While We Wait: Writer's Block & Other Lame Excuses

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you compare it to that, then it would be to fight boredom, which does not apply to actually doing it. There is a massive difference between killing pixels and killing someone else, the second is unthinkable, while the first is acceptable and entertaining since it isn't real.
 
There is a massive difference between killing pixels and killing someone else, the second is unthinkable, while the first is acceptable and entertaining since it isn't real.
How many times have you fantasized about killing someone?

Protip: if you say zero, you're lying.
 
Killing each other is also a pretty natural phenomenon! It's happened more or less constantly for literally the entire existence of our species! Which is the whole gist of this argument! So what's your point?

WANTING to play fight and compete is natural; WANTING to kill is decidedly less so. Hence why armies throughout time have had to conscript soldiers rather than rely on volunteers.

I laid out the two conditions to disprove the thesis. They're right there in black and white with numbers and everything. Pick one and get to work or step off.

"Get to work" :lol: Yeah no thanks prof; it's summer and class is out of session.
 
Symph, are you a professional debater by career? I've got to admit it, you do not budge on any of your points, which would make for a perfect collegiate debater or professor.
 
WANTING to play fight and compete is natural; WANTING to kill is decidedly less so.
Let me ask you again: how many times have you fantasized about killing someone?

"Get to work" :lol: Yeah no thanks prof; it's summer and class is out of session.
Okay, answer the question or stop wasting my time.
 
Symph, are you a professional debater by career? I've got to admit it, you do not budge on any of your points, which would make for a perfect collegiate debater or professor.

No, he's a good writer. That's why I stepped away. He'll never admit I win.
 
Aside from Luckymoose, who here has acted on the desire to kill someone tho?
 
You can't lay out the conditions to disprove your own thesis. Things don't work that way.

Of course, it isn't really necessary in this particular instance.
 
No, he's a good writer. That's why I stepped away. He'll never admit I win.
I've acknowledged I was wrong and you were correct in at least two arguments we've in the past and apologized for things I said in the course of those arguments, so this is a blatant falsehood. I also do not claim to be infallible. I recently predicted Putin wouldn't take Crimea and then he went and did it, and I thought MH370 must've been on the northern flight arc and not the southern because committing murder-suicide by flying toward Antarctica struck me as nonsensical, and apparently that's precisely what happened. I'm wrong and make mistakes all the time.

But I want to see some cogent arguments and I've laid out what is necessary to make them and nobody's doing it, so really all I'm getting back is a bunch of opinions with no basis to them. I don't like that.

Of course, it isn't really necessary in this particular instance.
"You're just wrong because, man." Killer argument, ace. World class. A+ for effort, A+ for execution, would read again. You've won the thread.
 
No, you're just wrong, and basically everyone can see it.

Humans are not naturally inclined to murder, and there's no burden on me to prove this. When you bring out pseudoscientific garbage like psychohistory I just can't take your argument seriously.
 
Humans are not naturally inclined to murder, and there's no burden on me to prove this.
Yeah, and studying dogs is a great way to learn about wolves, because they're like almost the same thing genetically, right? There are absolutely no differences between domesticated and wild animals and domesticated animals never show pre-domesticated behavior and never go feral.

Humans aren't animals and certainly haven't self-domesticated. None of this is relevant. Symphony is just making up crap. I don't have to prove anything because I am inherently right even though I have no evidence to back up what I'm saying and what evidence I do trot out is tangential to the argument.

Ho hum.

When you bring out pseudoscientific garbage like psychohistory I just can't take your argument seriously.
Wow bro a brief aside with a note that it was scientifically unsubstantiated yeah it was hella the crux of my argument you got me dawg down in flames pew pew Top Gun masta here everybody

Humans are just peace-loving creatures the vast majority of whom never think about murder and would never ever murder another person under any circumstances and that is why there are no murders and wars today and we live in the utopian United Federation of Planets. Murder was an invention of evil states that warped our pure forms and forced us to do bad things to one another!

Pew pew!
 
Naturally humans are very inclined to murder when you invade territory.
 
Hallowed are the Ori.
 
m.t.cicero said:
WANTING to play fight and compete is natural; WANTING to kill is decidedly less so. Hence why armies throughout time have had to conscript soldiers rather than rely on volunteers.

You know, I suspect armies had to conscript for rather more boring reasons like people not wanting to be dragged away from their families and homes to die in a ditch somewhere. That in no way implies that people don't want to kill. Because the wanting bit is more or less irrelevant if the other side is up for it. And the other side, or you side, like most sides in history is totally a-okay with killing. Your bros wouldn't be holding spears or swords otherwise.
 
Phillip Gibbs said:
"It was astonishing how loudly one laughed at tales of gruesome things, of war’s brutality-I with the rest of them. I think at the bottom of it was a sense of the ironical contrast between the normal ways of civilian life and this hark-back to the caveman code. It made all our old philosophy of life monstrously ridiculous. It played the “hat trick” with the gentility of modern manners. Men who had been brought up to Christian virtues, who had prattled their little prayers at mothers’ knees, who had grown up to a love of poetry, painting, music, the gentle arts, over-sensitized to the subtleties of half-tones, delicate scales of emotion, fastidious in their choice of words, in their sense of beauty, found themselves compelled to live and act like ape-men; and it was abominably funny. They laughed at the most frightful episodes, which revealed this contrast between civilized ethics and the old beast law. The more revolting it was the more, sometimes, they shouted with laughter, especially in reminiscence, when the tale was told in the gilded salon of a French chateau, or at a mess-table.

It was, I think, the laughter of mortals at the trick which had been played on them by an ironical fate. They had been taught to believe that the whole object of life was to reach out to beauty and love, and that mankind, in its progress to perfection, had killed the beast instinct, cruelty, blood-lust, the primitive, savage law of survival by tooth and claw and club and ax. All poetry, all art, all religion had preached this gospel and this promise.

Now that ideal had broken like a china vase dashed to hard ground. The contrast between That and This was devastating. It was, in an enormous world-shaking way, like a highly dignified man in a silk hat, morning coat, creased trousers, spats, and patent boots suddenly slipping on a piece of orange-peel and sitting, all of a heap, with silk hat flying, in a filthy gutter. The war-time humor of the soul roared with mirth at the sight of all that dignity and elegance despoiled.

So we laughed merrily, I remember, when a military chaplain (Eton, Christ Church, and Christian service) described how an English sergeant stood round the traverse of a German trench, in a night raid, and as the Germans came his way, thinking to escape, he cleft one skull after another with a steel-studded bludgeon a weapon which he had made with loving craftsmanship on the model of Blunderbore’s club in the pictures of a fairy-tale.

So we laughed at the adventures of a young barrister (a brilliant fellow in the Oxford “Union”) whose pleasure it was to creep out o’ nights into No Man’s Land and lie doggo in a shell-hole close to the enemy’s barbed wire, until presently, after an hour’s waiting or two, a German soldier would crawl out to fetch in a corpse. The English barrister lay with his rifle ready. Where there had been one corpse there were two. Each night he made a notch on his rifle three notches one night to check the number of his victims. Then he came back to breakfast in his dugout with a hearty appetite."

War is terrible, but then you remember life is a game and all is ho-hum again.
 
I'm kind of dumbfounded that some of our luminaries on #nes (principly, Symphony D., whose opinions I usually respect) are really waving this ridiculous banner. Humans are disinclined from killing purely for amusement -- at least, humans with mental states that are generally deemed "healthy" -- and the history of armies is just as much the history of compelling humans to kill one another in an orderly and predictable manner as it is the history of inventing new and superior ways to kill other humans. I recommend you all the book "The Face of Battle," particularly the bits and pieces pertaining to the differences between the "honorable combat" supposed by chivalric standards and early modern, drill-based, missile arms warfare.

There is also, "On Killing."

Wow, I'm not impressed guys. You can feel free to flippantly attempt to dismiss this on the grounds of "Well hurrdurr, LoE, no one SRS gives a damn if you're impressed," but that doesn't change the fact that you're all, well, wrong.
 
There is also, "On Killing."
I preemptively wrote a thing for whenever someone inevitably continued not reading a damn thing I'd written, congratulations, you are the trigger man.

Spoiler :
FACT: Studies of recent and modern tribal societies show that somewhere between 20 and 60% of all males die due to conflict between these societies. Accordingly, "Murder (War)" comprises a very large component of their death statistics.

FACT: Analysis of wars shows that more advanced societies have far fewer deaths attributable to violent conflict, with today's societies far below 1% when taken in aggregate.

FACT-BASED CONJECTURE 1: More advanced societies produce fewer violent deaths per capita than tribal societies, and the more advanced the society, the fewer the deaths because reasons (various).

INFERENCE: It can be logically inferred that the casualty rate for tribes today is similar to the historical casualty rates of tribes, although this likely varied over time (the world was not always uniformly densely populated and as it filled up conflict became more likely).

INFERENCE-BASED CONJECTURE 2: For most of Human existence (approximately 185,000 out of the 195,000 years anatomically modern Humans are confirmed to have existed) Humanity was in a state where murder for some reason or another was much more common than it is today.

INFERENCE: Given that the primary directive of centralization of power in advanced societies is generally the centralization of violence-making capabilities, it follows that the average person was artificially relieved of the need to regularly do violence by the construction of a supraindividual entity ("government") that would do it instead in a more regulated fashion ("militaries").

INFERENCE-BASED CONJECTURE 3: In other words, the experiences and drives of people throughout civilized history are necessarily different than those in tribal history, because they exist in an artificial environment ("civilization") which has enabled them to self-select away from violent behavior. This is a self-domesticating process ("progress").

INFERENCE: You cannot legitimately infer normal behavior from artificial circumstances particularly when you're enmeshed in them. You can't realistically talk about the experiences of a polar bear in the Hudson Bay if you're a polar bear born in captivity going crazy in the San Diego Zoo. Your frame of mind has little to no bearing on that of someone in prehistory.

So, to expand on my earlier indication of where you need to go, points of attack on this are:

A. The studies of modern tribes are wrong. (You could prove this.)
B. The studies of modern tribes aren't reflective of tribes in prehistory. (You couldn't prove this, but you could conjecture it strongly if you proved A.)
C. Even among modern tribal members there is a strong aversion to killing. (You could prove this.)
D. C was also true of prehistorical tribes. (You couldn't prove this, but you could conjecture it strongly if you proved C.)
E. Tribes were not the main unit of Human organization in prehistory and so none of the above applies. (Good luck!)

Until such time as you prove one of those things, then it stands to reason that for most of Human history, Humans have been killing one another horribly, and have only recently conditioned themselves by selecting for behavior opposed to this, which they have enforced through installing supraindividual systems (because these behaviors threatened the stability of the supraindividual system). You have repeatedly mistakenly referred to this conditioning as being the default state, when it's the default state for civilization. You have refused to accept that a set of behavior expressed for (being generous, only) 94% of Human existence is "natural" because it's not natural to you right now sitting on your chair or beanbag or whatever. And you have refused to accept the idea that this history has any bearing on our modern day experiences, which is clearly why people are really easy to program to kill on command and some people will just go up and do it without much or any prompting.

You're the product of a very long and very bloody process designed to produce people who don't want to kill, sitting there and saying that people must necessarily naturally not want to kill. Maybe you want to believe that because you don't like the idea that it's really easy for someone with the right knowledge to flip switches in your head to turn all of that off, and pretending you're not capable of it at all helps you sleep better at night, but that doesn't mean it's true. You won't admit it, but you've thought about it on your own probably plenty of times, and you haven't done it (I assume) due to some moral pang or some fear of reprisal, which just goes to show the system works.

I would suggest that it's fairly obvious that when those supraindividual systems fail or are not present, murder rates go up because enforcement is actually the primary mechanism for maintaining the conditioning, but given the immense backlash against what's already been presented, I'm sure one of you bright young things would argue the Wild West and Somalia were and are earthly paradises where nothing bad ever happened or happens.

tl;dr Look man, just because Humans were perpetually per capita killing one another way more than they have at virtually anytime in the past 10,000 years for 94% of the time that Humans have walked the Earth doesn't mean that Humans naturally murder one another, man.

That's only like three sigma confidence, everyone knows nature starts at five sigma confidence. I know because I'm in the remainder and therefore
Yes, I'm saying the action itself is unthinkable.
Congratulations, you are the product of a system that was gone down a very long and bloody road to encourage you to think this way. You are uncommon and that does not mean that everyone has taken the system's programming as well as you have, nor that that programming is common. But do not worry, you are unlikely to come to harm. Go acquire more Pizza Hut, Coca-Cola, and Skippy Peanut Butter and the world will turn out fine. Also, girls really just want you to be yourself and you will totally get the girl next door if you work hard, buy a home, pay your taxes, and obey the law, upstanding citizen.
 
Christ, I don't think you read what I wrote. Modern (and ancient) cultures invest significant energy in encouraging killing, too.

But I guess that doesn't really "jive" with this "Social conditioning is the only thing holding me back from stabbing you to death for shits and giggles!" thing you're doing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom