Violence

[HopAlongBunny]

Is the belief we can control violence w/o abolishing it simply a delusion?

Perhaps violence is simply part of what we are; the idea that we can control it like geo-thermal energy: tap it when we "need" it and control it/turn it off; is our best self-deception.

What if its more like a tornado. Once in motion it has its own momentum, goals and "desires"; quite independent of the wishes/aims of its author.

[Fragony]

Violence is ok, I will never provoke it but will react with it if someone pushes me too much. You don't die from a broken nose or a few bruised ribs. We are too feminised as a society when it comes to using blunt tools

[Fisherking]

Violence?

How are you going to abolish it without eliminating life? Predators are violent. Even herbivores can be violent. Emotionally charged people may commit it.

If you are talking about eliminating violence committed by people, it will always be with us.

I suppose it could be reduced by sedating the population but it will not eliminate it.

Some people will always try to prey on others and people will sometimes react violently in stressful situations. Fight or flight is the natural reaction to such situations.

[Raz]

What if its more like a tornado. Once in motion it has its own momentum, goals and "desires"; quite independent of the wishes/aims of its author.

I think violence is more of a method (or a 'tool') to meet a particular goal. The way you've described it here makes it seem like violence is an emotion in itself (or something like that), which doesn't make much sense to me. Violence tends to be a method to satisfy some desire (such as anger etc), and it's this desire that can garner its own momentum.
When the method changes (say, instead of punching someone in the face, you send them an angry email (lol!)) the desire can still get out of hand (so you send dozens of angry emails escalating to vitriolic diatribe after a while).

imo, i think. i dunno, i'm kinda sleepy tbh and I'm not sure if this is very coherent.

[Fragony]

It isn't really a good movie, but 'Equilibrium' is a fun take on a lack of it. Also some amazing action.

OT people are just naturally violent. When social skills just won't suffice it's the only option.

I don't know if it was ever translated in English but 'Van nature goed' by Frank de Waal is fascinating

edit, it wasn't, that's a shame. It is a really good book. It examins how violence and empathy exist in our social behaviour by mostly looking at the behaviour of primates.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Violence is just a response to feeling threatened. I haven't read it, but there is a book by Steven Pinker called "The Better Angels of Our Nature" and he did a similar TED talk about the subject (http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html)which is how I know a little bit about what the book says. And basically he argues that violence has continued to decline worldwide over the past few centuries at least with a small hiccup in the middle of the 20th century. I recommend watching the TED talk because it seems to me that violence will continue to decline as long as our current world trend of globalization and industrialization increases the living standards of people in the 2nd and 3rd world.

[Fragony]

Violence is just a response to feeling threatened.

Dominant people are also more violent, response to feeling threatened is only half of the story, there has to be someone threatening you to respond to. It's a shame that 'Van Nature Goed' was never translated as it could add a lot to the discussion if you read it. Key is instrumental empathy or a lack of it according to De Waal, it is in end a result of social hierarchy. It isn't without any critisism but I found it pretty convincing

[HoreTore]

Violence is a result of outside factors, not an innate tendency of humans.

Thus, it can be greatly reduced and ultimately removed.

[Fragony]

Violence is a result of outside factors, not an innate tendency of humans.

Thus, it can be greatly reduced and ultimately removed.

What makes you think so, if I am rude to you here it's also an act of violence in a way. No matter how much control you have, violence will exist. Don't hurt me and don't feel hurt because I don't mean any harm, but isn't the massacre on that island a bit of a result of trying to control an unnatural situation

[a completely inoffensive name]

Dominant people are also more violent, response to feeling threatened is only half of the story, there has to be someone threatening you to respond to.

Not necessarily. Feeling threatened isn't exactly the same as being threatened. You can feel threatened by someone or something and the other party actually has no malice towards you. It's tied to jealousy and insecurity which like I said become less and less prevalent in the world of the plenty.

[HoreTore]

What makes you think so, if I am rude to you here it's also an act of violence in a way. No matter how much control you have, violence will exist. Don't hurt me and don't feel hurt because I don't mean any harm, but isn't the massacre on that island a bit of a result of trying to control an unnatural situation

You do recognize a variation in the level of aggression in different societies, don't you frags?

If aggression "comes from within", wouldn't we all be equally aggressive?

[Fragony]

Not necessarily. Feeling threatened isn't exactly the same as being threatened. You can feel threatened by someone or something and the other party actually has no malice towards you. It's tied to jealousy and insecurity which like I said become less and less prevalent in the world of the plenty.

We call it 'de apenrots' (monkey rock) over here, it has more to do with social hierarchy that comes in effect. Dominant people aka alpha-males will use violence if their place on the rock is being overly challenged because they don't want to sit anywhere lower. Those that sit lower will still want to stay there.

[Fragony]

You do recognize a variation in the level of aggression in different societies, don't you frags?

If aggression "comes from within", wouldn't we all be equally aggressive?

Look up the Milgram or Asch experiments, those who participated were all normal people, at first

[HoreTore]

Look up the Milgram or Asch experiments, those who participated were all normal people, at first

I don't have to look up something I know by heart, Frags ~;)

And how did Milgram prove innate aggression? What he did was severely alter outside factors, and it was the outside factors he introduced which lead to the indefference to suffering.

[Fragony]

I don't have to look up something I know by heart, Frags ~;)

And how did Milgram prove innate aggression? What he did was severely alter outside factors, and it was the outside factors he introduced which lead to the indefference to suffering.

Diffusion of responsibility, people will do the most horrible things to eachother if they aren't directly responsible. Motivation for experiments was nazi death-camps, how otherwise perfectly normal people could commit the worst of atrocities when told to do so. In the Milgram experiment most people would give an electrical shock of which they knew could be lethal, the Asch guards vs prisoners experiment showed pretty much the same

[HoreTore]

Diffusion of responsibility, people will do the most horrible things to eachother if they aren't directly responsible. Motivation for experiments was nazi death-camps, how otherwise perfectly normal people could commit the worst of atrocities when told to do so. In the Milgram experiment most people would give an electrical shock of which they knew could be lethal, the Asch guards vs prisoners experiment showed pretty much the same

....And that's an outside factor, frags ~;)

[Montmorency]

If aggression were not innate, no combination of "outside factors" would be able to induce it.

C.f.: 'Digestion is a result of such outside factors as food, not an innate tendency of humans.

Thus, it can be greatly reduced and ultimately removed.'

[Fragony]

....And that's an outside factor, frags ~;)

Not really, it's stimulation of what is already there, wouldn't call it outside factors as it just shows what we are inherently capable of.

[HoreTore]

Not really, it's stimulation of what is already there, wouldn't call it outside factors as it just shows what we are inherently capable of.

Ah, but then it will still need those outside factors for the aggression to show, eh?

In order words, the outside factors an individual is exposed to will determine its level of aggression?

[Fragony]

Ah, but then it will still need those outside factors for the aggression to show, eh?

In order words, the outside factors an individual is exposed to will determine its level of aggression?

Point is that it is already there, subdued, but there. People will do horrible things when they are not directly responsible for their actions, aggression against others is a natural state of mind when you let it

[a completely inoffensive name]

If aggression were not innate, no combination of "outside factors" would be able to induce it.

C.f.: 'Digestion is a result of such outside factors as food, not an innate tendency of humans.

Thus, it can be greatly reduced and ultimately removed.'

Interesting comparison. Is the act of violence tied to some necessary biological function in the way that eating is?

[HoreTore]

Point is that it is already there, subdued, but there. People will do horrible things when they are not directly responsible for their actions, aggression against others is a natural state of mind when you let it

Then you are already a believer of violence in society as a consequence of a set of factors, rather than as something that must always be present ~;)

Just wait Frags, I'll make a good commie of you eventually!

[Fragony]

Then you are already a believer of violence in society as a consequence of a set of factors, rather than as something that must always be present ~;)

Just wait Frags, I'll make a good commie of you eventually!

Heh nice try, it are outside factors that can bring it out, there is not a word on effectively subduing it

Edit, I am lying here, Frans de Waal latest does, but I haven't read it. It wasn't very well recieved so I didn't bother, AdrianII liked it

[HoreTore]

Heh nice try, it are outside factors that can bring it out, there is not a word on effectively subduing it

Edit, I am lying here, Frans de Waal latest does, but I haven't read it. It wasn't very well recieved so I didn't bother, AdrianII liked it

Marvin Harris also explains social phenomena as a result of ecology instead of biology, and his writing style is pretty fun as well, you should check it out ~;)

Back on topic, if outside factors can increase aggression/violence, then it stands to reason that a change in those factors can also serve to reduce it, doesn't it?

And if a set of factors can result in permanent war, then another set of factors which brings permanent peace must exist, right?

[Montmorency]

Is the act of violence

We were talking specifically about aggression, no? Aggression is not equivalent to violence, just as violence is not equivalent to death.

Physiological arousal. :shrug:


In order words, the outside factors an individual is exposed to, mediated by individual neurophysiology will determine its level of aggression?


Then you are already a believer of violence in society as a consequence of a set of factors, rather than as something that must always be present

The release of gastric acids, a component of the digestive process: how do you remove all factors that contribute to the stimulation of the Vagus nerve, as well as the lesser components of digestion? How is it possible to eliminate every stimulus that engenders even the thought of food, which is even so enough stimulation?


And if a set of factors can result in permanent war, then another set of factors which brings permanent peace must exist, right?

What set of factors can result in permanent war? The problem here is that we're talking about humans, not some mythical - actually, Strike has given me an idea:


It's like you construct humans in your head and go no further.

[Fragony]

Back on topic, if outside factors can increase aggression/violence, then it stands to reason that a change in those factors can also serve to reduce it, doesn't it?

And if a set of factors can result in permanent war, then another set of factors which brings permanent peace must exist, right?

Not if you consider violence to be a part of human nature, if you subdue a part of human nature what remains? Things don't have to be perfect, being flawed is perfectly fine for me.

[HoreTore]

Both Milgram and the Stanley prison experiment produced a state I would deem "permanent war", as would their inspiration, the concentration camp guards.

Or if you want an example from anthropology, the Yanomamo tribe fits the bill.

[HoreTore]

Not if you consider violence to be a part of human nature, if you subdue a part of human nature what remains? Things don't have to be perfect, being flawed is perfectly fine for me.

And if you go down that part, how can you then explains different levels of violence/aggression in different societies, or differences in one society in different times?

[a completely inoffensive name]

We were talking specifically about aggression, no? Aggression is not equivalent to violence, just as violence is not equivalent to death.

Physiological arousal. :shrug:


I am just going off of the OP which uses the word violence. You may have something there about arousal though.

[HopAlongBunny]

I liked the comparison to "digestion".

The expression of violence sets in motion biological/cultural/psychological factors. These work, independent of the originator of the violence. Like "digestion", a whole range of responses are set in motion; the responses also may have little to nothing to do with the original source. People will react; exchanging violence for violence; make alliances; retreat; plot vengeance; even ignore the event as far as possible. So the initial act, once done, can set in motion many things I have no control over; in what way does the author "control" the violence?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Both Milgram and the Stanley prison experiment produced a state I would deem "permanent war", as would their inspiration, the concentration camp guards.

Or if you want an example from anthropology, the Yanomamo tribe fits the bill.

I heard the phrase "permanent war" but the title of this thread doesn't mention Isreal or Palestine.

huehuehuehuehuehuehuhe

[Montmorency]

Or if you want an example from anthropology, the Yanomamo tribe fits the bill.

We're going to have to be careful if we'd like to avoid equivocating on "war" here...

Ritualized tribal combat is not something I can consider "war", just as I can not consider these tribes to be organized into competing "states".

[Fragony]

And if you go down that part, how can you then explains different levels of violence/aggression in different societies, or differences in one society in different times?

Ok outside factors, you got me

[HoreTore]

Uhm...

Why is statehood a requirement for war?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Uhm...

Why is statehood a requirement for war?

I think the answer is already in what Monty said, "I can not consider these tribes to be organized into competing "states"."

Would you consider a gunfight between two rival families to be war?

[Montmorency]

Not quite what I meant: to call it "war" because men are attacking each other with tools (i.e. weaponry) is like calling these tribes 'states' because they have minimal leadership structures.

War manifests when there is armed conflict over some objective to be attained; ritualized battle for manhood rites and even more-or-less recreation is not really the same.

[Fragony]

Uhm...

Why is statehood a requirement for war?

And than you ruin consesus on me being daft. Of course it is

[Raz]

Why is statehood a requirement for war?

I suppose it depends on your definitions.

merriam-webster.com:

... conflict between states or nations

oxforddictionaries.com:

... armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country

and by contrast, wiktionary.org:

Organized, large-scale, armed conflict between countries or between national, ethnic, or other sizeable groups

I also suppose you're welcome to forge your own definition, of course!

[HopAlongBunny]

Uhm...

Why is statehood a requirement for war?

Gasp!~:eek:
Otherwise its just murder!:soapbox:

[Montmorency]

Ritualized battle between small tribes is not war - that much is clear.


I think the answer is already in what Monty said, "I can not consider these tribes to be organized into competing "states"."

Would you consider a gunfight between two rival families to be war?

The second line is good, but let's get deeper if we really want to quibble about this, and we'll sort out whether the examples I present are tendentious and what-not:

A migrating tribe skirmishes with another as it attempts to drive it out of its territory. War.

200 men get together to meet a similar number of men on the usual clearing in the woods and fight it out until one side runs home with its tail between its legs, just because that's what they'd been doing for centuries. Not war.

The feud of the Hatfields and the McCoys. Not war.

Two city-states send out armies to fight over a dispute in boundaries on farmland within the valley which they share. War.

Two city-states send out armies to fight because it's been the tradition since before the city-states were established. Not war.

The Crips and the Bloods periodically organize bands to raid each other's territory. Not war.


***

Cartels vs. the Mexican state. War.

Cartels vs. each other. War.

Al Qaeda vs. the United States. Not war.

Taliban vs. the United States. War.


Working definition of war:

1. Involves continual armed conflict between at least two forces within a bounded temporal frame.
2. Involves a political and/or economic goal.
3. The forces involved must have comparable martial capacities.
3.a. c.f. Al Qaeda vs. US not being war.
3.c. Internal discord within a state or community becomes a civil war once some threshold is breached by those opposing the authority.
4. Some absolute numerical threshold for the most numerous party
4.a. A village-state (if such a small community could ever conceivably be called a state) assembling 50 men to attack another village-state in order to steal its golden idol is not war.
4.b. A marauding band of rogues sacking a medieval village is not a war.
5. If between two or more states, a formal declaration of such a state between two or more states by one of them.
5.a. Andorra vs. Kosovo, and even with no fighting whatsoever, will be considered a war.

And many more specifiers to be added, but this is a solid core I think.

[HoreTore]

I think the answer is already in what Monty said, "I can not consider these tribes to be organized into competing "states"."

Would you consider a gunfight between two rival families to be war?

Apart from the scale of it, I don't see much difference.

Neither do anthropologists, btw.


Not quite what I meant: to call it "war" because men are attacking each other with tools (i.e. weaponry) is like calling these tribes 'states' because they have minimal leadership structures.

War manifests when there is armed conflict over some objective to be attained; ritualized battle for manhood rites and even more-or-less recreation is not really the same.

While one of the combat forms of the Yanomamo(the dualing) is ritualized(like the gun duel is), their other forms, like ambushes, is not.

And the object of it all is the most common one of all: resources.

[Montmorency]

And the object of it all is the most common one of all: resources.

The New Guinean tribes I have read of engaged in ritualized meeting and battle, and then just left for their homes once it was through.

But of course my working definition accounts for the rest.

Ever seen 7 Samurai/Magnificent Seven? Not war.

[HoreTore]

The New Guinean tribes I have read of engaged in ritualized meeting and battle, and then just left for their homes once it was through.

You're on the wrong continent...

I don't have much interest in discussing the meanings of terms, however. I leave that to the language teachers...

[Montmorency]

You're on the wrong continent...

The specific tribe doesn't matter, we're speaking categorically.


I don't have much interest in discussing the meanings of terms, however.

Communication is constraint. If you are not constrained in your grammar, you can not communicate.

bug dab jowq of he give to

[HoreTore]

The specific tribe doesn't matter, we're speaking categorically.



Communication is constraint. If you are not constrained in your grammar, you can not communicate.

bug dab jowq of he give to

That does not apply to sociological terms, since each person will inevitably have their own definition of terms, and even the "official" definition is not one, but many for each term.

As long as one explains what is meant by the term used, I'd say it's okay. I believe I have done so in my replies to you.

And the specific tribe does matter, since there's an ocean of difference between New Guinean islanders and Amazonian hunters.

[Fragony]

And if you go down that part, how can you then explains different levels of violence/aggression in different societies, or differences in one society in different times?

Well I simply can't, back at ya, why does violence exist on all levels of society

[HoreTore]

Well I simply can't, back at ya, why does violence exist on all levels of society

I'm not that interested in existence, I'm more interested in variations. In order to explain the variations we see between classes, cultures, and so on, I believe we have to look for outside factors, not biology.

A note: when I say "outside factors", what I'm actually referring to is the norwegian term "rammefaktorer". My translation may be lacking, but you seem to get my meaning nonetheless. Directly translated I guess it would be "framework factors" or something.

[Fragony]

I'm not that interested in existence, I'm more interested in variations. In order to explain the variations we see between classes, cultures, and so on, I believe we have to look for outside factors, not biology.

A note: when I say "outside factors", what I'm actually referring to is the norwegian term "rammefaktorer". My translation may be lacking, but you seem to get my meaning nonetheless. Directly translated I guess it would be "framework factors" or something.

I get it. It's more of a nature vs nurture thing in the end, nurture is the framework. It's an endless chicken&egg theory

[Montmorency]

And the specific tribe does matter, since there's an ocean of difference between New Guinean islanders and Amazonian hunters.

The point being that we're referring to a particular sort of lifestyle...


As long as one explains what is meant by the term used, I'd say it's okay. I believe I have done so in my replies to you.

Of course, I'm not obliged to take your definitions for granted.

Anyway, you might as well use the entire world instead of a single tribe; after all, has there ever been even a second i n the past 10,000 years where (taking a very loose definition of war) not one human was seeking to inflict harm upon another?

To say that war by any definition is continual is a truism.

To say that war by any definition is continuous develops a fabulous image of humans who devote every instant of their conscious existences to fighting or hating some enemy.

Either way, "endless war" is a phrase fit for the gutter.


I get it. It's more of a nature vs nurture thing in the end, nurture is the framework. It's an endless chicken&egg theory

Of course, "nature" and "nurture" are one and the same, so trying to set them in opposition to each other is a rather fruitless endeavor.

The "outside factors" and "frameworks" now spoken of arise as a direct result of human biology, and any effects they have, whether direct or indirect, are effects on (biomechanical) humans.

One can not hope to explain or predict the flow of ocean currents by studying raindrops or clouds.

[HoreTore]

The point being that we're referring to a particular sort of lifestyle...

The amazonians have about as much in common with the Swedes as they have with the Guineans, hence my objection.


Of course, I'm not obliged to take your definitions for granted.

Anyway, you might as well use the entire world instead of a single tribe; after all, has there ever been even a second i n the past 10,000 years where (taking a very loose definition of war) not one human was seeking to inflict harm upon another?

To say that war by any definition is continual is a truism.

To say that war by any definition is continuous develops a fabulous image of humans who devote every instant of their conscious existences to fighting or hating some enemy.

Either way, "endless war" is a phrase fit for the gutter.

This has nothing to do with any of what I have said.


Of course, "nature" and "nurture" are one and the same, so trying to set them in opposition to each other is a rather fruitless endeavor.

The "outside factors" and "frameworks" now spoken of arise as a direct result of human biology, and any effects they have, whether direct or indirect, are effects on (biomechanical) humans.

One can not hope to explain or predict the flow of ocean currents by studying raindrops or clouds.

"Now spoken of"...? I used "outside factors" in my very first post in this thread. In fact, it's the starting point of my argument here. Methinks you've come into this thread a little late....

[Rhyfelwyr]

When the milk plus has set your rassoodocks on it, nothing beats some lashings of the old ultraviolence.

To be serious, violence is innate, but so is our desire to live as a social species. Experience shows that when the two come into conflict, it is our social aspect that tends to dominate.

Whether or not it is appropriate for society to take more artificial measures to suppress violence tendencies is a tricky one, and it's that debate I was hinting at with the first line of this post. Personally, I'm not very comfortable with it, and certainly not without an individual's consent.

[Kadagar_AV]

Violence is a natural part of us, so it is only natural that we try to understand it.

The "outside factors" HoreTore talks about is hogwash. There will ALWAYS be outside factors influencing ones behaviour.

With that said, I think we as a society glorify violence a bit too much.

[HoreTore]

There will ALWAYS be outside factors influencing ones behaviour.

Uhm......

That's my argument, yes.

[Kadagar_AV]

Uhm......

That's my argument, yes.

So why bother bringing it up?





TO ALL: I actually think we would have a better society at large, if we were more loose on violence. In essence, more REAL blood and death, less Hollywood script.

[HoreTore]

So why bother bringing it up?

Sometimes I forget that the entire world turned to marxism last year....

[Kadagar_AV]

Sometimes I forget that the entire world turned to marxism last year....

You really ought not try hard to be daft.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Working definition of war:

1. Involves continual armed conflict between at least two forces within a bounded temporal frame.
2. Involves a political and/or economic goal.
3. The forces involved must have comparable martial capacities.
3.a. c.f. Al Qaeda vs. US not being war.
3.c. Internal discord within a state or community becomes a civil war once some threshold is breached by those opposing the authority.
4. Some absolute numerical threshold for the most numerous party
4.a. A village-state (if such a small community could ever conceivably be called a state) assembling 50 men to attack another village-state in order to steal its golden idol is not war.
4.b. A marauding band of rogues sacking a medieval village is not a war.
5. If between two or more states, a formal declaration of such a state between two or more states by one of them.
5.a. Andorra vs. Kosovo, and even with no fighting whatsoever, will be considered a war.

And many more specifiers to be added, but this is a solid core I think.

I have trouble with points 3-5.

I do not believe that disparity of forces is valid in denying the label "war." The conquest of Luxembourg in 1914, The conquest of Denmark in 1940, The conflict against the Nez Perce: All of these feature a gross disparity of forces, but I don't think you can legitimately label them as anything aside from an act of war.

I think I get what you are driving at in terms of the size factor, but any number of the wars of antiquity -- notably in the fertile crescent -- did not involve polities that were terrifically larger.

The Cold War between the West and the CCCP; the US conflict with France in the late 1790s; The invasion of Russia in 1918....I don't know that formal declarations are so much of a much requirement. Perhaps as a "last choice if none of the others are present."

[Major Robert Dump]

States and Governments deal in violence. We learn from the best. And of course the Fourth Estate reports on it as it fits whatever agenda they are pushing for today

[Montmorency]

The conquest of Luxembourg in 1914, The conquest of Denmark in 1940

If there is a formal declaration of war by one or more states upon one or more states, then that must be considered a war. "If" - so not rendered as a prerequisite.


Nez Perce

Well, I didn't set out to derive a definitive ratio. It lies somewhere below the Indian Wars, but above, say the Waco Raid.


I think I get what you are driving at in terms of the size factor, but any number of the wars of antiquity -- notably in the fertile crescent -- did not involve polities that were terrifically larger.

The point being that there must be a cut-off somewhere, or else two 'lone-wolves' clashing over a fruit tree would constitute a war by the rest of the definition.

[HopAlongBunny]

War is a legal fiction; thus why I said w/o the state it is simply murder.

War may even be waged against an abstraction: drugs, terror, poverty, ideas, religion. To migrate from simple "murder on the behalf of others" it requires the legal-fiction/legitimacy which the state provides.

MRD points to the role of the 4th estate: the legal-fiction is clothed in the appropriate attire and paraded before the public; propaganda is a tool of violence.

[Fisherking]

You should not equate War and Murder.

Murder is the killing of someone who has no means to resist. War involves combatants trying to kill one another. Murder occurs when the unarmed are killed but is incidental to the conflict.

Killing is not murder. Murder is just a type of killing.

[Fisherking]

It is not a War if both sides don’t have a means to resist the other. Call it what you feel fits.

Iraq and Afghanistan were more occupations than wars. The resistance was not really an organized army.

[Husar]

This whole resisting thing is awfully arbitrary Fisherking.

As far as I'm aware, murder is planned killing, regardless of whether the victim is carrying a gun, a knife or nothing. Otherwise you could let many murderers in America off or give them a lower punishment because they "only" killed someone who had the means to defend her/himself because the victim had a gun in the drawer... Even worse if someone is a copkiller as cops always have the means to resist.

Even in war I find the definition extremely false as Geli Cube already pointed out. What about ambushes, mine fields or dropping cluster bombs on infantry whose guns can't even reach the bomber? Do they have the means to resist or does the SAM station on the other side of the country count as such because it happens to "wear" the same flag?

Was 9/11 somehow a more "justified" killing or not murder because some guy in the WTC was armed and thus had the means to resist?

Going by your definitions I could also say Iraq and Afghanistan were murders and your use of "occupation" is just a euphemism in an attempt to cover up what happened before the actual occupation. Iraq sort of had an organized army until the USA bombed their infrastructure and took the organization aspect away as far as I can tell. And they had no chance to resist that.

I basically agree that war is an incredibly arbitrary legal concept, when our army went to Afghanistan, our whole nation debated whether this should be called a war or not since our politicians hesitated to call it that. In the end they did but it shows that there is no clear line there.

[HopAlongBunny]

I am kind of surprised at the turn this topic took.

Clausewitz picked the duel as his metaphor for war. A duel or a series of duels the end result is the same: one living (victor) one dead (vanquished). Where does this fail to meet the definition of murder?

Just because "Clausewitz sez!" doesn't make it so...do you have a better metaphor?

[Fragony]

I am kind of surprised at the turn this topic took.

Clausewitz picked the duel as his metaphor for war. A duel or a series of duels the end result is the same: one living (victor) one dead (vanquished). Where does this fail to meet the definition of murder?

Not so sure you understand the metaphore he was using, beaten, not vanquished. For Clausowitz it wasn't the destruction of an enemy army that was important but making the situation so dire for the opponent that they simply couldn't win. For Clausewitz war was an extention of politics

[Fisherking]

This whole resisting thing is awfully arbitrary Fisherking.

As far as I'm aware, murder is planned killing, regardless of whether the victim is carrying a gun, a knife or nothing. Otherwise you could let many murderers in America off or give them a lower punishment because they "only" killed someone who had the means to defend her/himself because the victim had a gun in the drawer... Even worse if someone is a copkiller as cops always have the means to resist.

Even in war I find the definition extremely false as Geli Cube already pointed out. What about ambushes, mine fields or dropping cluster bombs on infantry whose guns can't even reach the bomber? Do they have the means to resist or does the SAM station on the other side of the country count as such because it happens to "wear" the same flag?

Was 9/11 somehow a more "justified" killing or not murder because some guy in the WTC was armed and thus had the means to resist?

Going by your definitions I could also say Iraq and Afghanistan were murders and your use of "occupation" is just a euphemism in an attempt to cover up what happened before the actual occupation. Iraq sort of had an organized army until the USA bombed their infrastructure and took the organization aspect away as far as I can tell. And they had no chance to resist that.

I basically agree that war is an incredibly arbitrary legal concept, when our army went to Afghanistan, our whole nation debated whether this should be called a war or not since our politicians hesitated to call it that. In the end they did but it shows that there is no clear line there.

We can forget the legal definition for a moment. That varies from place to place. This is just the original meaning of the word.

Murder need not be planed and the victim can defend themselves but have insufficient means to overcome the attack so that they are basically undefended. An unfair fight. Such as a man overpowering a woman or a child.

When a man kills another in a fight in the US it is usually termed “Man Slaughter” but that is also a legal definition.

Execution is just state sponsored murder. Legal murder, if you will.

[Husar]

We can forget the legal definition for a moment. That varies from place to place. This is just the original meaning of the word.
Of which word? War? You may be right but the reality today does not suit it any more in this case. Or if it does, many "wars" of the past few years were just mass murders.


Murder need not be planed and the victim can defend themselves but have insufficient means to overcome the attack so that they are basically undefended. An unfair fight. Such as a man overpowering a woman or a child.
Is that a legal definition or your definition? Because it seems rather mislead to me and the merriam webster seems to agree with me:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder


1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought


When a man kills another in a fight in the US it is usually termed “Man Slaughter” but that is also a legal definition.
Really? It's not a legal dictionary, but again it disagrees:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/manslaughter


the unlawful killing of a human being without express or implied malice

The way I understand it and the dictionary seems to support that, murder is when you plan to kill someone and do it, manslaughter is when ya situation deteriorates and you push someone and he breaks his neck. Whether the other person is a man, a woman or a child or whether the other person has a gun in a holster does not really come into it unless the other person was threatening you with violence in which case it may be self defense depending on actual circumstances.
I don't know how US law defines it with all the different degrees but the general usage of the terms that I have seen so far fits the dictionary definitions.


Execution is just state sponsored murder. Legal murder, if you will.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this but that's why civilized countries stopped it, yes. ~;)

[Fisherking]

You are not going to divorce Politics from Military Might. The military is the servant of political will, vested in the Executive Branch.
War is a political policy. If you find that it is too frequent then we need to find more stable and less aggressive politicians.

[Kadagar_AV]

Well yeah. I don't mean to literally forget about war as an instrument of policy, because that would be inviting disaster. But certainly it would be ideal if it were understood by every American that we enjoy an incredible advantage, nobody can seriously hurt us, and there are better ways to approach this anyway. We could easily withdraw from the world stage militarily (aside from the UN, and we could simply scale back and offer up the same amount of troops as European nations do). The threat and promise of reciprocity would benefit us in the long run way more than this active way of trying to clamp down on the whole world.

Such a policy track would require politicians, economists, and common voters to exhibit way too much common sense though. Too many people would have to swallow their pride for it to ever work. :shrug:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMUiwTubYu0

[Husar]

You could privatize the military and the whole war-making thing. That way wars wouldn't be decided by lazy warmongering politicians but by upstanding investors and stockholders who just want to make a huge profit.

[HopAlongBunny]

That goes to the heart of what Eisenhower was warning about in his speech. Instead of an abstract fear placed at some time in the future, I think he was illustrating a process and a mechanism already in place.

It dovetails so nicely into "national pride" and "place in the world" that private control of public space becomes essentially invisible (so long as it remains within the shroud American Might)

It also has implications for the servant/subject relation of politics/war. Indeed who serves whom?

[Fragony]

Anti-violence! The 4th of may isn't just Starwars-day but also our memorial day for those who died. This was last year but it's pretty impressive how the country falls completily silent for two minutes

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eds5t2WEPxs