Should this cartoon be condemned?

[NicholasJohnson]

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/8168/20070714tedrallxi6.gif

By Ted Rall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Rall)

May he be pushed down a flight of stairs. Oops, THOUGHT-CRIME!

Will this nationally (US) syndicated cartoon be discussed or condemned by the mainstream media? I think not. Should it? Absolutely.


To all who find this cartoon funny or true, I unapologetically say:


…………../´¯/)………..(\¯`\
…………/….//…………..\\….\
………../….//…………….\\….\
…../´¯/…./´¯\………../¯`\….\¯`\
.././…/…./…./.|_……_|.\….\….\…\.\..
(.(….(….(…./.)..)..(..(.\….)….)….).)
.\…………….\/…/….\…\/……………./
..\…………….. /……..\………………/
….\…………..(…………)…………../
……\………….\………../……………



But wait, this cartoon in no way represents the view of certain (not all, and don't start accusing me of that either) "anti-war" types in any way, and I should never have disturbed the tranquility of the forum with this post. :rolleyes:

Or should I have?




I'll go back into my corner now.

[-X-Sublime]

yes and no freedom of speech man thats what the ass belives then let him

[NicholasJohnson]

Freedom of speech is about his right not to be censored by the government, I'm not calling for the government to step in and remove his syndication. Would freedom of speech not also apply to one who would seek to criticize another's speech?

[|Crimson|]

I feel it's kind of insightful.

[JonasDahlin]

Come on nicholas, I know you must have had a little grin on your face when you first saw this cartoon :D

[sid]

I think it is true in a certain way, however I do not find it funny and I certainly don't think it should be banned. When the goverment can ban something just because they disagree with it will be a very sad day indeed.

[-X-Sublime]

the only thing i find kinda offensive is blinde obedience I mean shure you may hate the president but you should at least respect the man i mean he gets critizized more than any man on the planet how many of you could take that every day

[NicholasJohnson]

Come on nicholas, I know you must have had a little grin on your face when you first saw this cartoon :D

Nope. Not if it pertains to practically everyone I know, including my father and both grandfathers. Most of my friends parents are military also. I love how it is ok to bash the group of people I am associated with all day long as evil , any other group and this would be rightfully condemned as hateful. Instead it is labeled "insightful" :rolleyes:

And again I was not calling for the goverment to ban it, I was calling for it to be condemned.


How would you feel if it was your community being treated this way?

I mean come on, that is like telling a minority that they should laugh at racists, as it's brilliant commentary.

[-X-Sublime]

by who the church how can a people condemn somthing

[NicholasJohnson]

Attention in the media, calls for newspapers to remove him, etc As in more public outcry. Calling them out.


We can do that without the government's involvement.

[Lord Justin]

I feel it's kind of insightful.

Brave to say, and I agree.

I think it is true in a certain way, however I do not find it funny and I certainly don't think it should be banned. When the goverment can ban something just because they disagree with it will be a very sad day indeed.

Well-said. It does have some truth to it, regardless of whether or not one thinks it's tasteful.

And I'm kinda afraid the US is coming to a state where the government will be able to ban things they disagree with. : \

the only thing i find kinda offensive is blinde obedience I mean shure you may hate the president but you should at least respect the man i mean he gets critizized more than any man on the planet how many of you could take that every day

Well....a lot of people get criticized a lot of the time. Mistakes are made; it's only human. But a core philosophy of the US is the whole "greater good" ideal, so if the president isn't doing his job as well as someone else could, the idea is that he should be replaced. That isn't to say other politicians are much better, but....in my opinion he's not doing a good job. And a lot of people share that opinion. And anyway respecting someone for their efforts is a good bit different than blindly obeying them.

My take:
I think the cartoon is interesting and, in a way, funny. I'm not saying it's in good taste...it's blatantly offensive. But I'd rather offend a couple people than repress artists' views. The cartoonist has a good point, he's making a good metaphor based on truth. He exaggerates the truth, but it's true all the same.

It's a good honest political cartoon.


Attention in the media, calls for newspapers to remove him, etc As in more public outcry. Calling them out.


We can do that without the government's involvement.

That'd be a rather complacent course of action. Not trying to be offending...but he's an artist and he's expressing his opinion. Freedom of speech is in our Constitution. Removing him to preserve political correctness is wrong.

[NicholasJohnson]

Freedom of speech says that

Congress shall not infringe

A Citizen can call for his removal as much as they want. The 1st Amendment is about the government. Not once did I say the government should crack down on him. Look at the Don Imus story. That guy got fired for his idiocy, the government wasn't involved. I didn't hear anyone talking about his "free speech."

I guess that "we support the troops but not the war" slogan is total BS in his case. People like Ted Rall are scum. That cartoon is bigoted, full of stereotypes, and is sick.

Could you see this type of cartoon being printed 60 years ago with the label "Profile of a Kamikaze" or "Profile of an SS man?" I can. In Germany or Japan.

As you can see, I don't take kindly to bigots.

[Lord Justin]

You're saying that you believe if some people have a problem with a piece of art, they should be able to organize a way to have the artist removed from his job? That doesn't fit my view of democracy.

If some people are offended by this piece of art, they can look away. There's no reason someone expressing himself should be penalized for...expressing himself. Those are his views; part of the idea of the US democracy is that anyone should be able to express any view.

Now, that isn't to say I think anything should be allowed to be expressed. Displays of Nazism are outlawed in the US, and in a lot of other places. But expressing mindlessly hateful and violent fascism is WAY different than writing a cartoon about an ignorance that actually exists.

The whole point of art is to express your views. I'll say it again: repressing this man's opinion is ethically wrong.


I guess that "we support the troops but not the war" slogan is total BS in his case. People like Ted Rall are scum. That cartoon is bigoted, full of stereotypes, and is sick.

Could you see this type of cartoon being printed 60 years ago with the label "Profile of a Kamikaze" or "Profile of an SS man?" I can. In Germany or Japan.

Did he ever say he 'supported the troops but not the war'? And anyway he's in no way saying every US soldier is the same as a suicide bomber. It's stereotyping, yeah. But it's art and needs to be interpreted as such. Sometimes the truth needs to be bent to make a point. Art does that.

And no, I cannot see this printed relating to Kamikazes or SS in WWII-era Japan or Germany. Because it wouldn't have been allowed to be printed. No matter how much I dislike about this country I'm glad to live in a place where this kind of thing can be printed.

Until of course people come along demanding its removal because they aren't seeing it as art up for interpretation.

[NicholasJohnson]

they should be able to organize a way to have the artist removed from his job?

People can complain to the papers that carry him, etc This is nothing new. This is not unprecedented. What do you think happened to Imus? How is this any different from Imus other than it being in print instead of on airwaves?

than writing a cartoon about an ignorance that actually exists.

And what ignorance would that be? The "humanity" of our enemies?

And no, I cannot see this printed relating to Kamikazes or SS in WWII-era Japan or Germany.

You did not understand my point. There is no way this would have been printed in the US during that time either.

[Lord Justin]

People can complain to the papers that carry him, etc This is nothing new. This is not unprecedented. What do you think happened to Imus? How is this any different from Imus other than it being in print instead of on airwaves?

I know they can, and always have been able to. I don't agree with it. All anyone has to do is look away, change the channel, cover their ears. It's like the guy who walks into the doctor's office saying "my hand hurts when I hit it with a hammer" and the doctor just says "stop hitting your hand with a hammer."

People's dislike of something shouldn't give them the right to get rid of it. It;s arrogant to think that someone else's opinion is wrong just because you don't share that opinion.

And what ignorance would that be? The "humanity" of our enemies?

No, the other way around. The ignorance is how similar our fanaticism can be to the radicals among our 'enemies.' That's...the point of the cartoon.

You did not understand my point. There is no way this would have been printed in the US during that time either.

No, I didn't understand your point. I see what you mean though, and you're probably right, it probably wouldn't have been allowed to be printed in the US. Which I still think is wrong.

[2ltben]

I can pull up some stuff from the Gilded Age and the New Deal that can make this cartoon look like Sesame Street.

[NicholasJohnson]

Yeah, I knew what the "message" of the cartoon is supposed to be.

Somehow I don't see the same type of "fanaticism" of my friends and guys who blow up Sbarros full of kids in order to get virgins.

I guess I'm just ignorant.

[2ltben]

The whole virgins thing is alot more complicated than most think. In a monogamous society, just about everyone has a chance at marraige and having children. Islam is rooted in a polygamous society, meaning that the more desirable men get plenty of women while the less desirable are lucky if they can ever get one. This is the reason why the majority of Muslim suicide bombers are young, single males. As far as incentives go, I think that one more or less takes the cake.

[NicholasJohnson]

Again, why am I being told something that I already know? :P Like you Ben, I will actually go and read on something myself (which we all should do) instead of just watching CNN.

I would like to see the Gilded/New Deal cartoons you have, if possible.

[2ltben]

I know, but I had that piece of information floating in my head for a while now and I wanted to use it somewhere. Most of the cartoons I've seen were in my AP US history book, which I no longer have, but I can try and dig up an old website that has a fairly large collection of them.

[Kaos]

The whole virgins thing is alot more complicated than most think. In a monogamous society, just about everyone has a chance at marraige and having children. Islam is rooted in a polygamous society, meaning that the more desirable men get plenty of women while the less desirable are lucky if they can ever get one. This is the reason why the majority of Muslim suicide bombers are young, single males. As far as incentives go, I think that one more or less takes the cake.

And no where in the Qu'raan does it say Muslim men receive any number of virgins in heaven.

[|:XAS:| Bravo]

And no where in the Qu'raan does it say Muslim men receive any number of virgins in heaven.

Is that really true? Because there's no translations of it.

72 virgins, ha! They'll need to murder that many first! Oh wait they already have. We're going to suicide bomb the farmer's market tomorrow morning guys.

[Kaos]

Is that really true? Because there's no translations of it.

72 virgins, ha! They'll need to murder that many first! Oh wait they already have. We're going to suicide bomb the farmer's market tomorrow morning guys.

There's actually two points here.

First of all the "72 virgins" doesn't come the Qu'raan, it comes from the Hadiths - sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. These Hadiths are then in turn ranked for reliability by the number of times they've been quoted precisely by scholars, historians etc. Fairly complicated process as I understand. This particular one isn't ranked high at all and most likely was not even a saying of the Muhammad, but it serves the purpose of fundamentalist leaders such as Bin Laden to use it to advance his own goals. Just like how Ben-Gurion used quotes from the Torah and Bible to claim the right to Israel and how the Pope used the Bible to justify the Crusades.

The second point is that the 'martyring' yourself and killing civilians will not get you into heaven according to Islam.

[2:195] You shall spend in the cause of GOD; do not throw yourselves with your own hands into destruction. You shall be charitable; GOD loves the charitable.

[ 4:29] O you who believe, do not consume each others' properties illicitly - only mutually acceptable transactions are permitted. You shall not kill yourselves. GOD is Merciful towards you.

[ 4:30] Anyone who commits these transgressions, maliciously and deliberately, we will condemn him to Hell. This is easy for GOD to do.

And just a disclaimer; I'm not Muslim, nor an expert on the subject. My information comes from reading various copies of the Qu'raan, the hadiths and other books and articles. Just interested in finding the truth.

[xtc-alec]

Nope. Not if it pertains to practically everyone I know, including my father and both grandfathers. Most of my friends parents are military also. I love how it is ok to bash the group of people I am associated with all day long as evil , any other group and this would be rightfully condemned as hateful. Instead it is labeled "insightful" :rolleyes:

And again I was not calling for the goverment to ban it, I was calling for it to be condemned.


How would you feel if it was your community being treated this way?

I mean come on, that is like telling a minority that they should laugh at racists, as it's brilliant commentary.


Same situation here nick. And i will be joining the Army aswell.
Maybe im just thinking to much and probally sound like a ignorant fool, but you do have a point with it being like racisim. And also i fully understand what you are talking about.

Alec

[Kaos]

If this cartoon does anything, it shows how similiar both sides in the 'War on Terror' actually are, contrary to what the propaganda tells us. Reflecting on past wars we see that and most likely in a few decades people will say the same about this war.

All parties are fighting for what they believe is right.
All are putting their lives on the line, sometimes this leads to the ultimate sacrifrice.

It also shows how religion is an important part in this battle. Where previous wars in the last century have been fought primarily on nationalist or ideological grounds, this one is being fought on religious grounds (Or at least that's the way it's being marketed). The cartoon, especially in the 3rd and 7th scenes, is again showing the similarities of both sides in the conflict.

Whether that's a good thing or not is up for the individual to decide.

[2ltben]

The Hadiths are just as authoritative as the Qu'ran itself, just as the Talmud and Mishnah have just as much authority as the Torah. They're official, legal interpretations.

To my knowledge, there are no such equivalent texts in Christianity, and ever since the rise of Protestantism there really is no legal practice of Christianity as there is in Judaism and Islam. Even in the Roman Catholic Church, Papal Bulls and such don't seem to have the same authority amongst all demoninations.

Judaism and Islam are alot closer than most would willingly admit. Muhammad even found comfort amongst the Jews when he first arrived in Medina, as at that time both religions prayed towards Jerusalem, although later he tended to use those same Jewish tribes as scapegoats for his holy wars.

[xtc-alec]

Whether that's a good thing or not is up for the individual to decide.


Quoted For Truth

[2ltben]

Has there ever been a religious conflict one could label as "Good?"

[JonasDahlin]

Well technically it's not really racism, being a soldier doesn't make you a part of an ethnic minority.

All parties are fighting for what they believe is right.
All are putting their lives on the line, sometimes this leads to the ultimate sacrifrice.

You couldn't be more right kaos

This cartoon isn't about making US soldiers look dumb, it's about making them look equal in the eyes of propaganda. You will probably hate me for saying this, but to think that US soldiers are any better than the suicide bombers is nothing but bigotry.

[Kaos]

Has there ever been a religious conflict one could label as "Good?"

I wasn't talking about the conflict but the comparison of US Soldiers to what we call insurgents, terrorists or suicide bombers. I don't think 'good' is a term that can be applied to the killing of anyone.

And Jonas I agree with you on the last point.

[Lt. Hanley]

No, being in the military does not make you an ethnic minority. However, you are part of a tight knit community. This cartoon is a dig at that community. It's not cool. In fact, it's inappropriate and inaccurate.

You will probably hate me for saying this, but to think that US soldiers are any better than the suicide bombers is nothing but bigotry.

Then call me a bigot.

[|Crimson|]

I think people are missing the fact that it is exaggerated.

It's not a personal dig at the American armed forces. To me it's a comment on all wars and how similar both sides are in every conflict.

It's an up-to-date metaphor, in my opinion.

[2ltben]

This is going to be much funnier once people stop demonizing their supposed enemy. However, that won't happen while the conflict is still being fought.

[-X-Sublime]

but people have allways demonized there enemy its just the way of mankind and war which we will always have. its in our blood i mean look at us we are all eagerly awaiting a game that in which we kill and maime call me stupid but war is human nature

[2ltben]

If war is human nature, then explain humanism, egalitarianism, humanitarianism...

[-X-Sublime]

If war is human nature, then explain humanism, egalitarianism, humanitarianism...

they all exsist because of war.....well some of them

[enigma]

To all who find this cartoon funny or true, I unapologetically say:

Its ok i accept your appology which is buried in there somewhere :p

On a serious note:

It reminds me of a guy on another forum who made this list:

Uses terror to try to achieve its aims.
Uses kidnapping and killings to spread fear.
Uses all the above to split regions on religious lines.
Uses riots to attack authority and kill and maim.
Targets police and Army units using roadside bombs,morters,snipers or ambushes.
Attacks innocents and soft targets.
Uses massive car bombs to kill and maim.
Uses massive truck bombs to kill and maim.
Uses trucks filled with morter tubes to attack police and army bases
Uses massive car bombs filled with explosives and objects which will turn into shrapnel to kill and maim innocents.
Uses massive bombs against govenment buildings and people.
Uses knowledge taught by Islamic militants in training camps in Pakistan,Iran,Syria,Afghanistan,Lybia.
Use weapons and equipment supplied by Islamic groups dotted round the world.
Exports said knowledge to other terror groups world wide by running its own training camps abroad.

Then asked who was he talking about, the IRA or Al Qaeda?

The answer is both, when you look at it i think the cartoon is also poking the same question - when you strip away the ideologies, the objectives etc etc we are all just the same...

[DavidUpton]

I think its terrible, and its creator is clear very ignorant. At the end of the day its a soldiers job to go out and fight for his country, regardless of if he agrees with the leader. The rest is just stupid generalisation, unfortunately fueled by the media. Its a clear sign of disrespect for those who are dying to protect their country.

[Hyperion2010]

Amusingly enough the people this cartoon is making fun of are out there to make sure that cartoons like this can continue to be published.

[enigma]

Regardless i think the idea of demending it to be pulled or the artist to be black listed is destroying one of the foundings of what are Western Civilisation is built upon.

You supress one cartoon or artist ... then what?

Same thing applies to that one of Mohamed, which that Danish guy did.

[Saden]

Condemned? Wtf? What's wrong with banning it, you said not to bad, but to condemn, that wont do anything.

[enigma]

What's wrong with banning it

erm ... everything the West stands for prehaps?

[lazlazlaz1]

If you get angry about a cartoon then you are a moron. Simple as that. Go blow something up, like after the Muhammed cartoon.

[Timblesink]

If you get angry about a cartoon then you are a moron. Simple as that. Go blow something up, like after the Muhammed cartoon.

Le quote de truth.

[Kaos]

If you get angry about a cartoon then you are a moron. Simple as that. Go blow something up, like after the Muhammed cartoon.

Once how showing how we're all the same.

[scottdog]

If war is human nature, then explain humanism, egalitarianism, humanitarianism...

War is in our nature... Look at the sapien's and the neanderthal's, we Sapiens would rather kill them because of the fear, then co-exist with them. And Just like survival of the fittest is in nature, we still over came it, whats in our nature can be changed through learning and education.

Our beggining is just one big war anyway.

[enigma]

War is in our nature... Look at the sapien's and the neanderthal's, we Sapiens would rather kill them because of the fear, then co-exist with them. And Just like survival of the fittest is in nature, we still over came it, whats in our nature can be changed through learning and education.

Our beggining is just one big war anyway.

Scientists now believe that they either died off because:
A - we sneesed on them
B - We interbred

and they consider the massive genocide unlikely :p


then explain humanism, egalitarianism, humanitarianism
A small part of our 30 000 year exsistance which has revolved mostly around killing one another.
Another key nature is, screwing each other over - exploitation

egalitarianism: 100 years ago was very one equal? Is everyone equal now?
humanism: seeking the truth ... what does that have to do with anything? Seeking the truth doesnt deter from our hunter-killer ill kill you because you have a fire and i dont nature.
humanitarianism: has its roots in making the worker more efficient...

[Kaos]

A small part of our 30 000 year exsistance which has revolved mostly around killing one another.
Another key nature is, screwing each other over - exploitation

egalitarianism: 100 years ago was very one equal? Is everyone equal now?
humanism: seeking the truth ... what does that have to do with anything? Seeking the truth doesnt deter from our hunter-killer ill kill you because you have a fire and i dont nature.
humanitarianism: has its roots in making the worker more efficient...

Those of us who aren't post-modernists believe in theories of progress. That is, that since 30, 000 we have actually progressed philosophically, scientifically, physically etc. So just because we killed 30, 000 years ago and yesterday doesn't mean we should continue to do so today.

Slavery was commonplace until a few a hundred years ago (Some could argue it still is, but not legitimately) but has stopped. Hopefully we'll wake up and stop killing each other one day as well.

[enigma]

I believe in progress but facts remain, we kill each other over resources still ... with progress comes new ways to do that act (swords, muskets, guns, smart bombs etc) and new reasons to do it (relgion, ideology etc).

Slavery (legit or not) still takes place, you cant call it progress if it is now done illeagly.

[Kaos]

Slavery (legit or not) still takes place, you cant call it progress if it is now done illeagly.

I did cover myself on that point. The difference is that once it was supported openly by a majority of governments where as now I don't think there are very many countries that would come out and say "Slavery is good, let's do it".

[enigma]

I don’t think by saying that you have covered yourself by saying because its not widely popular no more that’s progress.
Human trafficking as we now call it still exists, people being paid next to nothing in there jobs, exploitation of desperate people that’s no progress when you look at it in the real light.

[Kaos]

I don’t think by saying that you have covered yourself by saying because its not widely popular no more that’s progress.
Human trafficking as we now call it still exists, people being paid next to nothing in there jobs, exploitation of desperate people that’s no progress when you look at it in the real light.

I really am aware of that. What I'm trying to say is that just like slavery was once endorsed by governments and is now banned, killing in the name of a government (War) can also be stopped.

It won't stop killings, I'm quite aware of that, but it is a step.

[lazlazlaz1]

killing in the name of a government (War) can also be stopped.

no it can't. It is in a mans nature to be violent, why do we enjoy violent computer games? This wont change, it has been so since the Sumerians formed the first armies some thousand years ago, and always will be so. Since that time there has been only tens of years where there has not been a single war.
War is in our nature, and it wont change.

[-X-Sublime]

no it can't. It is in a mans nature to be violent, why do we enjoy violent computer games? This wont change, it has been so since the Sumerians formed the first armies some thousand years ago, and always will be so. Since that time there has been only tens of years where there has not been a single war.
War is in our nature, and it wont change.

WELL SAID!!!!!! cheers mate

[2ltben]

they all exsist because of war.....well some of them
Actually none of them.

[scottdog]

Alot of things are in our nature that we still have control of. Just because violence is in our nature we can still control it. Just like bullying, lust and jealousy are in our nature, we still manage to keep control over ourselves.

[Kaos]

no it can't. It is in a mans nature to be violent, why do we enjoy violent computer games? This wont change, it has been so since the Sumerians formed the first armies some thousand years ago, and always will be so. Since that time there has been only tens of years where there has not been a single war.
War is in our nature, and it wont change.

Once again, just because a group of people did a certain thing thousands of years ago does not mean it is inherently human nature. You can't prove it's inherently human to be violent however you can prove otherwise by showing cases of individuals who refuse to be violent. Thus it's not 'human nature'.

[-X-Sublime]

Then What prompted these men a thousand years ago to fourm armies and not say noooo lets go give them bread and kisses :)

[enigma]

cases of individuals who refuse to be violent. Thus it's not 'human nature'.
Ever watched a show called last man standing?

One of the guys on that show is iirc deeply relgious and doesnt believe in violence and his goal is to perfect himself - in mind, spirit, and body.

Now when your getting slapped around by some Kalapalo warrior you get stuck in ... which he did. When you enter into a Zulu stick fighting contest trying to be a pafcist is going to get your head caved in thus he got stuck in.

You can't prove it's inherently human to be violent
But alas a few people out of the general population who embrace full pacifism proves the opposite?

With constent war, constent acts of murder or other vilonent crimes, people brawling to sort out there differances even school kids instead of sitting down and talking about i think proves different.

If we are not killing other people we are butchering aniamls ... we kll stuff, its one of our main things. We cover this up "civilisation" and "laws" it doesnt stop these acts.



Now you say that because we fought wars thousands of years ago that doesnt prove anything but because we have had the hippy movement for a bit of a lame example that proves everything?

I think i should point out ... that doesnt make any sence ;)


Although i should be glad you havnt gone down the line of some idiot the other week when i was on a mental health course who stated anyone who commits vilonants acts ... anythime under any circumstance etc is mentally unstable and ill! :-o

[Lord Justin]

Amusingly enough the people this cartoon is making fun of are out there to make sure that cartoons like this can continue to be published.

Haha, nice catch. Very true ;)

Scientists now believe that they either died off because:
A - we sneesed on them
B - We interbred

Sneezed on them...rofl.

Slavery was commonplace until a few a hundred years ago (Some could argue it still is, but not legitimately) but has stopped. Hopefully we'll wake up and stop killing each other one day as well.

There have been pacifists for a long time. The bottom line, though, is that even if 99% of the world was pacifist, the 1% would start an uprising and go around killing people for no reason. This would mean the pacifists would need to stop them...by taking up arms against them.

There will always be people left who want war. And even in a Utopian society where man has long forgotten how to make war, instinct leads us back to aggression and violence and, utlimately, the organization of aggressive ideas into armies and wars. As long as we're human, we will want war.

Once again, just because a group of people did a certain thing thousands of years ago does not mean it is inherently human nature. You can't prove it's inherently human to be violent however you can prove otherwise by showing cases of individuals who refuse to be violent. Thus it's not 'human nature'.

So you're saying you can't prove violence, but you can prove nonviolence? Umm...people "refusing to be violent" only means that there's already violence and that someone is against it. You can't have nonviolence (a contradiction to violence) without first having some violence to contradict.

The way I see it, nobody likes fighting wars, but they're fun to watch, and they're necessary. As Arthur C. Clarke put it in 2001: A Space Odyessey, "...he imagined the newspapers of Utopia would be dreadfully dull" or something along those lines. In a world without problems...it wouldn't work. Humans have to solve problems, that's our nature. If we had no problems to solve (a "heaven" of sorts) we would all go mad.

And what war does is gives us problems to solve. One homo erectus picks up a branch, so another picks up a rock, so another carves a knife, so another makes an bow, so another raises an army. It's completely inevitable. And I don't mean that cynically because war isn't all bad ;). It boosts technological advances, is a form of natural selection (though it's artificial), and sometimes is the only ethical course of action (i.e., warring against Nazi Germany).

[Kaos]

Ok the argument really is simple.

Human nature is something which all humans share in common. You guys believe that to kill, to be violent is human nature. You're saying that it's a feature of all humans.

To prove that, you would have to prove that every single human being is violent and/or kills. To have one which isn't proves your hypothesis wrong. You both accepted that there are non-violent humans, thus proving it wrong.

Lord Justin on the last thing you said; technological advances does not always = good, especially when talking about war (Atomic bombs etc.). Malthus always argued that war was the worst form of population minimisation as the strongest and fittest perished - contrary to natural selection. Aaaaand the reasons for World War II breaking out are a lot more detailed, controversial and peerhaps truthful than because 'Nazi-Germany was unethical'.

But that's sidetracked.

[2ltben]

You mention the atom bomb, but what about the work of Muhammad Yunus? Lech Walesa? Norman Borlaug? Paul Lauterbur and Peter Mansfield? Giving out a few hundred dollars to entrepreneuring third world women to pioneer cottage industries, regardless of risk. Forming the first anti-Communist trade union in a Communist nation so that workers can actually enjoy union rights. Finding a way so that wheat and corn won't die in poor soil because its roots wern't strong enough. To diagnose serious illnesses non-invasively with far more efficiency than invasive methods.

Put down the Thomas Hobbes and Bertrand Russell, pick up some Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke. If you have nothing to believe in, you'll only drive yourself mad for no good reason. God knows that's what happened to Nietzsche.

"The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn, like fabulous yellow Roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars, and in the middle, you see the blue center-light pop, and everybody goes ahh..."

[Kaos]

You mention the atom bomb, but what about the work of Muhammad Yunus? Lech Walesa? Norman Borlaug? Paul Lauterbur and Peter Mansfield? Giving out a few hundred dollars to entrepreneuring third world women to pioneer cottage industries, regardless of risk. Forming the first anti-Communist trade union in a Communist nation so that workers can actually enjoy union rights. Finding a way so that wheat and corn won't die in poor soil because its roots wern't strong enough. To diagnose serious illnesses non-invasively with far more efficiency than invasive methods.

Put down the Thomas Hobbes and Bertrand Russell, pick up some Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke. If you have nothing to believe in, you'll only drive yourself mad for no good reason. God knows that's what happened to Nietzsche.

"The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn, like fabulous yellow Roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars, and in the middle, you see the blue center-light pop, and everybody goes ahh..."

I believe in plenty of things. For one, I don't believe everyone is violent, which is basically the only thing I've been trying to say. We can pit philosophers against each other all we like and not resolve anything.

All the people you mentioned are respective economic and scientific genius' however their achievements don't relate to war. Most technological advancements made during wartime are, unfortunately, related to killing more people efficiently.

[enigma]

Ok the argument really is simple.

Human nature is something which all humans share in common. You guys believe that to kill, to be violent is human nature. You're saying that it's a feature of all humans.

To prove that, you would have to prove that every single human being is violent and/or kills. To have one which isn't proves your hypothesis wrong. You both accepted that there are non-violent humans, thus proving it wrong.

You do realise that, that also kills your point off ...

[lazlazlaz1]

Lord Justin on the last thing you said; technological advances does not always = good, especially when talking about war (Atomic bombs etc.)

Atomic bombs were a good advancement. We now have nuclear power, a powerful and reasonably clean resource.
Plus without nuclear bombs, it is highly likely there would have been larger wars in the Cold War as there would be fewer deterrants.
They also ended WW2 without an even huger loss of life which would have resulted from an invasion.

[2ltben]

Without nuclear fission being aggressively promoted by the military-industrial complex of the 1950s, solar power would be far more advanced than it is today. While nuclear power is important for advanced spaceflight, solar power is a far better source of energy for the stage we are at now and have been at since space flight existed.

Nuclear power is also far from clean. It doesn't pollute the air, but the amount of water required to sustain even the smallest of reactors limits its use to first-world nations. Poorer nations and even agrarian regions of highly developed nations can't have nuclear power because they need that water for more important things. Like food.

And the first nuclear reactor prototype was made three years before Trinity was ever tested. Nuclear fission as a means of power was in development before anyone ever conceived it could provide a high yield reaction in a bomb.

You just can't argue positively for nuclear weapons. Simple and crude ones would be deterrant enough, but the Cold War nuclear arms race was one of the worst things to ever happen in the history of humanity. It is still unclear whether or not it will destroy modern civilization or lead to our own extinction.

[enigma]

but the amount of water required to sustain even the smallest of reactors limits its use to first-world nations
Because 3rd World countries dont have water, fact!



(hehe sorry couldnt help myself :p)

[2ltben]

Because 3rd World countries dont have water, fact!



(hehe sorry couldnt help myself :p)
A great deal of places don't. The African tropics, the Indian subcontinent, northern China. Atrocities like the Darfur massacres are happening at an increased rate in sub-Saharan Africa, mainly because water is getting scarcer and once-large supplies are drying up. I could go on, famine caused by severe drought is becoming a standard affair in this day and age. There are other continents besides North America and Europe.

[scottdog]

A great deal of places don't. The African tropics, the Indian subcontinent, northern China. Atrocities like the Darfur massacres are happening at an increased rate in sub-Saharan Africa, mainly because water is getting scarcer and once-large supplies are drying up. I could go on, famine caused by severe drought is becoming a standard affair in this day and age. There are other continents besides North America and Europe.

Yep, that probily means no nuclear power for Australia. Well we probibily could be out of this drought if we recycled water like other western countries.

[Kaos]

All this nuclear discussion is very interesting but is rather off topic. I apologise as I may have had a part in leading us towards this but remember this thread is supposed to be about the cartoon.

[2ltben]

The original post was about a cartoon, the ensuing discussion was of human nature. All I ask is that those who think war and unmerciful violence is a part of human nature provide me a valid, sound argument. And try to avoid post hoc, ergo propter hoc, its just far too easy to counter.

http://www.concentric.net/~Creyn266/COMM335/Toulmin.htm

[enigma]

A great deal of places don't. The African tropics, the Indian subcontinent, northern China. Atrocities like the Darfur massacres are happening at an increased rate in sub-Saharan Africa, mainly because water is getting scarcer and once-large supplies are drying up. I could go on, famine caused by severe drought is becoming a standard affair in this day and age. There are other continents besides North America and Europe.

Not heard of the Ganges? :p


Inregards to your valid reason, its too easy to counter the fact that since man emerged on the planet we have killed animals and each other, still do to this day but then thats not a valid reason because you can counter that with ... well there are pacifists?
Human nature is to attempt to survive as long as possible which usally results in there vilonet acts but then attempting to survive is probably an easily rebutled point isnt it?

I also liked the counter to modern slavery - lets ignore it!

[Kaos]

I also liked the counter to modern slavery - lets ignore it!

Re-read my posts, I never ignored modern slavery. Slavery is possibly the most despicable thing one person can do to another and it is a definite and large problem in the modern world, HOWEVER it is no longer practised by legal corporations, institutions and governments around the world, whereas at one point in human history it was. Thus progress as been made.

And on the other point; I'm not trying to prove all humans are pacifist, whereas you are trying to prove all humans are inherently violent. That's why my argument doesn't apply to me.

[-X-Sublime]

sigh No i do not this the cartoon should be condemded

[enigma]

Re-read my posts, I never ignored modern slavery. Slavery is possibly the most despicable thing one person can do to another and it is a definite and large problem in the modern world, HOWEVER it is no longer practised by legal corporations, institutions and governments around the world, whereas at one point in human history it was. Thus progress as been made.

And on the other point; I'm not trying to prove all humans are pacifist, whereas you are trying to prove all humans are inherently violent. That's why my argument doesn't apply to me.

Under the right conditions everyone would act in a violent maner. If they need to eat, protect themselves, gain shelter, protect family, or to exploit others or resources ... i firmly believe that we are, we just cover it up until its needed.
Survival is the key, thats is what is human nature and thats what sparks off wars most of the time...

In regards to slavery, progress has not been made. So because its moved from being legel to illegel but still goes on yea thats fine, thats progress yay happy face time.

[2ltben]

Not heard of the Ganges? :p


Inregards to your valid reason, its too easy to counter the fact that since man emerged on the planet we have killed animals and each other, still do to this day but then thats not a valid reason because you can counter that with ... well there are pacifists?
Human nature is to attempt to survive as long as possible which usally results in there vilonet acts but then attempting to survive is probably an easily rebutled point isnt it?

I also liked the counter to modern slavery - lets ignore it!
The best way to survive is to kill each other? I should think that would be cooperation, intraspecies Mutualism.

[enigma]

When a nation has no access to raw resources it needs and trade is not an option, what do you do?

[2ltben]

Initiate negotiations in the United Nations and the WTO. If a nation has no access to what its economy needs, how can it even comprehend fighting a war it has absolutely no hope in winning because it can't fund it.

[enigma]

hehe, so what about Germany, Japan and countless others went to war for access to resources they didnt have or obtain.

Some would argue that the USA policy today is to obtain access to oil etc hence the whole Iraq thing.

There just the big examples really.

[2ltben]

hehe, so what about Germany, Japan and countless others went to war for access to resources they didnt have or obtain.

Some would argue that the USA policy today is to obtain access to oil etc hence the whole Iraq thing.

There just the big examples really.
We did not go to Iraq for oil because, quite simply, we're not getting any. And the invasion of Iraq also affected supplies that could have been obtained in Syria and Iran, which we're not getting any of anymore, if we ever did. If anything, the war in Iraq has made us seek oil elsewhere because we sure as hell can't depend on it from the Middle East anymore.

[-X-Sublime]

Ehhh maybe the US did and maybe it dident i doubt we will ever know as just regular people

[|Crimson|]

I know this if off topic, but I have to ask.

Sublime... does your keyboard have punctuation on it?

[-X-Sublime]

I know this if off topic, but I have to ask.

Sublime... does your keyboard have punctuation on it?Whats that ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh so thats what all these dots and dashes and squigly lines are :).

[|Crimson|]

hahaha,

ok I'll let you off cos you made me laugh.

[-X-Sublime]

hahaha,

ok I'll let you off cos you made me laugh.dun worry bro in real life i use it quite offten but i figure ehhhh its the internet most people are as dumb as me

[Mickelson]

It's a rather tasteless and stupid cartoon, but the man should still have a right to make his statement and stick by it.

[-X-Sublime]

As all men should(and ladies) have the right to voice their opinion no matter how offensive it is to others.......But if they dont stick to the words that they speak thats another matter