Why is there so much hatred and conflict in the world?
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
If it's all about oil, we need to reduce our dependence on it. More wind farms, more solar panels, more efficient vehicles, and fewer airplanes. It's a lot to give up, but if you don't like war, it's so much better than merely complaining about it.
Humans will always find something to fight over whether it's oil or gold or land or <whatever that takes your fancy>....Kermit power said:
Dagnir said:
That's simply a lie. I have brought up the topic of being civilised once and I dont think I was exclaiming that we are 'so much' more civilised. Again, that's your emotions twisting your perception/memory and wanting me to have said bad disparaging things so that you can get upset on behalf of the 'underdog'. It's weird and somewhat pathetic.
You're clearly 'triggered', hence your irrational reaction. What's your problem with me saying some nations are more civilised than others? I really don't understand. Why does that evoke outrage in you?
You also need to re-read what I've said. I haven't once claimed that the West doesn't get involved with conflicts in other parts of the world. Quite the opposite in fact, as I even mentioned that the west uses existing conflicts as excuses.
I'm just puzzled. You're pushing back against things I simply haven't said. It's very bizzare and I can only assume it's down to your tantrum about me mentioned that the west is more civilised than some other parts of the world.
The point I was making is that it's much harder for 2 western countries to start a war amongst themselves.....am I wrong? I am suggesting that we are more likely to settle our differences via diplomacy, than 2 nations that have ruled tribes/Warlords etc. and have been fighting for decade.....am I wrong?
First up we've had these which all make it pretty clear who you think of as civilised vs uncivilised....You're clearly 'triggered', hence your irrational reaction. What's your problem with me saying some nations are more civilised than others? I really don't understand. Why does that evoke outrage in you?
You also need to re-read what I've said. I haven't once claimed that the West doesn't get involved with conflicts in other parts of the world. Quite the opposite in fact, as I even mentioned that the west uses existing conflicts as excuses.
I'm just puzzled. You're pushing back against things I simply haven't said. It's very bizzare and I can only assume it's down to your tantrum about me mentioned that the west is more civilised than some other parts of the world.
The point I was making is that it's much harder for 2 western countries to start a war amongst themselves.....am I wrong? I am suggesting that we are more likely to settle our differences via diplomacy, than 2 nations that have ruled tribes/Warlords etc. and have been fighting for decade.....am I wrong?
Dagnir said:
If the entire world was as civilised as the west, I think there would much stronger consensus that war is hell on earth. The issue is of course that a lot of countries/societies are more primitive, anti-science, less civilised etc... than we are.
Dagnir said:
Get what you're saying but it's not wokeness that prevents us from being warmongers.....it's being a civilised, western democracy.
Dagnir said:
Without the less civilised nations being such a tinder box for war, I don't think we would have been warmongering nearly as much.
Dagnir said:
If the entire world was as civilised as the west, I think there would much stronger consensus that war is hell on earth. The issue is of course that a lot of countries/societies are more primitive, anti-science, less civilised etc... than we are.
Then we had...Dagnir said:
when was the last time a true western nation started a war with another western nation?
Suggesting you believe that Western nations don't fight each other because they're "civilised", not because they know that with the military arsenals they now have, any conflict between them would cause way more suffering and death amongst their own populations than those populations would be willing to tolerate.Then when you get called out on the fact that we're still perfectly capable of being bloodthirsty warmongerers, we get...
Dagnir said:
Well there are some exceptions (protecting integral international trade from the Houthis for example) and whilst yes, we do still get involved when we could choose not to....my point was about starting West v West wars.
Seemingly doubling down on the fact that in the West we must be civilised because we no longer start wars with each other!Can you really not see how I've reached the conclusions I have based on what you've written?
I don't know what you mean by a "true" Western nation - maybe not counting the Balkan conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, or not counting the Soviet Union/Russia because they're in the East? - but whatever, you're correct in that there haven't been (m)any direct West vs West conflicts since the end of WW2, but take a look at the post-war history of US regime change in Latin America and tell me how civilised you think they've been there? Would Britain have gone to war to reclaim the Falklands had the Americans not supported the coup that put the Argentine Junta in place, for example?
I'll grant that you're possibly not wrong in believing that being a democracy makes a country less inclined to war (although the fact that Hitler was democratically elected might suggest that prosperity more than democracy is the thing that really counts) so what might have happened if we and the Americans hadn't overthrown the last democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 in an ultimately futile bid to protect British oil interests and broader Imperial existence in the region?
So many people are so quick to blame Islam for being uncivilised and warmongering, but arguably pretty much all Islamic extremism today stems from a reaction to that act and the Western imposition of the State of Israel in 1947. The latter, of course, was completely well-meaning and civilised, albeit without fully considering the potential consequences, but the former was reprehensible and not something that any civilised nation should be doing.
In your mind who do I think is more civilised than others then? And what's your insinuation with you're statement that "I've made it clear"?
That sounds like prejudice from you to be honest, as I've given tangible reasons for why some nations are less civilised (anti-science for example)...am I wrong? And why does that wind you up so much?
The post you've clipped about the Houthis was me agreeing that the west are warmongering in other nations but that the Houthi situation was an exception and justified.....you seem to think I was saying the opposite?
I also haven't gone into the reasons particularly, other than being a wsstern democracy....which you have agreed with. I havent said were civilised because we don't start wars with one another. So again, I'm confused....you seem to be agreeing with me but also annoyed at things I haven't said. There are many other reasons why we have protection from war; military strength, NATO, international relations/kickback. I have never denied any of those points (because they're all true) but you seem to think I am....again confusing.
Finally you've brought up Islam for some reason and let's be honest you think I'm being racist....but I haven't mentioned race or Islam once. That's your prejudices again I'm afraid.
All I've expressed are simply factual statements. Essentially I think it all boils down to you not being able to take what I've written literally and convincing yourself I'm racist by inserting your own prejudices where they don't belong.
Dagnir said:
Yes, we've been discussing the subject of civilised nations and so inevitably it's been mentioned several times during said discussion....what's your point?
In your mind who do I think is more civilised than others then? And what's your insinuation with you're statement that "I've made it clear"?
That sounds like prejudice from you to be honest, as I've given tangible reasons for why some nations are less civilised (anti-science for example)...am I wrong? And why does that wind you up so much?
The post you've clipped about the Houthis was me agreeing that the west are warmongering in other nations but that the Houthi situation was an exception and justified.....you seem to think I was saying the opposite?
I also haven't gone into the reasons particularly, other than being a wsstern democracy....which you have agreed with. I havent said were civilised because we don't start wars with one another. So again, I'm confused....you seem to be agreeing with me but also annoyed at things I haven't said. There are many other reasons why we have protection from war; military strength, NATO, international relations/kickback. I have never denied any of those points (because they're all true) but you seem to think I am....again confusing.
Finally you've brought up Islam for some reason and let's be honest you think I'm being racist....but I haven't mentioned race or Islam once. That's your prejudices again I'm afraid.
All I've expressed are simply factual statements. Essentially I think it all boils down to you not being able to take what I've written literally and convincing yourself I'm racist by inserting your own prejudices where they don't belong.
I may well be misreading your thoughts. Given some of the vitriol spewed out from many NP&E inhabitants, I'd hope you can understand that.In your mind who do I think is more civilised than others then? And what's your insinuation with you're statement that "I've made it clear"?
That sounds like prejudice from you to be honest, as I've given tangible reasons for why some nations are less civilised (anti-science for example)...am I wrong? And why does that wind you up so much?
The post you've clipped about the Houthis was me agreeing that the west are warmongering in other nations but that the Houthi situation was an exception and justified.....you seem to think I was saying the opposite?
I also haven't gone into the reasons particularly, other than being a wsstern democracy....which you have agreed with. I havent said were civilised because we don't start wars with one another. So again, I'm confused....you seem to be agreeing with me but also annoyed at things I haven't said. There are many other reasons why we have protection from war; military strength, NATO, international relations/kickback. I have never denied any of those points (because they're all true) but you seem to think I am....again confusing.
Finally you've brought up Islam for some reason and let's be honest you think I'm being racist....but I haven't mentioned race or Islam once. That's your prejudices again I'm afraid.
All I've expressed are simply factual statements. Essentially I think it all boils down to you not being able to take what I've written literally and convincing yourself I'm racist by inserting your own prejudices where they don't belong.
A lot of it also hung on the combination of "civilised nations" and pushing on people to come up with West vs West wars.
Who are you viewing as "science deniers", btw? Given that 78% of Americans believe either in straight creationism or that God controls human evolution, surely they have to be on the list?
Kermit power said:
Dagnir said:
Yes, we've been discussing the subject of civilised nations and so inevitably it's been mentioned several times during said discussion....what's your point?
In your mind who do I think is more civilised than others then? And what's your insinuation with you're statement that "I've made it clear"?
That sounds like prejudice from you to be honest, as I've given tangible reasons for why some nations are less civilised (anti-science for example)...am I wrong? And why does that wind you up so much?
The post you've clipped about the Houthis was me agreeing that the west are warmongering in other nations but that the Houthi situation was an exception and justified.....you seem to think I was saying the opposite?
I also haven't gone into the reasons particularly, other than being a wsstern democracy....which you have agreed with. I havent said were civilised because we don't start wars with one another. So again, I'm confused....you seem to be agreeing with me but also annoyed at things I haven't said. There are many other reasons why we have protection from war; military strength, NATO, international relations/kickback. I have never denied any of those points (because they're all true) but you seem to think I am....again confusing.
Finally you've brought up Islam for some reason and let's be honest you think I'm being racist....but I haven't mentioned race or Islam once. That's your prejudices again I'm afraid.
All I've expressed are simply factual statements. Essentially I think it all boils down to you not being able to take what I've written literally and convincing yourself I'm racist by inserting your own prejudices where they don't belong.
I may well be misreading your thoughts. Given some of the vitriol spewed out from many NP&E inhabitants, I'd hope you can understand that.In your mind who do I think is more civilised than others then? And what's your insinuation with you're statement that "I've made it clear"?
That sounds like prejudice from you to be honest, as I've given tangible reasons for why some nations are less civilised (anti-science for example)...am I wrong? And why does that wind you up so much?
The post you've clipped about the Houthis was me agreeing that the west are warmongering in other nations but that the Houthi situation was an exception and justified.....you seem to think I was saying the opposite?
I also haven't gone into the reasons particularly, other than being a wsstern democracy....which you have agreed with. I havent said were civilised because we don't start wars with one another. So again, I'm confused....you seem to be agreeing with me but also annoyed at things I haven't said. There are many other reasons why we have protection from war; military strength, NATO, international relations/kickback. I have never denied any of those points (because they're all true) but you seem to think I am....again confusing.
Finally you've brought up Islam for some reason and let's be honest you think I'm being racist....but I haven't mentioned race or Islam once. That's your prejudices again I'm afraid.
All I've expressed are simply factual statements. Essentially I think it all boils down to you not being able to take what I've written literally and convincing yourself I'm racist by inserting your own prejudices where they don't belong.
A lot of it also hung on the combination of "civilised nations" and pushing on people to come up with West vs West wars.
Who are you viewing as "science deniers", btw? Given that 78% of Americans believe either in straight creationism or that God controls human evolution, surely they have to be on the list?
M5-911 said:
Kermit power said:
Dagnir said:
Yes, we've been discussing the subject of civilised nations and so inevitably it's been mentioned several times during said discussion....what's your point?
In your mind who do I think is more civilised than others then? And what's your insinuation with you're statement that "I've made it clear"?
That sounds like prejudice from you to be honest, as I've given tangible reasons for why some nations are less civilised (anti-science for example)...am I wrong? And why does that wind you up so much?
The post you've clipped about the Houthis was me agreeing that the west are warmongering in other nations but that the Houthi situation was an exception and justified.....you seem to think I was saying the opposite?
I also haven't gone into the reasons particularly, other than being a wsstern democracy....which you have agreed with. I havent said were civilised because we don't start wars with one another. So again, I'm confused....you seem to be agreeing with me but also annoyed at things I haven't said. There are many other reasons why we have protection from war; military strength, NATO, international relations/kickback. I have never denied any of those points (because they're all true) but you seem to think I am....again confusing.
Finally you've brought up Islam for some reason and let's be honest you think I'm being racist....but I haven't mentioned race or Islam once. That's your prejudices again I'm afraid.
All I've expressed are simply factual statements. Essentially I think it all boils down to you not being able to take what I've written literally and convincing yourself I'm racist by inserting your own prejudices where they don't belong.
I may well be misreading your thoughts. Given some of the vitriol spewed out from many NP&E inhabitants, I'd hope you can understand that.In your mind who do I think is more civilised than others then? And what's your insinuation with you're statement that "I've made it clear"?
That sounds like prejudice from you to be honest, as I've given tangible reasons for why some nations are less civilised (anti-science for example)...am I wrong? And why does that wind you up so much?
The post you've clipped about the Houthis was me agreeing that the west are warmongering in other nations but that the Houthi situation was an exception and justified.....you seem to think I was saying the opposite?
I also haven't gone into the reasons particularly, other than being a wsstern democracy....which you have agreed with. I havent said were civilised because we don't start wars with one another. So again, I'm confused....you seem to be agreeing with me but also annoyed at things I haven't said. There are many other reasons why we have protection from war; military strength, NATO, international relations/kickback. I have never denied any of those points (because they're all true) but you seem to think I am....again confusing.
Finally you've brought up Islam for some reason and let's be honest you think I'm being racist....but I haven't mentioned race or Islam once. That's your prejudices again I'm afraid.
All I've expressed are simply factual statements. Essentially I think it all boils down to you not being able to take what I've written literally and convincing yourself I'm racist by inserting your own prejudices where they don't belong.
A lot of it also hung on the combination of "civilised nations" and pushing on people to come up with West vs West wars.
Who are you viewing as "science deniers", btw? Given that 78% of Americans believe either in straight creationism or that God controls human evolution, surely they have to be on the list?
Kermit power said:
I may well be misreading your thoughts. Given some of the vitriol spewed out from many NP&E inhabitants, I'd hope you can understand that.
A lot of it also hung on the combination of "civilised nations" and pushing on people to come up with West vs West wars.
Who are you viewing as "science deniers", btw? Given that 78% of Americans believe either in straight creationism or that God controls human evolution, surely they have to be on the list?
Yeah religion/faith is the main factor here. Spiritual healers, voodoo, outlandish calls/duty from god etc....A lot of it also hung on the combination of "civilised nations" and pushing on people to come up with West vs West wars.
Who are you viewing as "science deniers", btw? Given that 78% of Americans believe either in straight creationism or that God controls human evolution, surely they have to be on the list?
They're incredible numbers about the US! Really highlights the absolute hypocritical nonsense that is religion. I would say Christianity has probably modernised more successfully than other religions (in some parts of the world anyway) and the scope of beliefs would be an factor but you could make the case that certain fanatically devout Christian groups are anti-science, yes.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff