Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

must we kill to win?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


...errr. welcome to the metaphysics forum. or in "political madness" speak, "mickey mouse" land.

survival IS winning. I said in my op this presents some difficult problems for me. so you have not shown my argument to be inconsistent. also. I did not say that I am "anti gun". I am NOT anti gun. I would never use one myself, but I do not enforce my beliefs or will upon others.

please take this nonsense back to "political madness"...you and your buddies should try harder to stop infesting this entire website with your vile manner. and, in general, you shouldn't talk to people that way....even on the internet.




posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Society has cheapened sport and all competition and I'm afraid a growing number of people who feel like "losers" is entering the adult world broken and afraid because of it.


Many feel this way because they have been told throughout their childhood that they were "Special" and they recieved trophies and ribbons for particpating.

Then they entered the real world.

WAK! Time to wake up Sunshine!



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


I am already familiar with the laundry list of why rewarding the losers of a competition can be a bad thing. I even agree that having a society full of "special snowflakes" can get tedious. except that we undeniably ARE each of us special and unique and I find the attachment of self worth to competitive performance to be a repulsive concept.

most times in a competitive situation I will volunteer to lose just to not have to deal with the assholes.

I would enjou the company of a special snowflake over competitive asshole anyday.
edit on 18-1-2013 by tgidkp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
being that winning, itself, is the biological imperative, it seems at once to be the most and least obvious of all conspiracies. if any group seeks to conspire, it is surely to WIN some thing or another.

families ...
communities ...
corporations ...
bullies ...
gangs ...
sports teams ...
...all, in it to win it.

being the classic "born loser", it's that last one there (sports) that turned me off to the whole notion of competition which, over several decades of living, has turned me into a pacifist in the truest sense. I simply do not care to win. anything. ever. (...and I HATE football season.)

as you might guess, this has introduced many distinct problems into my life. but the reason I write this is not because of the problems, but because of the benefits. and in my own way, I am putting my own voice into this god-awful atrocious "gun debate".


so, being that it HAS BEEN the biological imperative for aeons, must it continue to be so?

I have long been fond of the idea that the "next phase" of evolution will rely not upon physical survival, which along with guns and wars, will become a relic of the past. no, the future is the evolution of ideas and information. it's the losers, the poor kids that get their butts kicked on the playground and those whom are least "fit" in the darwinian sense, that pave the way to a utopian star-trek type society.

we're sure as hell not going to get there with GUNS.

perhaps the reason people cling to their guns is because they have not made peace with their inner loser?


Famous last words of a loser? You prophet evolution as a change for the better, but doesn't evolution tout survival of the fittest? Your pacifism is not a choice, it is a level of appeasement that you believe makes life more manageable. You need to reach down and pull yourself up from the boot straps, and if necessary, reach your hand down between your legs and make sure you still got a pair.
mostly in jest, but yeah, man up!



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


I consider myself to be a fairly mellow guy at most times. But I have always enjoyed competition. I don't mind losing as long as I don't get my butt handed to me as long as my competitor knows he/she was in a good fight/game. Those are learning moments as well.

I believe that people being pacifists is a good thing as they help keep things in perspective. When one company absorbs another, they are "killing" off the competition. Even cook-offs are competitive.

Competition doesn't have to involve killing (well, maybe figuratively) and is quite often fun. I have "won" more chili cook-offs than lost. Always have a great time as well. I also get some great recipes as well.
edit on 18-1-2013 by TDawgRex because: Hmmm...all thumbs it seems.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


This is indeed the metaphysical forum.

Why do you insist on denying the truth, even with your very own words? What true agenda do you have, that you can freely using the 1st amendment to ATTEMPT to fool sensitive others to your blatant and obvious BS?

Have you read your own first post? You stand here now and try to wheedle your way out with semantics? Isn't the gun debate issue that was why you made you attempt here?

If I am considered 'vile' by you, I would take it as a compliment, comming from you who have far more sinister motives upon ATS members.

This forum is not for your obvious attempt to spout your BS. ATS ALL forums are meant to deny ignorances. Do have some decency, and show responsibility for your words posted. Freedom of speech comes with responsibiilty, in every forum here, if not intelligence, of which is comprehensible to all whom have patience.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
True and complete pacifism is an immoral position, you might want to reconsider it. I dislike fighting but have on a couple of instances been morally obligated to try. There are conceivable (although fortunately highly improbable in the UK) circumstances where i might feel morally obligated to take action that could credibly result in death. If you cant think of any you need to think harder. If you can conceive them but still maintain you wouldn't at least try, on principle, then you probably aren't a very good person.

The base biological drive is survival and usually the desire to pass something on into the future, even if its subconscious (the most obvious manifestation is biological reproduction but in some individuals that desire manifests in less direct ways). We all feel that drive to an extent. If you didn't why would you bother to get out of bed and eat/drink. Why not just die out of pure apathy?

On top of the base motivation there are others, that differ by personality type and upbringing. This is fortunate because it takes all sorts for a well functioning human society. A society consisting of entirely ambitious competitive ruthless individualists would be just as doomed as one built entirely of laid back dreamers. Everybody would be too busy scheming and fighting for anything good to get done (See Washington DC for an example of how bad that would be).

I'm not naturally competitive for the sake of it either. I don't feel a burning need to win in all cases. In school I would be best summed by the words 'entirely unremarkable'. I’m competitive only when i think its important, not when I am told it is. Thats mostly only in defense/support of individuals/groups I feel personally obligated to and/or things I believe in.

Winning is finding out what you like doing and being able to find sufficient time and money in your life to do it. If you can make money doing it your pretty much as well off as a human can be.

Losing is spending your whole life until you’re old and broken doing something you detest.

In the Darwinian sense ‘fittest’ is simply best adapted to the environment and most able to procreate. Its got nothing to do with how fast you run or how much you can bench press. It hasn't had much correlation to physical prowess since we stopped having to run down mammoths with spears. You can make an argument that these days it doesn't correlate with intellect either and that deadbeats gaming the system and cranking out 10 kids to be paid for by others are the fittest in our society. They are the best adapted to breed in the system.

Guns are simply tools that facilitate the complete decoupling of physical prowess from destructive potential. Where there are people there will always be a certain proportion of the population that are criminal or deranged. With this in mind, what it boils down to IMHO is that you don't want to be either:

A) Physically weak and isolated in a non gun owning society;
B) Without a gun in a society where guns are widespread.

Both of those are bad for your safety. America either goes 2 ways from here

1) Transitions to a non gun owning society (practically impossible at this point IMHO)
2) Lower the probability that any one crazy gun owner will find himself alone with a large group of non gun owners. If you are going to have widespread gun ownership you want gun ownership in the law abiding as close to 100% as possible and you want to as far as possible weed out the crazies.

A half hearted attempt at option 1 will make things worse.

I am quite happy living in the UK without a gun, but if I lived in the USA owning one and being proficient in its use would seem unavoidable to me. I cant see the logic in not having one when others can.

Wrote more here than i originally intended hope it doesnt ramble too much :-)
edit on 18-1-2013 by justwokeup because: typo



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


Perhaps pacifism isn't the right term. I'm sure (I hope) you would become aggressive when it mattered most, ie. when it comes to life and limb.

I would guess you are developing an existential outlook. Think Sartre's Nausea. I say this because I think you notice the absolute absurdity of the system we live within, one where competition is the norm, one where it's encouraged to own as much firepower as possible; it brings up such imagery as people climbing over each other to reach some sort of non-existent goal.

The only thing an existentialist can do is to repudiate the system, to see it for what it is—an absurdity ran by half-wits. One must step away from the herd mentality. Separate yourself from whatever labels they put on you and instead create yourself. One needs to shift his entire perspective to do this, but this outlook transports one outside and above the rat race where he can look at the entire mess and laugh with a clean conscience. We aren't products the system. We aren't guilty by association. Carlin was like this. Nietzsche was like this.

The rat-race isn't only a source of misery, it's an artistic muse and a great source of humour.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   
As long as you have a government you will never be free. The only way to deter further enslavement is with power. Weapons in the context of recent events, is your power over those who would enslave you. Choosing to lay down your defense will not stop them from ruling you. Without a gun, you won't have a voice.

I wish the world was free, but as long as we are controlled, we have to play by the rules of that game. It is a game where freedom has to be defended.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by onthedownlow
 


Why cant fittest, be the most compassionate?

In societies that seems to be the case... but yet again i blame the bible for making people to stupid to see that... just like jesus did.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   
War and peace can coexist if one is at peace with being at war. Fear and peace, on the other hand, cannot.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Id say that russia and america have been in a state of fear and peace for quite a while.

But weapons that insure mutual destruction have that effect on people.....



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


Peace is not the absence of War, peace is the absence of fear and hate.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Id say its alot more complicated than that.... but im not riding ghandis coat tails so i dont have to turn my world views into single sentances.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


Peace is a state of mind. It's not dependent on external circumstances.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


thank you very much for taking the time to truly understand my current position. the bit about gun control is really only a side note to my main point.

while reading what you wrote, my initial response was "been there, done that". but your last line there about finding humor etc felt like a punch to the gut. there have been many times in my life when my "self-made" perspective has been very rewarding and even joyful. but right now, the weather and the guns debate are giving a one-two punch to my psyche, and I feel absolutely buried. I don't think I have ever felt so completely disillusioned.

I do have this dream of a utopia. and I cannot help but feel like its completely within grasp, but we are all so stuck in the "old ways" that a simple change in perspective becomes a chasm impossible to cross. I have been to the other side. hell, I LIVE on the other side. but is sure is difficult to find any joy in complete isolation.

I suppose I should try to snap out of it. but part of me doesn't want to.

thanks for the advice.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by Unity_99
 


these days, killing (dying) seems much less noble and much more like rooting for "your team".

but I will admit that naivete is an unpleasant side-effect of pacifism. I do not wish for good people to die.
edit on 18-1-2013 by tgidkp because: (no reason given)



In order to be a pacifist , you must have the capacity and ability to effectively use violence as a tool and make a conscious choice not to. If you don't possess either of those and cower when faced with the threat of violence, that would make you a coward. (Not you op, I mean that in a general sense)
edit on 19-1-2013 by EyesWideShut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 


you use the word "obligation" several times. I so thoroughly oppose that concept that a feeling of obligation toward anything (even morally "good") will hit the OFF switch on my entire being.

you said that this makes me not a very good person. I do not feel particularly compelled to self identify as "good" or to honor commonly accepted social morals. so, no. I am not really a very good guy (I guess). but I am totally rational and I pride myself on being perfectly reasonable.

while I understand and appreciate much of what you say (you are well spoken and quite clear), I just do not agree that aggression is worthwhile, even in defense of the self. so I can imagine that my overall perspective must sound pretty disagreeable to most people that read it.

thanks for your input.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by EyesWideShut
 


that is a very interesting point.

it was actually during the period of my army enlistment that I completely embraced my voluntary loser approach. ironically, the last time I was on the firing range I qualified as a sharpshooter.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by EyesWideShut
 


that is a very interesting point.

it was actually during the period of my army enlistment that I completely embraced my voluntary loser approach. ironically, the last time I was on the firing range I qualified as a sharpshooter.


Anyone can punch paper friend ,only you know in your heart of hearts what you're committed to do. Keep in mind that we're on earth and we're animals. (Primates) you have human emotions and you're here to have a human experience. In your next incarnation you can worry about being something else, you can only go so far on this rock.






top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join