Conflict DOES solve everything.

[EvilGovernmentAgents]

I've been walking around, and seeing and hearing plenty of pacifists. I've seen plenty of sites dedicated to "peace" on earth. I've met plenty of people who declare "conflict is a terrible and evil thing."

What BS. It may not always be the nicest or quickest course of action, but conflict DOES solve lots and lots of problems. Can anyone think of a problem NOT able to be solved by conflict?

Martin Luther King. How did he win recognition to his cause? Police beatings and KKK brutalizings to passive people. Through all that fighting and beatings, the equality of race was truly found. And how did it come about? Would Luther have gotten the support he needed if people didn't read about little Timmy, armed with a cardboard box getting shot for being out on the street?

Human beings are inherently conflicting creatures in nature. Is that something to not or to be proud of?

[FUNKbrs]

Wait, are we talking conflict like "I'm having a conflict at work" or conflict as in "In the Congo today tribal conflicts resulted in the cannibalistic ingestion of 10000 members of the Doogu tribe"?

As Mr. Funk pointed out, what kind of conflict are you reffering to? Because war certainly doesn't solve death and starvation.

At 2/27/04 07:31 PM, EvilGovernmentAgent wrote: Human beings are inherently conflicting creatures in nature.

Source please.

[Jimsween]

At 2/27/04 10:04 PM, punk_hippy wrote: As Mr. Funk pointed out, what kind of conflict are you reffering to? Because war certainly doesn't solve death and starvation.

Yes it does, in fact it is the only soultion. Democracies don't have famines, and democracies are much safer places to live than dictatorships, and the only way to make a democracy is war. No country has ever become a democracy without conflict. If you know so much about this, why don't you give some sources of problems being solved without conflicts, or why being peacefull helps everyone.

At 2/27/04 07:31 PM, EvilGovernmentAgent wrote: Human beings are inherently conflicting creatures in nature.

Source please.

For the good of everyone, never talk again.

[lunchbxpat]

i believe that pacifism is an ideal. problems are also caused by conflict. so all you're doing is solving the problems of conflict by creating more conflict, thus creating more problems. doesn't take a genius to figure that out, but if you can't understand it, here's a for instance:

yes, martin luther king earned recognition because of conflict, but had the conflict of racism never occured, the conflict caused by the kkk would never have existed. martin luther king, god rest his soul, would have never been needed to solve the problem of racism. plus, martin luther king's weapon of choice was verbal conflict, to fight violent physical conflict. there's nothing wrong with verbal conflict, that's why we all post on these boards and that's what makes a democracy a democracy.

you can't solve a problem by making more problems. well, you can, and it's often done, but it's wrong. don't bash pacifism, it's an ideal that you obviously know nothing about. martin luther king, who you used as your defense, was a strong believer in nonviolence. he was nationally recognized because he despised the violent conflict that was going on. that's why he's a hero, because he was against violent conflict. just like pacifism.

[lunchbxpat]

At 2/27/04 11:28 PM, Jimsween wrote:

Yes it does, in fact it is the only soultion. Democracies don't have famines, and democracies are much safer places to live than dictatorships,

are you implying that democratic countries don't have poor or starving people, because i believe that that is what punkhippy was talking about, not just famines. poverty. poor people. starvation. i know that i've seen it. apparently you haven't.

[MKII]

At 2/28/04 02:26 AM, lunchbxpat wrote:

At 2/27/04 11:28 PM, Jimsween wrote:

Yes it does, in fact it is the only soultion. Democracies don't have famines, and democracies are much safer places to live than dictatorships,

All democrasies have poor, starving people, because as long as human society exists, in whatever form, these problems will sontinue to occur.

[EvilGovernmentAgents]

At 2/27/04 09:10 PM, JudgeFUNK wrote: Wait, are we talking conflict like "I'm having a conflict at work" or conflict as in "In the Congo today tribal conflicts resulted in the cannibalistic ingestion of 10000 members of the Doogu tribe"?

con·flict ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knflkt)
n.
A state of open, often prolonged fighting; a battle or war.
A state of disharmony between incompatible or antithetical persons, ideas, or interests; a clash.

Take your pick. And conflict may not be the best course of action, but it sure does fix problems. Drought? Invade another country with plenty of food.

The people in the country don't like that? Kill them all. It may not be a practical course of action, but it does work.

Think about it. Why did Martin Luther King and Ghandi actually suceed? How is the Palestinian-Israeli war going to end?

[bumcheekcity]

At 2/27/04 11:28 PM, Jimsween wrote: Yes it does, in fact it is the only soultion. Democracies don't have famines, and democracies are much safer places to live than dictatorships, and the only way to make a democracy is war.

Democracies have starving people thbough, and a famine is an act of god, really, usually due to drought etc.

[lapslf]

Russia became a democracy without war. Sure there was the whole cold war and everything, but that was not what made Russia a democracy. It was because Gorbatsjov willingly resigned. Well, so much for your "you can't get a democracy without war"-theory.

[FUNKbrs]

At 2/28/04 10:07 AM, EvilGovernmentAgent wrote: con·flict ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knflkt)
n.

A state of disharmony between incompatible or antithetical persons, ideas, or interests; a clash.

I pick this one. It requires less effort than war.

The people in the country don't like that? Kill them all. It may not be a practical course of action, but it does work.

While I agree that this DOES work, please keep in mind that you can't leave ANYONE alive. No women, no children, no invalids, nothing. And THAT, my friend, is too much like work. If you're that dedicated to murder, you might as well apply that effort towards a bloodless solution. After all, the dead don't make good slaves, do they?

Think about it. Why did Martin Luther King and Ghandi actually suceed? How is the Palestinian-Israeli war going to end?

WEEeeeellll, civil disobedience didn't actually kill anyone, although reactions to it did. But frankly, those reactions were inefficient and unecessary. The problem with the Gaza Strip situation is that barbarism has been tried first, and failed. There's no going back after that. Once people have been taught that their suffering cannot end injustice of itself, a bloodless resolution becomes impossible.

[Jimsween]

At 2/28/04 10:47 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: Democracies have starving people thbough, and a famine is an act of god, really, usually due to drought etc.

I never said they didn't, but democracies have less poor starving people. And famine is not always an act of god, famine just means a lack of food, but democracies never have famines because the people want to do what is best for them, get food, and they exersize all means to do so.

[Jimsween]

At 2/28/04 10:59 AM, Veggiemeal wrote: Russia became a democracy without war. Sure there was the whole cold war and everything, but that was not what made Russia a democracy. It was because Gorbatsjov willingly resigned. Well, so much for your "you can't get a democracy without war"-theory.

Learn your history. There were revolts in nearly all the satellite countries which caused the USSR to lose money, amoung other things. And the cold war was a conflict, if the USSR didn't fear the US's nukes, they wouldn't have built nukes, and they wouldn't have lost money. And I might add that the USSR wasn't really even close to being a democracy until just recently, Boris Yeltsin was EXTREMELY corrupt.

[lapslf]

At 2/28/04 12:44 PM, Jimsween wrote: Learn your history. There were revolts in nearly all the satellite countries which caused the USSR to lose money, amoung other things. And the cold war was a conflict, if the USSR didn't fear the US's nukes, they wouldn't have built nukes, and they wouldn't have lost money. And I might add that the USSR wasn't really even close to being a democracy until just recently, Boris Yeltsin was EXTREMELY corrupt.

Read before you speak shit. There was indeed revlolting in the CCCP, and the cold war was indeed a conflict (Like I fucking said, read you stupid yankee), but that was not what made the CCCP a democracy. It was because Gorbatsjov willingly resigned, and he was not forced so by any conflict whatsoever. And perhaps Russia is a corrupt democracy, but if you call the US a democracy, than you have to call Russia one too.

[Jimsween]

At 2/28/04 01:18 PM, Veggiemeal wrote: Read before you speak shit. There was indeed revlolting in the CCCP, and the cold war was indeed a conflict (Like I fucking said, read you stupid yankee), but that was not what made the CCCP a democracy. It was because Gorbatsjov willingly resigned, and he was not forced so by any conflict whatsoever. And perhaps Russia is a corrupt democracy, but if you call the US a democracy, than you have to call Russia one too.

And I'm saying that is not why it became a democracy. It became a democracy because it went bankrupt, simple as that. And Obviosly you know nothing about the US government. We really need another genocide to get rid of the morons.

[bumcheekcity]

At 2/28/04 12:34 PM, Jimsween wrote: And famine is not always an act of god, famine just means a lack of food, but democracies never have famines because the people want to do what is best for them, get food, and they exersize all means to do so.

Yes, but famile USUALLY [albeit not always] results in something such as a drought or severe rainfall, so people can't grow crops. If America was hit by a drought, and no rain fell for a few months, then they'd have some severe food problems. No plants, no animals... No food... Famine.

It just happines that these droughts occur in the places in which there are Dictators and poor countries anyway, so it doesn't help.

[CapitalistSocialist]

Famines are caused by government.
There has never been a famine in a democracy.

[PlugDude]

i believe that war and violence is completely unjustified.
Gvnmnts etc only use conflict cos theyre too fucking power hungry, they dont want to sort things out, they want to be the most powerful, they want to control, they dont really give a shit about poverty etc, they only make out that they do and pretend theyre doing everything they can about it to make the people think that they are living in the best way they can and that the gvnmnt is protecting them and looking after us.
Pacifism all the way, bravo Martin Luther, bravo Ghandi.

[bumcheekcity]

At 2/28/04 01:45 PM, -Jamster- wrote: Famines are caused by government.
There has never been a famine in a democracy.

You dont think the drought and lack of crops might have something to do with it.

Irish Potato Famine? They were democratic then, I believe.

[Jimsween]

At 2/28/04 01:42 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Yes, but famile USUALLY [albeit not always] results in something such as a drought or severe rainfall, so people can't grow crops. If America was hit by a drought, and no rain fell for a few months, then they'd have some severe food problems. No plants, no animals... No food... Famine.

And then they would find another way to get food, but they certainly wouldn't starve.

It just happines that these droughts occur in the places in which there are Dictators and poor countries anyway, so it doesn't help.

It happens in democratic countries too, but when it happens to them, they don't sit there with thier thumbs up thier asses.

[Jimsween]

At 2/28/04 01:59 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: You dont think the drought and lack of crops might have something to do with it.

Yes it does, but when you are starving, you will do anything to get food, simple as that.

Irish Potato Famine? They were democratic then, I believe.

I don't think so, they didn't have independence from the UK until about 1927, so any freedoms they had would have to have been given by England. And you would know more about this than I do, but did England not make all the deciscions regarding Ireland?

At 2/27/04 11:28 PM, Jimsween wrote: tra la la

Look at Africa, conflict all the time, starvation all the time.

For the good of everyone, never talk again.

What? If someone is going to make a claim on human nature I'd expect them to have read something about sociology or anthropology in general to make that claim.

[Jimsween]

At 2/28/04 04:04 PM, punk_hippy wrote:

At 2/27/04 11:28 PM, Jimsween wrote: tra la la

Look at Africa, conflict all the time, starvation all the time.

Look at the west, peacefully standing by and doing nothing. The topic is about conflict solving problems, not conflict magically makign things better for no reason.

For the good of everyone, never talk again.

What? If someone is going to make a claim on human nature I'd expect them to have read something about sociology or anthropology in general to make that claim.

You don't need to be an anthropologies or sociologist to make a judgement on human nature, human nature is something you see by looking at history. To ask for a source on something that was obviously being backed up by the previous contents of the post is just petty.

[bumcheekcity]

At 2/28/04 05:07 PM, Jimsween wrote: Look at the west, peacefully standing by and doing nothing. The topic is about conflict solving problems, not conflict magically makign things better for no reason.

Standing by and doing nothing my arse. Exploiting countries poor than theirselves would be a good representation.

[Jimsween]

At 2/28/04 05:20 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

Standing by and doing nothing my arse. Exploiting countries poor than theirselves would be a good representation.

What does that have to do with anything.

[bumcheekcity]

At 2/28/04 05:28 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 2/28/04 05:20 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Standing by and doing nothing my arse. Exploiting countries poor than theirselves would be a good representation.

What does that have to do with anything.

Eploiting them is conflict. Standing by and doing nothing isn't. Since we DO exploit them, this creates conflict, and we see them ebing bloody poor and starving. As long as we continue to do this, they will remina poor and starving.

[EvilGovernmentAgents]

At 2/28/04 12:08 PM, JudgeFUNK wrote: I pick this one. It requires less effort than war.

Is all conflict war? I don't think so.

While I agree that this DOES work, please keep in mind that you can't leave ANYONE alive. No women, no children, no invalids, nothing. And THAT, my friend, is too much like work. If you're that dedicated to murder, you might as well apply that effort towards a bloodless solution. After all, the dead don't make good slaves, do they?

That's why I said it wasn't a terribly practical solution, but yes it does work.

WEEeeeellll, civil disobedience didn't actually kill anyone, although reactions to it did.

Those reactions were what brought about Luther's goals, didn't they? I never said that you had to fight any wars to get what you want. Only through conflict will anything be accomplished. Luther just used conflict to further his cause.

The problem with the Gaza Strip situation is that barbarism has been tried first, and failed. There's no going back after that. Once people have been taught that their suffering cannot end injustice of itself, a bloodless resolution becomes impossible.

Why couldn't the Jews and Arabs live together? Who knows? Conflict may have brought about the situation now, but can there ever be a lasting and true peace after so much bloodshed and mistrust? The Israelis won't stop until they kill every last Palestinian wanting to destroy Israel, and the Palestinians won't stop until Israel is totally dead. The only way to end the war will be through conflict.

[ReddSky]

War doesnt decide who is right, it just decides who is left.

[GooieGreen]

At 2/28/04 01:45 PM, -Jamster- wrote: Famines are caused by government.
There has never been a famine in a democracy.

So the Irish Potato Famin was caused by..?

[GooieGreen]

lol, I just saw that Bum said that, too

Pretty sure it was a bug... why are we talking about famin?