The Nobel Peace Prize - Once more, with feeling [Archive]

Banquo's Ghost

10-12-2009, 16:15

The Independent has published a small selection of nominated candidates (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/and-the-other-nobel-peace-prize-nominees-were-1801350.html) for the Peace Prize that in my opinion, have actually accomplished something worth marking - in areas of conflict that often go unremarked.

I wonder what the Backroom thinks - who would get the Peace Prize from this august body?

It's a tough list, but my vote would go to Wei Jingsheng - it's about time the Chinese were shaken up again and I think Alfred Nobel would approve.

Crazed Rabbit

10-12-2009, 16:25

The committee could have shown the spotlight on any one of these noble causes fought for by those candidates. Instead, Obama got it because the committee is extremely political, and all these people got ignored.
:shame:
The Congo Doctor, the Mountaineer, the Democracy activist - they've all done so much and are the top three for me. But the Chinese activist might come out on top. 18 years in jail - that's more years in jail than days Obama was president when he was nominated.

CR

Fragony

10-12-2009, 16:35

I think the nobelprice for peace should be scrapped altogether as it has lost it's prestige. I Iike Obama's reaction can't shake the feeling that he was a bit annoyed, I would be

Hosakawa Tito

10-12-2009, 16:45

I think they're all more worthy of the award than Obama. However, I chose Mortensen mainly because I know his story best compared to the other candidates after reading "Three Cups of Tea".
Great poll, BG. :2thumbsup:

Louis VI the Fat

10-12-2009, 17:20

Strike For The South

10-12-2009, 17:23

Neda

She's a bit like that Chinese man who stood in front of those tanks in 1989. Just a single individual at a crossroads of history. Always a powerful image. Neda is the person of the year for me.

(But I believe the committee had a February 1st deadline)

Why? She is a powerful symbol but did very little. Not trying to belittle her death but if were going to give it to her we should give it to every black man who was lynched instead of MLK Jr.

Louis VI the Fat

10-12-2009, 17:30

Why? She is a powerful symbol but did very little. Not trying to belittle her death but if were going to give it to her we should give it to every black man who was lynched instead of MLK Jr.Well Rosa Parks would've made a fine candidate.

Why:
- It embarrases the Tehran regime
- Her family is still alive. They can not mourn her, are under surveillance.
- She is a symbol for all the others. Sorry that they remain nameless, but this is how these things happen. Mandela wasn't the only South African in Jail either.
- It would be the more clever way to embarras Bush*. Not his bombs bring democracy to the Middle East. But the liberal, urban, young Muslims in the ME themselves. Such a more refined way to support Obama's change of policy than handing the prize to him himself.

*From the persective of the Nobel committee. Me, I'd still rather have Bush receive it for finishing Saddam than Obama.

Fragony

10-12-2009, 17:33

Neda

She's a bit like that Chinese man who stood in front of those tanks in 1989. Just a single individual at a crossroads of history. Always a powerful image. Neda is the person of the year for me.

(But I believe the committee had a February 1st deadline)

kinda funny, just read a piece saying exactly that, and you can't be guilty was in dutch. Would never have thought about it but good suggestion.

edit, love it, who else but I doubt they have the balls Iran is a bit touchy for some

Strike For The South

10-12-2009, 17:47

Well Rosa Parks would've made a fine candidate.

Why:
- It embarrases the Tehran regime
- Her family is still alive. They can not mourn her, are under surveillance.
- She is a symbol for all the others. Sorry that they remain nameless, but this is how these things happen. Mandela wasn't the only South African in Jail either.
- It would be the more clever way to embarras Bush*. Not his bombs bring democracy to the Middle East. But the liberal, urban, young Muslims in the ME themselves. Such a more refined way to support Obama's change of policy than handing the prize to him himself.

*From the persective of the Nobel committee. Me, I'd still rather have Bush receive it for finishing Saddam than Obama.

Neda is just like Obama. She's a nice symbol but didn't really do much. The prize should go to someone who has made a noticeable change. Just yesterday the Irianians sent 3 protesters to there death. She was a pretty face the west could put on a suituation we really don't understand and that's all.

Mandela fought for 50 years against aprthiad and kept SA together after he became pres. To compare him to a girl who went out protesting to Mandela is disingenous.

Aemilius Paulus

10-12-2009, 17:54

I agree with SFTS. Neda is not worthy of it. Too many people die in this world for their beliefs. Louis is not even serious, probably trolling/baiting us. What did she do before the election fraud? Or before the demonstration she went to?

Stop thinking with your reproductive organs, Louis :( Bet a dollar for doughnut she would not have made the news like that if she was was not attractive or not young. Or both. If she was both unattractive, or even downright homely, along with being of in her thirties, she would have not made the headline. Or even better, if she was a male. In fact, she probably would not have made the first couple of pages of any newspaper in the West if she was any of those three.

KukriKhan

10-12-2009, 17:56

Neda is a worthy candidate, but her heroism (from which I do not detract) was a condition of circumstance, not volition, I think.

For the totalwar.org Total Peace Prize 2009, I pick Ghazi bin Muhammad, for his bridge-building efforts to find accomodation between east and west. Without removing the philosophical imperative to kill non-believers (whether it's Muslim v. Christian, Commie v. Capitalist) peace is unattainable.

Subotan

10-12-2009, 18:25

Morgan Tsvangirai

Hooahguy

10-12-2009, 19:03

everyone on the list EXCEPT obama deserves it.

Whacker

10-12-2009, 20:04

Couple of things.

First, this 'award' has lost all of it's value in my view, and in the view of several friends and family that I've spoken to about this. It's more of a political tool than anything now.

Second, Neda. That's a very interesting suggestion, and a very powerful one. I must disagree though, based on my belief that this prize should be about accomplishments. Her death had powerful meaning for billions of people and was entirely symbolic, but the fact is that she was a protester who paid the ultimate price. She is worth remembering as a symbol, much like the guy standing in front of the tank, but is not a good fit for what the peace prize should be for.

Lastly, given the poll's selection, I'd say a toss-up between Wei and Prince Ghazi, maybe the edge for Prince Ghazi.

Beskar

10-12-2009, 20:19

Not Neda, she wasn't a symbol of peace.

Whacker

10-12-2009, 21:01

Not Neda, she wasn't a symbol of peace.

I was going to reply and disagree, but now that I think about it, I agree. She's not a symbol for peace. She's a symbol for change.

Beskar

10-12-2009, 21:20

I was going to reply and disagree, but now that I think about it, I agree. She's not a symbol for peace. She's a symbol for change.

Or a Symbol against Election Fraud.
Or a Symbol against the Iran Government.
etc.

There are many things she can be, however, Peace is not actually one of them.

Scurvy

10-12-2009, 21:21

First, this 'award' has lost all of it's value in my view, and in the view of several friends and family that I've spoken to about this. It's more of a political tool than anything now.

Second, Neda. That's a very interesting suggestion, and a very powerful one. I must disagree though, based on my belief that this prize should be about accomplishments. Her death had powerful meaning for billions of people and was entirely symbolic, but the fact is that she was a protester who paid the ultimate price. She is worth remembering as a symbol, much like the guy standing in front of the tank, but is not a good fit for what the peace prize should be for.

I agree with this entirely. In the poll I voted for Ghazi bin Muhammad, with Greg Mortenson a very close second. All those mentioned are more deserving than Obama, although I thought he reacted well to recieving the award.

Kadagar_AV

10-12-2009, 22:43

I dont get how a president of a country who is actively involved in 2 wars can get a peace prize...

My vote would be "anyone on that list except obama".

Aemilius Paulus

10-12-2009, 23:07

I dont get how a president of a country who is actively involved in 2 wars can get a peace prize...
I must say over the decades America has become exceedingly skilled at periodically managing to erect rows of façades and veneers craftily designed to obfuscate a casual observer, metaphorically speaking. Even I view US, as Biden put it "fundamentally" (he simply adores that word, along with repeating 95%) peaceful nation. Even though in the back of my brain I realise that is but a clandestine, yet consummate illusion. Oh how proud Orwell would be... In a world of basically free media, US manages to maintain a reasonably favourable image despite its never ending wars and interventions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_military_interventions) (Jesus Christ, that list is :daisy: gargantuan, and just about all of it is foreign military operations), and larger yet meddling through the use of money.

Not that I would not strive to do the same, if say, I was the dictator for life of Russia, but at least this is my take on it... Although I would focus more on my own country and the surrounding CIS states, instead of having multi-trillion dollar budgets and yet pouring trillions of dollars into foreign states in hopes of influence...

[/rant] :P

HoreTore

10-13-2009, 08:55

It's more of a political tool than anything now.

It was founded as a political tool. It has been a political tool. It will forever remain a political tool.

What else do you think it is? The Oscar of politics...? This is how Nobel wanted it. We're not talking about "the peace prize" here, we're talking about "Nobel's peace prize".

Fragony

10-13-2009, 09:59

It was founded as a political tool. It has been a political tool. It will forever remain a political tool.

And now it's a political tool that is the mockery of the world, they truly look like idiots.

rory_20_uk

10-13-2009, 15:45

Neda

She's a bit like that Chinese man who stood in front of those tanks in 1989. Just a single individual at a crossroads of history. Always a powerful image. Neda is the person of the year for me.

(But I believe the committee had a February 1st deadline)

I think this highlights the difference between bravery and misfortune. Running in front of tanks when they're Chinese is very brave. Getting shot at a peaceful rally is misfortune.

~:smoking:

Beskar

10-13-2009, 16:30

The fact is, Obama was done NOTHING (deserving) to recieve the Noble Peace Prize.

Basically, it is a recognition of efforts and future efforts.

Obama winning the Noble Peace Prize is like coming 1st place in a baking competition when you only just finished with adding the egg to the bowl.

Sarmatian

10-13-2009, 17:29

I voted for the great Gah. He simply explains my position about Nobel Peace Prize.

Maybe it didn't start out as such, but now it is just a political tool. It serves to further interests and not peace. Simply put, NPP is a joke.

Brenus

10-13-2009, 23:10

You say this because Martti Ahtisaari.:laugh4:

But what super Nobel Price it was. Briging peace and Reconciliation with good will and negotiation he did.
Er... ok, I need to go to sleep...

Ice

10-13-2009, 23:57

And now it's a political tool that is the mockery of the world, they truly look like idiots.

Indeed

HoreTore

10-14-2009, 08:33

The fact is, Obama was done NOTHING (deserving) to recieve the Noble Peace Prize.

Let's have a closer look at that claim, eh? According to Nobel's will, these three things will get you the peace prize:

1. Fraternity between the nations - check. Obama did this one almost instantly, by shifting his efforts from aggression to diplomacy.
2. The abolition or reduction of standing armies - check. Scrapping the missile shield is more than enough, and in addition to that he has also furthered nuclear disarmament.
3. The formation and spreading of peace congresses - check. Obama has tried to negotiate peace in the middle east. Note that it states "the formation", not "achieve peace".

So.... It seems that he has done everything Nobel's will demands. Care to point out someone who has done more than Obama in all three fields this year?

Beskar

10-14-2009, 13:20

Let's have a closer look at that claim, eh? According to Nobel's will, these three things will get you the peace prize:

1. Fraternity between the nations - check. Obama did this one almost instantly, by shifting his efforts from aggression to diplomacy.
2. The abolition or reduction of standing armies - check. Scrapping the missile shield is more than enough, and in addition to that he has also furthered nuclear disarmament.
3. The formation and spreading of peace congresses - check. Obama has tried to negotiate peace in the middle east. Note that it states "the formation", not "achieve peace".

So.... It seems that he has done everything Nobel's will demands. Care to point out someone who has done more than Obama in all three fields this year?

Well, there was the point nominations deadline was when Obama was 14 days into his term in office and he did two of those by simply not being George Bush Jr and liberal media hype.

As for your 2nd point, sure:
Denis Mukwege
Sima Samar
Ghazi bin Muhammad
Greg Mortenson
Piedad Córdoba
Wei Jingsheng

Fragony

10-14-2009, 14:12

Let's have a closer look at that claim, eh? According to Nobel's will, these three things will get you the peace prize:

1. Fraternity between the nations - check. Obama did this one almost instantly, by shifting his efforts from aggression to diplomacy.
2. The abolition or reduction of standing armies - check. Scrapping the missile shield is more than enough, and in addition to that he has also furthered nuclear disarmament.
3. The formation and spreading of peace congresses - check. Obama has tried to negotiate peace in the middle east. Note that it states "the formation", not "achieve peace".

So.... It seems that he has done everything Nobel's will demands. Care to point out someone who has done more than Obama in all three fields this year?

clear case of 'we, the nobel commitee, hereby solemny declare that we aprove of your president'

such arrogance

HoreTore

10-14-2009, 17:07

Well, there was the point nominations deadline was when Obama was 14 days into his term in office and he did two of those by simply not being George Bush Jr and liberal media hype.

What on earth does the nomination deadline have to do with anything at all?

And yes, he did get it by "simply not being George Bush". Sometimes that's quite enough.

As for your 2nd point, sure:
Denis Mukwege
Sima Samar
Ghazi bin Muhammad
Greg Mortenson
Piedad Córdoba
Wei Jingsheng

Please, do elaborate on how those people have done more than Obama in those three categories. Because I sure can't see that they have.

Beskar

10-15-2009, 00:39

This is something even Fragony and Tribesman can agree with eachother on. It is done what is thought to be impossible.

Centurion1

10-15-2009, 01:46

obama has done nothing. I remember when bush was elelcted and people all bonded together to face the terrorist threat.

All obama has done is kowtow to dictators. So maybe he can win the nobel :daisy: prize.

bah the nobel prize lost my respect when al gore and yassar arafat won.

HoreTore

10-15-2009, 07:48

I remember when bush was elelcted and people all bonded together to face the terrorist threat.

....Which might have something to do with why he didn't get one....

Nobel's way to peace was through diplomacy, not war. This is why no right-winger will get the prize, Nobel wanted to disband every army in the world, right-wingers want to achieve peace by building up their armies...

Centurion1

10-15-2009, 14:30

obama is pursuing a war right now. so i owuldnt say that he is total peace lover

drone

10-15-2009, 21:13

For the lulz:
Obama's NPP unconstitutional? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/15/AR2009101502277.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)

Thanks for the cash, the Treasury needs it!

Louis VI the Fat

10-15-2009, 21:59

For the lulz:
Obama's NPP unconstitutional? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/15/AR2009101502277.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)

Thanks for the cash, the Treasury needs it!Actually, the article raises some good points, I think.

$1.4 million, granted by a body elected by the parliament of a foreign nation, should not be taken as a mere customary exchange of diplomatic gestures.

HoreTore

10-15-2009, 22:09

For the lulz:
Obama's NPP unconstitutional? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/15/AR2009101502277.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)

Thanks for the cash, the Treasury needs it!

From the article:

As for the Order of Abdulaziz al-Saud, Congress should withhold approval -- and return the chain -- until the Saudis show their support for international peace by recognizing the right of Israel to live in peace within secure borders. That would honor Alfred Nobel's desire to promote "fraternity between nations" and fulfill the intent of the framers that congressional approval would guard against attempts by foreign governments to meddle in American politics by dangling presents, titles, or any other emoluments in front of our public officials.

Uhm.... Did they just say that Alfred Nobel would support a peace by arms, ie. "Israel within secure borders"...?

Nobel would support an Israel without a military. That's what anti-military types support....

drone

10-15-2009, 22:28

Actually, the article raises some good points, I think.

$1.4 million, granted by a body elected by the parliament of a foreign nation, should not be taken as a mere customary exchange of diplomatic gestures.

Since the award was obviously given based on intentions and not accomplishments, one could almost think of it as a bribe... :laugh4:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-15-2009, 23:02

Uhm.... Did they just say that Alfred Nobel would support a peace by arms, ie. "Israel within secure borders"...?

Nobel would support an Israel without a military. That's what anti-military types support....

If defending yourself with a military leads to more peace than not having one, might as well have one. I don't think Nobel was an idiot, so he would probably have recognized this.

Noncommunist

10-15-2009, 23:39

....Which might have something to do with why he didn't get one....

Nobel's way to peace was through diplomacy, not war. This is why no right-winger will get the prize, Nobel wanted to disband every army in the world, right-wingers want to achieve peace by building up their armies...

The right wingers could still promote peace by disbanding armies, just as long as those armies weren't their own.

Aemilius Paulus

10-15-2009, 23:43

The right wingers could still promote peace by disbanding armies, just as long as those armies weren't their own.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Hehe, brilliant :devilish:. "We are for arms reductions, but we prefer to reduce the arms - and the men who handle them - by ourselves." :laugh4:

HoreTore

10-16-2009, 06:31

If defending yourself with a military leads to more peace than not having one, might as well have one. I don't think Nobel was an idiot, so he would probably have recognized this.

He did not, as he simply did not believe that having a military will bring more peace than disbanding it.

Fragony

10-16-2009, 07:30

Muahahaha you can keep defending it but they really did it this time, all that remains is the humiliation of a worthy candidate refusing the nobel peace price, and that is going to happen.

Centurion1

10-16-2009, 15:21

If Nobel believed that world wide arms reduction was possible than he was a pathetic idealist and the prize now means less than the nothing it meant to me before.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-16-2009, 16:01

If Nobel believed that world wide arms reduction was possible than he was a pathetic idealist and the prize now means less than the nothing it meant to me before.

Perhaps, but the Europe of his era was a powder-keg of alliances etc. Remember, he died in 1896, so he'd observed the Crimea, ACW, Franco-Prussian and Italian conflicts. With his knowledge of explosives, he may have had a pretty good sense of just how ghastly war was to become in the very near future. Naive idealism perhaps, but pathetic is unkind.

Louis VI the Fat

10-16-2009, 16:36

Perhaps, but the Europe of his era was a powder-keg of alliances etc. Remember, he died in 1896, so he'd observed the Crimea, ACW, Franco-Prussian and Italian conflicts. With his knowledge of explosives, he may have had a pretty good sense of just how ghastly war was to become in the very near future. Naive idealism perhaps, but pathetic is unkind.Pacifism and internationalism were big at the turn-of-the-century. After witnessing militarism, racism, nationalism spinning ever more out of control in the 19th, a lot of people warned for a devastating European 20th century. (Whatever gave 'em that idea. Silly idealists and internationalists :no:)

Nobel seems to have made an end of life conversion. Maybe our arms manufacturer feared for the damnation of his soul.

Aemilius Paulus

10-16-2009, 16:58

Maybe our arms manufacturer feared for the damnation of his soul.
He did, that was his reason indeed, why the uncertainty? Well, I do not remember if he was a Christain (probably not a devout one) but it is known he was greatly saddened to see his wondrous invention used in warfare at great effect. So he tried to make up for it, but like I said, I am not sure whether it was for his soul or more out of humanistic reasons. He reminds me of someone else very similar, but I cannot bring myself to remember who...

Subotan

10-16-2009, 17:24

IIRC this is the reason why:

The erroneous publication in 1888 of a premature obituary of Nobel by a French newspaper, condemning him for his invention of dynamite, is said to have brought about his decision to leave a better legacy after his death.[2] The obituary stated Le marchand de la mort est mort ("The merchant of death is dead") and went on to say, "Dr. Alfred Nobel, who became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before, died yesterday."[3] On 27 November 1895, at the Swedish-Norwegian Club in Paris, Nobel signed his last will and testament and set aside the bulk of his estate to establish the Nobel Prizes, to be awarded annually without distinction of nationality. He died of a stroke on 10 December 1896 at Sanremo, Italy. After taxes and bequests to individuals, Nobel's will gave 31,225,000 Swedish kronor (equivalent to about 1.8 billion kronor or 250 million US dollars in 2008) to fund the prizes.[4]

...Even though dynamite was almost never used in battle.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-17-2009, 00:16

He did not, as he simply did not believe that having a military will bring more peace than disbanding it.

Seems he wasn't as smart as I gave him credit for then, at least in the field of international relations.

Kadagar_AV

10-17-2009, 00:53

Seems he wasn't as smart as I gave him credit for then, at least in the field of international relations.

Agreed, obviosly you are a LOT smarter than Nobel ever was.

Disbanding army is clearly not a choice one would make if one would want peace... :inquisitive:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-17-2009, 01:04

Agreed, obviosly you are a LOT smarter than Nobel ever was.

Disbanding army is clearly not a choice one would make if one would want peace... :inquisitive:

Let’s set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace–and you can have it in the next second–surrender.

And what do you know, he was right. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvg7lRsCVJ8)

Louis VI the Fat

10-17-2009, 01:15

And what do you know, he was right. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvg7lRsCVJ8)Every time someone mentiones disarmament or taxes, Baby Ronald Reagan sheds a tear. :book:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-17-2009, 01:28

Every time someone mentiones disarmament or taxes, Baby Ronald Reagan sheds a tear. :book:

Every time someone mentions disarmament, Teddy Roosevelt destroys Cuba. Alone.

Centurion1

10-17-2009, 02:11

Every time someone mentions disarmament, Teddy Roosevelt destroys Cuba. Alone.

With a very very large stick

come on does anyone here think that disarmament is actually possible? yeah it would be great but it is never going to happen at least not soon.

Beskar

10-17-2009, 03:39

Under a one-world government. Probably.

Sarmatian

10-17-2009, 03:43

We have a very long way to go for that, but why do people dismiss it as "impossible at the moment"? There's no need to do it all at once. One step at a time. The more steps we take, the less will our children have to take.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-17-2009, 03:46

Under a one-world government. Probably.

There still won't be, because a one-world government will either be fighting other worlds, be a totalitarian state, face rebellions from people who dislike it, or all of the above.

Centurion1

10-17-2009, 16:27

unless you can eliminate evil from the world you will never be able to destroy every weapon on earth

HoreTore

10-17-2009, 16:50

unless you can eliminate evil from the world you will never be able to destroy every weapon on earth

You'll have to aim for the stars to reach the treetops.

Subotan

10-17-2009, 17:06

Every time someone mentiones disarmament or taxes, Baby Ronald Reagan sheds a tear. :book:

Sigged.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-17-2009, 17:42

You'll have to aim for the stars to reach the treetops.

The higher you jump toward an unrealistic goal, the more it hurts when you crash down to Earth.

Aemilius Paulus

10-17-2009, 18:43

The higher you jump toward an unrealistic goal, the more it hurts when you crash down to Earth.
:laugh4:

This is also siggie-worthy material, but not exactly my type of stuff. Regardless of that, I wholly agree with EMFM here. Obama should aim for lower, more realistic goals and once those goals are achieved, we can move on to other things. And I personally believe in atomics. They are a splendid deterrent which were one of the chief, if not the sole most important reason for the lack of WWIII between USSR and US.

When nations disarm, some nation will keep secret stockpiles. Others will not disarm at all - unless Russia and China become liberal democracies that is, and not the LDPR/Zhirinovsky liberal either :laugh4:. Will US disarm itself to set an example? Not unless the population is lobotomised or Democraticised (misspelling on purpose) to a degree of stupor...

Kadagar_AV

10-17-2009, 23:47

unless you can eliminate evil from the world you will never be able to destroy every weapon on earth

What is "evil"?

No one I know wants to shoot anyone, or nuke another country.

Of course there is some madmen, but those are usually held behind locked doors.

I do believe "evil" is a very odd word. I don't even think the wors should exist!

Sure, some people have done some crazy stuff... But this is a very very tiny percentage of people, and they are usually sick in some way.

I guess the question boils down to if you want to spend the money on treating sick people, or spend the money on building nukes and stuff to handle the sick people and anyone remotely close to them, geographicly speaking.

Centurion1

10-17-2009, 23:59

What is "evil"?

No one I know wants to shoot anyone, or nuke another country.

Of course there is some madmen, but those are usually held behind locked doors.

I do believe "evil" is a very odd word. I don't even think the wors should exist!

Sure, some people have done some crazy stuff... But this is a very very tiny percentage of people, and they are usually sick in some way.

I guess the question boils down to if you want to spend the money on treating sick people, or spend the money on building nukes and stuff to handle the sick people and anyone remotely close to them, geographicly speaking.

so impossible in todays society.

I think AP explained it more than sufficiently.

Kadagar_AV

10-18-2009, 00:13

so impossible in todays society.

I think AP explained it more than sufficiently.

Impossible...

Impossible...

Interesting! I can see some ways to make it happen if enough people agree. But then we have people like you, claiming it is impossible...

Would you mind telling us why it would be impossible?

Sarmatian

10-18-2009, 02:40

The higher you jump toward an unrealistic goal, the more it hurts when you crash down to Earth.

Then the safest thing would be to crawl, right?

Centurion1

10-18-2009, 03:20

Or how about you take shorter jumps so that you don't hurt yourself but you still make progress.

Beskar

10-18-2009, 04:49

Or how about you take shorter jumps so that you don't hurt yourself but you still make progress.

Or work in stages.

Whacker

10-18-2009, 06:02

Impossible...

Impossible...

Interesting! I can see some ways to make it happen if enough people agree. But then we have people like you, claiming it is impossible...

Would you mind telling us why it would be impossible?

Combat, conflict, war, what ever you want to call it, is built into our DNA.

The same genes that fed our ancestor's ancestor's instincts to fight for food, water, shelter, mates, etc, is what feeds our current drives for the same. As a society and species, we have evolved to have the ability for higher thought and logic, which has lead to concepts such as law, which we all agree to live under and abide by. This is precisely what prevents most of us in developed nations from going out and shooting our neighbors because we want their house or car. It doesn't prevent us from doing other things in underhanded manners to get what we want, because we still all have the competitive drive to obtain what we want, whether we choose to admit it or not.

The other aspect to this is that in the last century or two, society is developing more in the sense that people have an intense sense of self-preservation. People fear and do not like physical confrontation, because it could lead to pain, severe injury, dismemberment, death, you name it. There are a few of us who enjoy going out on a daily basis to punch, kick, and choke the crap out of each other, and for whatever reason we love doing it. But we are the minority.

IMO this highly intense sense of self preservation (moreso than in the past) that is a relatively new feature of society will never overcome a human's base desire for more. We all want more. Money, wealth, power, control, prestige, recognition, you name it, we want it. In order to get that, we must compete. Competition is just another way of saying conflict. Multiple that by factors upon factors and you see whole peoples or nations competing with each other for whatever reason. Resources, religion, territory, beliefs, etc. War is a very human thing, and will always be an ever present factor in our existences.

Husar

10-18-2009, 06:40

Combat, conflict, war, what ever you want to call it, is built into our DNA.

The same genes that fed our ancestor's ancestor's instincts to fight for food, water, shelter, mates, etc, is what feeds our current drives for the same. As a society and species, we have evolved to have the ability for higher thought and logic, which has lead to concepts such as law, which we all agree to live under and abide by. This is precisely what prevents most of us in developed nations from going out and shooting our neighbors because we want their house or car. It doesn't prevent us from doing other things in underhanded manners to get what we want, because we still all have the competitive drive to obtain what we want, whether we choose to admit it or not.

The other aspect to this is that in the last century or two, society is developing more in the sense that people have an intense sense of self-preservation. People fear and do not like physical confrontation, because it could lead to pain, severe injury, dismemberment, death, you name it. There are a few of us who enjoy going out on a daily basis to punch, kick, and choke the crap out of each other, and for whatever reason we love doing it. But we are the minority.

IMO this highly intense sense of self preservation (moreso than in the past) that is a relatively new feature of society will never overcome a human's base desire for more. We all want more. Money, wealth, power, control, prestige, recognition, you name it, we want it. In order to get that, we must compete. Competition is just another way of saying conflict. Multiple that by factors upon factors and you see whole peoples or nations competing with each other for whatever reason. Resources, religion, territory, beliefs, etc. War is a very human thing, and will always be an ever present factor in our existences.

So you're one of those defeatists who has already given up in the competition to improve humanity according to our moral standards? :inquisitive:

Must be easy to blame everything on DNA, maybe we should disband the police and courts and just live with the fact that some people are natural born criminals, not their fault, it's in the DNA. :shrug:

Samurai Waki

10-18-2009, 11:23

I think the point he was trying to get across, is no matter how many laws, or morals, that peace loving citizens live by, there will always be, as long as we're human, a few free radicals whose personal compass is satiated by the desire to take what they want using any means they have in order to get it. Some people, whether through social or genetic upbringing are built to act on their baser needs. I don't think that its something we as a species can change unless we genetically alter ourselves, and our environments in order to stop free radicals, however that also brings up the prospect of a much darker future for us as a species. Considering some free radicals, who didn't obey the laws, or saw the world differently or openly defied society's status quo have been at many times in history a saving grace. We historically can't have peace, advancement, and enlightenment without having first experienced the horrors of war, social unrest, or decadence.

Centurion1

10-18-2009, 14:35

Why did we all originally join this site? to talk about a WAR game we all love.

War is ingrained in the human psyche.

Viking

10-18-2009, 14:52

Why did we all originally join this site? to talk about a WAR game we all love.

War is ingrained in the human psyche.

Yet you do not feel like initiating a civil war. This implies that it is not war in itself that is attractive.

CountArach

10-18-2009, 14:53

War is ingrained in the human psyche.
Err, no. Competition may be to an extent, but I reject any notion that war is.

KukriKhan

10-18-2009, 17:04

Err, no. Competition may be to an extent, but I reject any notion that war is.

Me too. War is stupid, wasteful, and doesn't adequately resolve conflict.

Lemur

10-18-2009, 17:07

War is stupid, wasteful, and doesn't adequately resolve conflict.
How dare you say that! In response, I will lead my tribe to your village, kill the men, violate the women, and steal your cattle and goats. As it has been for 10,000 years, so it shall be! All your thatch huts are belong to us!

Fisherking

10-18-2009, 17:09

Me too. War is stupid, wasteful, and doesn't adequately resolve conflict.

However, I know of few people who don’t get angry. And when angry enough most people, especially men, feel like they want to kill something or someone...

Centurion1

10-18-2009, 17:13

Me too. War is stupid, wasteful, and doesn't adequately resolve conflict.

than why does it happen? I dont like war either and wish it didnt happen, but it does.

KukriKhan

10-18-2009, 17:17

However, I know of few people who don’t get angry. And when angry enough most people, especially men, feel like they want to kill something or someone...

I grant that. Joe getting mad at Johnny in a barroom and punching him in the nose, however, is different from taking thousands of men, teaching them to kill or stop-killing, on command, until one side is either totally dead, or one side decides to negotiate - which they should have and could have done before the bloodshed - is just crazy.

Besides, no one yet knows how to control enough variable factors to make war outcomes predictable, despite all the bluster.

War is an old man's game, played with young men.

Fisherking

10-18-2009, 17:26

On the other hand, Lamur was kind of close.

I think that Bailey’s Irish Cream combines two of the most fought over substance in history...Cows and Whiskey...the top one would likely be women.

Azathoth

10-18-2009, 19:11

Here's a nice quote:

A culture's teachings, and most importantly, the nature of its people, achieve definition in conflict. They find themselves, or find themselves lacking.

HoreTore

10-18-2009, 19:58

than why does it happen? I dont like war either and wish it didnt happen, but it does.

Because men with power usually have very small penises.

That's my theory anyway.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-19-2009, 22:06

Because men with power usually have very small penises.

That's my theory anyway.

You're a .....

a.....

Freudian?!?! :dizzy2:

....And just when I had you pegged as an Libertarian Socialist.

Aemilius Paulus

10-19-2009, 22:46

Because men with power usually have very small penises.

Hmmm, but what about Berlusconi and Putin?

I hear Berlusconi's essence, his precious bodily fluid, is the secret ingredient of Viagra...You bet he does not drink fluoridated water :P

Papewaio

10-20-2009, 04:26

I think HoreTore is just saying that because he is a senior member. :7jester::beatnik2::smartass:

HoreTore

10-20-2009, 08:07

You're a .....

a.....

Freudian?!?! :dizzy2:

....And just when I had you pegged as an Libertarian Socialist.

Actually, I have to confess that my knowledge of psychological theory is rather limited... I'm not aware of what Freud thought...:oops:

Hmmm, but what about Berlusconi and Putin?

Berlusconi.... Just why do you think he chases 16-18-year olds...? Older women have more experience, they've seen a lot more and know what to expect. Younger women don't know what to expect, they haven't really seen enough to judge whether a penis is big or small... Also, a small penis is a bonus for a golddigger, it's less pain to endure before you get to the money.

And Putin? With his macho posing? Classic compensation behaviour. Might as well get clean and buy a Harley.

I think HoreTore is just saying that because he is a senior member. :7jester::beatnik2::smartass:

:smash: