One Primary Cause Of Violence

Tools    





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.



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.



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.

" 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."



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.



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.


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.



[quote=Guaporense;1827032]
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-ar...st-decade.html
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...5230308AAMX9ln

You appear to not know much about history of violence.
I know a lot more than you:

http://www.ultimatebiblereferencelib...45_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?



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.



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?



Yoda is roasting dafaq outta this guy
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.



You can't win an argument just by being right!
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?



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
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?



the login feature is not set up properly
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.



You can't win an argument just by being right!
I like the triplets . Are they all part of Des as well?



(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.
__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019