Theory of mind, horror and terror.
Some of the individual cases of atrocity being reported from the Israeli/Palestinian horror and the Russia/Ukraine horror, got me thinking about the notions of horror and terror, historically and currently.
A recent (Oct 13) on-line essay by someone called Lincoln Michel, titled, The Vocabulary of fear, describes the difference between horror and terror as:
[i]“Terror is the feeling of dread and apprehension at the possibility of something frightening, while horror is the shock and repulsion of seeing the frightening thing. “[/I]
In that essay, a writer of gothic novels called Ann Radcliffe (whose work I do not know,) is quoted as having said:
[i]“Terror and horror are so far opposite, that the first expands the soul, and awakens the faculties to a high degree of life; the other contracts, freezes, and nearly annihilates them.”[/I]
Horror or terror imposed on others via some state of mind that an individual perpetrator has, due to some 'madness' or 'mental imbalance' or pathology they have, is one thing, and is bad enough, when it comes to such as serial killers etc, but I am more interested on how those in power, employ such tactics in a very deliberate fashion.
Those who choose to employ horror and terror, to achieve a goal, obviously must believe that such methods can be very successful. Do you think such methods are successful?
I try to put myself in the shoes (I know I can't really) of a loved one, of a victim of terror/horror.
Is my almost automatic reaction of 'Kill Kill Kill the bastards that did this to my loved one!' and 'Kill everything they stand for and represent,' and 'Get revenge!' Exactly what those who use horror and terror want?
Do we need to be educated on the notions and applications of horror and terror, to be able to thwart the use of such tactics to expand and aggravate conflict between peoples?
Do you have any notions about how everyday people could be 'prepared' for dealing with horror and terror tactics?
Do you think that preparing people for such, would do more harm than good?
After my initial thoughts, it seemed so 'correct' to me that the 'kill, kill kill the bastards, and 'I must take total revenge on all they care about!' was what we must learn not to do, if we want to survive as a species.
I also find it interesting that the animal kingdom don't seem to have the revenge pressure that we have.
If a lioness loses her cubs to a male lion who has just taken over the pride, she does not seem to seek vengeance on him? Does anyone know of any example of human style 'vengeance,' being sought by any other species on Earth, other than humans?
Have there been any studies on how/why humans developed this relationship with vengeance than no other species seem to have, to anywhere near the same extent as us?
A recent (Oct 13) on-line essay by someone called Lincoln Michel, titled, The Vocabulary of fear, describes the difference between horror and terror as:
[i]“Terror is the feeling of dread and apprehension at the possibility of something frightening, while horror is the shock and repulsion of seeing the frightening thing. “[/I]
In that essay, a writer of gothic novels called Ann Radcliffe (whose work I do not know,) is quoted as having said:
[i]“Terror and horror are so far opposite, that the first expands the soul, and awakens the faculties to a high degree of life; the other contracts, freezes, and nearly annihilates them.”[/I]
Horror or terror imposed on others via some state of mind that an individual perpetrator has, due to some 'madness' or 'mental imbalance' or pathology they have, is one thing, and is bad enough, when it comes to such as serial killers etc, but I am more interested on how those in power, employ such tactics in a very deliberate fashion.
Those who choose to employ horror and terror, to achieve a goal, obviously must believe that such methods can be very successful. Do you think such methods are successful?
I try to put myself in the shoes (I know I can't really) of a loved one, of a victim of terror/horror.
Is my almost automatic reaction of 'Kill Kill Kill the bastards that did this to my loved one!' and 'Kill everything they stand for and represent,' and 'Get revenge!' Exactly what those who use horror and terror want?
Do we need to be educated on the notions and applications of horror and terror, to be able to thwart the use of such tactics to expand and aggravate conflict between peoples?
Do you have any notions about how everyday people could be 'prepared' for dealing with horror and terror tactics?
Do you think that preparing people for such, would do more harm than good?
After my initial thoughts, it seemed so 'correct' to me that the 'kill, kill kill the bastards, and 'I must take total revenge on all they care about!' was what we must learn not to do, if we want to survive as a species.
I also find it interesting that the animal kingdom don't seem to have the revenge pressure that we have.
If a lioness loses her cubs to a male lion who has just taken over the pride, she does not seem to seek vengeance on him? Does anyone know of any example of human style 'vengeance,' being sought by any other species on Earth, other than humans?
Have there been any studies on how/why humans developed this relationship with vengeance than no other species seem to have, to anywhere near the same extent as us?
Comments (143)
I don’t like your rants against antinatalism, but this is a good topic. As far as I’ve seen in documentaries, common chimps form alliances that are very revenge based. They even bide their time and wait until they have the upper hand in their power.
That's ok and that's a right you have, that I fully endorse. I don't hate you but I hate antinatalism, but I also know that I must not hate it, or seek vengeance on those who support it. I need to accept the burden of its existence, and try to only ever use nothing other that my own rationale, against it, and not against the person. Fight the idea and not the person, is probably common ground for both of us.
In your chimp example, is what you describe, only ever 'within a troop hierarchy?' Are there examples of one troop seeking vengeance on another, for some previous sneak attack, in which some chimpanzee young were ripped apart, for example?
:up:
Quoting universeness
I’m going to see if I can pull up some vids..I’m sure someone might beat me to it. Don’t have time now.
This 4min video had a strong affect on me, but there are ones that are just as 'terrifying' from the Palestinian side.
But is the reaction of the 4 volunteers in the news clip, exactly what Hamas wanted?
Is my shock what they wanted? Do we need to all react differently to thwart the nefarious bastards on both sides of these horror campaigns. How do we educate the masses to defeat these tactics?
Here is this article:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0705555104#:~:text=Like%20humans%2C%20chimpanzees%20retaliate%20against,and%20are%20therefore%20not%20spiteful.
I clicked on the link you provided, and it took me to a PNAS page that had titles/links to many articles and vids on many topics, but I could not find one titled something like ;'chimpanzees retaliate against and are therefore not spiteful' (I just took this from your link above,) Do you have a more direct link?
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0705555104
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0706166104
Thanks for trying again. Your links seemed fine to me, so I investigated a little further. The problem turned out to be at my side. I was connected to TPF using a MacBook pro running the Mojave OP system and it would not connect to the article page, and only to the main PNAS page.
I switched to a Windows 11 based laptop, and it accessed the page with no problems. I probably need to upgrade the Macbook to Catalina or more. I will read the article: Chimps don't just get mad, they get even.
It's not just a revenge pressure that's notable in humans. Humans have a very acute sense of a) status and b) rules. We react strongly to any subversion of either. It has been shown in various experiments that humans will punish "cheating" even to their own detriment.
It is also I think clearly visible in our social structures, in the way we treat criminals or children.
If I was to offer some plausible sounding evolutionary mechanism, I'd say it's probably related to empathy and the very complex social dynamics we developed. Revenge is a kind of reverse empathy where we wish to punish a transgression by doing something we consider will be painful to the other.
But do note this is a guess which is probably wrong.
I think this is not something we can unlearn, but rather something we must endeavour to notice and (with effort) question.
Quoting universeness
Like a lot of approaches to affect, emotion and mood, this definition doesn’t get beyond circularity. Terror and horror are related responses to a frightening event. But what is fright in itself, apart from the obvious fact that it is produced by something one is afraid of, something perceived as harmful or dangerous, something that makes us want to run away from it? Positing an evolutionary mechanism is not much more illuminating, since it just ignores the experiential
structure of fear in favor of a arbitrary reductionist causality.
A fundamental point about the category of affects which includes fear, anxiety, terror and horror that needs to be brought out is that these emotions result from an interpretive assessment of events. Specifically, we become afraid when an impending event threatens us with the chaos of comprehensibility. It isnt the potential of physical damage in itself that we fear for its own sake , but our lack of predictive control over the implications of this harm.
For this reason fear, terror and horror are relative to our preparedness for making sense of a situation.
I also read the study titled 'Chimpanzees are vengeful but not spiteful.'
Very interesting stuff, and the experiments involving access to food with the chimps, were well thought out imo.
From: Chimps don't just get mad they get even, we have:
There is now considerable interest in the evolution of cooperation and punishment in human societies, and there have been a number of efforts to explore the phylogenetic origins of cooperative motives in other primates. Virtually all of the work on other primates has focused on the willingness to provide benefits to conspecifics. In this issue, Jensen et al. turn the tables and examine chimpanzees' propensity to impose sanctions on familiar group members who commit transgressions.
and
The key finding from this experiment is that the chimpanzees were as likely to collapse the table when another chimpanzee had access to the food as when no one had access to the food. Thus, chimpanzees do not seem to retaliate against other chimpanzees simply for getting lucky.
and
However, the chimpanzees were significantly more likely to respond punitively when they were victimized by other chimpanzees than when they were the victims of the experimenter's whims.
and
In this set of experiments, punitive action was cheap and easy. All the chimps had to do was pull a rope, and food fell to the floor. Pulling the rope required little effort, and they did not lose any food themselves. What would they have done if it was more costly to retaliate? Would they have collapsed the table if they lost part of their own food? Would you? Humans have a pretty strong taste for revenge, even when it costs them dearly.
and finally
These experiments demonstrate that chimpanzees are willing to retaliate against those who transgress against them. However, humans take punitive action one step further. We are willing to impose punishment on those who transgress against others, even if we sustain no harm ourselves. For example, people are willing to spend their own money to punish those who make unfair offers in the ultimatum game. In real life, whistle-blowers risk their careers to call attention to corporate wrong-doing, even when they are not harmed directly. This kind of “altruistic punishment” is thought to play an important role in the evolution and maintenance of cooperation in large groups. Punishment of infractions by third parties is not limited to humans; policing plays an important role in the maintenance of cooperation in the highly specialized cooperative societies of social insects. Chimpanzees are clearly willing to retaliate against chimpanzees who steal from them, but would they also police and impose costly punishment on chimpanzees who steal from others?
We seem to have developed much deeper and darker notions of retaliation, compared to other species, such as chimpanzees. I have read some other studies regarding 'fear' and 'terror' as demonstrated in animal species, but I have not yet read any suggestion that any animal species employ the human notion of terror, or are affected by 'horror' as described in the op.
I could offer my choice of quotes and a brief personal summary of the other article: Chimpanzees are vengeful but not spiteful. I will, if you think such might be of use, but it seems to me that the Chimpanzee use of 'vengence' is very localised, and does not ever become 'vendetta.' What is your opinion on this?
Quoting Echarmion
I think it's interesting that early theists were so afraid of the human notion of vengeance via terror and horror tactics, that they invented 'vengeance is mine sayeth the lord.'
I think to 'unlearn' such would be unhealthy, as unless the possible consequences of our notions and applications of horror and terror, for all involved, are quite fresh in the human psyche, we think we can control such, and I think history and current examples demonstrate, very clearly, that we cannot.
So yeah, I think you are correct, we must all ask many more questions, and protest a lot more against the use of both tactics.
I am fine with your descriptions of the issues involved, but do you have any suggestions as to how we all might better deal with the notions of horror/terror/fright, when they are used to manipulate us in such powerful ways? Ways that are demonstrated to us every day, in the news and even in the personal daily lives that many folks experience?
Most people seem to learn that by kindergarden. People are far more resilient than official media are giving them credit for.
What we're seeing on the news is media propaganda. Bear in mind that people (who have experienced or witnessed something terrible) are often coached by the journalist what to say and then the journalist and news editors select a few interviews which then eventually make it to the news. But they dismiss all other interviews where the people don't paint a terrified, horrified enough picture of the events.
Sure, deepen and widen your perspective on the issues that are liable to trigger such emotions. In particular, immerse yourself in the perspectives of those who perpetrate acts that elicit these feelings, so that they become more intelligible and predicable to you.
Probaly because she understands she is much too weak to be successful against him. Not because she had no sense of vengeance.
I've seen cats revenge themselves against humans. I've seen a cat step in to break up an uneven fight/play between dogs. I've seen a cat step in to protect another cat from a human.
Crows team up against a larger bird of prey that hunts young crows.
Events like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Zoo_tiger_attacks
A tigress in a zoo went after the people who teased her.
Yes, very often, though obviously not always.
You have to distinguish between a single act of terror, or threat of violence, and a long-term, consistent application of fear for control. (See Orwell's 1984) Think, for example of abused children. Terror becomes, for them, not a momentary state of mind, but a staple of their existence: habitual. This is true also of entire peoples under a ruthless dictatorship.
Quoting universeness
No, and they count on it never coming to pass. Sometimes they're wrong: the Jacobins and Bolsheviks do sometimes act in unison and mobilize the masses, and the results are neither justice nor simple revenge, but pandemonium. People pushed that far down into the darkness of their psyche are capable of anything but reason.
The urge to vengeance seems more compelling to men than to women - on the average. In all the cases of homicide by a long-suffering wife, I've known only one where the abusive husband ended up with multiple stab wounds. Usually, it's just the one gash or shot or hammer-blow, unless he keeps coming. Maybe his car or big screen get smashed, sometimes his clothes cut to ribbons: damage to his property, not his family. Whereas, the men who caught up with fleeing wives and girlfriends on many occasions that I knew of, killed her parents, friends, lover or whoever helped her get away.
Quoting universeness
The instances I know are of domestic animals taking revenge on humans. I don't mean fighting back or resisting, but biding their time for an opportunity to get back at somebody who wronged them in some way. A horse may nip or side-swipe a rough stable-hand whenever he gets the chance, but won't trample anyone to death except in a blind rage. Cats I've known to do deliberate mischief to a human who offended them, and one of our dogs shat in the middle of our bed after she'd been punished. I've heard of elephants holding a grudge for years against bad handlers, just as they retain affection for good ones. Goat are notorious for butting anyone who has mistreated them, at any opportunity.
Quoting universeness
Individually, we have done surprisingly well at letting the law or God carry out our vengeance. In groups, we have much less self-control; in mobs, none at all.
Really? I assume you are not suggesting that 4 year old humans know how to thwart the horror and terror tactics used by nefarious humans.
Quoting baker
Quoting baker
Do you think that the examples you offer are scientifically rigorous and are such personal interpretations truly comparable with human notions of horror and terror and how such is manipulated?
How important do you think it is that all people must do this? based on my op question:
Quoting universeness
This is a psychotherapeutic question. It’s like the difference between progressive desensitization to overcome a phobia vs exposing yourself to the frightening event without any prior preparation. The first method can moderate or eliminate the terror, the second can amplify it.
So, how would you defend yourself and others against such?
Quoting Vera Mont
I disagree. I think the 'kill kill kill the bastards,' is exactly what those who employ terror and horror tactics intended to invoke. They just don't think the response will/can reach them directly but will achieve the ends they desire.
Quoting Vera Mont
Yes, so how can we learn to recognise when that old result is recurring again and learn how to take wiser action and not respond to horror/terror by terrorising and performing horrific acts?
Quoting Vera Mont
That's a claim I have always found more interesting than most of the other observations of animal behaviour you offered that you are aware of or have witnessed.
I found this, but I don't know if any serious scientific study on this, has been done:
Researchers believe elephants' good memories are a big part of how elephants survive and why so many live so long (50 to 60 years or more on average). Those who work closely with elephants also have noticed that elephants remember injuries and can hold grudges against those who have hurt them.
I never suggested the solutions were easy, but do you think we can, as a species, learn to react more effectively to horror and terror, used by others to create the conflict they want, for their own purposes?
Do you think we are doomed to repeat the same old errors we have made since the claims that Boudica(Boadicea) decided to fight Rome, mainly because she was personally treated very disrespectfully by them and her daughters were raped. Would she have been better to insist that those who raped her daughters be punished accordingly, and take wiser actions than just try to kill kill kill, everything Roman in Britain? Could she have had better results and outcomes, if she had taken wiser actions?
Your worse enemies always come at what you love most, as they are sure that is the best way to make you make big mistakes. Is that not true?
I could not. A national consensus, or at least overwhelming majority, has to make provisions in its peace-keeping and law-enforcement agencies to prevent the rise of dictators. Where a dictator and his enablers have already been put into power, whether by an internal or external force, the average citizen has no defence.
Quoting universeness
This may be true of small, localized acts of terror carried out in anonymously, far from the terrorists' own base of operations. Even there, if their identities and base are discovered - or strongly suspected - the much greater force of retaliatory strike falls on their comrades, family and friends.
How do you figure it works in a dictatorship? The police kick your door down at 4am, drag your parents away after giving you a few whacks with their rifle-butts. Every fibre in your body screams for retribution. Whom do you attack? And with what? And how would that serve the regime?
Quoting universeness
How can you tell if you're about flip out? You can't - or it would never happen.
Quoting universeness
And I hope nobody ever undertakes one. Statistics only, please - no experimentation!!
Small children are not yet obsessed with political correctness and denial the way adults tend to be.
It depends on one's agenda, I suppose.
Supposition has it's place ..... I suppose.
The problem with such "preparation" is that the very same people "preparing" others that way are probably also themselves the perpetrators of "horror and terror". Like when kindergarden nurses beat children in order to "teach" them to be kind and not to beat children.
Such preparation could be effective only if the preparer and the prepared would be in a relationship of mutual trust. For the most part, this is not possible, though. So people learn a double moral standard from early on.
And what would such "wiser actions" be? Submitting to the Romans?
Well, I certainly agree that prevention is better than cure.
Quoting Vera Mont
Do you not think that just as it's true of local political gangsters like Hamas, it's also true of the economic terrorism and the economic horror employed by an organised globally nefarious, abominably rich elite?
Quoting Vera Mont
As demonstrated in Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia or to a lesser extent in Putin's Russia.
The words underlined are the most important, yes. I will try my best to answer. I would want to kill those who took my parents. I know those in power, the main controllers of the regime, are 'ok' with that however. The functionaries who do the horror scenes mean very little to the 'regime' hierarchy. So killing those who did the horror or killing those who they claim to represent, (like the Palestinian citizenry,) should never be the priority. Purse and kill the leaders and their financial backers would be my best and most honest answer but What do I really know about who they are, for sure, I would need a great deal of help.
Quoting Vera Mont
This takes me back to one of my opening questions:
Quoting universeness
Only by doing something like this, could people be 'trained' to deal with horror and terror, without becoming a horrific terrorist, But this second question still hangs in the air.
Quoting universeness
Isn't it also showbiz? A snuff movie? Explosions, screams, fire, ruins, dramatic footage of people suffering in the aftermath - this guarantees notoriety, being talked about, filmed, covered by journalists, discussed by taxi drivers, parsed on philosophy fora...
Quoting universeness
Most of our foundational stories, our religions and myths showcase acts of vengeance, so perhaps we are primed by generations of such storytelling. But I don't find this behavior surprising given our capacity for creativity, story telling, design and forethought - isn't it just the shadow side of human competence? We demonstrate our love of others by offering them care and resources. We demonstrate our hatred of others by wanting to harm them.
Quoting Vera Mont
:up:
I think retribution is an appropriate act where injustice is concerned, because only then can justice be maintained.
The problems occur invariably whenever the collectivist mindset seeps in to the equation. It introduces a host of fallacy and bias, like guilt by association, and it isn’t long before vengeance is sought on those who are innocent.
So I don’t agree that revenge is something we ought not to do. We ought to do it in the service of justice, and refrain from being unjust while doing so. We cannot let people get away with tyranny and injustice if we are to survive as a species.
How collectivist of you ... :mask:
Speaking your language.
I don't see how the two are associated, even in the dictionary.
I think being complex beings, we are going to have complex responses. We have the ability for deep compassion and deep rage and horrific acts.
Were the Vikings terrible or horrible? Both I would think.
Were the Huns terrible or horrible? Both I would think.
Were the Mongols terrible or horrible? Both I would think.
And on and on.
Who is worse, the Hatfields or Maccoys?
Who is worse, the Trojans or the Greeks? Helen of Troy was kidnapped...
I would say in all cases you need to demonize the enemy for you to do atrocious acts but I don't think that's all of it.. Besides individual psychological makeups of individuals who might have tendencies for anti-social behavior, you have cultures that simply downplay the ethics of suffering when it comes to its enemies. By what means did the Vikings and Mongols justify how they conducted war, for example? It wasn't necessarily that they de-humanized the other. They simply never thought of their tactics as wrong perhaps. It was what a warrior did.
You keep jumping to these extremities of possibility, in an almost knee-jerk manner imo.
From claiming that 4 year old human wisdom, is capable of understanding nefarious human manipulation of horror and terror, to perpetrators of horror and terror being the ones who would be chosen as the teachers of how to defend yourself against such!!
Quoting baker
What exactly is it you are trying to warn against here? Bad kindergarten nurses or preparing people to defend themselves against terror and horror tactics by terrifying them and horrifying them? I don't see the need to teach the dangers of fire to others, by burning them a little or a lot. I agree that 'experience is the best teacher,' but it is not the only effective method. We have plenty of memorialised horror and terror examples recorded on film and testimony. We don't need to have people physically and mentally experience the extremes of horror and terror to train them to deal with it better.
In this under 2 min clip from Babylon 5, the character Marcus, talks a little about his Minbari training.
What do you think of his brief mention of 'terror'?
How can we better defend a population against the nefarious use of horror and terror?
I think the answer lies in learning how to be much better at surgical removal, as opposed to being very good at using a blood axe or a large bludgeoning war hammer, on anyone who has the same or similar religious/race/societal etc, profile, to your perceived 'enemy.' Is this not happening in Gaza right now? Just like Hamas wanted and expected? They were surely not so dumb as being surprised at Israels response!
Quoting baker
So , do you truly believe the words I have underlined above? Have you no positive experiences of being in a relationship, of any kind, where mutual trust was employed and was not abused or taken advantage of in a nefarious way, by either side? As a classroom teacher, of over 30 years, I had many such positive 'mutual trust' experiences with individual pupils.
Quoting baker
There was no notion of nationhood in the Island of Britain, during the days of Boudica. She is described as leading the Iceni. I doubt that is what they even called themselves. Iceni is a Latin/Roman name.
Many other local tribes joined her resistance against the Roman invaders, yes, probably to protect their own areas, resources and people, but, the fact that their tactics were ultimately totally defeated by Rome, for me, demonstrates not that they were wrong to resist Rome but that their method of doing so, proved wrong headed. That's the main point I am making, and the main question I was asking, is, did Boudica make too many mistakes, because her leadership was blindsided by her need for personal vengeance against Rome? Is there not an important lesson for us all to understand about such stories, even though they are mostly mythical and based on the unreliable reports, produced mainly by historians, who came from the side of the victors?
So, if what you suggest here is true, then are the news reports we receive about such global events, our own governments attempt to control it's population by exemplifying the horrors happening elsewhere, so that we remained terrified that that might happen to us, if we don't 'appreciate' the efforts our 'beloved' leaders employ, to protect us against such terrorists as Hamas and their like, Putin and his like, Netanyahu and his like, etc? Are we being irrational conspiracy jerks to think that our government is colluding with the media to employ horror and terror in these ways or is this just the news media accurately reporting what is happening on the ground, or is the truth somewhere between these two possibilities? How important do you think it is for all of us to understand what's really going on, better than we do at present? Historically, we seem to keep making the same mistakes again and again Tom. This happens at a personal, local, national and even international level. Imo, this produces nihilists, misanthropes, doomsters and burned out dreamers, by the bucket load. Quite a few of such folks post on TPF, imo. Surely we can't just hand wave them all away.
Quoting Tom Storm
Yes, I think the words I have underlined above, are true.
I need a little more regarding the words I have italicised. What do you mean by 'the shadow side of human competence? Is this a reference to the range of individual levels of human ignorance displayed or demonstrated, regarding what is really going on or is this a reference to those humans who hold nefarious intent behind their actions? My questions are more about the desperate need I perceive, to direct 'hate' in far more accurate and precise ways. To learn the use of the surgical scalpel, rather than the indiscriminate blood axe, war hammer or missile strike.
I am not sure which mammals you are referring to with 'other higher mammals' and in what sense you are employing the notion of 'higher.' Apart from that, your agreement with @Vera Mont, that human law has performed quite well in bringing peddlers or manipulators of horror and terror to justice, does not fully hold for me. Such laws fail completely as often as they succeed imo. I would not be without them but we need to do far far better. In the 'Culture is Critical' thread. Both Vera and I agreed (I think) that a far more robust and reliable 'grievance system' was required at all level of human existence. I think this is sooooooo essential, at these more extreme levels of individual or group experiences of being the victims of any deliberate horror/terror campaign.
We cannot keep making the same wrong-headed and knee-jerk responses that we have been making during, since, and even before, the days of Sparta. It causes many people to turn misanthrope.
How would you respond to a poll question like:
Ignoring any bias from being one, do you think the universe would be a better place without humans?
It was just fine without human beings during the 13.8 billion years prior to a quarter million years ago so I suspect – consistent with the mediocrity principle – that the universe would be neither worse nor better off without us.
I'm referring to
- primates
- cetaceans
- elephantidae
- (also) "domesticated" canines, felines, etc
I broadly agree but the devil is in the detail of that word 'appropriate.'
Quoting NOS4A2
Again I agree with the 'problem' you identify but we cannot just 'accept the inevitability' of your last sentence above, as that is a completely unacceptable outcome. Do you have no conviction whatsoever that your last sentence can be prevented more and more often, until it becomes almost unheard of?
Quoting NOS4A2
We also cannot accept the fallout from the methods we currently use to respond to acts of horror and terror. The death of so many innocents is an 'end justifies the means' approach that results in a perpetual brinksmanship that may destroy our species for the stupidest reasons there is.
The links provided by @schopenhauer1, had this entry:
Quoting universeness
I think this is a very important danger to highlight, in the words I have underlined, as I think they point to a clear and present existential danger, to our entire species.
But, the same article also offered:
Quoting universeness
I find this much more hopeful for us all.
Which two? Gangsters like Hamas and an organised globally nefarious abominably rich elite or horror and terror. I suspect its horror and terror but if that is the case then I don't follow your meaning. Are you suggesting there is no association between horror and terror?
I just do not understand how you arrive at that. I know you can be a bit cryptic at times but I assumed, that you have previously agreed, that humans create meaning and purpose in ways that no other existent we know of, can or does. Do you disagree with that? or is it more that you don't think that our ability to demonstrate and assign meaning and purpose etc, is of great value in the way I propose it is?
Agreed.
Quoting schopenhauer1
All good historical references that exemplify a point I am proposing. All the examples above are humans in full competitive mode imo, and all feeding from the primeval 'rules of survival in the wilds' experience. Horror and terror have been used by all the example you cited above. Eventually one group 'conquered' another and then they were in command for a while, and to some degree or another the conquerers and conquered 'merged.' Cooperation at some point, is also employed and the proposal that 'lets forget all the past horror and terror between us, lets cooperate instead for our mutual benefit.'
That to me seems like a very long bloody road to reach a conclusion that could have been practiced from the start. The Vikings, Huns, Mongols, Trojans, Greeks, Hatfields and MacCoys, were also capable (and demonstrated that capability) to trade and tolerate the existence of different cultures. Does this not suggest that humans are capable of doing so much better when dealing with each other that our bloody history or current local wars and use of horror and terror tactics suggest?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Do you think the words I have underlined were a wise approach to the circumstances you describe of those times?
Also the did 'dehumanise' imo, because they always taught their own that they were superior in all the ways that mattered to the people they targeted for conquest. Would you agree that 'fascist' approach was always prevalent in the words of those who led bands of raiders/conquerers?
I don't know if you have ever watched Babylon 5, but I have always found this extract very interesting:
What do you think of this depiction, its around 3 mins long?
Quoting universeness
Religious nationalists and greedy capitalists. How you characterize groups of people depends on which side you're on and what you believe the fight is about.
Quoting universeness
I really wish you would not misrepresent my remarks!
Quoting Vera Mont
was in response to: Quoting universeness
I said nothing at all about how well the law performs against horror and terror, nothing about peddlers or manipulators or justice.
Yes you did! you typed:
Quoting Vera Mont
In what way is this not a comment on:
Quoting Vera Mont
I think that's sometimes a consequence, sure. What I meant is that terrorist acts and retribution are a form of showbiz - a vulgar calling card of the protagonists who can rely upon world media to build or amplify their notoriety and power. Those who seek to gain their revenge can also demonstrate their power and credentials. I make no comment on accuracy of media reports and I don't think there's a conspiracy. I think the problem is that parties feel they need to put on bigger and better bangs and flashes and produce higher bodycounts to demonstrate their commitment to a cause, along with their might.
Quoting universeness
I don't see how we can gain a pure understanding of what is going on. It will always be an interpretation subject to a set of values. In many instances the why may not matter as this becomes a justification and we shouldn't be able to justify the mass murder of innocents.
Quoting universeness
They were two small points and you may not agree. The flip side of our capacity to care and nurture is our capacity to harm and destroy. I am never surprised by our willingness to do the latter. I think cruelty is a reality of human nature. A primitive impulse to destroy lies just below the surface. Throw in tribalism and age old blood feuds and it no longer seems to matter who gets hurt.
Quoting universeness
I agree this would be desirable.
Quoting 180 Proof
I tend to agree. Humans may frequently strike each other as marvellous creatures, but I don't think we can say that our presence on earth has made the place any better.
In the way I indicated. It was about how we, humans in societies, have learned to suppress the impulse for personal revenge and defer to socially constituted legal mechanisms. I didn't evaluate the efficacy of those mechanisms. And there was a second sentence, which appears to have escaped your notice:
"In groups, we have much less self-control; in mobs, none at all"
If my answers cause so much confusion, perhaps I am unable to communicate clearly enough. Perhaps I should suppress the impulse to respond.
Quoting Vera Mont
FWIW, I found your meaning perfectly clear. :up:
Quoting universeness
Reread the preceding two-thirds of the sentence in question in order to grok the last third.
We "create meaning and purpose" for ourselves, that's all we "know" – which is merely parochial and anthropocentric – so big whup! Evidently, the universe doesn't care one wit. Copernicus' principle is consistent with Zapffe-Camus' absurd. On a cosmic scale, universeness, the whole of our quarter-milluon year young species is infinitesmal in significance (though that might change ever so slightly with the advent of our "last invention": AGI—>ASI). H. sapiens is only a few footprints in a cosmic surf which postbiomorphs might 'rediscover' as an anomalous fossil worthy of study. Apparently you've repeatedly ignored my stated position: We – all human civilizations – are just a cocoon, mate, not the butterfly. Denial of our manifest cosmic insignificance is, to my mind, religious. :sparkle: :pray: :eyes:
By suggesting that most individual humans defer to their legal system you imply they do have an efficacy that is sufficient for most but perhaps not fit for purpose for all concerned. To suggest you are not implying that is a bit bizarre to me. It was not an effort to read your second sentence, so it did not escape my notice. I agreed with its highlighting of the group or mob mentality but I disagree that a group or mob cannot be stopped in their tracks by robust, just and fair counter measures that allow for democratic protest, but not mob violence.
Quoting Vera Mont
Now you are just hissing at me Vera. Respond to my posts when you feel compelled to do so, or/and you enjoy doing so. If I need you to clarify a point then I will continue to ask you to. If you feel frustration or impatience towards me, then feel free to take as long a break as you wish, from responding to my posts. Especially if you feel I consistently:
Quoting Vera Mont
I enjoy our exchanges, including the times that your posts cause me to feel frustration and confusion.
That's all part of the fun of debate imo.
So the meaning and purpose we create for ourselves has no commonality with many many others?
Quoting 180 Proof
We are of the universe, yes? So why do you choose to isolate the meaning and purpose we each generate from that which we are part of and are a product of? I have never suggested that 'the universe,' 'cares,' about anything, other than through lifeforms such as us.
Quoting 180 Proof
No I have not repeatedly ignored your stated position, I have just disagreed with it. The cosmos is indeed vast but what does vast mean, without a creature such as we, who can wonder about what vast means?
The human ability to generate meaning and assign purpose is far, far more significant that you suggest, and is as significant as the 'vastness' of the cosmos. Even using your 250,000 years ago or the majority of the 13.8 billion years it took for your cocoon imagary to burst open. We did not become something as pretty and primitive as a butterfly but we did became conscious, sentient and probably the most advanced intellect we know of. I agree with you that I am far more anthropocentric than you are. I think by now, you know that I celebrate that difference between us, and I would love to convince you to be less misanthropic than I think you are.
I enjoy the tussle between us from the positions we hold, however, as it helps to air the debate.
I the remark was addressed solely to the ability of humans to control their natural impulses for the sake of social cohesion. What you infer is outside my purview.
Quoting universeness
I don't mind that. I do mind being misrepresented; I do mind having my statements interpreted as something quite different from what I actually said, whether it's done consistently, haphazardly or selectively.
So, keep complaining about it and keep clarifying and correcting where you feel you need too.
I will keep interpreting what others type, in the ways that I do, as I have found my methods to be, in the main, quite successful and accurate. I am ok that some would completely disagree. I would be very surprised if that were not the case. If I misrepresent you again, then I am sure you will again make your position clearer. I have no significant concerns here.
Thanks for the clarification, I thought you might be suggesting that some 'other' mammals were 'higher' in some way than humans. That's why I also asked what you meant by 'higher.' But I think I see what you were getting at now.
Quoting 180 Proof
The degree of difference is very significant indeed, between humans and the other 'higher mammals,' you mentioned imo. No other species on Earth, demonstrates anything that comes anywhere near, the ways in which humans can manipulate the notions of horror and terror, imo. Do you agree? If not, do you have a clear example of a study that demonstrates a notion such as vendetta or using horror or terror as a deliberate part of an overall, often long term plan, to subjugate/conquer another group within any animal or insect species?
As you wish.
You seemed to admit that ape hierarchy is an example of this. How it is that the alpha male dominates by intimidation and alliances, whilst forming alliances to keep him in charge.
Quoting universeness
From Dictionary.com
Horror:
"1. An overwhelming and painful feeling caused by something frightfully shocking, terrifying, or revolting; a shuddering fear."
"2. Anything that causes such a feeling"
Terror:
"1. Intense, sharp, overmastering fear"
"2. An instance or cause of intense fear or anxiety"
From Cambridge Dictionary
Horror:
"A strong feeling of shock or fear, or something that makes you feel shocked or afraid"
Terror:
"A feeling of being very frightened"
Any dictionary and encyclopedia you open, you will find very similar meanings.
Anyone can see that these two words, not only they are not opposite --in any logical way-- but they are
instead quite close to each other. There's no space for a different interpretation between them.
This gal, Ann Radcliffe, like a lot of "intellectuals" need to feel they make a difference by inventing their own definintions, meanings and interpretations of words and terms, far from wat us the norm, so that they seem to stand out, be "special". Don't get attracted by this kind of shit.
Just think this: When someone reinvents the meaning of words and is using them as such and is even promoting these meanings to others, what s/he actual does is promoting misinformation putting his/her stone in the building of a Tower of Babel and create confusion in people.
I'm very strict about this. For me, this is a literary crime, and hence an information and communication crime.
A friend's cat which I had teased and annoyed a lot wreaked vengeance on my person whenever I visited. Quite justifiably.
Crows apparently sort out humans into "friendly" and "not-friendly" categories and take such vengeance as they can on not-friendly people.
Inanimate objects can be quite malicious and will take vengeance on the animal kingdom, especially our species, but others as well.
More seriously, though, what facilitates human vengeance are extensive cognitive resources to carry out the impulses of the emotions. Most animals lack the capacity. Animals are equipped for self-defense, territorial defense, off-spring defense, food defense, and so on. But when the defense is over, it's over. With humans, one never knows whether it's over or not. Years can pass before vengeance is taken.
Ha! Nice.
(I love these two characters!)
What is a word but an idea? It can be a jumping off point to explore deeper meanings contained in its potential.
I can see the use of the distinction between terror (fear of the unknown or the future) and horror (fear or revulsion of what has happened). I can see one leading to the other.
The horror of Viking tactics strikes terror on their enemies. But it might not. It might provoke feelings of retribution or justice. Justice might be revenge but it might be a resolve to stop the horror from continuing- to lick the Vikings at their own game.
Well, firstly I would suggest, that 'admit' is not the most appropriate term to use here. You provided links to two very good articles about scientific studies performed with chimpanzees. The conclusions delivered in both articles were 'limited,' in the extent of the comparison and commonalities the authors were prepared to state, regarding the similarities of punitive behaviour used by chimps and humans. I fully accept those findings (rather than 'admit' they have value), in as far as they go, and are evidenced, but my statement, again, is that the chimpanzee use of, what I would consider or recognise as applied horror and/or terror techniques, is far more simplistic and basic behavior, when considered against the quite common 'survival in the wilds,' type experience/inheritance, we and animals share.
Human use of horror and terror is far far more advanced and nuanced, compared to any other species on this planet imo, including how a particular individual animal, achieves and maintains the 'alpha male' style dominance, in a pack of dogs/wolves etc or in a troop of primates or in a pride of lions.
I have not been offered any evidence to the contrary ...... so far. I am not suggesting that there is no better evidence out there, but I think this path of 'compared to the animal kingdom,' as I outlined in this thread's opening, will not offer much more than those comments that have already been made by yourself and a few other contributors. I think focussing on the other points/questions I raised in the op, would be far more fruitful and useful. Unless, you do see more value than I do, in further exploring the animal v human aspect of how notions of horror and terror are employed.
I was responding to this below, not the article:
Quoting universeness
The reason I said that is, I know chimps go to war with other tribes. I would have to see any evidence if they actually hold "grudges" against that tribe for past wrongs. I doubt it necessarily. It may be that it is skirmishes for territory and that's it, but they are brutal campaigns (tearing at faces, ripping limbs, etc.). And the campaigns to maintain dominance by the alpha and his allies are basically terror campaigns to keep any would-be contenders in line. Have you seen the series "Chimp Empire"? I remember one scene where one of the outsider chimps was brutally attacked and killed in one of the episodes. That to me seems like basic, "Try allying against the alpha, see what happens" (terror) techniques". Granted, the commentary is pretty dramatic, but take of it what you will from the footage itself.
I am ok with the difference being that 'terror' is anticipatory, threat-based, a debilitating dread of witnessing or physically experiencing (a) horrific act(s).
Quoting Alkis Piskas
I have offered no opinion yet, as to Ms Ratcliffe's quote. I will now however. I think it speaks to the notion that some folks like to feel terrified, when there is no real threat, (like watching horror movies for example or riding a roller coaster) and some enjoy such notions of 'terror,' even when there is a very real threat (perhaps 'thrill seekers' are an example. Perhaps even human mercenary soldiers, are also a more disturbing example)
I don't think such aspects of 'terror' have much to offer, based on the main questions I placed in my opening, apart from the human mercenary soldier example, perhaps.
Was it just you exclusively, or was this cat aggressive towards many visitors in the way many cats are and dogs too. I don't find such examples particularly interesting, especially when there are programs that demonstrate how a cat/dog can be quite easily trained to no longer react in such ways to people they consider 'strangers.'
Quoting BC
Again, I don't think the human v animal demonstration/comparison of the notions of horror and terror, have much more to offer, than the contributions already made. I think the other aspects/questions I included in my opening might produce far more interesting debate/discussion.
I will watch the two vids you offered, and then comment, on your post.
I should have noticed that they were only little trailers, given the 'Hollywood style' intro treatment, to generate dramatic attraction. So I can respond faster than I thought I could.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I fully accept the similarities, between early tribal warfare between competing groups of human hunter-gatherers, and fights between chimp troops, and between most other competing animal groups of the same species, fighting each other to hold on to areas of good resources etc. I also fully accept that the level of violence involved, looks absolutely horrific, and I also accept that animals feel and can fully demonstrate fear and even terror. The big differences in human use of horror and terror is, as you yourself have highlighted and exemplified, and I think there are many more such very significant differences, that throw humans way, way beyond any animal or insect-based exemplar.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting schopenhauer1
I have not seen 'chimp empire' but I have watched similar battles in a series about meerkats, and another about ants v termites etc. As I suggested, I think that the examples offered so far, fall way, way short of the human uses of horror and terror and how such is being employed today (as it was in the past) between groups like Hamas and the Israelis or Putin/Ukraine and the western nations, or China currently in Honk Kong and the South China sea, or in North Korea or perhaps even in the UK, in far more subtle ways, than many of us understand. I would like to focus more on those areas and on the other questions in my opening, related to human nefarious use of horror and terror and how 'the people,' might better understand and effectively combat those who would, and do, use such tactics, rather than continue the comparison with the use of such amongst animals and/or insects and or/birds etc..
I'm not sure I understand the question. But perhaps the clarity of this matter rests upon the underlying assumptions one holds.
Humans are clever animals, so anything we do that animals also do is given a greater scale and sophistication by us. Humans use intimidation and violence as a tool to achieve ends. Even the democratic state, with many of its laws, police and punishments is just highly refined, even abstracted variation. So? Why do humans do this? Social control and territory acquisition.
How do we deal with this if institutions (e.g., the U.N.) and strategies (diplomacy) fail? No idea. If cultures are locked into internecine squabbles about hearts and minds and land grabs, then it's war. And then we come to questions of style - what kinds of horror and terror are judged to be commensurate with the goals?
Terror is, in a sense, a "transitive" noun. Terror is something that can be imposed on someone else, or on many people. Israel and Hamas have imposed terror on each other. War, by its nature is terrifying. A city can not be bombed without producing terror, as the bombs crash into buildings, explode, collapse buildings, burn flesh, ignite fires, etc. People really DO hate it when that happens, and they find it terror-ible.
Horror is a more subjective experience. I find some circus rides horrifying, despite them being safe devices which many people find quite entertaining. I find spiders and their webs horrifying, especially when encountered in dim enclosed spaces. Many people are indifferent to spiders. I don't find bats disturbing (I'm talking about ordinary brown bats that eat insects).
One can learn and unlearn horror. I find spiders less horrifying than I used to, and this is owning to a deliberate effort on my part. I find heights horrifying. There is a glass observation deck built on the wall of the Grand Canyon that allows one to look straight down for about 3/4 of a mile. I could learn to not find this glass deck horrifying. Horror films key right into my horror potentials. This too could be unlearned (but then I wouldn't have the experience of horror in a theater).
Terror, on the other hand, is too overwhelming a condition to be unlearned. One can become desensitized to terror, but this is not a desirable goal.
Terror and horror can be similarly bad experiences, except that horror does not normally involve actual physical threat. Terror IS threat, both physical and psychological.
So again, if somebody reports they were terrified and horrified in a bombing attack -- I have no objection. The rest of us who are not getting bombed and shot at can afford to be fussier,
I am not (consciously) "anthropocentric" at all.
I'm also not "misanthropic" at all.
You're special pleading conflates difference of degree with (an unwarranted suggestion of) difference in kind.
What was it do you think that made Viking and Mongol warriors okay with being "horror-ible"? Was it that the horror inflicted terror?
Purported quote from Genghis Khan:
Thankfully we have all been spared the fury of the Norsemen and the scourge of the Mongols. Their various successors have proved worthy successors in the arts of horror and terror. Terror is an effective offensive approach. If it's bad enough, it paralyzes the victim with horror and fear, ties them up in knots,
Hamas' attack on Israel was clearly intended to be "terrible" -- not just for the immediate recipients, but for the entire nation. It was also well timed and well executed, apart from the terror they created. Hamas - 1, Israel - 0. Israel's response, the bombing and siege of Gaza, couldn't be a surprise, but it could be (and has been) very very bad for the civilian Palestinians. How bad has it been for Hamas fighters and militants? We don't know, yet, and we won't know -- until (IF and WHEN) the Hamas defenses have been invaded and cleared out.
Russia's attack on Ukraine, and seizure of its eastern lands and Crimea has not been a terror and horror operation--not that it has been a picnic, of course. As brazen as the Russian seizures have been, as costly in lives and infrastructure as the war has been for Ukraine, a relatively low level of terror and horror seem to have prevailed. There was no blitzkrieg; no gas, biological, or atomic weapons; no massive bombing; no massive invasion. Rather, a steady grinding up of Ukraine's resources. For Ukraine, it's been slow destruction. Why?
The Norsemen, Mongols, Hamas, and Israel are doing what they COULD do. So is Russia. Vlad P. might want to have done things differently, but he couldn't manage a lightning strike, a blitzkrieg, lots of shock and awe.
The victim of a big surprise attack (horror, terror) is always at a disadvantage. After 9/11, the US could not duplicate the horror, terror, and surprise of planes crashing into the WTC and Pentagon. A few people can pull off a surprise. After the surprise is over, the perps are all dead. Who is the victimized country going to kill? In our case, Iraqis and Afghanistanis. Did it produce satisfaction in America? No. We didn't seem able to duplicate the horror, terror, and surprise we experienced.
I suspect that Israel is not going to get satisfaction from pounding the shit out of Gaza, even if there is nobody left there.
I'm OK too with that. Fear has to do with the future and the unknown (as we say "fear of the unknown"). Terror is fear too, only it is more intense. Likewise with horror. But terror and horror are not exactly the same. E.g. horror can also cause disgust (as in horror films). But the essential and common element in both terror and fear is intense fear, so they reflect about the same thing. So, in no way are they opposite
Now, since your topic also refers to the mind, there''s a lot to say about how fear --independently of its intensity-- is produced and about the mechanisms of the mind involved in that. But I think this is not the intention of this topic.
Otherwise, I agree with a lot of points in your description of the topic.
Ok Tom. let me try to 'home in,' on the main questions I was trying to raise in my opening.
All species on Earth had a similar experience in the wilds, under the 'survival of the fittest,' style of competition. I think the first major difference that developed between humans and all other species, was that we gained far more success against species, far larger, stronger and faster, than us by finding ways to work with each other in unison/common cause/cooperation. We could compete with and surpass all other species, due to cooperation.
But, we were still left with the fallout of 'competing,' with each other. This was the case for all other species as well.
Horror and terror, imo take on a much deeper and far far more nuanced sense of morality and injustice, when it is contemplated or applied to other members of the same species. This seems to me to be far more true in human species, than in any other. No other species has the kind of relationship with the notions of horror and terror that humans demonstrate they have.
So, let me try this scenario:
Two groups/communities/nations of humans form reasons/justifications as to why they MUST go to war with each other. They try to set 'rules,' under which they will fight. Inevitably, many on both sides, push those 'rules' to the limits or completely break them (or some propaganda systems will report that the other side has done/is doing so.) The absolute demonisation of 'them,' the other side. the scum, the vile existents. the utterly immoral (also godless :roll: ) barbarians.
This causes levels of outrage that we often see manifest in the base 'mob mentality,' that all us so-called 'civilised folks,' so frown upon. Escalation and atrocity soon follow from both sides, which often has an exponential growth into 'all hell breaking loose,' and perhaps a full nuclear exchange and perhaps the extinction of our species.
Many nefarious people have studied the human relationship with horror and terror and how to use these very powerful tools to repress or destroy what they consider to be any threat to them, such as democratic socialism, secular humanism, economic parity for the masses, a united species, anti-elite movements, etc, etc.
I am interested in how people can be better educated, in how nefarious humans manipulate others to focus on fighting and slaughtering each other, whilst in the background, they hoard all the cream and riches and resources that the Earth has, and they intend to keep full control over such, for them and their descendants exclusively, (until Jesus returns or Allah ends this experiment, etc) until the end of time.
I have my own ideas (none of which are original .... probably), but I am also very interested in the thoughts of others on this. I hope this clarifies my intentions with this thread a bit more than my described opening thoughts do.
Quoting BC
Quoting BC
Comments like these are examples of the ones that I think offer interesting room for discussion.
Desensitizing people to horror and terror tactics is indeed an outcome that we must avoid but all humans or (as many as can be made to understand), must expect and understand and allow for the 'kill, kill, kill the bastards and all they care about.' 'Utterly destroy them,' 'Erase them permanently from the face of the freakin planet, permanently!!!' and then not do or even try to pursue any of those goals/responses.
This has to be achieved at an individual, personal level. Especially when horror has been actioned, directly upon you or those you care about, either by design or just 'wrong place wrong time,' type scenarios.
Would humans gain better results and significantly reduce our existential threat if we learned more about how to respond more 'scalpel' like (for want of a better metaphor) to horror and the 'overwhelming condition of anticipatory terror?'
Or as I put it in the op:
Quoting universeness
So, you are not anthropocentric or misanthropic at all. I assume that includes during all time durations, past and present. So you are somewhere on the spectrum between these two placeholders or this range does not offer a metric by which your position can be quantified or qualified at all!
If that is true, are you declaring yourself inert, as far as your personal determination goes, to help ensure that your species endures? You have suggested that the point is moot, as developments in AI will make the point moot, and the fate of our species will be removed from any ability we have to influence such, due to an almost natural, inevitable, tech singularity emergent event. The 2001 monolith finally arrives in true messianic style!
If anything I have typed in this response is close enough to the position you currently hold, then my disappointment lies in the suggestion that you will not use all the skills you have, to fight for our survival and our future growth. You will simply lie down and accept that our fate is to become vastly reduced in number and significance, replaced with something as bland as an emotionless ASI, that just IS but has no motivation to boldly go, or just appreciate its surroundings or celebrate the fact that the unknown, remains unknown. I have always thought that if ever humans answer all questions then that will be our true ending. I think you would be a very interesting person to go on boozy sessions with 180proof. I think verbally, there would never be a dull moment.
I have heard people describe what they would do to punish those they hate most. It normally lies somewhere on a rage from slow vivisection to tortured every moment of every day, ETERNALLY, in hell-style imagineered manifestations. Has such intent, ever been sated? Those who have tried, always end up destroyed themselves, after they have achieved their vengeance, or during the pursuit of such. They never achieve 'closure,' do they?
Do you not think our species has to completely reassess our relationship with the traditional notions of horror and terror and our response to such? Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
:up:
Well, perhaps the physical mechanisms involved from a neuroscience angle, are very important to fully understand. I don't know much about the details involved, other than a basic appreciation of the fight or flight instinct. Is our natural reaction to horror and terror beyond our ability to fully command and control? I find the depiction of such as the Vulcan Pon Farr in Star Trek, or the examples in the natural world of male species that die after mating, fascinating (to quote Mr Spock). Do humans have similar pressure to react in the ways they do when responding to horror and terror actioned upon them? Does neuroscience currently support such a proposal?
Well, I will disappoint you here. Neuroscience deals with the brain. It has nothing to do with the mind. :smile: (Just that. Don't expect from me to elaborate.)
Quoting universeness
Yes, this is what is also called "instinct of survival". Theres no muuch to know about i as a mechanism, since it is automatic; like reflexes. However, its force and magnitude, as well as the reactions that follow it can vary a lot, depending on various factors.
Quoting universeness
Do all people react in the same way in horror movies or the view of cruel crimes, war scenes, ugly accidents, etc.?
People react differently even in the simple sight of blood.
And of course we can control it. Imagine a surgeon who cannot tolerate the sight of blood! :grin:
Then if that's true, perhaps in the future, a country like Israel and its people can respond to the recent absolute terrorist horror, inflicted on almost 2,000 of its citizens, by targeting only Hamas, and not respond to the massacre of its innocent civilians by mimicking such atrocity, and massacring thousands of innocent Palestinians, to get to kill the much fewer, actual members of Hamas they have managed to kill so far.
You lose the moral high ground, every time, if you kill the innocent along with the guilty, imo.
We need to all get much much better at locating, targetting and punishing the guilty only, or else we play right into the hands of Hamas and they're like, who obviously want a war between Israel and all arabic/muslim peoples surrounding Israel, which definitely does have the potential to expand (and exponentially escalate,) via outrage, into WW III. Outrage nurtured via designed terrorist actions, deliberately applied at the level of deranged horror, onto civilian rather than military targets. A level of horror that is easily comparable with the actions and behavior of the worst psychopaths, we know of from history. This has, and is, also happening to civilians in Ukraine and in many other conflicts that we hardly hear about in other countries. This physical horror/terror, is not happening to the vast majority of the human population alive today, but the level of 'fear-mongering,' currently being employed by authorities and elites all over the planet is another matter, and also continues to be an area that the masses have to talk to each other about, a lot more than they do at present. Too many prefer to ignore all of that and just 'enjoy their life,' as best they can!
Certainly. Unfortunately, military people have invented the term and concept of "collateral damage" to lessen and justify that effect of such criminal actions. You see, it benifits all parts. It also soothes the pain from the loss, esp. of those who lose their own people. And what is even worst, this term has found its way and is used in non-military context as well.
Quoting universeness
I believe there are a lot of people who indeed ignore all that, as well as a lot who even enjoy it (terrorists, criminals, insane, psychopaths), but not the great majority of the people. Those may see to ignore what is happening and just continue to enjoy their life as you say, but it is not actually true. They are all sad about it, only they can't do anything about it and accept life as it is.
See, it's not only the horror of the war. It's the horror also of criminality, the horror of sickness, the horror and of ugly accidents, tho horror of catastrophes, individual and massive ones ...
It's the horror of life itself.
This is the problem of asymmetric warfare: a surprise attack by a small force can wreak great damage. The more powerful side will counterattack with either technology (planes and bombs) or ground forces. Precisely identifying the agency behind the attack is extremely difficult, so... the innocent are slaughtered.
Russia vs. Ukraine is a more symmetrical style of war, as were WWI and WWII, and many other wars before those two. Asymmetric warfare isn't new, but given the mechanized, technologically enhanced armies of the "have" powers, it's the best option for "have nots".
There is no moral solution to the problem "in the world as it is" -- a world packed with injustices and grievances. Long standing (and grave) injustices would have to be unwound, which is a utopian goal. Nice, but highly unlikely.
On a side issue, humanity is part of the animal kingdom. Animals are not 'other' to 'us'. We are animals.
Thats way too far for me. Any notion of horror that people might associate with natural illness, accidents, natural catastrophe etc are quite different from horror and terror as deliberately employed by nefarious or evil humans, as a means of achieving a goal they covet.
In general terms, life for most humans is not horrific, but I agree that horror and terror are aspects of life and living that may affect an individual personally, in a myriad of ways. I want to resist any attempt, deliberate or accidental, to edge this discussion towards one about nihilism or antinatalism.
Not really, all wars are asymmetric imo. They all contain atrocity in all shapes and forms.
Conquering armies of the past were not often kind to the conquered civilian populations.
Did the allies during WW II do the same to German pow's as the Germans did to the jews? Where was the symmetry in that? I could offer many many other historical examples of asymmetric treatment used in the history of war. The phrase 'the evil that men do,' comes to mind.
Quoting BC
Could you envisage a grievance process, that had global reach, that is a lot more robust and effective than any we have today or have had in the past? I think this is a way forwards. We already have some good war crime authorities that have had past successes, such as brining horrors such as Slobodan Miloševi? to justice (even though he died in his cell first). The trials at nuremberg etc.
Do you not think such a robust and highly effective global authority could be achieved?
How about an authority that can declare economic war on any individual or group in a position of authority, who is deemed to be employing the kind of horror and terror tactics that Hamas have performed. Do you think that future tech, including AI, could be used to strip all assets and resources from such a group in the future, far more successfully than we can now?
Sorry, but your imo, unnecessary point, deserves a 'no shit Sherlock,' response.
Yes, really.
This is the asymmetry: Hamas does not have capacity to defend the Palestinian people in Gaza, or anywhere else. It is embedded in Gaza but funded by external sources -- Qatar and Iran for instance. It has a small armed force compared to Israel, and no tanks or airplanes. It does have rockets, guns, and explosives. While it can attack Israel, there is no chance of it defeating Israel (by itself). It can, as we have seen, stage an effective limited attack on civilians.
Israel, on the other hand, has the capacity to destroy Gaza and Hamas by bringing overwhelming force to bear. I suppose it could deploy nuclear bombs, if it was existentially threatened. In the meantime it has the iron dome, lots of bombs, enough airplanes, and so on. If Hamas has Qatar and Iran, Israel has the US and other western powers.
If Israel has overwhelming air power, Gaza's environment presents major difficulties for Israel. Urban warfare is a very difficult bloody business, especially with a 'dug in' adversary. The urban environment goes a long ways to reducing the asymmetry in terms of on-the-ground operations. My understanding of Hamas's tunnel system is that it would be difficult to destroy it by bombing alone.
Asymmetry would be further reduced if Hezbollah were to open a full attack on Israel.
3 recent victors in asymmetrical war: The Taliban managed to survive and win against the United States and Nato. The Islamic State was defeated with great difficulty. The Viet Cong won against overwhelming odds.
The stronger power in asymmetrical war is compelled to use brutal force because it has little alternative. Israel can neither lose nor leave Palestine,
I'm just commenting that 'human v animal' is an odd way of putting things, when humans are animals.
Got ya. I have nothing. Good luck.
You are right. "The horror of life itself" was badly expressed. I meant "The horror in life", horror as part of life.
As for the horror created by natural causes and horror created by man, they are both part of life, aren't they? Sometimes, we cannot even tell one from the other. Only when there is intention behind the cause, i.e. deliberate action, we can say that man is responsible for it. Even then, can we render psychopaths and insane people, who cannot tell right from wrong, who can act as animals, responsible for their actions? And wars, haven't they existed since the dawn of Man? Doesn't all that make them part of our nature?
So, whatever is the cause of horror, it is part of life.
Okay Sherlock, if it bothers you so much, I am happy to change to "human animal v all other animals," happy now? :roll:
Quoting 180 Proof
:rofl:
:smile: Fair enough Tom!
Not really. But I will try to explain better, why I repeated my 'not really.'
You typed:
Quoting BC
This it seems to me, confirms that horror and terror tactics are used by both sides in war, regardless of which one is considered to be the more powerful. One soldier deciding to butcher innocents from the other side because they have been sanctioned to do so by those who are directing the conflict is what I am trying to discuss. It's not the psychopathy of those who commit such acts that I am trying to discuss, nor is it which side employs such tactics more than the other side.
I am trying to discuss how we might reduce or stop such atrocities from happening in the first place, or how we all might respond differently when such horror and terror has been visited on us, those we love or those innocents that we all know, did not deserve such a fate.
Perhaps a better question to ask you is why do you think some in positions of authority/power choose to use/fully sanction, butchery and torture, horror and terror, against their enemy?
Taking the Hamas example. Hamas want to inflame Israel, into responding to the horror and terror inflicted on their innocent civilians, with their own horror and terror and slaughter of innocent Palestinians in the many thousands. Hamas want Israel to do this, as they hope this will inflame all the Arabic/Islamic peoples that surround Israel, to join the fight against Israel, and this will open many new fronts in this war, so that there is much more chance of the destruction of the Israeli nation.
So, do you think that we can develop responses, that will prevent a group like Hamas, from EVER achieving such a goal, by using the kind of horror and terror tactics they have employed here?
That is the direction I am trying to take this discussion, rather than talking about why some group or side may turn to horror and terror tactics, due to being the weaker or stronger force in a conflict.
The problem is when we don't have a philosophy of life worked out.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
And most people seem to stick to the level of discussing people, or at most, events.
All the facts of a situation aren't likely to be known; this is simply the nature of events and people. I don't think there is a media conspiracy, or even a political one.
In order to get peace of mind, we'd need to address things on the level of ideas, which are largely independent of the facts of a situation. (That's why we have philosophy.)
Ok.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Only partially imo, I think the main responsibility lies with those in authority, who CHOOSE to nurture and augment such pathology, and then wind them up to max hate status, direct them to a target, (often innocents that they can easily overcome,) and then film and record the horror that ensues, to use later, at part of their vile plan to achieve their goal. That is exactly what Hamas has done imo.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Yes, such has been part of our base primeval nature, and the horror and terror of that has been demonstrated in very bloody ways, since we came out of the wilds, but do you not think we have learned to alter our behaviours from those that were ruled mainly by pure instinctive and often bestial responses. In what way can we claim that we are now civilised, unless we can point to examples, currently or historically, when we have not been, what we would now call 'civilised'? Are we always doomed to respond to the nefarious use of horror and terror tactics, by resorting to the same or similar horror and terror tactics, in our pursuit of vengeance? Can we do no better than that?
It seems they weren't just "okay with being horror-ible", but that at the time, being that way was considered being manly, or even just a proper human.
And much later, too.
The problem with this topic is that it is mostly tabooed in modern society, and only a superficial discourse is allowable. Trying to discuss it anyway is a high tightrope balancing act.
Where then would be the drama of life ...
In my opinion and in my experience, a good thinker (rather than such, imo, a silly standard, as a 'great' mind,) considers life at the level of ideas, events, and people, as all such 'levels,' are relevant in the search for truth. Are we able to address things at the 'level' of human notions of horror and terror? and analyse the ways in which we see such nasty tools, manipulated by nefarious powers. We have memorialised such behaviour, being demonstrated currently and in history, sooooooo many times.
In my opinion, we have extensive examples of how such nasty tools are employed in manipulative ways. I question why it is still so easy to fool and manipulate so many of us, so often, despite all the previous examplars we have. Can we not establish a better way to combat these abuses and deliberate attempts to manipulate human fear?
Do you find the butchering and slaughtering of innocent civilians acceptable based on your need for drama in your life? I would certainly hope not!
How do you comment on the use of horror and terror in this psalm?
As for statement of intent:
And then there are other ones about wanting to wade knee-deep in an enemy's blood and such.
As long as natural resources are limited and hard to obtain, probably not.
It's not like people are living in a land of plenty and fight over nothing other than honor.
Quoting universeness
It's doubtful any involved party believes there is such a thing as "innocent civilians". Warfare is essentially tribal: any member of a tribe will do.
I don't think this is true at all. I think most civilians on both sides of such conflicts, consider the unacceptably labeled 'collateral damage,' as unacceptable. All dead civilians have the same status, regardless of where they die or how they were killed. They did not make war on anyone, but war killed them unjustly.
This is where the taboo sets in. But you can read the Bible, the Old Testament in particular, to get some ideas.
That would require that some religio-ethnic group gives up its claim to a divinely special status. Which is not likely going to happen.
It's telling how the theme of religious exceptionalism is barely ever brought up in discussions of war. Even though it is this exceptionalism that so often drives the conflict, provoking it in the first place.
Quoting universeness
The relevant unit here is tribe, or at most, nation, not species.
It's not rocket science.
Fear is a tool. Parents and teachers have used it for a long time.
People are more reslient than official psychology and the media give them credit for.
But for that, people would need to give up their religious or national identities. Which isn't likely going to happen.
Really? They didn't mostly just suck up to you in order to get good grades, recommendations, etc.?
Wrong how exactly?
And you didn't answer my question.
I speculate here, but it seems the natives decided they were in a position of "live on your knees, or die fighting" and they decided that fighting to the death was better than living subjugated to the Romans.
What lesson might that be? That's it's better to preserve the life of your body than your identity?
Of course, these are responsible. Whoever incites people to violent actions is the main responsible for the results of these actions.
Hamas, Isis, Jihad, etc. are all terrorist organizations that spread horror in the world.
Quoting universeness
Yes and no. Yes, our behavior is not so animalistic as in the Stone Age. And no, our behavior is governed lagely by our subconcious mind and our conditioning (in both a Pavlovian, physiological way and in a mental way, as repeated patterns of thinking, biases, beliefs, etc.) Religious fanatism, for instance, is one of the extreme cases. Wars are still crated based simply on relifgious beliefs.
So, we have just changed the our animalistic behavior to an irrational one. The consequences remain more or less the same. (Let's hope that they don't get worse!)
I am an atheist. Everything in the bible came from humans, no god involved, so no gods to scapegoat. Theism, or to be more accurate, religious dogma, has been used very often indeed, to justify the use of bestial levels of horror against the proverbial 'them' by the proverbial 'us.' But that is just as I said, an attempt to scapegoat that which I am 99.999% convinced has no example existent.
Irrelevant to the wars at hand.
:grin: Do you want me to start explaining to you how I, born in 1964, would have led the Celts, born BCE, against the Romans during the time of Boudica? I would certainly not have championed her strategy, would you? She lost! Badly! If you want to start a thread titled 'Boudica ..... could you have done any better?' Then I will certainly offer you 'what I would have done in her place,' perhaps you could play the Romans and indicate what you would have done to counter me! Although it seems like we would be better playing against each other in an on-line game of Civ V or VI. Boudica responded incorrectly, to the brutality, horror and terror used by Rome imo. The Celts should have engaged in far more stealth tactics against the Roman military (but of-course, not civilians), imo.
It's not like the civilians get to decide. The people who order the pulling of triggers do.
Yeah but my position as an atheist, is relevant to your mentions of some Christians who behave like monsters (same with muslims who behave like monsters), who try to scapegoat non-existent gods, to try to justify their heinous crimes. Such justifications can only fool their like and not atheists like me, or any rational thinkers, whether they are theists or atheists or any shade in-between. Getting religious fanatics, to stop using god as an excuse for their bestial behavior, is as you suggest, not going to happen, as it's too convenient and useful a scapegoat, but no-one, other than their followers, fellow fanatics, and ringmasters (and probably the ringmasters could not care less) accepts such attempted justifications anyway. Al·lahu Akbar is just some shit to shout, but 'god is most great,' is not a valid phrase to shout when you do pure evil deeds, unless you intended it, as the utter mocking of your god, that it becomes, when you are deranged enough, to take part in the slaughter of innocent civilians.
And along with the actual perpetrators, those are the only ones that deserve to die, which I think you would agree with.
Yeah but don't forget to also accuse such as the FBI, CIA, MI5, MI6, the old KGB and many others, including groups like the KKK, the proud boys, neo-nazi groups and nefarious rich elites.
All gangsters everywhere! Yet still, I believe we can defeat all that shit, if we all learn to value cooperation and common cause for a better way to live, more than any other goal our species has.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Do you believe hope is all we have? Can hard work, focused intent, a united common cause to live better, revulsion against the status quo, discussion, debate, protest, organising, politicising, pressurising, etc, make a difference? BUT never, ever, ever mimicking or responding to the use of horror and terror tactics with like for like, or anything akin to such? Is that not what nations and peoples, have to LEARN to do, no matter what depraved horrors are spewed against them? You do not defeat horror and terror by responding with more horror and terror imo.
Much closer to horror and terror is this Psalm verse: “Happy is the one who seizes your infants / and dashes them against the rocks.” Psalm 137:9. Whose children? The children of Israel's enemies, the Edomites and Babylonians. Who does the bashing? Presumably that would be ANCIENT Israel.
What's the point? The point is to make sure there are no future generations of one's enemies.
I absolutely am not drawing a parallel between ancient Israel and the modern world, but The Final Solution was also intended to root out future generations of the hated Jew.
Of course. There so many of them ... Criminality, and the insanity that accompanies it, can take all forms and faces. And in mind come only the notorious and most discussed cases. There are other, more "silent" cases, that have been glorified in history, and yet they were insane and responsible for a lot of killings. All conquerors in history fall into this category: Gengis Kahn, Alexander the Great, Ceasar, Attila, ... We take the side of the conqueror and winner and we ignore and forget about the opposite side, the victims on the bodies of whom these conquerors have stepped on, the violence used, rapes by the men under their command, and so on, and on a mass scale.
Quoting universeness
I'm not a pessimist by nature, but I can't hide what my reason says and the bad news that sometimes follow it. To your question about hope, I will bring in history, whuch has not shown such a tendency in the long run. There are of course periods of peace and prosperity after big wars, as there is calm and freshness after a storm. But in the long run we see resurges of mass violence in the form of war, as the relatively recent Ukraine war about year and half ago, an escalation od the Russo-Ukrainian War that started in 2014. And we have of course, even more recently, the Israeli–Palestinian confict, with about 7,000 dead Palestinians and 1,500 Israelis unti now, and counting.
So, no, I can't see any signs that would make us change so radically as to reverse the course of history.
It has been said, and justifiably so, that if a common enemy to and threat for the whole humanity appeared suddenly, then people would forget about the conflicts between each other unite in order tio fight the enemy or just be protected from it. Covid-19 is a good example of that. It made people more cooperative, amicable and helpful between each other and there has been "a reduction in many types of crime around the world" as Wikipedia says.
***
Something else now. As the discussion has been progressing, and after both of us having used the word "horific" a few times, I realized that indeed horror is felt while something is happening and after it has happened, whereas terror is felt in anticipation, as you said, of something that is about to happen or may happen. So, we can say that they differ sequentially or time-wise, in the sense of "before" (terror) and "during" or "after" (horror).
(But still they cannot be considered "opposite".)
:clap: :clap: Well typed Alkis! It would be such a big step forward in the human psyche imo, if we stopped presenting these historical butchers as anything other than that. Our children should not be taught that these are people we revere, in any way at all. That is an example of how we could change the future of our species for the better, imo. These butchers are of their time and era, but that's no excuse imo, they represent the worst side of humanity and we need to resist and defeat that primeval burden and only ever use it in defense and not respond to like for like punitive action. Rape for rape, slaughter and butchery in response to slaughter and butchery. No, no, no, no, no! No fucking more! Gandhi said it so correctly:
I am sooooo glad that I am not alone in my hope that all these past so-called 'leaders,' from Alexander the butcher, to Caesar the butcher, to Hitler/Stalin/ Napolean the butcher to Putin the butcher and Hamas the butchers, they all need to be utterly vilified and never admired. The day that a majority of human beings grasp that, will be a very good day for the progression of our species imo.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Yet you offered a great start for us all, imo. A full reassessment of what we value most from the history and events of our species. Such a move in the education of all future generations everywhere, would cause such change in the human psyche for the better, imo. If we could also combine that with a major campaign, to educate on the utter folly and pernicious affects of presenting any theology or theosophism as 'the actual word and commands of existent supernaturals,' then I think that would be another massive progressive step for our species. No more dictates or presentations of authority from Popes or Kings or Imams or Pastors etc from anywhere!
Too many on TPF keep asserting 'what can we do about it? We just can't change this shit! It all runs too deep and it is too embedded in who we are.' That's just total BS to me. We can change, we are a very adaptable species. It does not matter how deep the rot goes, we have a great deal of healthy flesh as well! We can slowly and surgically remove the rot. It may take a long long time for our flesh to heal but it will heal.
Yeah I agree, they are more like variations on the theme of human fear, rather than opposites.
It would be indeed. And I find it, like you, totally unacceptable. Only that all this has been written with permanent ink both in the records of history and the minds of people. And of course, they are in all (?) the curriculi in schools. But what can be done at least is for the History teachers to also talk about the "other side" of the stories. I know that this is done in colleges, but it's too late. (I was lucky to have such a teacher in college. It was the first time I liked History!)
Quoting universeness
It will certainly be. Personally, it took me years to realize that Alexander was actually and insane, I mean pathologically. And consider that I used to think critically since my youth. The only thing was that Historey wa never my cup of coffee; it was never in my menu of the day.
Quoting universeness
Thanks for your kind words. I wish I really did, though! :smile:
Quoting universeness
That would be great, indeed.
Quoting universeness
I really admire you for your passion and your ideals, universeness. I have seen this vein of yours in other exchanges too.)
:up:
You seem to think that Israel is doing what it is doing (the overkill) as a less-than-wise reaction to the terror/horror they feel because of Hamas?
Is this your stance?
Oh, you did get fooled.
A study of Jewish scripture is in place, to get to know whom you're talking about.
Of course, barely anyone is going to do that now, conveniently polarized and fixed in their stance.
Thanks, but you recognise it because it is part of who you are.
Israel's reactions to Hamas are very old, very predictable and mostly what Hamas expected and wanted imo. Don't get confused with how the current Israeli regime reacted and what the majority of the Jews in Israel want, and the Jewish diaspora. From your posts so far I do not get a strong indication that you personally would respond to terror and horror visited on you and yours with a like for like response. That's what it comes down to, would you? Are you an eye for an eye kinda person?
Quoting baker
Well, In the world according to baker anyway, yes?
:pray:
Jesus Christ...
:vomit:
That was a very childish response to @Alkis Piskas and compelled me to make the following comments:
Your bitter, irrational, very childlike and scattered personal attacks towards me, across various threads, give me cause for concern as to your behaviour.
In previous exchanges, you have indicated your bushidophile status, and your respect and admiration of the Japanese military during WW II. You also defend Spanish nationalism, to the extent that imo, you do not utterly condemn the Spanish conquistadors for their atrocities and genocidal history, in the way that most modern rational thinkers do.
I think these views, point to the possibility that you harbour notions that are borderline fascist at worse.
I hope I am wrong that you hold such views, but if you do then I think the TPF mods and administrators such as @Jamal, should consider if my concerns here are warranted or not. You have called on them a few times now, to ban me from TPF. I fully accept that who gets banned from TPF and for what reasons is their purview and within their remit. But if you are going to snipe at other members in the way that you have demonstrated in your post to Alkis, and you continue to irrationally snipe at me, and you hold views that are in fact, as I have suggested then perhaps the mods should discuss this with you/me.
I get banned for being a 'fascist' - according to your own hateful speech towards Japan and Spain - and you get banned for being an ignorant buffoon.
A better idea would be that you seek professional help for your imbalance.
Oh, these bloody socialists always use their stupid 'morally' superior argument... it makes me sick.
I understand your confusions. The first thing to cognise, to try to start your repair, is to understand that democratic socialism assigns a higher priority to people, compared to currency. You should be able to access as much mental health services, of the highest quality and for as long as you require, for free, from cradle to grave. Try to remember that money is nothing more than an invention as a means of exchange. Come on, you can do it, progress a little from your bushido boy miasma!
Don't be an ignorant in a public place... it is disgusting.
Nonsense! Do you see a lot of examples of bushido in use in the everyday lives of modern Japan?
Care to cite examples? It's like you are some lost character like 'Kagemusha,' from the Kurosawa movie, or one of the other pathetic characters depicted in that movie. No loyalty, honour, rightness, just uneducated morons, following nefarious leaders towards their own pointless destruction, how pathetic.
Scream 'Banzai,' like clowns, as dumb Japanese soldiers charge machine gun positions with their silly little bayonets and samurai swords, only to be slaughtered like sheep. Yeah, great strategy Javi, I can see why you admire such examples of loyalty, and honour. :roll:
This is exactly the kind of BS that the application of horror and terror results in. BS like bushido. Ignorant terrified Japanese soldiers from their ancient days all the way to WW II.
Time we all (as I hope and reckon most modern Japanese already have,) rejected such backwards thinking. We and you can do much much better that Bushido.
You keep shouting 'banzai' if you must sonny, but you will always belong to a dead and dying past of horror and terror, that has no future. Just like horrors like Hamas have no future imo.
You are defending in your arguments the message that it was a 'success' for the Japanese to get rid of their ancestry, when it is clearly the opposite. I hope you don't back up the Hiroshima and Nagasaki destruction either... Because it seems that you defend the end of the Empire of Japan at all costs. You accused me of defending the supposed genocide of backward civilisations like the Maya one, but at the same time you are fine with vanishing Samurai or Ed?/Heian people. Hmm... Contradiction or hypocrisy? Pick one.
Since all fascists are racist to some extent, being openly fascist is more likely to result in a ban than a lack of quality.
Now please, @javi2541997 and @universeness: enough of your bickering and name-calling.
Yeah sure Javi, Japan had no corrupt leaders and nothing like Kagemusha, the thief, no rapists, no villains of any kind, until the westerners arrived. How naive are you? And you have the audacity to ever call me ignorant? I know you are young but get a grip son!
I will respond to the other rambling nonsense in you latest post later. Time for beers!
Ok, I will stop responding to him!
:up:
Okay, let's leave it there.
You do realize how ironic it is to accuse others of "fascism", when it is precisely what the "good Westerners" are?
Now that the record is set straight, I'm leaving this discussion. No need for anyone to reply. Just get back to the topic or whatever.
I have listened to theists give quite rational arguments, related to the idea that they hope hell exists, because it is so unjust, if it does not, because evil scum, such as the Hamas terrorists that performed such acts of horrors, on innocent men, women and children, can 'only be killed once!' and that's not a 'satisfying' level of 'vengeance' on them. They must suffer for 'eternity' and suffer at a max level, every moment, as time passes for them, after they are dead!
When that is going on in your mind, perhaps as a victim of horror, visited directly upon you, and or those you care about, then to me, you are becoming akin to those insane perpetrators who committed the horrific acts against you. Israel and its current slaughter of thousands of innocent Palestinians in Gaza right now, are performing actions 'akin' to the insane perpetrators I mentioned, and even worse, may well be doing exactly what Hamas wants. Only the fact that those surrounding Israel, who consider Palestinians to be the same creed/tribe/type of people, as them, have not yet joined the fight against Israel, offers any hope at all, for all of us, against a serious escalation of this fighting.
The latest Israeli/Palestinian conflict or Russia/Ukraine or any other such historical or current conflict, surely means that we each have to decide, where we personally stand on all these placeholder notions.
Justice, horror/terror, vengeance, etc. The following questions come to mind.
1. Is it rational, or wise for you, to want to impose a punishment on anyone, for any heinous act (or continuous actions, based on harbouring or demonstrating as evil a personality and character as any human can perceive,) that will last for an eternity, after such perpetrators have perhaps even been killed for what they did, even in a horrible manner?
2. Is it rational for you to ever sanction/appreciate/accept so called 'collateral damage,' (what a ridiculously benign term for such horrific reality!!!!) when those who have been terrorised, seek 'justified vengeance'?
3. Do you assign any importance to the notion of rehabilitation? In any inner vision/notion you have of hell style vengeance. The ones being punished cannot die (I assume) a second time (hence the eternal aspect of the punishment). So you are beyond the reach of any notion of rehabilitation or forgiveness or 'Jesus dying (but only over a weekend) for your sins.' Do you really want that to be true?
I think your own internal answers to such questions make you either part of a future in which human beings might learn how to be more progressive creatures, or you are helping to maintain and rinse and repeat the horror and terror we have all been aware of as a possible way to be, since we were a part of and then came out of the wilds and the darwinian rules of the survival of the fittest/ most adaptable/competitive/cooperative species.
Nothing is new at all, in all the events that have happened in the current Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
It's all been done sooooooooo many times before.
Yes, the two state solution sounds like a possible way out and even though it is even more unlikely, so does a new country/state called PalesIsrael or Israelipal, etc. These do seem no more that forlorn hopes for now.
Could Israel have decided to react by;
1. Securing the attacked areas and killing any terrorists that they found there.
2. Declaring war against Hamas alone. (which they will say they have done, ONLY! :roll:)
3. Seeking full global support against Hamas by exposing the utter horror they had just inflicted on Israeli civilians.
4. Use every stealth tactic in the book to find ways to attack Hamas, without killing any civilians and attempting to make some kind of reparations to the family of any civilians that do die because of a global pursuit of all members of Hamas?
Could such an approach not be in so many ways, better than what the current Israeli leadership decided to do?