One Primary Cause Of Violence

[Des]

Communication is the essential link among people.
It is universal.
Verbal communication is the most frequent instrument.
There are people that act out a sense of entitlement to verbally insult, demean and denigrate
others with impunity and in complete disregard of possible consequences.
In real life, those verbal provocations very often result in physical altercation, tragedy and death.
With the advent of the internet and less face to face interaction, verbal provocations have almost become an accepted way of communication for most millennials, and chiefly among people with low self esteem, that use them as a cowardly vehicle to boost their own self worth as they are demeaning others.
In a sense, it is a free get out of jail card, as there are no real consequences.
Sure, they might get banned from a particular forum where they are venting but then again they will just join another forum and do the same thing.
What some people don 't realize is that repetitive verbal abuse eventually carries over into real life, unless it's all ready there to begin with, but it hasn't fully caught up yet.
The overall violence in USA in particular is the direct manifestation of verbal abuse, which most likely was learned behavior among children, that were either themselves abused or where privy to their parents venting on others.
For a culture to be less violent, it is imperative that children are encouraged to respect others and that verbally abusing or demeaning others is a bad thing, that could lead to very bad consequences.
I was fortunate to have good parents that instilled in me the necessity to treat others the way I want to be treated.
My dad did kind of make an amendment to that. He said " Always try to give people the benefit of doubt and respect until they openly disrespect you. When that happens, you need to make a stand. If you don't, you will always be a victim. "
Some 25 years later, I still remember my dad's words and try my best to adhere to that code.
There is no doubt in my mind that if everyone did, this world would be a nicer place.

[Yoda]

A similar phenomenon is that, because of that lack of consequences you describe, people on the Internet often lie about themselves, usually out of insecurity.

We had a member awhile back who lied incessantly, for example. And sure enough, they also did precisely what you're describing: they threatened violence on numerous occasions. It was all hot air, of course: nothing ever happened. They presumably made the threats out of a feeling of impotence, and felt comfortable doing it for the reasons you just explained: no face-to-face interaction, no consequences.

He actually had similar complaints as you: he liked to talk about people hiding behind screens. The deep irony, of course, was that hiding behind a screen was what enabled him to tell those lies and threaten that violence. So it's a real problem, and it's particularly insidious because the people who take the most advantage of it like to project that fact out onto others, usually without realizing how much they rely on it themselves.

[Yoda]

The more I think about it, the more I realize you're describing this guy to a tee. You've got a lot of insight into this type of person. I wish you'd been around when he was!

[Des]

Maybe it's good I was not. Would not want to get banned for an internet war.
I probably would have just put him on my ignore list, as I have done to some that I felt were personally provocative.
I do not know how seriously one could take some one that is a strictly an internet connection.
It's most likely that I would disassociate myself once an individual starts threatening and ridiculing.
Also some people just aren't on the same wave length, so what's the point of discussing any thing with them.
And then there are people that can't help personalizing a controversial topic.
Controversial topics are part of our social fabric and we should not ignore them.
Especially when we disagree, we should remain logical and civil and when we can't do that and start resorting to name calling and banal insults and generalizations, it's time to end dialogue.
Different people have different reasons for being on forums.
I just want to contribute and learn without hassle.
I am aware that there are people that have opposing views, but they certainly should not hate me for having mine.
I am open minded enough not to hate them.
We are all the sum of our experience, whatever that may be, and based on that, we form our opinions.
Opinions are not fact. They are just opinions.
If life was math, we wouldn't be having conversations.
As some one once said, wouldn't be cool if we all could just get along!
But I know that would be utopia and I have yet to find it.

[Camo]

Man i love this thread so much :D

[Yoda]

I do not know how seriously one could take some one that is a strictly an internet connection.
I know, right? But he took it really seriously. Imagine feeling so angry and frustrated that you would threaten someone physically because you didn't like what they were saying. Or sending unsolicited emails and creating new alt accounts years later. That's how seriously he took it.

You'd have to have some serious issues to spend so much time and effort trying to impress strangers, but apparently such people exist. And they never know when to quit.

Different people have different reasons for being on forums.
Very true. Most just want to talk to people, but others are trying to fill some deep pit of insecurity. You can usually spot them by their propensity to shoehorn in self-aggrandizing personal details, or draw attention to themselves.

And then there are people that can't help personalizing a controversial topic.
Oh yeah. Like when they act like they're talking about some general cultural topic, but it's actually just a clumsy, obvious way to take a swipe at someone.

[Des]

I don't know all the details but it would appear to me that you still have some personal issues with some one from your past.
You do realize, that you are interjecting that in to my posts.
What exactly is it that I say or do that brings back those negative memories?
I certainly bear you no ill will.

[Captain Steel]

I wonder if the world is any more violent than it's always been, but it just seems that way to our age of mass communication because we are able to get reports of violence much faster and from many more places (plus the fact that it's a topic the media focuses on more than others)?

I'm sure the dawn of civilization brought about a major lessening in overall violence. Prior to that, I imagine when one group came upon another, the reaction was probably just to attack (out of fear they'd attack you, take your territory and your food sources) and beat on the opposing group until one side won.

So, I guess my point is to question the premise of the OP. Not disagreeing, just questioning - I'm no stranger to distrusting and criticizing technology, but is it (and the apparent disaffection it seems to be causing) really making the world more violent, or does its capacity to increase communication on a global level compensate for or balance out any violence that results from people becoming isolated, estranged, and disconnected from dealing with others on a personal level?

[Des]

I wonder if the world is any more violent than it's always been, but it just seems that way to our age of mass communication because we are able to get reports of violence much faster and from many more places (plus the fact that it's a topic the media focuses on more than others)?

I'm sure the dawn civilization brought about a major lessening in overall violence. Prior to that, I imagine when one group came upon another, the reaction was probably just to attack (out of fear they'd attack you, take your territory and your food sources) and beat on the opposing group until one side won.

So, I guess my point is to question the premise of the OP. Not disagreeing, just questioning - I'm no stranger to distrusting and criticizing technology, but is it (and the apparent disaffection it seems to be causing) really making the world more violent, or does its capacity to increase communication on a global level compensate for or balance out any violence that results from people becoming isolated, estranged, and disconnected from dealing with others on a personal level?

Unfortunately, the clear answer to your question is that technology ( internet ) is contributing to a personal disconnect.
There is a different code of behavior on the net as opposed to face to face.
Not only is there more lying and pretending but there is a culture of verbally aggressive behavior that was not that prevalent in real life interaction.
These individuals get so used to it on the net, that they fail to make the distinction in real life, which leads to more violence.
I remember from my dad's life that in his time respect and a man's word meant something.
People were more aware of " fighting words " so they did not use them as often.
Technology has also contributed to the invention of automatic weapons that are now used to take out huge numbers of individuals, in " peace " time.

[Yoda]

I don't know all the details but it would appear to me that you still have some personal issues with some one from your past.
Nah. He sure has issues with me, though, given that he can't let it go and keeps contacting me. In one form or another.

What exactly is it that I say or do that brings back those negative memories?
Oh, they're not negative. They're amusing.

Only reason they're brought to mind is because they describe him so perfectly: everything he said and did he was only able to do because of the anonymity and lack of consequences you described. So when someone describes the false machismo of a keyboard warrior, and the impotent rage it's covering for, my mind just goes right there.

[Captain Steel]

Yikes. I feel like I inadvertently stepped into the middle of some sort of private feud with a lot of indirect metaphorical speech being applied.

Anyway, overall violence also has to be considered by scale. We now have over 7 billion people on the planet, more than the planet's ever had before at one time (overcrowding always contributes to violence in the animal kingdom - so that's an additional factor). But I wonder, if we take scale into consideration, if things are really more violent now than they've ever been?

[Velvet]

I cant imagine how confused some people will be reading this

[Des]

Anyway, overall violence also has to be considered by scale. We now have over 7 billion people on the planet, more than the planet's ever had before at one time (overcrowding always contributes to violence in the animal kingdom - so that's an additional factor). But I wonder, if we take scale into consideration, if things are really more violent now than they've ever been?

Maybe some statistician could give you the answer to your question.
My point was that verbal abuse is one of the primary factors that contribute to violence.
Words have caused wars and continue to do so.
In peace time now, because of the advent of media and communication on a large scale, words are even a bigger contributor to violence.
All you have to do is look at one example: Isis recruitment on the internet. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[gandalf26]

Nah. He sure has issues with me, though, given that he can't let it go and keeps contacting me. In one form or another.


Oh, they're not negative. They're amusing.

Only reason they're brought to mind is because they describe him so perfectly: everything he said and did he was only able to do because of the anonymity and lack of consequences you described. So when someone describes the false machismo of a keyboard warrior, and the impotent rage it's covering for, my mind just goes right there.

Is it the Brando guy from China?

[Cynema De Bergerac]

I cant imagine how confused some people will be reading this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWExglZmVOY

[Cynema De Bergerac]

This thread...

http://s.storage.akamai.coub.com/get/b136/p/coub/simple/cw_timeline_pic/d8cf97f8106/e82a96a7dbbb931e863cc/big_1473826507_image.jpg

[Cobpyth]

Man i love this thread so much :D

Is this thread what I think it is?

[Guaporense]

I wonder if the world is any more violent than it's always been, but it just seems that way to our age of mass communication because we are able to get reports of violence much faster and from many more places (plus the fact that it's a topic the media focuses on more than others)?

The world had never been safer. Only in some countries like Brazil and Venezuela that violence has increased in recent decades and of course some unlucky counties like Syria that are suffering from a civil war.

I'm sure the dawn of civilization brought about a major lessening in overall violence. Prior to that, I imagine when one group came upon another, the reaction was probably just to attack (out of fear they'd attack you, take your territory and your food sources) and beat on the opposing group until one side won.

We know from bone remains of cavemen that a large fraction of the cause of death was violence, a fraction like 20% of all deaths were violent deaths. Today that is less than 1% of the cause of death globally. The murder rate in those societies was around 500 per 100000, or about 20 times the murder rate in the most dangerous countries in the world today and over 100 times the current US murder rate.

So, I guess my point is to question the premise of the OP. Not disagreeing, just questioning - I'm no stranger to distrusting and criticizing technology, but is it (and the apparent disaffection it seems to be causing) really making the world more violent, or does its capacity to increase communication on a global level compensate for or balance out any violence that results from people becoming isolated, estranged, and disconnected from dealing with others on a personal level?

It is making the world less violent by connecting more people. Our world today is so peaceful that people worry more about feeling insulted than being under real physical threat.

[Dani8]

I am aware that there are people that have opposing views, but they certainly should not hate me for having mine.


Has anyone told you they hate you for having an opposing POV? If not,why would you even think that?

[ynwtf]

Yikes. I feel like I inadvertently stepped into the middle of some sort of private feud with a lot of indirect metaphorical speech being applied.

Anyway, overall violence also has to be considered by scale. We now have over 7 billion people on the planet, more than the planet's ever had before at one time (overcrowding always contributes to violence in the animal kingdom - so that's an additional factor). But I wonder, if we take scale into consideration, if things are really more violent now than they've ever been?

<3 this lots for reasons I won't type.

[Des]

The world had never been safer.
It is making the world less violent by connecting more people. Our world today is so peaceful that people worry more about feeling insulted than being under real physical threat.

With all the acts of terrorism all over the world, the mass shootings and killings, the general unrest in many European countries, the war in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, to mention a few, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Taliban, North Korean nuclear threat, Iran nuclear threat: " the world has never been safer " ?
Somehow I doubt that people worry more about being insulted.
Maybe they should be, as insults, one way or another, lead to violence.
The connectivity that you mention has it's perks, but is artificial and has led to the desensitization of a whole generation.
For those who have aspirations of achieving peace through talks and diplomacy, the trend is more towards gloom and doom.
You may disagree, but that's the real world we live in now.

[matt72582]

I cant imagine how confused some people will be reading this

Confusing? I think this is a great post with some great replies, too -- many of the things have been said already, so my post will be shorter.. I think when people chat by looking at a screen with text, some lose sight that there is a person on the other side, and who knows what they're feeling.. People can mask a lot of things they can't in person. I've observed a lack of social skills around the world.

Social mobility is something to add to the equation after Captain mentioned history, etc... Maybe in the past some thought, "I'd kill that person..... if I had the energy to ride my horse for a week"

And I also think society is staying home more, so it balances out.. You have two non-parallels which might indicate little change.... Reminds me of the average age. I've heard doctors mention how the death rate has been the same for a while.. Of course you can factor new information, medicine that might help add 5 yrs to the average life.. But maybe the bad air and water removes 5 yrs, so a statistician would say "See, it's the same"

[Captain Steel]

Confusing? I think this is a great post with some great replies, too -- many of the things have been said already, so my post will be shorter.. I think when people chat by looking at a screen with text, some lose sight that there is a person on the other side, and who knows what they're feeling.. People can mask a lot of things they can't in person. I've observed a lack of social skills around the world.

Social mobility is something to add to the equation after Captain mentioned history, etc... Maybe in the past some thought, "I'd kill that person..... if I had the energy to ride my horse for a week"

And I also think society is staying home more, so it balances out.. You have two non-parallels which might indicate little change.... Reminds me of the average age. I've heard doctors mention how the death rate has been the same for a while.. Of course you can factor new information, medicine that might help add 5 yrs to the average life.. But maybe the bad air and water removes 5 yrs, so a statistician would say "See, it's the same"

On that account, we look at modern innovations as changing the face of mankind, but some others we take for granted... Ever think about the domestication of the horse? That single development changed everything as this animal became man's primary means of transportation that lasted for tens of thousands of years.

(Also interesting - the horse was once native to North America, but then went extinct in the western hemisphere - thus, before the European invasion, Native Americans never rode horses. The horse wasn't re-introduced to the Americas until the Europeans brought them.)

[Yoda]

Somehow I doubt that people worry more about being insulted.
But that's (ostensibly) your entire premise here: that being insulted leads to violence. From your original post:

The overall violence in USA in particular is the direct manifestation of verbal abuse
Also, "one primary cause" is redundant. "Primary" means either "most," or "earliest," so there can only be one primary cause, by definition.

[Captain Steel]

But that's (ostensibly) your entire premise here: that being insulted leads to violence. From your original post:


Also, "one primary cause" is redundant. "Primary" means either "most," or "earliest," so there can only be one primary cause, by definition.

I've been insulted by almost everybody here... and I'm very peaceful. ;)

[doubledenim]

I've been insulted by almost everybody here... and I'm very peaceful. ;)

If only you would have let me known sooner. I'm working on it now.

:rotfl:

[Des]

But that's (ostensibly) your entire premise here: that being insulted leads to violence. From your original post:


Also, "one primary cause" is redundant. "Primary" means either "most," or "earliest," so there can only be one primary cause, by definition.

Primary meant as initial and essential.
Thoughts- words - actions.

I don't deviate from my entire premise.
Obviously people that insult others don't worry about violence as a consequence, but it does happen.
I'm not worried about it. I'm not insulting any one. Just trying to make a point.

[Yoda]

I don't deviate from my entire premise.
Obviously people that insult others don't worry about violence as a consequence, but it does happen.
I'm not sure how this reconciles anything. If you think that people being insulted leads to violence it's odd to disagree, in the same thread, with someone saying that people care a lot about insults.

Anyway, I don't think Guap's point was actually addressed. When he says the world is safer than ever before, he's making a statistically verifiable claim. Listing a bunch of scary things doesn't really contest the idea, since it's equating fear and/or media coverage with actual, tangible harm.

[Des]

I'm not sure how this reconciles anything. If you think that people being insulted leads to violence it's odd to disagree, in the same thread, with someone saying that people care a lot about insults.

Anyway, I don't think Guap's point was actually addressed. When he says the world is safer than ever before, he's making a statistically verifiable claim. Listing a bunch of scary things doesn't really contest the idea, since it's equating fear and/or media coverage with actual, tangible harm.

Sorry, you lost me there. Who said that people care a lot about insults?
My position has been that in today's society, they obviously don't care enough.

Listing a bunch of scary things? Please Yoda don't make me think that you are actually a liberal.
Take a trip to Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria or Yemen and then tell me you were not scared.
How about going to a concert in Sin City, where some one opens up on you with an automatic weapon or you just find yourself praying in some Texas small town church at the wrong time.
In the last five years alone, there has been a drastic increase in mass killings all over.
I don't know where you get your stats.

[Yoda]

Sorry, you lost me there. Who said that people care a lot about insults?
You disagreed with this quote...

Our world today is so peaceful that people worry more about feeling insulted than being under real physical threat.
...despite arguing that people were actually lashing out violently because they felt insulted. So you appear to be simultaneously arguing that feeling insulted is the cause of serious violence, but somehow disagreeing with someone who implies that people are worried about feeling insulted.

Listing a bunch of scary things? Please Yoda don't make me think that you are actually a liberal.

Take a trip to Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria or Yemen and then tell me you were not scared.
I said they were scary. That wasn't sarcasm.

How about going to a concert in Sin City, where some one opens up on you with an automatic weapon or you just find yourself praying in some Texas small town church at the wrong time.
You can't argue that people are in danger by retroactively cherry picking places that happened to be dangerous at a particular place in time.

If I say cars are after than they've ever been, it'd be ridiculous to say "oh yeah, tell that to the 20-care pileup I drove by the other day. You think that was safe?" But that's essentially what you're doing here.

In the last five years alone, there has been a drastic increase in mass killings all over.
Accounting for an infinitesimally small number of deaths relative to the total population, yes.

I don't know where you get your stats.
Here's one place (https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-10-23/world-actually-safer-ever-and-heres-data-prove). But you can literally just Google "safest time to be alive" and you'll find tons of reputable sources.

I think you'll find that, if you try to form impressions of the world at large based on isolated events and/or media coverage, many of them will turn out to be at odds with the facts.

[Des]

[QUOTE=Yoda;1826881]You disagreed with this quote...


...despite arguing that people were actually lashing out violently because they felt insulted. So you appear to be simultaneously arguing that feeling insulted is the cause of serious violence, but somehow disagreeing with someone who implies that people are worried about feeling insulted.


.QUOTE]

Captain's Steel implied that people are worried about being insulted.
All I said is that they don't appear to be that worried and that their insulting behavior leads to more violence.
There is no contradiction in my stance.

[Yoda]

It wasn't Captain Steel, it was Guap. Here's a link to the post in question (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1826728#post1826728).

If there's no contradiction, then the response must have been a non-sequitur. I'm agnostic as to which it is. I tend to think stuff like this isn't really either, but just the result of firing responses from the hip, rather than taking the time to reflect about how (or whether) one argument fits with the others that have come before it.

[Des]

Right, Guap.
And I said " somehow I doubt that people worry more about being insulted " .
I am being nothing but consistent.

[Yoda]

You doubt that people worry about being insulted...but you also think people worry so much about being insulted that they lash out violently?

[Captain Steel]

Earlier, someone said people would be confused by this thread... now I'm one of them! ;)

[Des]

You doubt that people worry about being insulted...but you also think people worry so much about being insulted that they lash out violently?

Ha ha. Are you trying to confuse yourself, cause you are certainly succeeding with others?:D
Those that lash out violently obviously don't worry.

[Dani8]

The world had never been safer. Only in some countries like Brazil and Venezuela that violence has increased in recent decades and of course some unlucky counties like Syria that are suffering from a civil war.



We know from bone remains of cavemen that a large fraction of the cause of death was violence, a fraction like 20% of all deaths were violent deaths. Today that is less than 1% of the cause of death globally. The murder rate in those societies was around 500 per 100000, or about 20 times the murder rate in the most dangerous countries in the world today and over 100 times the current US murder rate.



It is making the world less violent by connecting more people. Our world today is so peaceful that people worry more about feeling insulted than being under real physical threat.

I agree with you on all points here, Guap. And on top of that I'll add that at no point in time have people around the world been so bombarded by world news on the net they may not have been aware of before media outlets around the world started concentrating on it when they had not done so as much previously. You are from one of the countries you listed above as becoming more violent than previously which is a neighbour of the other you listed, so I think you're right on point giving those two examples:up:

[Yoda]

Those that lash out violently obviously don't worry.
Yeah, that's actually an even more blatant contradiction than before: now you're saying "those that lash out violently" obviously don't worry. But the "worry" in question is "worry about being insulted." So you're literally saying the people who lash out violently at insults don't worry about being insulted.

I don't have any trouble believing there's a moderately coherent thought under all this, but it sure ain't coming out right.

[Des]

Yeah, that's actually an even more blatant contradiction than before: now you're saying "those that lash out violently" obviously don't worry. But the "worry" in question is "worry about being insulted." So you're literally saying the people who lash out violently at insults don't worry about being insulted.

I don't have any trouble believing there's a moderately coherent thought under all this, but it sure ain't coming out right.

" worry " about any thing, did not originate with me
What does inappropriate communication have to do with worry?
I think you should talk to Guap about that.

I don't think it's possible to debate a master of semantics and deflection.
We could always try another topic.
How do you feel about overpopulation as another precursor to violence?

[Yoda]

" worry " about any thing, did not originate with me
What does inappropriate communication have to do with worry?
I think you should talk to Guap about that.
Yeah, this is a total thicket of confusion. Back to the source:

Our world today is so peaceful that people worry more about feeling insulted than being under real physical threat.
(list of scary things)
Somehow I doubt that people worry more about being insulted.
That's the "worry" Guap mentioned, which you responded to directly. So either there's a contradiction, or your response to him made no sense.

I don't think it's possible to debate a master of semantics
Sure it is: you just explain why what they're saying is semantics, rather than treating it like a magic word that absolves you of having to make sense.

We could always try another topic.
No thanks. I prefer to discuss things like this with people who can articulate their positions, and are willing to cite and acknowledge hard evidence, rather than just sort of pontificate based on whatever they happen to see or hear anecdotally.

Speaking of which, the "safest time to be alive" thing seems to have been conspicuously dropped from the discussion...

[Captain Steel]

Anyone read the book Inferno? (Not the movie - the movie blew in that it completely changed the ending from the book.)
Even though the story is fiction, there was really nothing false about what the "villain" in the book projected about overpopulation. And it's not just a "what if" threat - it's an inevitability as the population increases on a geometric basis.

[Camo]

Someone showed me this lecture about overpopulation when i was like 13 and it freaked me out, watched the whole thing four or five times :laugh:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI1C9DyIi_8

[Des]

Yeah, this is a total thicket of confusion. Back to the source:


(list of scary things)
Somehow I doubt that people worry more about being insulted.
That's the "worry" Guap mentioned, which you responded to directly. So either there's a contradiction, or your response to him made no sense.


Sure it is: you just explain why what they're saying is semantics, rather than treating it like a magic word that absolves you of having to make sense.


No thanks. I prefer to discuss things like this with people who can articulate their positions, and are willing to cite and acknowledge hard evidence, rather than just sort of pontificate based on whatever they happen to see or hear anecdotally.

Speaking of which, the "safest time to be alive" thing seems to have been conspicuously dropped from the discussion...

If I am reading this right, I replied to Guap with his own words that I doubt that people worry more about being insulted.
Worry more being the emphasis and not at all meaning that they worry at all.
Now you can take " worry " out of context and do with it what you like, as you did, trying to make it as if I made a contradictory statement.
So, yeah, that's your art of using semantics.

What you and I have is opinions but you love to act the devil's advocate and when all else fails you start asking for hard evidence but on the flip side, when you are asked for evidence, you can't produce it, so you deflect.

" Safest Time To Be Alive " is not the primary topic of this thread, but I'm sure you've noticed.
Why don't you start a new thread with that topic and I'll put in my two cents.

[Cynema De Bergerac]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aQLXW8BJv4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFVQtWyya3E

[Yoda]

If I am reading this right, I replied to Guap with his own words that I doubt that people worry more about being insulted.
Worry more being the emphasis and not at all meaning that they worry at all.
Now you can take " worry " out of context and do with it what you like, as you did, trying to make it as if I made a contradictory statement.
So, yeah, that's your art of using semantics.
Yeah, this doesn't actually fit what you said afterwards (sans "more"), but whatever. The criss-crossing explanations are impenetrable, which I suspect is the idea.

What you and I have is opinions but you love to act the devil's advocate and when all else fails you start asking for hard evidence but on the flip side, when you are asked for evidence, you can't produce it, so you deflect.
Uh, I literally just did (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1826881#post1826881).

" Safest Time To Be Alive " is not the primary topic of this thread, but I'm sure you've noticed.
Funny, that didn't stop you from disputing it, and even inviting further discussion by specifically saying "I don't know where you get your stats." But now that I've substantiated the claim, suddenly it's "not the primary topic of this thread."

[Guaporense]

With all the acts of terrorism all over the world, the mass shootings and killings, the general unrest in many European countries, the war in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, to mention a few, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Taliban, North Korean nuclear threat, Iran nuclear threat: " the world has never been safer " ?

Of course. Let's look 30 years ago. The Soviet Union and the US were threatening each other with nuclear annihilation hence there was a possibility that a substantial fraction of the global population would die in a nuclear holocaust. The acts of terrorism are extremely sparse and kill very few people compared to past wars. They are just the acts of oppressed third world people trying to respond to Western meddling in the Middle East. While North Korea is not really a threat, they just have some nuclear weapons for self insurance. It's threat is not remotely on the same order of magnitude as the Cold War was. The only bloody thing that happened in the world over the past 10 years was the Syrian civil war which killed about half a million people. That's bad but wars in the 20th routinely killed more than a million when the world's population was much smaller. WW2 for instance killed 3% of the world's population or equivalent to 220 million deaths in proportion to the world's population today. Such a death tool would be unthinkable today.

Somehow I doubt that people worry more about being insulted.
Maybe they should be, as insults, one way or another, lead to violence.
The connectivity that you mention has it's perks, but is artificial and has led to the desensitization of a whole generation.
For those who have aspirations of achieving peace through talks and diplomacy, the trend is more towards gloom and doom.
You may disagree, but that's the real world we live in now.

You appear to not know much about history of violence. Anyway the worst thing it can happen today would be if China started an arms race and the US decided to confront China and tensions would built up to a point where WW3 would occur. However this situation is very unlikely for the following reasons:

1) Today we have nuclear weapons and these weapons means that great power can easily inflict tremendous destruction without great cost, which means that if WW3 would happen all major powers would be annihilated and hence no country would be rational to enter in such a conflict.

2) Even if WW3 could happen and countries could deter each other from using nuclear weapons the fact is that Chinese leadership understands that the costs of warfare are always much higher than the benefits. The lesson was learned by Germany with WW1. And WW2 only happened because of certain circumstances in WW1's ending were a bit ambiguous making Germany wanna try again and with a leader crazy enough to try again despite the massive losss of life in WW1. Overall the great powers today are conscious that big wars are stupid.

3) Geographic conditions make it hard for a bloody war to happen again. WW1 and WW2 managed to be so bloody because they involved major powers on the same continental landmass (deaths from countries outside of Eurasia were minor in both wars). Today the great powers are geographically isolated from each other by oceans and siberia so it is virtually impossible for a bloody conflict to emerge like in WW1.

The violence of a major war is much greater than the violence of terrorism (statistically insignificant) or criminal violence (which has been decreasing globally according to a secular trend) and there is very little risk of major war happening in the world today.

[Des]

Yeah, this doesn't actually fit what you said afterwards (sans "more"), but whatever. The criss-crossing explanations are impenetrable, which I suspect is the idea.


Uh, I literally just did (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1826881#post1826881).


Funny, that didn't stop you from disputing it, and even inviting further discussion by specifically saying "I don't know where you get your stats." But now that I've substantiated the claim, suddenly it's "not the primary topic of this thread."

Hugh? What you've just substantiated is that you are in your own universe.
Cheers to your " substantiated claim ".
Just attach your name to this thread. I'm cool with it.

[Des]

[QUOTE]Of course. Let's look 30 years ago. The Soviet Union and the US were threatening each other with nuclear annihilation hence there was a possibility that a substantial fraction of the global population would die in a nuclear holocaust. The acts of terrorism are extremely sparse and kill very few people compared to past wars. They are just the acts of oppressed third world people trying to respond to Western meddling in the Middle East. While North Korea is not really a threat, they just have some nuclear weapons for self insurance. It's threat is not remotely on the same order of magnitude as the Cold War was. The only bloody thing that happened in the world over the past 10 years was the Syrian civil war which killed about half a million people. That's bad but wars in the 20th routinely killed more than a million when the world's population was much smaller. WW2 for instance killed 3% of the world's population or equivalent to 220 million deaths in proportion to the world's population today. Such a death tool would be unthinkable today.


Let's see: 30 years a go
In 1987, USSR and USA signed The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and that significantly reduced the threat of a Nuclear War.
In 1988 Michael Gorbachev became Chairman Of The Presidium Of The Supreme Soviet and with that signaled the end of the " cold war ".
Did you say North Korea is not a threat?
What about Iran? Not a threat?
You mention Syria but not Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Yemen?

http://www.care2.com/causes/there-are-just-10-of-the-wars-in-the-past-decade.html
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100925230308AAMX9ln

You appear to not know much about history of violence.

I know a lot more than you:

http://www.ultimatebiblereferencelibrary.com/Wars_Fought_Since_1945_to_2010.pdf

What you can do is read and add up the 3 links conveniently posted above for you and that number will give you an indication of wars and war related deaths.
Only about 60 Million died in WWII. Right?
What total amount of people died from all the wars since 1945 to present day?

[Des]

To Guap With Love:D:

A History Of War:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

[Yoda]

Hugh? What you've just substantiated is that you are in your own universe.
Why, do you live in one where nobody has to acknowledge evidence? Because I seriously doubt they have computers in that one.

Cheers to your " substantiated claim ".
It's cute that you think putting it in quotes is the same as answering it.

[Yoda]

Only about 60 Million died in WWII. Right?
What total amount of people died from all the wars since 1945 to present day?
You're suggesting that we compare the deaths over a 6-year period to deaths over a 72-year period? :skeptical:

[Cynema De Bergerac]

Yoda is roasting dafaq outta this guy
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/61/ca/fe/61cafec1c48330268b36c84f9d2e8d78--star-wars-gif-star-wars-clone-wars.jpg

[Des]

Yoda is roasting dafaq outta this guy
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/61/ca/fe/61cafec1c48330268b36c84f9d2e8d78--star-wars-gif-star-wars-clone-wars.jpg

I have tried so hard to ignore you but you just won't fade away and the login feature is not set up properly so that your non sense keeps reminding me of your existence through your unsolicited and goofy posts.
The only think that's roasted here is your brain.
" Supporters " like you really only hurt Yoda's cause, if one is to be judged by the " friends ' he keeps around.
I appeal to " puff the magic dragon " to make you disappear so he can spare me your irrelevant comments.
Please find someone more suitable to play with.

[Dani8]

Why, do you live in one where nobody has to acknowledge evidence? Because I seriously doubt they have computers in that one.


It's cute that you think putting it in quotes is the same as answering it.

Important question of the day I've been meaning to ask - Is Hugh Mr Steve's twin?

[Cynema De Bergerac]

To Guap With Love:D:

A History Of War:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_erMRqLuq4


Just go on Wikipedia for the details about both trials If you don't care for that one either.

Wikipedia is not the best source.

What.

[Yoda]

Banned.

(And yes, Des was cinemaficionado, and this thread was one of his several very clumsy attempts to try to insult people here indirectly.)

[matt72582]

Banned.

(And yes, Des was cinemaficionado, and this thread was one of his several very clumsy attempts to try to insult people here indirectly.)

I wonder if his Top 10 movies were the same?

[Slappydavis]

the login feature is not set up properly
Banned.

I like to think that this was the deciding factor.

Edit: I also want to say how easy it was to make this comment thanks to the site's silky smooth login process. :shifty:

[Dani8]

I like the triplets . Are they all part of Des as well?

[Cobpyth]

(And yes, Des was cinemaficionado, and this thread was one of his several very clumsy attempts to try to insult people here indirectly.)

He remains one of the worst liars I've ever come across. He couldn't help making all of his lists 100% again. Unbelievable.

[Cynema De Bergerac]

This guy was just the worst.