Maybe. I thought Rome would've learned its lesson, but Mussolini clearly disagreed.
You should put that comment into some sort of context.
You suggested that France and Germany won't ever fight again. And generally, you seem to be implying that we're learning from our history of mistakes.
Italy was the home of the Roman Empire a long ass time ago, which inevitably crumbled. Mussolini came into power and spread the message of restoring the empire through force. Seems like a pretty apparent repeat of mistakes made.
Obviously, there was a far step between the government of the Roman Empire and the government of Italy in the 20th century, but the fact he cited their former Roman prosperity seems pretty indicative that it's a distinct possibility that our mistakes will be forgotten by history and then promptly repeated.
I was just mainly stating that the stability in China is due primarily to opression and propoganda (and of course the open market). I'm not one of those types to think that China will need to liberalize politcally to progress. I just don't know why you would assume that the new system is 'permanent'.
It's primarily due to people being alive today who lived through the absolute hell of 30+ years go and finding the current state of affairs being immeasurably more desirable.
Stability is, of course due to a certain lack of liberties, but look at where China has come from. The open market has made people ludicrously better off compared to the very recent past, and you seem to be blandly asserting that people don't like it that way or something. Why would people want to throw what they have away?
My admin assistant brought me tea the other day just to be nice.
A person I walked by smiled and said hello. Not a perfunctory grin, but a genuine smile.
My daughter walked up to me, gave me a hug, and told me she was glad that I'm her daddy.
Wait, which thread is this?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
All it takes for another WW is a wealthy nation deciding that it knows what's best for the world while denying civil rights to its citizens so as to wool the eyes. I don't know how you're so confident in rule that possibility out given the situation we're in.
You make it sound so easy!
Do you seriously think that France and Germany will ever fight each other again?
I admit that there is a very dangerous window for the next year, as Bush is still in office, but once he's gone, what wealthy nation would fight another? For what reason?
So what exactly is preventing Bush 3.0 from taking office? All of the same structures, regulations, and more importantly people, are still in place, with no significant change. Public oppinion doesn't put the poo in poo-poo if that public does not vote, and given recent history the results of that act are now suspect in a lot of significant ways.
We're still doing things the same way, and expecting different results. I suspect as long as there is a machine of war, and someone willing to push the button, attrocity will exist alongside the animalistic and supremacy orientedness of mankind as a whole.
Then again, an entirely matriarchal worldview society may rise up and put an end to all that. Or the Vatican could sell 10% of it's holdings and instantly end world hunger. Etc ad infinitum.
Well, this thread is a pretty good example of the shallow, egotistical bullshit that I hate.
"Oh, they picked on me in High School - the Humanity! Alas for mankind's unquenchable lust for cruelty! Poor Mathew whose throat was burned not just by chili powder but by the horrible darkness within our very souls!"
Obviously, there was a far step between the government of the Roman Empire and the government of Italy in the 20th century, but the fact he cited their former Roman prosperity seems pretty indicative that it's a distinct possibility that our mistakes will be forgotten by history and then promptly repeated.
Did the Roman empire "inevitably" fall for the same reasons that fascist Italy fell?
And again, I'm not arguing that people don't repeat mistakes--we're pretty bull-headed at times--merely that we tend to figure out what works over time and that we do tend to learn from our mistakes. I've been talking about a trend, not a straight line.
Loren Michael on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Well, this thread is a pretty good example of the shallow, egotistical bullshit that I hate.
"Oh, they picked on me in High School - the Humanity! Alas for mankind's unquenchable lust for cruelty! Poor Mathew whose throat was burned not just by chili powder but by the horrible darkness within our very souls!"
Jesus.
Actually most people are talking about things like war and so on, but whatever.
So what exactly is preventing Bush 3.0 from taking office? All of the same structures, regulations, and more importantly people, are still in place, with no significant change. Public oppinion doesn't put the poo in poo-poo if that public does not vote, and given recent history the results of that act are now suspect in a lot of significant ways.
Do you think Bush would win reelection if he could run for a third term? Do you think the public (the voting public) is eager for more Iraq-like excursions?
Well, this thread is a pretty good example of the shallow, egotistical bullshit that I hate.
"Oh, they picked on me in High School - the Humanity! Alas for mankind's unquenchable lust for cruelty! Poor Mathew whose throat was burned not just by chili powder but by the horrible darkness within our very souls!"
Jesus.
^^^ His fault too...but there is a really good thread about that already
So what exactly is preventing Bush 3.0 from taking office? All of the same structures, regulations, and more importantly people, are still in place, with no significant change. Public oppinion doesn't put the poo in poo-poo if that public does not vote, and given recent history the results of that act are now suspect in a lot of significant ways.
Do you think Bush would win reelection if he could run for a third term? Do you think the public (the voting public) is eager for more Iraq-like excursions?
If I had a dollar for everytime I heard that about the second election, I would be retired in Cabo and not caring who we were at war with.
People keep implying the system here works to prevent it from occuring, but the evidence indicates otherwise.
Well, this thread is a pretty good example of the shallow, egotistical bullshit that I hate.
"Oh, they picked on me in High School - the Humanity! Alas for mankind's unquenchable lust for cruelty! Poor Mathew whose throat was burned not just by chili powder but by the horrible darkness within our very souls!"
Jesus.
Ah sorry, I didn't realize that all bad stuff is trivial bullshit. I guess I'm just unenlightened like that.
There's a difference between tragedies that shouldn't be repeated, and then having people repeat them anyways.
Simply looking at wars:
I think it would be extremely difficult to have something akin to WWII occur again. Wars between wealthy nations are essentially a thing of the past.
I think it would be extremely difficult to have something akin to the war in Vietnam occurring again. People will never support a draft, and the government almost certainly won't do it again.
I think that history will look harshly on the Iraq war, and people will be extremely reluctant to engage in the same kind of fiasco in the future. At the moment, I think we are in the middle of a crisis at the moment though, as the same madmen that led the charge into Iraq are eying Iran.
Not even getting into the wars of the early and mid- 20th century, more civilians have been dying in the last 50 years than at any other time in history. This is without a major world war of any kind.
People are slow, and groups of people even moreso, but are you really going to assert that nothing has changed since the 2004 election? Keep in mind that there was also a 2006 election.
Not even getting into the wars of the early and mid- 20th century, more civilians have been dying in the last 50 years than at any other time in history. This is without a major world war of any kind.
How has the world population been trending with that?
Not even getting into the wars of the early and mid- 20th century, more civilians have been dying in the last 50 years than at any other time in history. This is without a major world war of any kind.
How has the world population been trending with that?
It has been increasing, of course, but the rate of increase has halved compared to the all time high of (i believe) the early 1960s, where it was at something like 2.2 percent.
I'm just saying that the cruelty exhibited to civilians in this century is staggering, and results in a dark shadow under any examination of the infrequency of major world conflicts.
Not even getting into the wars of the early and mid- 20th century, more civilians have been dying in the last 50 years than at any other time in history. This is without a major world war of any kind.
How has the world population been trending with that?
It has been increasing, of course, but the rate of increase has halved compared to the all time high of (i believe) the early 1960s, where it was at something like 2.2 percent.
I'm just saying that the cruelty exhibited to civilians in this century is staggering, and results in a dark shadow under any examination of the infrequency of major world conflicts.
You do realize that there is a ridiculously large number of other factors related to that right? Population densities, cities, resource shortage/overuse - all of these factors are going to contribute to any perceived civilian death toll from military conflict or otherwise.
Cutting a large city off from water is going to be proportionally more destructive then a village, but does it mean that the intent or cruelty or whatever the fuck was actually any greater if the problem was collateral damage?
God I agree with Shinto.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited October 2007
I guess I think that achievements within the last 50 years or so is a little... not shortsighted, exactly, but is not really all that long enough to be a good indicator.
I'm just saying that the cruelty exhibited to civilians in this century is staggering, and results in a dark shadow under any examination of the infrequency of major world conflicts.
Is it because we are more cruel, or because the technology associated with cruelty has gotten to be so staggeringly efficient and available?
Can you imagine the death tolls if we were as cruel and capricious as we were 500 years ago with today's nuclear weaponry?
I'm just saying that the cruelty exhibited to civilians in this century is staggering, and results in a dark shadow under any examination of the infrequency of major world conflicts.
Is it because we are more cruel, or because the technology associated with cruelty has gotten to be so staggeringly efficient and available?
Can you imagine the death tolls if we were as cruel and capricious as we were 500 years ago with today's nuclear weaponry?
I thought you were arguing that we are less cruel now?
Not even getting into the wars of the early and mid- 20th century, more civilians have been dying in the last 50 years than at any other time in history. This is without a major world war of any kind.
How has the world population been trending with that?
It has been increasing, of course, but the rate of increase has halved compared to the all time high of (i believe) the early 1960s, where it was at something like 2.2 percent.
I'm just saying that the cruelty exhibited to civilians in this century is staggering, and results in a dark shadow under any examination of the infrequency of major world conflicts.
You do realize that there is a ridiculously large number of other factors related to that right? Population densities, cities, resource shortage/overuse - all of these factors are going to contribute to any perceived civilian death toll from military conflict or otherwise.
Cutting a large city off from water is going to be proportionally more destructive then a village, but does it mean that the intent or cruelty or whatever the fuck was actually any greater if the problem was collateral damage?
Wouldn't the fact that the higher collateral damage hadn't been considered, or simply dismissed, imply some higher amount of cruelty?
Not even getting into the wars of the early and mid- 20th century, more civilians have been dying in the last 50 years than at any other time in history. This is without a major world war of any kind.
How has the world population been trending with that?
It has been increasing, of course, but the rate of increase has halved compared to the all time high of (i believe) the early 1960s, where it was at something like 2.2 percent.
I'm just saying that the cruelty exhibited to civilians in this century is staggering, and results in a dark shadow under any examination of the infrequency of major world conflicts.
You do realize that there is a ridiculously large number of other factors related to that right? Population densities, cities, resource shortage/overuse - all of these factors are going to contribute to any perceived civilian death toll from military conflict or otherwise.
Cutting a large city off from water is going to be proportionally more destructive then a village, but does it mean that the intent or cruelty or whatever the fuck was actually any greater if the problem was collateral damage?
I thought you were arguing that we are less cruel now?
I am. If we were as cruel as we were in relatively recent history, much of the world would be a charred ruin, given today's weaponry.
I guess what I'm saying is, from a consequentialist standpoint, who the fuck cares if we're relatively less cruel, but the 10 people who are cruel are able to kill 250 thousand people each.
People are dying, and the world's outlook is only bright in the first world.
My mother's gone through law school recently, and they covered something interesting that I, and apparently many people around my age, have not heard about. This would be the "Canadian residential school system", something that is glossed over in History class, despite how long it continued. To top it all off, the government recently decided that it would not apologize for the school system.
Man, people have been getting better and better about not being cruel. We're rising out of the cruelest thing I'm aware of, nature. Have you heard that it's red in tooth and claw?
Plenty of animal species cause pain to other animals, but humans really take the cake when it comes to cruelty. Superior brain power, superior ability to make plans to cause pain. Animals kill, wound, some play with their food before killing it, there are even a few species that rape, but you won't find any of them waterboarding other critters, for example. Most animals cause pain incidentally, they don't have enough empathy to be cruel. A few of the higher, social mammals do, perhaps.
One of the most horrible things I've read recently was that in the early days of the American frontier, some people would catch wolves alive in traps, saw off their lower jaw, then let them loose to starve to death. I could understand shooting them, with the attitudes and beliefs they had towards wolves back then, but that's just . . . fucking horrible.
I thought you were arguing that we are less cruel now?
I am. If we were as cruel as we were in relatively recent history, much of the world would be a charred ruin, given today's weaponry.
I guess what I'm saying is, from a consequentialist standpoint, who the fuck cares if we're relatively less cruel, but the 10 people who are cruel are able to kill 250 thousand people each.
People are dying, and the world's outlook is only bright in the first world.
From a practical standpoint, if we're relatively less cruel and capricious, it's easier to reach the (much, much smaller) number of cruel people and stop them or curtail their efforts. I submit that something like WWII's Holocaust - something that was perpetrated in a modern and developed nation with a sophisticated economy and government - would be impossible today.
The genocides we see nowadays are in backwards shitholes run by feudal warlords. Given that the trend is towards modernizing these shitholes, it stands to reason that such genocides will become less feasible and less frequent as time goes on. We are systematically making the world into a place where the types of atrocities that people can afflict one one another are flatly impossible.
I dunno, I see this as a good thing. But if you want to prattle on about the downfall of humanity because there will always be an asshole somewhere giving someone else an atomic wedgie, feel free.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Plenty of animal species cause pain to other animals, but humans really take the cake when it comes to cruelty. Superior brain power, superior ability to make plans to cause pain. Animals kill, wound, some play with their food before killing it, there are even a few species that rape, but you won't find any of them waterboarding other critters, for example. Most animals cause pain incidentally, they don't have enough empathy to be cruel. A few of the higher, social mammals do, perhaps.
Something tells me you've got this backwards. A cat toys with a mouse because it's fun, because he delights in the spectacle of the doomed mouse flitting about, injured and confused. The antics amuse him. The cat doesn't feel remorse because the cat isn't capable of such higher functions. It doesn't have the empathy required to recognize the mouse as a like being.
In sociopaths, in the people who delight from torturing others, it seems to be pretty much the same. They don't see their prey as people, as equals. They see them as toys. They play with them, they torture them, they kill them, all because it's fun. Because they're freed from the shackles of morality.
The key point here is not that there are a few human beings who commit atrocities because they suffer from a lack of empathy. The key point is that the vast majority of people don't.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Plenty of animal species cause pain to other animals, but humans really take the cake when it comes to cruelty. Superior brain power, superior ability to make plans to cause pain. Animals kill, wound, some play with their food before killing it, there are even a few species that rape, but you won't find any of them waterboarding other critters, for example. Most animals cause pain incidentally, they don't have enough empathy to be cruel. A few of the higher, social mammals do, perhaps.
Something tells me you've got this backwards. A cat toys with a mouse because it's fun, because he delights in the spectacle of the doomed mouse flitting about, injured and confused. The antics amuse him. The cat doesn't feel remorse because the cat isn't capable of such higher functions. It doesn't have the empathy required to recognize the mouse as a like being.
In sociopaths, in the people who delight from torturing others, it seems to be pretty much the same. They don't see their prey as people, as equals. They see them as toys. They play with them, they torture them, they kill them, all because it's fun. Because they're freed from the shackles of morality.
The key point here is not that there are a few human beings who commit atrocities because they suffer from a lack of empathy. The key point is that the vast majority of people don't.
This thread was never intended to be particularly philosophical, but oh well.
and you forgot the third category, people who torture others because they do empathize with them. Because they understand exactly the feelings and they delight in it.
Alas for mankind's unquenchable lust for cruelty! Poor Mathew whose throat was burned not just by chili powder but by the horrible darkness within our very souls!"
Jesus.
To be fair, that incident made them sound like tremendous assholes.
Not to detract from your overall assessment of this having been terribly silly, though.
Something tells me you've got this backwards. A cat toys with a mouse because it's fun, because he delights in the spectacle of the doomed mouse flitting about, injured and confused. The antics amuse him. The cat doesn't feel remorse because the cat isn't capable of such higher functions. It doesn't have the empathy required to recognize the mouse as a like being.
don't.
Errr, how are we reading the cat's mind though? Is it fun, or is it some kind of instinctive predatory response to fleeing/maiming prey?
Fundamentally I don't disagree with the point, I just thing we attribute more to malice or amusement by a predatory animal exhibiting prey-relationship behaviors.
Then again....I am violently allergic to cats, and as such spend as little time around them as possible.....my dogs don't toy with the critters they end up killing. It's more of a straigh crunch and munch
This thread was never intended to be particularly philosophical, but oh well.
and you forgot the third category, people who torture others because they do empathize with them. Because they understand exactly the feelings and they delight in it.
SEE: Ultima Online
Yeah, except they're not actually "empathizing" with them any more than I empathize with the goombas whom I routinely stomp en masse on my way to get some Princess Poon.
And unless your Ultima Online story involves actual harm inflicted to actual people, I don't see the relevance.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
This thread was never intended to be particularly philosophical, but oh well.
and you forgot the third category, people who torture others because they do empathize with them. Because they understand exactly the feelings and they delight in it.
SEE: Ultima Online
Yeah, except they're not actually "empathizing" with them any more than I empathize with the goombas whom I routinely stomp en masse on my way to get some Princess Poon.
And unless your Ultima Online story involves actual harm inflicted to actual people, I don't see the relevance.
Yeah, I think video games have provided more of an outlet to get that sadistic shit out. Pixels dying != People dying.
This thread reeks of teen angst.
It gets better guys. Your hormones calm down. Life kicks you in the ass and you grow a little each kick.
This thread was never intended to be particularly philosophical, but oh well.
and you forgot the third category, people who torture others because they do empathize with them. Because they understand exactly the feelings and they delight in it.
SEE: Ultima Online
Yeah, except they're not actually "empathizing" with them any more than I empathize with the goombas whom I routinely stomp en masse on my way to get some Princess Poon.
And unless your Ultima Online story involves actual harm inflicted to actual people, I don't see the relevance.
au contraire, the appeal of the game is that you get to fuck with genuine people. The point of referencing Ultima Online is that its the perfect example of what people will do to eachother if there is no fear of repercussions. For example my vegetarian friend would spend days and days devising ways to gate newbs into max level dungeons, use clipping to trap people in his house, and just generally grief like mad. He didn't even care about getting anything out of it. And he had been reduced to tears more than once by what other griefers did to his avatar.
I don't really know how you can think that the majority of people who enjoy the suffering of others are sociopaths. Its a pretty common trait.
Something tells me you've got this backwards. A cat toys with a mouse because it's fun, because he delights in the spectacle of the doomed mouse flitting about, injured and confused. The antics amuse him. The cat doesn't feel remorse because the cat isn't capable of such higher functions. It doesn't have the empathy required to recognize the mouse as a like being.
don't.
Errr, how are we reading the cat's mind though? Is it fun, or is it some kind of instinctive predatory response to fleeing/maiming prey?
Fundamentally I don't disagree with the point, I just thing we attribute more to malice or amusement by a predatory animal exhibiting prey-relationship behaviors.
Then again....I am violently allergic to cats, and as such spend as little time around them as possible.....my dogs don't toy with the critters they end up killing. It's more of a straigh crunch and munch
I'm 95% sure that nearly all predatory animals do not possess the neural pathways to enjoy anything past insert food ---> happy chemical.
Despite the unlikelihood (however possible) of a major mass killing along the lines of a Holocaust, it doesn't excuse the tendency of cruelty that I think the OP was leaning towards. Shinto can call everyone emo until his wrist veins spontaneously jump out of his arms, but the point stands that there is a natural tendency to be cruel. It's relative and changes over time, but it doesn't go away.
Romans killed people and animals in the Coliseum for amusement. Along the lines of what Jeffe was saying, it has a lot to do with them not being seen as equals. At the same time though, I think there is a cruelty that exists when someone sees an equal but desires to put them down through force. That's the evil that did crazy shit like the Holocaust (on some levels) and a lot of the straight up hateful shit that isn't happening as much anymore.
As it was pointed out, we can't be as cruel in this sense as we used to be because all the nuclear bombs would melt us to the ground. It's a relativistic and logical cruelty that doesn't exist in a bubble. People know there are repercussions for cruelty and take that into account. And often, they decide it's just better to not be an asshole. It's why kids are cruel but generally aren't as adults.
So yeah, I think there is an innate desire to oppress, but I also think we've evolved far enough to suppress it.
They are pixels. You are applying this as if they were real people. If they were real people, we wouldn't be doing the sadistic stuff. It's like crushing some kid's sand castle. Mean yes, sociopathic no.
What actually prompted me to start this thread was that one of my friends/housemates at college made out with a guy on the weekend, on video. He's not gay, it was drunken gay chicken gone horribly wrong. Why anyone would play such a stupid game is beyond me, but he did and i guess he thought it was fun. He is torturously humiliated, and even people he doesn't know are giving him shit for it.
But dammnit, if part of me doesn't enjoy every minute of his suffering.
They are pixels. You are applying this as if they were real people. If they were real people, we wouldn't be doing the sadistic stuff. It's like crushing some kid's sand castle. Mean yes, sociopathic no.
duh, yeah. thats kind of what i said.
'I don't really know how you can think that the majority of people who enjoy the suffering of others are sociopaths. Its a pretty common trait.'
Posts
You suggested that France and Germany won't ever fight again. And generally, you seem to be implying that we're learning from our history of mistakes.
Italy was the home of the Roman Empire a long ass time ago, which inevitably crumbled. Mussolini came into power and spread the message of restoring the empire through force. Seems like a pretty apparent repeat of mistakes made.
Obviously, there was a far step between the government of the Roman Empire and the government of Italy in the 20th century, but the fact he cited their former Roman prosperity seems pretty indicative that it's a distinct possibility that our mistakes will be forgotten by history and then promptly repeated.
It's primarily due to people being alive today who lived through the absolute hell of 30+ years go and finding the current state of affairs being immeasurably more desirable.
Stability is, of course due to a certain lack of liberties, but look at where China has come from. The open market has made people ludicrously better off compared to the very recent past, and you seem to be blandly asserting that people don't like it that way or something. Why would people want to throw what they have away?
A person I walked by smiled and said hello. Not a perfunctory grin, but a genuine smile.
My daughter walked up to me, gave me a hug, and told me she was glad that I'm her daddy.
Wait, which thread is this?
So what exactly is preventing Bush 3.0 from taking office? All of the same structures, regulations, and more importantly people, are still in place, with no significant change. Public oppinion doesn't put the poo in poo-poo if that public does not vote, and given recent history the results of that act are now suspect in a lot of significant ways.
We're still doing things the same way, and expecting different results. I suspect as long as there is a machine of war, and someone willing to push the button, attrocity will exist alongside the animalistic and supremacy orientedness of mankind as a whole.
Then again, an entirely matriarchal worldview society may rise up and put an end to all that. Or the Vatican could sell 10% of it's holdings and instantly end world hunger. Etc ad infinitum.
"Oh, they picked on me in High School - the Humanity! Alas for mankind's unquenchable lust for cruelty! Poor Mathew whose throat was burned not just by chili powder but by the horrible darkness within our very souls!"
Jesus.
Did the Roman empire "inevitably" fall for the same reasons that fascist Italy fell?
And again, I'm not arguing that people don't repeat mistakes--we're pretty bull-headed at times--merely that we tend to figure out what works over time and that we do tend to learn from our mistakes. I've been talking about a trend, not a straight line.
Do you think Bush would win reelection if he could run for a third term? Do you think the public (the voting public) is eager for more Iraq-like excursions?
^^^ His fault too...but there is a really good thread about that already
If I had a dollar for everytime I heard that about the second election, I would be retired in Cabo and not caring who we were at war with.
People keep implying the system here works to prevent it from occuring, but the evidence indicates otherwise.
Ah sorry, I didn't realize that all bad stuff is trivial bullshit. I guess I'm just unenlightened like that.
https://medium.com/@alascii
Not even getting into the wars of the early and mid- 20th century, more civilians have been dying in the last 50 years than at any other time in history. This is without a major world war of any kind.
I think your optimism is unfounded.
How has the world population been trending with that?
- War
- Genocide
- Denial that all of the above are wrong, or assertion that they are justified
It has been increasing, of course, but the rate of increase has halved compared to the all time high of (i believe) the early 1960s, where it was at something like 2.2 percent.
I'm just saying that the cruelty exhibited to civilians in this century is staggering, and results in a dark shadow under any examination of the infrequency of major world conflicts.
Cutting a large city off from water is going to be proportionally more destructive then a village, but does it mean that the intent or cruelty or whatever the fuck was actually any greater if the problem was collateral damage?
God I agree with Shinto.
Is it because we are more cruel, or because the technology associated with cruelty has gotten to be so staggeringly efficient and available?
Can you imagine the death tolls if we were as cruel and capricious as we were 500 years ago with today's nuclear weaponry?
I thought you were arguing that we are less cruel now?
https://medium.com/@alascii
Wouldn't the fact that the higher collateral damage hadn't been considered, or simply dismissed, imply some higher amount of cruelty?
What the fuck?
I am. If we were as cruel as we were in relatively recent history, much of the world would be a charred ruin, given today's weaponry.
I guess what I'm saying is, from a consequentialist standpoint, who the fuck cares if we're relatively less cruel, but the 10 people who are cruel are able to kill 250 thousand people each.
People are dying, and the world's outlook is only bright in the first world.
Plenty of animal species cause pain to other animals, but humans really take the cake when it comes to cruelty. Superior brain power, superior ability to make plans to cause pain. Animals kill, wound, some play with their food before killing it, there are even a few species that rape, but you won't find any of them waterboarding other critters, for example. Most animals cause pain incidentally, they don't have enough empathy to be cruel. A few of the higher, social mammals do, perhaps.
One of the most horrible things I've read recently was that in the early days of the American frontier, some people would catch wolves alive in traps, saw off their lower jaw, then let them loose to starve to death. I could understand shooting them, with the attitudes and beliefs they had towards wolves back then, but that's just . . . fucking horrible.
From a practical standpoint, if we're relatively less cruel and capricious, it's easier to reach the (much, much smaller) number of cruel people and stop them or curtail their efforts. I submit that something like WWII's Holocaust - something that was perpetrated in a modern and developed nation with a sophisticated economy and government - would be impossible today.
The genocides we see nowadays are in backwards shitholes run by feudal warlords. Given that the trend is towards modernizing these shitholes, it stands to reason that such genocides will become less feasible and less frequent as time goes on. We are systematically making the world into a place where the types of atrocities that people can afflict one one another are flatly impossible.
I dunno, I see this as a good thing. But if you want to prattle on about the downfall of humanity because there will always be an asshole somewhere giving someone else an atomic wedgie, feel free.
Something tells me you've got this backwards. A cat toys with a mouse because it's fun, because he delights in the spectacle of the doomed mouse flitting about, injured and confused. The antics amuse him. The cat doesn't feel remorse because the cat isn't capable of such higher functions. It doesn't have the empathy required to recognize the mouse as a like being.
In sociopaths, in the people who delight from torturing others, it seems to be pretty much the same. They don't see their prey as people, as equals. They see them as toys. They play with them, they torture them, they kill them, all because it's fun. Because they're freed from the shackles of morality.
The key point here is not that there are a few human beings who commit atrocities because they suffer from a lack of empathy. The key point is that the vast majority of people don't.
This thread was never intended to be particularly philosophical, but oh well.
and you forgot the third category, people who torture others because they do empathize with them. Because they understand exactly the feelings and they delight in it.
SEE: Ultima Online
https://medium.com/@alascii
To be fair, that incident made them sound like tremendous assholes.
Not to detract from your overall assessment of this having been terribly silly, though.
Errr, how are we reading the cat's mind though? Is it fun, or is it some kind of instinctive predatory response to fleeing/maiming prey?
Fundamentally I don't disagree with the point, I just thing we attribute more to malice or amusement by a predatory animal exhibiting prey-relationship behaviors.
Then again....I am violently allergic to cats, and as such spend as little time around them as possible.....my dogs don't toy with the critters they end up killing. It's more of a straigh crunch and munch
Yeah, except they're not actually "empathizing" with them any more than I empathize with the goombas whom I routinely stomp en masse on my way to get some Princess Poon.
And unless your Ultima Online story involves actual harm inflicted to actual people, I don't see the relevance.
This thread reeks of teen angst.
It gets better guys. Your hormones calm down. Life kicks you in the ass and you grow a little each kick.
au contraire, the appeal of the game is that you get to fuck with genuine people. The point of referencing Ultima Online is that its the perfect example of what people will do to eachother if there is no fear of repercussions. For example my vegetarian friend would spend days and days devising ways to gate newbs into max level dungeons, use clipping to trap people in his house, and just generally grief like mad. He didn't even care about getting anything out of it. And he had been reduced to tears more than once by what other griefers did to his avatar.
I don't really know how you can think that the majority of people who enjoy the suffering of others are sociopaths. Its a pretty common trait.
https://medium.com/@alascii
Romans killed people and animals in the Coliseum for amusement. Along the lines of what Jeffe was saying, it has a lot to do with them not being seen as equals. At the same time though, I think there is a cruelty that exists when someone sees an equal but desires to put them down through force. That's the evil that did crazy shit like the Holocaust (on some levels) and a lot of the straight up hateful shit that isn't happening as much anymore.
As it was pointed out, we can't be as cruel in this sense as we used to be because all the nuclear bombs would melt us to the ground. It's a relativistic and logical cruelty that doesn't exist in a bubble. People know there are repercussions for cruelty and take that into account. And often, they decide it's just better to not be an asshole. It's why kids are cruel but generally aren't as adults.
So yeah, I think there is an innate desire to oppress, but I also think we've evolved far enough to suppress it.
But dammnit, if part of me doesn't enjoy every minute of his suffering.
https://medium.com/@alascii
duh, yeah. thats kind of what i said.
'I don't really know how you can think that the majority of people who enjoy the suffering of others are sociopaths. Its a pretty common trait.'
https://medium.com/@alascii