silver 2039
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Messages
- 16,208
I dunnno very wel;l
Most insane NES'er currently?
- Thread starter silver 2039
- Start date
Reno
The Studio Ghibli Fanatic
Insane_Panda said:The North King is a communist, Das is a stalinist, silver a nazi, while I am the only Bonapartist, and I am mad.
In the end Monarchy will prevail. Seriosly.
Reno
The Studio Ghibli Fanatic
Too true, that's why i would want to live in either the Nordic countries (excluding Iceland) or the UK if forced to move somewhere else. Monarchy is simply the best form of government. If only the prince of Hessen would have stayed as the king of Finland back in 1918.
Absolutely.
I have a mate who's doing a PhD into the monarchy and the politics involved.
But then, history has proven.
Britain has had the same system in place since 1632 (and a similar form since before 1066).
By comparison, the only successful republic that comes to mind is the US. France totally botched their revolution (I mean, when you have a Sixth republic, you should be worried) and well, to be honest, in my part of the world, the republics are pretty shoddy. India had a Queen till the 50s so that doesn't count.
I have a mate who's doing a PhD into the monarchy and the politics involved.
But then, history has proven.
Britain has had the same system in place since 1632 (and a similar form since before 1066).
By comparison, the only successful republic that comes to mind is the US. France totally botched their revolution (I mean, when you have a Sixth republic, you should be worried) and well, to be honest, in my part of the world, the republics are pretty shoddy. India had a Queen till the 50s so that doesn't count.
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
If by "keep the masses in line" you mean "create a stable society more than one notch above animals", I agree with you.silver 2039 said:
http://www.peacemagazine.org/archive/v12n4p26a.htm
It has been assumed that the soldier kills in combat to defend his life and to obey his leaders. Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall, an official U.S. historian of World War II, interviewed thousands of soldiers, asking them what it was they did in battle. The results were consistent: only 15 percent to 20 percent of the American riflemen in combat fired at the enemy. Marshall concluded that the average and healthy individual "has such an inner and totally unrealized resistance towards killing a fellow man that he will not of his own volition take life if it is possible to turn away from that responsibility ... At the vital point the soldier becomes a conscientious objector."
http://www.killology.com/print/print_psychological.htm
Tao just doesn't cut it for me. And Erik y'know relativism can never truly prove anything nor can it be truly disproven; it's all a matter of large amounts of circumstancial evidence (as I will proffer later); you can't argue with the kind of thought that goes that particular way. I could argue we're all imagining the world as we speak and no one can TRULY disprove it to me, just offer all the evidence in the world; evidence is only accepted by those who put faith in it. So in the end it's faith and why we should back up our arguments on God, our Christian faith - the rock upon which we build our arguments of values. Non-theistic views upon life (like Darwinist-related (specially Nihilist) are bound to try and not believe in values even if in all of human history... later...
----------
OK, I looked for half an hour and I found a part of the documentary background information. This is just some of the background material so it doesn't explain the 98% who have extreme aversions towards killing but it does show that 98% of soldiers under continous combat (not able to escape) became psychiatric casualties after 2 months. I decided to paste in the link and some of it anyways because it was part of the documentary, It's figures are exactly the same as other research has uncovered.
http://www.killology.com/print/print_psychological.htm
"Psychological Effects of Combat"
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECT OF COMBAT is a concept which encompasses a wide variety of processes and negative impacts, all of which must be taken into consideration in any assessment of the immediate and long term costs of war. This entry will address the wide-spectrum psychological effects of combat, to include:
Psychiatric casualties suffered during combat
Physiological arousal and fear
The physiology of close combat
The price of killing
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
...
Swank and Marchand's World War II study of US Army combatants on the beaches of Normandy found that after 60 days of continuous combat, 98% of the surviving soldiers had become psychiatric casualties. And the remaining 2% were identified as "aggressive psychopathic personalities." Thus it is not too far from the mark to observe that there is something about continuous, inescapable combat which will drive 98% of all men insane, and the other 2% were crazy when they got there. Figure 1 presents a schematic representation of the effects of continuous combat.
It must be understood that the kind of continuous, protracted combat that produces such high psychiatric casualty rates is largely a product of 20th-century warfare. The Battle of Waterloo lasted only a day. Gettysburg lasted only three days--and they took the nights off. It was only in World War I that armies began to experience months of 24-hour combat, and it is in World War I that vast numbers of psychiatric casualties were first observed.
...
During World War II the U.S. Army lost 504,000 men due to psychiatric collapse. A World War II study showed that after 60 days of continuous combat 98 percent of all survivors become psychiatric casualties. The use of pre-combat drugs to cushion the psychological damage is today under consideration despite evidence that it could result in creating "armies of sociopaths."
How does the soldier overcome his unwillingness to kill? In a word, authority. A 1973 study investigated the factors that make soldiers fire. They found that the individuals with no combat experience assumed that "being fired upon" would convince them to fire. However, veterans listed "being told to fire" as the most critical factor. The bonding of the leader with the soldiers under his command is also important, as are his demands for kills. This places great stress on the leader, for if the men under his command withstand attack and engage in a heavy exchange of gunfire, he will experience guilt over the loss of lives incurred.
The willingness of individuals to comply with authority was borne out in Stanley Milgram's studies at Yale University on obedience and aggression. His experiments showed that people could be manipulated into inflicting a (seemingly) lethal electrical charge on a total stranger. The subjects believed they were causing great physical pain, but despite their victim's pleas for them to stop, 65 percent continued to obey orders, increase the voltage, and inflict shocks.
...
I'll find the rest of the whole thing in it's actual presentation later, the actual stuff I was looking for.
------ here is something on moral relativism
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/SCCCWEB/ETEXTS/ETHICS/Chapter_3_Relativism/Relativism_Types.htm
....
universal moral standards binding on all men at all times. The theory claims that all thinking about the basic principles of morality (Ethics) is always relative. Each culture establishes the basic values and principles that serve as the foundation for morality. The theory claims that this is the case now, has always been the case and will always be the case.
This is a philosophical theory that is NOT well supported by the evidence gathered by cultural anthropologists, nor could science support a theory about the past and future! It is a theory that has evidence against it. (see next sections)
In the next section we will examine this theory and its implications and criticisms closely for now consider the table below which shows the contrast between absolutism and relativism.
...
It has been assumed that the soldier kills in combat to defend his life and to obey his leaders. Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall, an official U.S. historian of World War II, interviewed thousands of soldiers, asking them what it was they did in battle. The results were consistent: only 15 percent to 20 percent of the American riflemen in combat fired at the enemy. Marshall concluded that the average and healthy individual "has such an inner and totally unrealized resistance towards killing a fellow man that he will not of his own volition take life if it is possible to turn away from that responsibility ... At the vital point the soldier becomes a conscientious objector."
http://www.killology.com/print/print_psychological.htm
Thanks Erik ^_^ but ummm, I'll still defend it later.Erik Mesoy said:I already have.
Tao just doesn't cut it for me. And Erik y'know relativism can never truly prove anything nor can it be truly disproven; it's all a matter of large amounts of circumstancial evidence (as I will proffer later); you can't argue with the kind of thought that goes that particular way. I could argue we're all imagining the world as we speak and no one can TRULY disprove it to me, just offer all the evidence in the world; evidence is only accepted by those who put faith in it. So in the end it's faith and why we should back up our arguments on God, our Christian faith - the rock upon which we build our arguments of values. Non-theistic views upon life (like Darwinist-related (specially Nihilist) are bound to try and not believe in values even if in all of human history... later...
----------
OK, I looked for half an hour and I found a part of the documentary background information. This is just some of the background material so it doesn't explain the 98% who have extreme aversions towards killing but it does show that 98% of soldiers under continous combat (not able to escape) became psychiatric casualties after 2 months. I decided to paste in the link and some of it anyways because it was part of the documentary, It's figures are exactly the same as other research has uncovered.
http://www.killology.com/print/print_psychological.htm
"Psychological Effects of Combat"
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECT OF COMBAT is a concept which encompasses a wide variety of processes and negative impacts, all of which must be taken into consideration in any assessment of the immediate and long term costs of war. This entry will address the wide-spectrum psychological effects of combat, to include:
Psychiatric casualties suffered during combat
Physiological arousal and fear
The physiology of close combat
The price of killing
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
...
Swank and Marchand's World War II study of US Army combatants on the beaches of Normandy found that after 60 days of continuous combat, 98% of the surviving soldiers had become psychiatric casualties. And the remaining 2% were identified as "aggressive psychopathic personalities." Thus it is not too far from the mark to observe that there is something about continuous, inescapable combat which will drive 98% of all men insane, and the other 2% were crazy when they got there. Figure 1 presents a schematic representation of the effects of continuous combat.
It must be understood that the kind of continuous, protracted combat that produces such high psychiatric casualty rates is largely a product of 20th-century warfare. The Battle of Waterloo lasted only a day. Gettysburg lasted only three days--and they took the nights off. It was only in World War I that armies began to experience months of 24-hour combat, and it is in World War I that vast numbers of psychiatric casualties were first observed.
...
During World War II the U.S. Army lost 504,000 men due to psychiatric collapse. A World War II study showed that after 60 days of continuous combat 98 percent of all survivors become psychiatric casualties. The use of pre-combat drugs to cushion the psychological damage is today under consideration despite evidence that it could result in creating "armies of sociopaths."
How does the soldier overcome his unwillingness to kill? In a word, authority. A 1973 study investigated the factors that make soldiers fire. They found that the individuals with no combat experience assumed that "being fired upon" would convince them to fire. However, veterans listed "being told to fire" as the most critical factor. The bonding of the leader with the soldiers under his command is also important, as are his demands for kills. This places great stress on the leader, for if the men under his command withstand attack and engage in a heavy exchange of gunfire, he will experience guilt over the loss of lives incurred.
The willingness of individuals to comply with authority was borne out in Stanley Milgram's studies at Yale University on obedience and aggression. His experiments showed that people could be manipulated into inflicting a (seemingly) lethal electrical charge on a total stranger. The subjects believed they were causing great physical pain, but despite their victim's pleas for them to stop, 65 percent continued to obey orders, increase the voltage, and inflict shocks.
...
I'll find the rest of the whole thing in it's actual presentation later, the actual stuff I was looking for.
------ here is something on moral relativism
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/SCCCWEB/ETEXTS/ETHICS/Chapter_3_Relativism/Relativism_Types.htm
....
universal moral standards binding on all men at all times. The theory claims that all thinking about the basic principles of morality (Ethics) is always relative. Each culture establishes the basic values and principles that serve as the foundation for morality. The theory claims that this is the case now, has always been the case and will always be the case.
This is a philosophical theory that is NOT well supported by the evidence gathered by cultural anthropologists, nor could science support a theory about the past and future! It is a theory that has evidence against it. (see next sections)
In the next section we will examine this theory and its implications and criticisms closely for now consider the table below which shows the contrast between absolutism and relativism.
...
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
=^_^=
I edit-pasted some stuffs on moral relativism at the bottom of my post, note the part about cultural anthropologists.
Oh btw. almost forgot to add it in...
Of the 2% that are willing to kill only 1% are actually psychopaths, the other are normal people with the ability to kill and deal with it properly.
Also the 15-20 percent of soldiers in the Vietnam (I think it was) war, they were still working on modern training back then; just wanted to point out that of those 15-20 percent an even smaller amount was actually trying to KILL the enemy. I'm not quite sure about the number since the army was already working on the pshyocology-thingymajiggywavighdr
g
e4t34terter...
tired...
I edit-pasted some stuffs on moral relativism at the bottom of my post, note the part about cultural anthropologists.
Oh btw. almost forgot to add it in...
Of the 2% that are willing to kill only 1% are actually psychopaths, the other are normal people with the ability to kill and deal with it properly.
Also the 15-20 percent of soldiers in the Vietnam (I think it was) war, they were still working on modern training back then; just wanted to point out that of those 15-20 percent an even smaller amount was actually trying to KILL the enemy. I'm not quite sure about the number since the army was already working on the pshyocology-thingymajiggywavighdr
g
e4t34terter...
tired...
das
Regeneration In Process
Polar bears are above pathetic human understandments of "morality" and "immorality", not to mention "amorality". They also think that while monarchy is quite nice, constitutional monarchy=pants with sauce spilled on them. Could you wear them, or eat them? Silly humans...
das
Regeneration In Process
are vile penguin propaganda. Especially Penguin books.
das
Regeneration In Process
Sure you aren't! You're just pretending not to be the propagator of morality. You're probably waiting for me to turn my back on you - and THEN you will start shouting about morals!
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
If you didn't get it, ask yourself why I would point in the direction of such websites.Gelion said:
P.S. Please don't come back screaming "WHAT DID MY EYES DO TO DESERVE THIS???" at me.
Kozmos
Jew Detective
Ha I knew you would draw the SLA marshall card...so I now activate my Trap card and completely screw your argument up...
To rephrase
Explanation: Two percent probability that the miniature organic Toteone is simply looking for trouble and needs to be blasted. That may be wishful thinking on my part, though."
http://pages.slc.edu/~fsmoler/grossman.html
To rephrase
Explanation: Two percent probability that the miniature organic Toteone is simply looking for trouble and needs to be blasted. That may be wishful thinking on my part, though."
http://pages.slc.edu/~fsmoler/grossman.html
das
Regeneration In Process
Toteone, das, Erik, silver2039 and Cleric should form a Pentagoniate (or whatever it is supposed to be spelled) of Insane NESers because they bothered to argue for several pages about morality and killing people in a thread that was supposed to be about Hitler the Dolphin.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
