War is f-ed up

Typical Korg post. Full of BS.

~Ulrika~

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh.. horseshit.

IMNSHO.. the only thing standing between survival and death on any battlefield is luck.

Training, experience, leadership and other variables may enter into the calculus, .... but LUCK is what will out-factor any other variable and determine the outcome.

You really can't judge that one incident without knowing all of the details. It's like judging the Rodney King case by just seeing the ten seconds of footage they showed on television. In a combat situation you really can't wait around to see if someone is reaching for a hanky or a hand grenade, and a lot of the time the guy who comes home is the one who reacts first. There have been way too many incidents where the Iraquis have surrendered and then whipped out guns. In a situation like that, a summary and instantaneous execution can be the only response.

Bigger guns and the fact that our troops have shoes may give them a bit of an edge beyond luck.

What do you mean by luck? Luck suggests that the situation occured in circumstances where it was highly unlikely. Or that fate controls the winner or loser without any personal influence involved. Surviving war relies upon decisive action, superior fire power and the support of a well trained group of commrades fighting for a similar cause. You do not go to war thinking wow how unlucky this war has bullets and bombs. You go in knowing this and prepare accordingly doing everything possible to out gun the opponent. Saying war is all about luck is like saying chess is all about luck. If it were I would win more often.

War is war...nothing to do with luck only circumstance and decision. People die...more on one side than the other. Although it is irrational and we are the only animals on earth who wage it...it is not based on luck...I doubt many soldiers are out there hoping to be lucky. They are hoping the plan works and they come home alive.

Again.. aaaaaaaaaaah.. horsehit.

You obviously have not read any of the studies in zoology. Ants war routinely - hence the name "soldier ants". Chimps war...as has been observed by the intellectual descendants of"Leakey's ladies." Babboons certainly war... you have simply screwed the ppoch on this assertion. Trying to differentiate us from animlas? You faile dmiserably.

As for you "luck" comments... pffft. You ever been on a battlefield? I have. I sat eating inside a foxhole... no sounds other than birds and that of my foxhole buddy chewing. A mortar round came out of nowhere - no warning. Whomp. I didn't get touched. He all but disappeared. You explain it any way other than luck. I certainly can't.

Different scenario. Walking the streets armed and dangerous. No fighting on these streets - no action within a mile. Suddenly a ricochet and the guy next to you falls --- from a bullet fired at someone a half mile away. The guy hit never even knew what hit him - I was less than five feet from him. Luck...

Or a real firefight where I was involved. One platoon on our side, a company on the other side. We walked into an ambush. They opened up and I managed to survive the first onslaught of fire - 75% of the platoon went down in the first hail of bullets. Explain to me why I wasn't shot/picked out as a target? Luck.

You obviously have no clue.

The best thing for you to do is ignore korg, he's currently in bad need of meds. He's on a different planet from what I've heard.

And what comes to mind when I see that you have posted is that line from an old SNL routine...

"Jane. You ignorant slut...."

Unfortunately, after that... there's just nothing left to say, troll.

That's funny, NOT! Troll?? I posted a response to this thread before you did

No other animal on the face of this earth works harder to destroy it's own species. Fights among chimps and a scuffle between some ants comes no where near the devastation the human species wages upon itself...so no this is not a banal assertion it is a fact. Chimps do not create weapons for the purpose of expiditing the killing of other chimps.

And after reading your blatherings to my father who has been to war...he pretty much agreed with the fact that you are off course, in saying that war is all luck and no forethought. People will die who happens to be on the killing end of the bullet is consequence. Luck is far fetched...death in war is expected.

And for the record no I have not been to war but I am full ready to defend my land and my neighbors if need be. I do not believe in the ravings of war mongering presidents who send men and women to fight an oily war of greed and divine providence...sorry not my lot.

We are different from animals...they are much more intelligent and civil. So no you did not dissprove my assertion..you changed the definition of war.

Well... humans are just another species of mammal. We're driven by the same needs and instincts as other species of mammals. We just happen to have a special trick that makes us very successful, as a species. Birds fly, fish swim... we have big brains and weird bendy thumbs.

The reason we're so destructive is because there's nothing here that can really stand up to us, except us. There's nothing standing between us and all the resources of the Earth to exploit... except us. Place any species in a position like this, and odds are they'll decimate the available resources, and wipe themselves out.

The whole problem with humanity isn't that we're different from other animals. It's because we're the same as other animals. Fortunately, because of our special trick, we at least can be aware of this problem, and try to head off those sorts of instinctive drives before they get us into permanent trouble.

As far as war goes... I personally feel it should be the absolute last resort to resolve any conflict. I tend to be a very non-confrontational person; putting a bullet into someone is a really poor way to change their mind. War as adventurism is an obscenity; it's the epitome of "I'm stronger than you, so I get to take what I want."

Yep.. I reread your crud again and absolutely stand by my previous posts. You can't obviously can't read.. and no offense ot your father, but his opinion doesn't count any more than yours does with me - esp if he doesn't post. And even if it did, his experience with war is different than mine, and different from those of my buddies who didn't come back, or did. I NEVER said that no forethought was required - only an idiot would - and only an illiterate person could read what I said as such.

You obviously have never read anything about animal wars if yousay chimps don't use weapons. They do. Thay have even been observed creating weapons - fashioing a branch so that it has no unneeded "extras" and can be swung better. Ants don't count because they can't destroy enough? Go tell that to a farmer whose crops just got ravaged by an ant war over territory.

You think that animals are much more intelligent? You obviously DO need to consult both a dictionary and an educational psychology book to find out what "educated" people who know what they are talking about (or, at least, do so on this subject for a living) consider intelligence to be. I don't have the time or inclination to get into that discussionhere and now. You definitely showed your ignorance (lack of education) there.

You defnitely know how to make me laugh. Go for it. Amuse me some more.

My credentials stand for themselves...so do not tell me what to think. And I have read of your so called animal "wars"...but per capita animals do not kill their own at anywhere near the rate of humans (maybe you should consult a zoologist, I can give you some names if you would like)...you know what I have no clue why I am fighting with a banal imbecile of your guild...I may as well fight against a stone wall. You will never see anyone elses point of view other than your own because you have obviously not moved beyond the shadows on the wall. And if you do not understand that reference you are the basest sort. So why do you even post? Just to feel superior, to prove your intellect? I know for a fact that I know little of the truth but I do seek it every day. I am willing to bend when facts are put in front of me. Maybe you should try that.

Really, Kor,your issues allude me. I do not know what makes you so hostile. I do not know what your desire to degrade others intelligence gives you in return. But I hope it is worth it. I hope when you go to bed at night you feel really good about the things you have said to those around you. But don't you ever question my intelligence or the education which I have paid dearly for. I will fight you with every ounce of marrow in my bones.

ohh and just so you know the meaning of war:

1.
1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
2. The period of such conflict.
3. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
2.
1. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
2. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.


none of which are in the least connected to the animal kingdom....so please do go on with your irrational banter as it is fun for those of us with minds reliant on logic.

obviously...thank you...

Credentials? YOUR credentials? OMG.. I nearly fell out of my cahir when I read that. Thank you for the laugh. Your credentials aren't worth $50Lindens to me. What ignorance to even reference such a thing here. LOL Then again, they might not be worth 50USD in the real world for all I know or care. That was funny. Thanks for the laugh.

As for consulting a zoolologist, how the hell do you know or not what my background in this area is? For all you know I am one of the authors of numerous academic papers on the subject of animal wars.... at least 15 of whihc I can point you to this very moment.

The most likely-to-be-true statement that you have made is probably "I know for a fact that I know little of the truth"... You certainly have demonstrated such throughout this thread. There does seem to be hope for you in recognizing and admitting the truth of the statement and for a second I had hopes for you - then you made the mistake of spoiling it by continuing.... and the dreamstate was brooken.

Bend when facts are put in front of me? Sure. I get to decide what I believe are facts and what aren't tho - just like everyone else does, however. And therein lies the rub for you. I dispute not only your interpretation of "facts" but also what you claim ARE facts.

My "issues" elude you? I am sorry that you have wasted any of the meager brain energy you have even considering that I might have issues - which is a pointless statement at its heart. You certainly could have used the energy for something more positive and self-fulfilling. Yet you forced yourself to respond - knowing that I would. I think, lady, that you have issues relating to a need for attention that you might want to look into a mirror about.

Question your intelligence? I don't have to question it. You do it for me with every post. Question your education that you worked so hard for? My God.. don't you realize the stupidity of putting those two comments so closely together in an argument? You are practically begging for me to jump on it. If you are so educated, you apparently have accomplished it in spite of a limited intellectual capacity if you could make such a strategic error in argumentation. If I were you, I'd go ask for a refund for that education - you were cheated - that or the standards were lowered and you were passed along based on age or affirmative action.

Fight me with every ounce of marrow in your bones? Do you have osteoporosis? It seems you must as so far you can't seem to argue your way past a two year old with a vocabulary of 50 words, much less take me on in an argument. Don't make me laugh...Wait.. I like to laugh.. say something else equally silly. Please.

Finally, you supercilious asshat, you would dare tell me the definition of war? I have been there lady. Go pack sand where the sun don't shine. I know more about war than you would ever wish on your worst enemy. Your actions illustrate just why I hold certain people in contempt. They - and you - deserve it.

Korg, after that last post -- I'll play this game with you.

I doubt if you have served your country. Or perhaps you did, but not well. I doubt if you are an academic, as you have claimed. And I doubt if you have written scholarly works on warfare or anything else.

Why? Because I really did serve my country, and I am a real academic with a real and tenured appointment at a real university, and I have written real books, articles, and fictional pieces published by real academic and commercial presses and journals, and been anthologized and won real awards for them. It doesn't matter here that I have done these things -- I like Second Life partly because I don't have to be concerned with all that.

Being for-real, I can recognize several things: First, I don't have to get threatened when someone questions me or what I say. Why should I? I know what I am and what I have done, and besides, lots of people say very interesting things that I haven't thought about. Second: debate and disagreement are what thinking is all about; thinking has nothing to do with credentials. And thinking is the ultimate act of independence and freedom, which leads to -- Third, those who served their country well must know in the deepest sense what they served for -- the right of other people to be wrong, to be individual, and to be free to express themselves without fear or deference to someone like a soldier or a leader.

Korg, you fit none of the criteria. None. Which leads me to -- Fourth, which I've just thought of -- At this point in my life, I can usually recognize a fake when I see one. Either you haven't done the things you've claimed -- or you've done them badly.

If you want to be more convincing, you'll try to convince less -- because frankly it's obvious you're mostly trying to convince yourself. And it's embarrassing.

Unesco charter:
Since Wars Begin
In the Minds of Men,
It is in the Minds of Men
That we Have to Erect
The Ramparts of Peace.

I suppose they too are imbiciles. Though I did find this reference to warfare of the animal kind: http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/type0104.html It is but a translation of two old folk tales.

And I suppose these prominent social theorists are incorrect as well and should be humbled by your insight into the impulses of war:

"Wars are not barroom brawls writ large, but, as social theorist Robin Fox puts it, 'complicated, orchestrated, highly organized' collective undertakings that cannot be explained by any individual impulse. No plausible instinct would impel a man to leave his home, cut his hair short, and drill for hours under the hot sun. As anthropologists Clifton B. Kroeber and Bernard L. Fontana have pointed out, 'It is a large step from what may be biologically innate leanings toward individual aggression to ritualized, socially sanctioned, institutionalized group warfare.' Or as a 1989 conference on the anthropology of war concluded, 'The hypothesis of a killer instinct is . . . not so much irrelevant as wrong.'"

And these scholars are likely incorrect as well...Dr Stygian:

R. Brian Ferguson is Associate Professor of Anthropology at Rutgers University:

" First, chimpanzees do not "routinely" murder their peers. The famous incident at Gombe that Fukuyama refers to occurred only after major human-induced changes, most important of which was the researchers' artificial provisioning of bananas. Other reported instances of "chimp wars" also took place in stressful situations. Primatologist Margaret Power offers a contrasting view: "Virtually everywhere that they were studied by naturalistic methods, undisturbed wild chimpanzees live peacefully in nonaggressive, nonhierarchical groups." Fukuyama fails to note that the lesser-known bonobos are as closely related to humans as chimpanzees and display no tendencies to collective violence.

Evidence of war is rare until long after a shift to agriculture and the development of hierarchical social systems. War emerges late in human history because it is difficult to organize without authority. Fukuyama's conclusion that "the line [of collective violence] from chimp to modern man is continuous" is a breathtaking leap over a mountain of contrary evidence."

Jane S. Jaquette is Professor of Politics and Chair of Diplomatic and World Affairs at Occidental College.

"Wars start not in biology -- instinctual male aggression -- but in realpolitik -- a state's need to defend itself from outside threats. War does not come naturally to humans. Men must be trained to fight and kill others, and all people must be taught patriotism. States go to great lengths to demonize their enemies.
State power explains the brutality of internal ethnic conflicts such as those in Bosnia and Rwanda. Fukuyama mistakenly cites these examples to hammer home his equation of humans with murderous chimps. But control of the state involves high stakes, with winners deciding how laws are made, taxes applied, and access provided to economic and educational opportunities. Unsurprisingly, competition is fierce when the incentives are so large."

News and Events


The Gentlest of Beasts, Making Love, Ravaged by War
by Somini Sengupta
May 3, 2004
New York Times
KINSHASA, Congo - Upstream from this dog-eat-dog capital, where the Congo River spills its tendrils into the belly of the equatorial rain forest, lies the jungle home of one of mankind's closest cousins and one of the most endangered primates on earth: the bonobo.
Genetically, humans and bonobos, a species of chimpanzee, are more than 98 percent similar. Socially, it is another matter. Matriarchal as a rule, bonobos eschew conflict. They do not fight over territory. They do not kill. Any small friction they resolve through sexual contact: a playful rub, oral sex, full intercourse.

You have proven yourself nothing more than a vicious, malcontent. I never assumed anything about you, not one time did I demean you or suggest that your opinions were of lesser consequence than my own. Contemptable friggin blow hard...you take your self-aggrandizing, venom filled malarchy and stick it...don't forget to move your head, you'll need the room.

alrighty then. . .that's funny. . .



and now you're getting too serious.

Hey, if he attacked me in that manner, I would get pretty pissed off as well. The Bell Curve was created by humans for the purpose of scaling HUMAN functional intelligence. There are, however, several forms of intelligence. Many animal species display forms of intelligence far superior to humans.

Those who tout their nueral superiority and use it to defame others prove nothing other than their own social retardation.

Uh, wrong. The Bell Curve was a book by two authors that argues that Causcasians are the superior human race in terms of human intelligence - which is measured by the Inteligence Quotient scale. (The bell curve is also commonly used to describe what is known as a random distribution when plotted on a two dimensional Cartesian graph. But that's no trelevant here.)

There are theories that there are more types of "intelligence" than mere "smarts", such as caluclating abilty or size, use and apllication of vocabulary - such as emotional IQ (the ability to recognize, focus and use emotional responses in a manner whic most benefits the individual). Other "forms of intelligence", as you put it, do not directly compare to the human IQ scale and most people seem to compare animals to humans using the IQ scale - which obviously has a human bias.

BTW, if you get pissed for being corrected in this manner, either post more cogent and correct stuff or come see me in world and we can discuss it there. Identifying with someone else's peevishness is not necessarily a mark of intelligence.. certainly not as "supported" in your post.

Wrong...the title of a book yes but ohh so much more. Before you attack folks do a bit of research instead of citing a controversial book (edited...Korg was correct in saying that the book is often cited negatively by academic scholars)

The standard deviation is a statistic that tells you how tightly all the various examples are clustered around the mean in a set of data. When the examples are pretty tightly bunched together and the bell curve is steep, the standard deviation is small. When the examples are spread apart and the bell curve is relatively flat, that tells you you have a relatively large standard deviation.

But you know that

I spent a bit of time and read your recent posts. You are slanderous and rude, filled with malice and a general disregard for the feelings of those around you. I'm not pissed, I do not know you. Can't be pissed at someone I have not had the occasion to speak with.
Just making an observation.

As for your allusions to evolutionary psychology, there are theories writen by anthropologist, behavioral pshychologists and evolutionary psychologists regarding the genetic predisposition of man to wage war. Specifically, Wrangham who wrote Demonic Males, Fukuyama (sp) who wrote a book titled The End of the Future I believe, and the documentation by Goodall regarding the 4 year war of the chimps. They are theories not laws of nature and the preponderance of the evidence still leans on the side of environmental influence. Read up on our other cousin the Bonobo for evidence of that nature.

Uh.. pfffft.
You obviously tried, but missed the mark. The referenced book is well-cited in quite a bit of "legitimate" academic research - and quite often by its detractors. You see, cites, either positive or negative ARE citations.... but apparently YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT... or chose to ignore it. nice try. I netiher stated my position about what the book said nor condoned its content. I made reference to the previous post in the context of the book's use of "intelligence" as a measure of racial superiority --- something as silly as the previous poster arguing that animals and humans should or should not be compared in terms of "intelligence" without defining what that is.

I took my description of the bell curve plot from a freshman level stats book so that even someone like you might understand. I did not discuss or refer to standard deviation, which is a competely different statistical term/concept. Should you want a more detailed discussion of what the bell curve actually does represent in statistics, contact me in world.. on second thought, don't waste either of our times in-world --- or here for tht matter.

I used the term "theory" and you proceed to lecture me on other "theories" and what they are... Make me laugh some more please. I could use a good laugh today. Come on. Post again and remove all doubt about who is not posting crap here.

Man ohh man...you are a crotchety old fart. Pfft yourself love, tis the only person you will have left to lash out on once you have completely alienated everyone around you. But go on with your hatred and loathing. Those of us still willing to learn will move beyond you and you'll be left spouting off your self-aggrandizing drivel to a blank wall. How about a fair and decent conversation? I, for one, am more than willing to learn from the sages of this forum. By all means slam away, dear Korg. You make yourself look the fool by your unyeilding ways and abhorant behavior.

ps

Lecture, I did not. I was simply suggesting some other scientists who have commited their lives to research in behavioral and evolutionary psychology. Likely you have heard of them, but in your argument you only stated that you have written papers on the subject. Just letting others know that there are alternative sources out there, besides you, who have written "papers" regarding the war and the human genome.

That's what I've been trying to tell him but he won't listen

Uh.. "dear".... look up my signature descriptor in a dictionary.

Yeppers, but for some reason the connotation of curmudgeon evokes images of Mr Wilson and Red Fox. Both of them were short tempered and impatient but they had endearing qualities. Though the dictionary book you speak of did say something along the lines of ill tempered, full of resentment and stubborn. What I couldn't find anywhere in the definition were the words ruthless, cruel, or malicious. I even checked the other book...mmmm...what is it called a thesaurus, I think, and it isn't a synonym either. Though in my freshman college kegger state who the hell knows. I could have been looking through hustler on accident.

Back on subject (since I had to read the thread anyhow), Has anyone read War and Gender by Goldstein? He poses some intereresting ideas on the male condition and the need for war.
I'll refrain from summarizing the book (I lost the I r teh smarter game so I'll evade an attack untill my self-esteem is back in the red ), but his theory does offer a plausible explanation to why war is so f--ked up.