Read the passage by Russell. It isn't as simple as needing a gun at the head, but rather, the fact that man seems to need war as a creative and expressive outlet (and please, don't counter by saying something along the lines of, "So why not use paintbrushes instead of pistols?").

(October 23, 2011 at 12:43 pm)Epimethean Wrote: Read the passage by Russell. It isn't as simple as needing a gun at the head, but rather, the fact that man seems to need war as a creative and expressive outlet (and please, don't counter by saying something along the lines of, "So why not use paintbrushes instead of pistols?").

I like Russel, but in no way will I consider him an authority.

If I post John Lennons lyrics to "Imagine", will you give them the same weight of authority as Russel's?

If not, then please no longer post arguments from authority to try to sway me, because they will be a waste of your time. There is a reason why they are illogical.

You are suggesting that Russell is illogical or to be compared in weight to a song by John Lennon? I can see why you enjoy absurdism. Gotcha.

I should add in rejoinder that your tendency to want to simplify arguments ad absurdum, while it works rhetorically, does nothing to further discussion in a productive fashion.

(October 23, 2011 at 9:44 am)reverendjeremiah Wrote:

(October 22, 2011 at 9:36 pm)Napoleon Wrote: What does this have to do with the price of bread?

well, its just one quick list. If you wish for me to pull up more, I will be more than happy to.

what it has with the price of bread is that this country is able to invent and produce and become one of the richest countries in the world WITHOUT forcing itself on other countries.

You do of course realize that military service is mandatory for Swiss males (voluntary for females). One wag I spoke with told me about how guns and the Swiss were like bread and butter, that it was not uncommon to see men bicycling down the lane with an automatic weapon strapped to their back without drawing so much as a second look.

Wikipedia Wrote:Overall, three general mobilisations have been declared to ensure the integrity and neutrality of Switzerland. The first one was held on the occasion of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71. The second one was decided in response to the outbreak of the First World War in August 1914. The third mobilisation of the army took place on September 1939 in response to the German attack on Poland

Now I don't want to get drawn into this, but I will point out that some of the most important advances in medicine and psychiatry have come about as a result of war (e.g. understanding of PTSD and the ambulance in the American Civil War). Granted that is a special case as war provided more opportunity for fixing broken people by providing more broken ones, but my understanding -- without doing any research -- is that the pace of technological advancement accelerates during times of war, just as other forms of production of use to the war effort accelerate during wartime (we wouldn't have nuclear energy without WWII). This is not to say similar accelerations can't occur at peace (e.g. the American lunar missions), but the incentive to do so in war is greater than that in peacetime.

Now, as to the list of Swiss scientist, I haven't looked at it, but really, who gives a rat's ass? A list of scientists or scientific accomplishments of one or more countries with a peaceful past proves exactly diddly squat.

(October 23, 2011 at 1:04 pm)Epimethean Wrote: You are suggesting that Russell is illogical or to be compared in weight to a song by John Lennon? I can see why you enjoy absurdism. Gotcha.

I should add in rejoinder that your tendency to want to simplify arguments ad absurdum, while it works rhetorically, does nothing to further discussion in a productive fashion.

Nice try.

In reality you posted a fallacy, so logically I called you on your fallacy. I then presented a fallacy of my own, which obviously made you upset.

In the future I will just agree with you, in order to further the discussion in a productive fashion.[/sarcasm]

---

(October 23, 2011 at 2:30 pm)apophenia Wrote:

(October 23, 2011 at 9:44 am)reverendjeremiah Wrote:

(October 22, 2011 at 9:36 pm)Napoleon Wrote: What does this have to do with the price of bread?

well, its just one quick list. If you wish for me to pull up more, I will be more than happy to.

what it has with the price of bread is that this country is able to invent and produce and become one of the richest countries in the world WITHOUT forcing itself on other countries.

You do of course realize that military service is mandatory for Swiss males (voluntary for females). One wag I spoke with told me about how guns and the Swiss were like bread and butter, that it was not uncommon to see men bicycling down the lane with an automatic weapon strapped to their back without drawing so much as a second look.

The topic is "WAR" (in general). The current topic under this is, basically; "Is war neccesary to push human invention?" Or something to that click. Mandatory millitary service does not equal war. It merely means mandatory millitary service.

(October 23, 2011 at 2:30 pm)apophenia Wrote:

Wikipedia Wrote:Overall, three general mobilisations have been declared to ensure the integrity and neutrality of Switzerland. The first one was held on the occasion of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71. The second one was decided in response to the outbreak of the First World War in August 1914. The third mobilisation of the army took place on September 1939 in response to the German attack on Poland

Now I don't want to get drawn into this, but I will point out that some of the most important advances in medicine and psychiatry have come about as a result of war (e.g. understanding of PTSD and the ambulance in the American Civil War). Granted that is a special case as war provided more opportunity for fixing broken people by providing more broken ones, but my understanding -- without doing any research -- is that the pace of technological advancement accelerates during times of war, just as other forms of production of use to the war effort accelerate during wartime (we wouldn't have nuclear energy without WWII). This is not to say similar accelerations can't occur at peace (e.g. the American lunar missions), but the incentive to do so in war is greater than that in peacetime.

Now, as to the list of Swiss scientist, I haven't looked at it, but really, who gives a rat's ass? A list of scientists or scientific accomplishments of one or more countries with a peaceful past proves exactly diddly squat.

I have never once said that "war doesnt produce inventions."

My argument, if you have been following, is that war is NOT NEEDED to fuel human invention.

Sure, I agree that war can speed up human invention... but my argument is sternly that war is not needed to fuel human invention.

Let us say that the Middle East decides not to produce any more oil for export, what will happen then?

(October 23, 2011 at 3:14 pm)IATIA Wrote: Let us say that the Middle East decides not to produce any more oil for export, what will happen then?

Honestly?

It will never happen.

That would be the same as saying: "Let us say that American politicians decide not to accept any more money from corporations, what will happen then?"

(October 23, 2011 at 12:25 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:

(October 22, 2011 at 3:48 pm)Napoleon Wrote:

(October 22, 2011 at 9:30 am)reverendjeremiah Wrote: POINT: All of this stuff could easily had been invented without war.

I disagree, and so does history.

so mankind, in your opinion, needs a gun at its head to be creative and useful?

Please correct me if I got that wrong.

Yeah I will correct your silly mistake

I do not think mankind needs a gun pointed at its head to be creative or useful, but I do think that war will force countries and its peoples into working harder towards coming up with solutions to problems. Why? Because that is generally the outcome when pressure is put on people. They work harder. Same reason why your boss moans at you to hurry the fuck up. Pressure makes you work harder.

This doesn't mean I don't think we couldn't achieve the same results without war, I just think we are more likely to WITH war and that without it we may take more time to achieve such results.

(October 23, 2011 at 4:24 pm)Napoleon Wrote: Yeah I will correct your silly mistake

I do not think mankind needs a gun pointed at its head to be creative or useful, but I do think that war will force countries and its peoples into working harder towards coming up with solutions to problems. Why? Because that is generally the outcome when pressure is put on people. They work harder. Same reason why your boss moans at you to hurry the fuck up. Pressure makes you work harder.

This doesn't mean I don't think we couldn't achieve the same results without war, I just think we are more likely to WITH war and that without it we may take more time to achieve such results.

WAIT....

wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait

My whole point was that war was not necessary for human invention, but never once did I say that it didnt speed it up. I merely suggested war was not necessary.

You have been arguing with me all this time just to now come out and say that you agree with me?

http://atheistforums.org/thread-9097-pos...#pid196226
look at the embarrassing quotes below

(October 22, 2011 at 3:48 pm)Napoleon Wrote:

(October 22, 2011 at 9:30 am)reverendjeremiah Wrote: POINT: All of this stuff could easily had been invented without war.

I disagree, and so does history.

finished with the embarrassing quotes

I said all of this stuff could have easily been invented without war. You claim that you disagreed, and so did history as well. NOW you say that you do not think mankind needs a gun pointed at its head to be creative or useful, but just to speed them up.

Does this mean you have changed your position to agree with my position that war is not necessary to fuel human invention? It sure looks like it to me.

P.S. - Pressure only makes SOME people work harder. Pressure tends to have the opposite effect on just as many, including myself.

I think that we would be just as productive in 'peace time' as we would in war. The pressure that would be in a war scenario would be directed toward a military solution, but even in a peace time scenario there would be competitive war. As in Android competing with Apple, etc. If Apple were to become complacent, they would lose out to Android. (this is not to say that they might not lose anyway.) The fact remains though, that war is productive. The type of war will determine the products.

---

(October 23, 2011 at 3:52 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:

(October 23, 2011 at 3:14 pm)IATIA Wrote: Let us say that the Middle East decides not to produce any more oil for export, what will happen then?

Honestly?

It will never happen.

That would be the same as saying: "Let us say that American politicians decide not to accept any more money from corporations, what will happen then?"

Oil is not a renewable resource. There will come a time that there will be extremely limited distribution. If this happens before radically different technologies are available, it would be possible to have a scenario of "We (non specific 'we') want oil and we will take it.".