@Lion IRC
You bypassed my post and I can't blame you for that - it was far too aggressive.

My point is that wars are caused by absence of alliances.

(November 9, 2013 at 11:28 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Did you just make the absurd utopian claim that we have removed ALL those "needs that cause conflict"?
ALL of them gone now?

I can see why you aren't sure which one of us looks foolish.

No, because that would be demonstrably wrong. But if you're going to make a criticism of something based upon the kind of organic needs that evolution works upon, actual Darwinian survival mechanisms, then maybe your objections could also be based upon those, and not human sociological constructs?

I don't think asking you to argue for the thing you're arguing for is a terribly hard request.

(November 9, 2013 at 11:41 pm)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: @Lion IRC
You bypassed my post and I can't blame you for that - it was far too aggressive.

My point is that wars are caused by absence of alliances.

Relax!
I read your post.
This was the one you mean right?

(November 9, 2013 at 2:32 pm)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote:

Lion IRC Wrote:Yes you're quite right, cooperation between Allied forces was pivotal in a war which killed 50 million people!

Do even realise just how retarded that comment is? You must be arguing for the sake of it. No one can be that stupid by accident. I hope.

Watertight logic and reason. Unassailable. You're just too good. I give up.

Calling someone 'retarded' - very brave.
I take it that you live in a country where using that word as an epithet doesn't bother anyone's political correctness.

(November 10, 2013 at 12:01 am)Lion IRC Wrote: Watertight logic and reason. Unassailable. You're just too good. I give up.

Said the person who didn't bother to refute his actual claim.

(November 9, 2013 at 11:28 pm)Lion IRC Wrote:

(November 9, 2013 at 10:29 am)Texas Sailor Wrote: Whoops! Missed the mark here. The entire world can think X is better than Y, that doesn't change my opinion that Y is still better.

Try again...

Nope. It's right on target - a bullseye.
Maybe you are happy to ignore the REASON why XXX number of people have determined that X is better than Y.

Sure, you can be the minority of 1 person in the entire world who disagrees. But please don't make the fallacious assumption that the REASON why so many more people THINK something is an irrelevant consideration.

Should I take flavour advice from someone who thinks cow dung tastes OK?
No. I'm gonna use logic and reason and factor in all the information I have - including the apparent defect in your taste buds since (someone like) you might be the only person in 'the entire world' who prefers scat to vanilla ice cream. No thanks. I'm going with the majority and leave the experimental flavours to you.

People think the argumentum ad populam is always a logical fallacy.
It's not.
There is a difference between "persuasive" and "conclusive"

---

(November 9, 2013 at 11:09 pm)Esquilax Wrote: ...By cooperating, we've been able to remove all those needs that required conflict and death dealing in the past. That's just demonstrably true.

Who feels foolish now, Lion?

Did you just make the absurd utopian claim that we have removed ALL those "needs that cause conflict"?
ALL of them gone now?

I can see why you aren't sure which one of us looks foolish.

XXX people think that God doesn't exist (68.5% of the world)

(November 10, 2013 at 12:01 am)Lion IRC Wrote: Watertight logic and reason. Unassailable. You're just too good. I give up.

Calling someone 'retarded' - very brave.
I take it that you live in a country where using that word as an epithet doesn't bother anyone's political correctness.

That's the one, yeah. It's not so much the country. In my social group there are pretty much no taboos as far as word usage goes. But I did make the point of referring to the comment as retarded, rather than yourself

(November 10, 2013 at 12:05 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(November 10, 2013 at 12:01 am)Lion IRC Wrote: Watertight logic and reason. Unassailable. You're just too good. I give up.

Said the person who didn't bother to refute his actual claim.

The claim that "wars are caused by" the absences of alliances?

That doesn't make sense. Alliances typically RESULT from the looming threat of war.
Smaller countries make alliances to guard AGAINST the stronger threat which covets their territory, their food, their women.

Anyone who doesn't understand the preventive power of detente or the consensus of mutually assured destruction, or doctrine of pyrrhic war needs to read some history books.

It is the selfish, competitive Darwinian mechanism of survival which makes two primates covet the same thing and the only moral consideration is the one which an atheist named Friedrich Nietzsche appealed to. Not God. Self.

The Gospel of Jesus, on the other hand, transcends Dawkins and Darwin and Nietzsche and rejects selfishness and greed and the law of the jungle.
Jesus invites us into His divine concept of cooperation.
A threefold alliance - me, my neighbour and God. (Matthew 22:37-39)

---

(November 10, 2013 at 12:06 am)ChildOfReason Wrote: ...XXX people think that God doesn't exist (68.5% of the world)

I think you will find that throughout history the vast majority of the worlds population were and are theists and that it is only a fleeting minority who are atheists.

Sure, there are lots of different flavours of 'ice cream' but there is virtually universal agreement on the claim that having ice cream is better than having nothing.

(November 10, 2013 at 12:47 am)Lion IRC Wrote: The claim that "wars are caused by" the absences of alliances?

That doesn't make sense. Alliances typically RESULT from the looming threat of war.
Smaller countries make alliances to guard AGAINST the stronger threat which covets their territory, their food, their women.

This may be a simple point, but what would happen if every group was allied?

See, that's the whole issue; it's those places where the alliances are absent that are the conflict points. All you've really said is that the current level of alliance still isn't sufficient.

Quote:It is the selfish, competitive Darwinian mechanism of survival which makes two primates covet the same thing and the only moral consideration is the one which an atheist named Friedrich Nietzsche appealed to. Not God. Self.

And as I've repeatedly reminded you, the survival question with regards to humans is predicated on cooperation, since we're social, herd animals. Actually consider this point, for a second: would we be where we are, in terms of our current ecological niche, without banding together? Would we be the dominant species if we were just a collection of disparate individuals?

You are attributing something to evolution that is not the case, here. Survival of the fittest does not apply solely to the individual.

Quote:The Gospel of Jesus, on the other hand, transcends Dawkins and Darwin and Nietzsche and rejects selfishness and greed and the law of the jungle.
Jesus invites us into His divine concept of cooperation.
A threefold alliance - me, my neighbour and God. (Matthew 22:37-39)

Except if that neighbor is of a different religion, or no religion, or gay, or unruly, or a woman who steps out of line, or works on a sunday, in which case you're enjoined to kill them.

I'm surprised I have to keep reminding you guys of what's actually in your holy book!

My holy book says Gods message is to ALL nations.

(November 10, 2013 at 12:47 am)Lion IRC Wrote: Sure, there are lots of different flavours of 'ice cream' but there is virtually universal agreement on the claim that having ice cream is better than having nothing to eat.

Except that, in your analogy here, the atheists are the guys pointing out that you don't have any ice cream, and are in fact biting your own tongue over and over, espousing- presumably with a lisp- the salty flavor of the ice cream you must be eating, since so many other people also claim to be eating ice cream.

The atheist then goes off to find real food.