reply to post by dooper
We seem to have moved quite a way from the point of this thread, but I started it, so I guess you're only being true to yourself and following your
instinct (?) to fight back when attacked. Luckily, I am quite aware of whom I'm debating and so there have been no nasty surprises, although it is
slightly concerning that you fashion a wooden club and call it a laser-gun.
I hope you don't think I'm being rude of me to say that while I can't doubt your zealousness to prove your military intellect, I'm not convinced
of its relevance to my post, particularly on those points I've taking you task on, so please accept my apologies for not responding on this.
So, 1. I have no problem with your ideology of
"Leave me and mine in peace - or not - but upon your attack, I'll take measures to ensure you
and yours will never again attack me or mine. Of that I'll make certain."
I think it is a noble ideal and I wish more people followed it.
What I did show was that when this is infringed upon, it can, and has, descended in to the "tit for tat" that you describe. Sometimes you have to be
the person to say "enough, let's stop", but your, apparent, inflexibility on this, doesn't allow for this path to be taken.
What I did take exception to was you suggesting you'd kill innocent family members who may be completely ignorant to, or vehemently opposed to, the
actions of the transgressor. From their point of view, you are the aggressor and they should be expected (by you) to retaliate against your family.
And where does that end up? Exactly, tit for tat.
2.
Rules of conflict only benefit cowards and unjust people.
Well existence is conflict, the laws we enact are there to dissuade us (in
your terms the cost/benefit principle) and limit the damage we can do to others. Laws are merely the extension of this basic individualism. Thus, how
do we know what should be tolerated on an international scale if we don't codify it? We state our expectations and (while I can understand and accept
as rational your belief that they should be less prohibitive) once agreed, it is not acceptable to break, nor condone the breaking of, these laws with
the justification that 'they did it first'.
The actions a country takes are nearly always those of it leaders, but your jingoism is aimed squarely at the people of that country and you'd have
to be a fool not to realise that this will radicalise those people against you. And here we are again, tit for tat.
3. Your analogy with vipers doesn't work (quite aside from the fact that their actions would be defensive and so technically, you or your family
would be the aggressor). If this Aesopian viper, conscious of the morality of its actions, were to bite you, you suggest you'd wipe out the entire
nest, to prevent another one biting someone else. If I asked your advice after having had a starving man rob me of my wallet, threatening me with a
gun, you'd tell me what you'd do in that situation. Now say that the person turned out to be a member of your family, do you think it fair on you,
to carry out this demonstration of the cost/benefit principle?
Say you survived my attempt; it'd be your turn, wouldn't it? And back we go to the tit for tat.
Finally, 4. Your critique of psychiatry is laughable. They just say that 'Nothing is our own fault'. You don't actually appear to have even a basic
understanding of what psychology is. I'm not sure this is thread to get involved in this, but you clearly ascribe to the power of psychology as you
talk about winning half the battle by instilling fear. We'll psychiatry taps in to these fears and tries to help people, particularly those with
irrational fears, understand those fears. In your case it would be to help you understand what informs your hateful ideology of killing innocent
people for the crimes of another, so you can moderate or control these urges.
