I am penguinophobic

[Rick Dangerous]

As a biologist, I understand such a thing is not possible. Unless you're some kind of crazy creationist, you should know that humans are animals, and animals fight, it's nature. Perhaps we may try and diguise it by claiming to be 'civilised', but history and biology have both deemed your suggestion impossible. If we gave up our armies, it'd be back to fighting with sharp sticks and blunt tools- we're never going to get any more pacifist than we are now, it's not in our nature.

 

EDIT- I've never encountered any of those 10 member shambles of a group before, they're a complete joke. I live in a Conservative stronghold- no overtly Labour, Lib Dem or BNP supporters for miles around! It's always nice, especially when your MP refuses to resign depite wasting your hard earned notes on irrelevant commodities!

 

But as a biologist you only study things that happen in the past. Biology can not predict the future so you cant rules out that such a thing is impossible you can only hypothesize.

 

Btw Im not a creationist

[danny]

But as a biologist you only study things that happen in the past. Biology can not predict the future so you cant rules out that such a thing is impossible you can only hypothesize.

 

Btw Im not a creationist

 

Not impossible but very very unlikely

[navarre]

But as a biologist you only study things that happen in the past. Biology can not predict the future so you cant rules out that such a thing is impossible you can only hypothesize.

 

Btw Im not a creationist

 

You mean by evolution? Hmm, if that did happen, man would have a bloody big dilemma on its hands. War is the triumph of the strong over the poor, almost always in relation to some sort of resources. We couldn't just hand over our weapons and then expect to get enough to eat- there'd be no war and far less killing to keep the population at bay, and besides, some people would be greedy and take more than they need- with no armies to stop them, there'd be no competition.

 

*Edit- unless we evolved into creatures that didn't require nutrients or food, and then we wouldn't be living things by definition. But Physics says that can't happen with its laws of conservation, unless, of course, we developed chloroplasts and photosynthesised- but then we'd still need minerals and water.

 

This is too complicated.

Edited May 28, 2009 by navarre

[Nicktendo]

As a biologist, I understand such a thing is not possible.

 

It's an idea. I accepted long ago that it's all it will ever be

[Paj!]

I don't think the existance of military forces is a bad idea, obviously I feel it's regrettably necessary in some form. A lot of pointless conflict around the world comes from religion, which is not "natural" or embedded in our nature (just our desperate need to believe in something to give our lives purpose. Whether that means blowing up thousands of people and youself for the "promise" of 100 virgins in heavens or just a "guarantee" that you'll get into "heaven").

[Chris the great]

I don't think the existance of military forces is a bad idea, obviously I feel it's regrettably necessary in some form. A lot of pointless conflict around the world comes from religion, which is not "natural" or embedded in our nature (just our desperate need to believe in something to give our lives purpose. Whether that means blowing up thousands of people and youself for the "promise" of 100 virgins in heavens or just a "guarantee" that you'll get into "heaven").

 

religion itself isnt to blaim, i mean, i reacall hearing the the word islam means peace. ive known people of various religions who get along swimmingly, neither sucide bombing the outher at any point. the thing is, religion is often used to spur people on. i mean if some one says "go blow your self up, kill them" id be aprehensive, but if they were like "you'l get a ton of virgin in heaven, all for your self!" and i actualy belived them, well id be more insighted to do it. but remeber, who is saying it, and why? religion is just a catalyst, people in the midle east who hate us dont just hate us for our religion, they hate us for our lifestyle, for the explotiation we put upon them. paying people a pitence to work isnt fair, yet our corperations openly do it. hell, im guilty, as is i iamgine every one here, of purchasing goods produced by people working for scarcly enough to feed them selves, let alone family. i guess its the right of entry into our lifestyle.

 

as for violence being human nature, i totaly agree. as much as id like to think we could get to a stage when we disscuss our problems, but alas, one single truth remains. you can disscuss untill your blue in the face, make the strongest arguments, have the moral right and still, its no argument against the fist. quick example from my life, a friend was being a dick, winding me up, making me feel worthless. i asked him to stop, argued why he should stop, gave him a list of reason why he should pack it in. he didnt. in the end, all i could do was give him the ultimatem. stop what your doing or i'll punch you in the face. that worked. in the end, the strong will pray on the weak. its how evolution works.

 

just in closing, my views on the army are best said by geroge orwell

"We sleep safely in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf."

[ipaul]

Is this thread anywhere near immigration right now? :S

[Chris the great]

Is this thread anywhere near immigration right now? :S

 

vaigly. the whole bnp was inderectly linked as it would be bnp polocy for no no white imigration. the racism is linked to imigration as imigrants are of different races. the talk of the army is just a side note.

 

then again, why should we have to stick strictly to the topic guidelines? its a conversation and should be free to grow and evolve. as long as it stay serious and dosent just decend into a slanging match, why would it matter?

[Kirkatronics]

well, research would surgest this isnt normaly the case.

 

i dont think its discrimination to not alow racists to be policmen, like i dont belive its discrimination to not alow the handicapped into the army, or the blind to drive. its simply common sense. having a police officer with pre existing belifes about different racial groups will prevent them from being an impartial mediator. simply put, you cant expect people who are naturaly hostile towards a racial group to suddenly lose there hostility because they put on their work clothes.

What research would this be? What about the racist people, like my friends dad, who are racist but wouldnt openly admit it to anyone. Hes a Police Sergant, and he doesnt let it effect his judgement.

You cant use evidence which you dont prove.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Kirkatronics

[Rick Dangerous]

You mean by evolution? Hmm, if that did happen, man would have a bloody big dilemma on its hands. War is the triumph of the strong over the poor, almost always in relation to some sort of resources. We couldn't just hand over our weapons and then expect to get enough to eat- there'd be no war and far less killing to keep the population at bay, and besides, some people would be greedy and take more than they need- with no armies to stop them, there'd be no competition.

 

*Edit- unless we evolved into creatures that didn't require nutrients or food, and then we wouldn't be living things by definition. But Physics says that can't happen with its laws of conservation, unless, of course, we developed chloroplasts and photosynthesised- but then we'd still need minerals and water.

 

This is too complicated.

 

I would disagree war is the triumph of the strong over the weak. The way nature competes in evolution is not the same as the insanity of war. For example a 'weak stupid man' with a gun could easily kill a 'intelligent strong man'.

 

Although alot of people are killed in war the main cause of death must surely be small in comparision to disease which would still be there. I dont think we would be suddenly over run with people. Plus you never know if a person killed in war is going to be the next Einstein, Tesla, etc.

 

Think of all the effort that goes into war not just the people fighting but the manufacture and design of weapons, transportation, strategy, propaganda etc. There are some very clever people involved in these industries, frankly doing the wrong thing. The whole situation may seem unpleasant at first but a turn around could happen quickly.

 

I could go on you may think im being naive or stupid but its this or a slow circling of the plug hole for humanity.

[Chris the great]

What research would this be? What about the racist people, like my friends dad, who are racist but wouldnt openly admit it to anyone. Hes a Police Sergant, and he doesnt let it effect his judgement.

You cant use evidence which you dont prove.

 

i cant actualy provide the evidence as i no longer have the text books/experemental write ups and have long since forgotten the names of the researchers involved. either take me at my word and assume im a big enough person not to just make up research evidence to prove my point, or dont. really dont care.

 

i can give an outline of an experement that showed how racism may affect police work. a picture is shown to participants of a black amn and a white man arguing. the white man is holding a knife. when asked to recall the photo, many people were positive that it was the black man who held the knife.

 

btw, you do realise that you stating your friend's dad's case is not evidence either right? we are simply taking your word for it.

 

I would disagree war is the triumph of the strong over the weak. The way nature competes in evolution is not the same as the insanity of war. For example a 'weak stupid man' with a gun could easily kill a 'intelligent strong man'.

 

see, the man with the gun is, in that case, the stronger man. strength isnt just genetic, its somthing we can take. maybe the iraq/afgan rebles are stronger and more intelegent the british and american soilders (not saying they are, merly an example) but when faced with supiror firepower they are weaker.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Chris the great

[Kirkatronics]

i cant actualy provide the evidence as i no longer have the text books/experemental write ups and have long since forgotten the names of the researchers involved. either take me at my word and assume im a big enough person not to just make up research evidence to prove my point, or dont. really dont care.

 

i can give an outline of an experement that showed how racism may affect police work. a picture is shown to participants of a black amn and a white man arguing. the white man is holding a knife. when asked to recall the photo, many people were positive that it was the black man who held the knife.

 

btw, you do realise that you stating your friend's dad's case is not evidence either right? we are simply taking your word for it.

I didnt use it as evidence, more as an example.

Do you have proof of that study? They are feasible, but ive been taught not to believe everything i hear without proof.

[Chris the great]

I didnt use it as evidence, more as an example.

Do you have proof of that study? They are feasible, but ive been taught not to believe everything i hear without proof.

 

i dont have proof of the study, its fairly commonly used, even to a level students so some one may be able to back me up on this. i really cant be arsed to search through old essays to find the study name, researchers etc to then find it on the internet so i can then show it to you. either belive it, or dontthough let me ask you this, how can you know for certain that, not in the slightest most insignificant way, your mates dad dosent let his judgment be affected by his views, bearing in mind a whole load of our judgment is subconsious?

[Kirkatronics]

i dont have proof of the study, its fairly commonly used, even to a level students so some one may be able to back me up on this. i really cant be arsed to search through old essays to find the study name, researchers etc to then find it on the internet so i can then show it to you. either belive it, or dontthough let me ask you this, how can you know for certain that, not in the slightest most insignificant way, your mates dad dosent let his judgment be affected by his views, bearing in mind a whole load of our judgment is subconsious?

He might, but from what i know he does the job the best he can.

With neither of us having no proof theres no point in continuing to argue.

[Rick Dangerous]

see, the man with the gun is, in that case, the stronger man. strength isnt just genetic, its somthing we can take. maybe the iraq/afgan rebles are stronger and more intelegent the british and american soilders (not saying they are, merly an example) but when faced with supiror firepower they are weaker.

Exactly that man is stronger but its artificial. Its not the natural way evolution would work therefore nature's seeming brutality can't be compared to war if you see what im getting at.

 

He might, but from what i know he does the job the best he can.

With neither of us having no proof theres no point in continuing to argue.

I dont know about that particular study.

He right about decisions being subconscious. You just need to bear in mind that there is no such thing as a non prejudice viewpoint but more spectrum of grey. To what extent this would affect a policeman duty I dont know.