don't think that direct violence is not an option most of the times, and when it is, you should have a sense how far you should go. You don't have to kill someone.

Of course, the example is rather weak, but my question to you is this: can you give me an adequate reason for why killing the guy is any worse than any of the other options without referring to your "basic humanity"?

Yes but I was giving you example that we should not be so sure about our subjective idea of right and wrong. If we agree that violence is an option, the innocent people would get hurt more often than not, because people tend to have prejudices based on so many things.

From my perspective, nobody who is threatening my society is "innocent". Taking care before deciding who actually is a threat is another matter entirely.

I am note "above" the nature, as everything else, I am part of it. But I don't eat shit for diner because millions of flies like to do that. Flies are part of nature, there are millions of them, so they must be right?

They're right to eat, yes, what they eat is irrelevant. What I'm condemning is opposing the actions required to survive and evolve as a species because some individuals will be hurt as a result and because, well, we wouldn't want to be them ourselves. I make reference to nature because whenever we try to deviate from its fundamental processes we weaken ourselves, which makes a whole lot of sense considering we're a part of nature too.

Besides, I'd rather have the shit beaten out of me than have my species die out, thanks.

Most of the creatures we call animals (Whales, dolphins and some apes being partly exceptions) have no self-awareness. They cannot choose what to do, and they are kind of pre-programmed machines of flash and blood. Also, I guess you have noticed that species are not overwhelming another species, they live in a balance. If wolves eat all sheep’s, then they would die of hunger too, right? Being more strong and deadly than sheep, wolf is not fit to survive more than sheep is.

Whoooa hold on a sec, let's not forget I was talking about within a species, and let's not forget my previously mentioned definition of fittest either. Making the environment of my people and I uninhabitable is something which I'm radically against, which is precisely why if I was a wolf I'd be perfectly willing to kill off any wolf who decides he wants to kill every sheep so there are none left to eat. You've provided me with a pretty much perfect analogy, here.

Gift of being human is gift of being able to be objective, to choose, and to step out of mechanistic behavior. If we like, we don't have to act on instincts and based on what culture and society are telling us, we can act differently, according to our increasing knowledge and awareness.

It is a freedom of not being a small part of big machinery, but being individual, still acting in harmony with society and nature, but keeping his individual nature. So in some sense, I am giving my best to reach to my full potential, and to break free from chains of social and genetic heritage. And this is what I wish for all other people. If advancing our mind is unnatural than it could be taken as unnatural that our ancestors started building houses or using tools, instead of living in caves. It is against nature in the same sense, because there are no houses, pizzas or internet in nature.
Hope I got my views across better, so I am not taken as a Christian preacher anymore.

Choice is illusory, just because we're self-aware doesn't mean we exist outside the causal system. People are a product of genes and experience, period. No individual can somehow break free from society's influences on them, as that would be akin to breaking free from oneself - and how those influences are processed is also a matter of genetics crossed with experience. Individualism - namely to place the rights and needs of the individual above the collective - is fundamentally destructive because individuals are dependent on the collective and not vice-versa. In other words, individuals all being allowed to follow their respective *paths* and believing that the "rights" and "freedoms" of humans (which don't actually exist in reality, as I've said before) are more important than anything else destroys society and the environment (which in turn destroys individuals anyway).

 

[Dushan S]

As this is becoming one on one conversation between you and me, and it is obvious we are quite different in our views I won't do anymore quote and reply thing, just say few things.
You do stand for your opinion and there is a coherent logic behind it, you argue about it without becoming rude, and all this is something I respect.

I think we cannot say much more because of differences in basic premises. Your philosophy is based on some beliefs that simply just don't exist in my world, for example, determination. It seems that for you it is something that you got thru intellectual process, but freedom of choice for all people that do want to use it is for me something obvious. I am really into psychology; I understand my environment and my heritage, so I can see a difference between what I could be and what I have chosen to be. It is not hard to calculate what was logical and “expected” from me. I have changed myself at some points in life because I wanted to be different person, and it automatically pulled changes in my environment.
Actually, anyone can easily see if he is acting according to his free will thru reactions of people around him, when you do things that are not determined, not a part of your "role" in the "drama", everyone around you act trying to stop you, parents, girlfriend, friends. They will react in different ways, but no matter what they do, they will try to make you go back to your old persona, old role in their own "Dramas". I am getting off topic here, but I guess you got the point. Foundation of your personal world as you see it is completely different to mine. And naturally, as my experiences are telling me that this is working for me, I won't change them radically.

Also, for me universe is without clear boundaries. From my point of view it is possible to be at the same time atheist and very religious. Or be against the violence, but being able to use it if it is necessary. I know it is strange for average western man, but it is quite common in the Far East, for instance, because of their concept of universe as polarities working together, instead of working against other one, as western dualistic concept is.
As one Zen teacher has explained once: (it goes something like this)
"This is a stick. Is it long or short? Well you must say it is long. Because you can say exact size of it, because you can measure this stick. Part of its nature and existence is that it is long, long enough to be a stick. On the other hand it is very obvious that this is a short stick, it is shorter than many other sticks, and you can't deny that"
So for me truth is not on one side of the spectrum, but in understanding of both sides and then fusion of opposites. My reaction at this topic was because of your very extreme and one sided look at social problem, and insisting on it, but it seems that you automatically see me as a person on the other side of the imagined fence.
Well I am not, what I am trying is to be above all the fences.

In your case, I have a perception that you are very rational person that wants to have his personal world in highest possible form of order. That is ok for you, but nature you are referring to is often very chaotic, and causality is just one of the principles that this universe is built upon. Most of the art and inspiration comes from the struggle, lack of balance, instability, irrational and it seems that you negate one side in the favor of the other.

Any way, this was interesting conversation, if nothing else those arguments are opportunity to rethink our beliefs and even come with some new conclusions for ourselves, don't you think?

 

[no country for old wainds]

I'm claiming that violence is neither right or wrong fundamentally and that circumstance should be taken into account. You appeared to be claiming that violence was wrong in all circumstances, which suggests that you're more one-sided than I, but you don't seem to be following through on that now so fair enough.

At the end of the day, you could use the "our universe is irrational" argument against absolutely anything, and if it's a plausible one then there can be no reality for one to base one's values around. It seems clear that the world's unpredictability comes from the human species' inability to understand elements of it rather than because it follows no laws or patterns (as some of these are more obvious). Of course there is a certain beauty in the unpredictability, I don't question this, but I can't ignore pieces of information however unhappy they might or might not make me; when causality seems to be an absolute law for everything else in our world, there's no reason to presume it doesn't apply to human beings as well.

 

[infoterror]

Violence is neither right nor wrong. Only undermen want to ban it, because they live in fear of their own inferiority.

 

[Demiurge]

only violence? how childish. violence is among the lowest forms of response.

The threat of physical retribution keeps people in check. Remove it from a place like New Orleans and you see what happens. Another instance is financial. Try lending people money and charging interest. If not paying carries absolutely no risk, the lender will become a laughingstock. I think controlled violence is efficacious in bringing about desired results from other humans.

That's not even to mention eliminating enemies by killing them outright.