Thursday, October 23, 2008

not for liberals.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

this is peace folks.........

4 comments:

Ricardo said...

Why is this not for liberals? He didn't say anything I haven't thought in one way or another as I've sat around pondering life. Granted he was far more eloquent and had data to back it up but it's obvious that savage violence is not the law of the land in developed nations but is in failed states. We are not stoning people because they said something we didn't like or living in a theocracy where literal interpretation of the bible would allow for kids to be killed if they act up. Nothing really here for this liberal to fuss about. Good conditions also condition us to behave in a more civilized manner. Not the case when you hit the poorer parts of the world. You will always have violence. But even so we should not stand idle and except it when it rears it's ugly head.

dr.alistair said...

hmmm,that would make you socially conservative then.....

the left in this country decry military action as savagery, with no room for discussion of perspective.

statistics clearly show that a man is safer standing in a crowd of angry tribesmen in afganistan in a marines uniform than around a campfire waiting for supper in borneo.....

it`s not so much that we are violent, but for what reason.

Ricardo said...

Well I am not pro war at all and in no way mean to minimize things like the 2 World Wars, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Holocaust and so on. Obviously the speaker didn't mean that either. The holocaust did happen in a developed nation that was in disarray. This world still has moments where the primitive nature comes out anywhere. I don't like this at all. He was looking at things in a massive scope of time. As we evolve we should be less prone to war and more open to rational thought whenever possible. This does not mean that fighting won't happen. It will. But we can not be complacent about violence even if this gentleman's data shows greater safety over the years.

You know what's the best parallel to my thoughts on fighting? Star Trek. Stupid sounding yes, but they were on a peaceful mission and used all means at their disposal to make friends with new life and civilizations. They were not out to conquer. They would fight only as an very last resort and even then offer a chance at peace. That's my take on this.

The last just war we had was WW II. After that it's all crap. We could have avoided them. This is why I hate war.

dr.alistair said...

i get you ricardo, and i agree.....but we will all fight for what we believe is right.

i use the example of motivation by suggesting how passive a person will be when they have thier head held underwater.

i know of few who would take the side of the one holding them under for very long.

thought there are those who would intellectualise......

wars are fought for resources.

food, fuel, territory, mating partners, information, etc.

in the u.s. we are so removed from most theaters of conflict that we don`t personally feel threatened on any of those fronts, yet threats persist.

using wwII as an example, my family would have prefered to have seen the conflict fought anywhere else but right over thier heads, i can assure you, and i would have wholeheartedly supported a pre-emptive strike against hitler in say 1938 or 7 but the government of britain felt that they had peace in our time....well neville chamberlain did at least.