No need to be mad

[Xant]

Why would you ever want more chicks?

[Oberyn]

I'm not sure what your point is. You're saying patriotism is stupid, then? Not sure what the argument is supposed to be.

I'm saying it's the way it is, as inevitable as sunshine and rain and human stupidity. And that these mechanisms of tribal association did not happen in a fucking vaccuum, that they are an obvious evolutionary addaptation, that they exist for a reason, that reason being the same basic one every single living organism pursues: self-perpetuation. Saying you're above it all and showing to your own satisfaction how enlightened you are is all well and good, but it changes nothing.

[Xant]

I'm saying it's the way it is, as inevitable as sunshine and rain and human stupidity. And that these mechanisms of tribal association did not happen in a fucking vaccuum, that they are an obvious evolutionary addaptation, that they exist for a reason, that reason being the same basic one every single living organism pursues: self-perpetuation. Saying you're above it all and showing to your own satisfaction how enlightened you are is all well and good, but it changes nothing.

Obviously they're an evolutionary adaptation, as is everything else. But now that humanity has developed self-awareness, humans no longer need to be the slaves of evolutionary adaptations. Tribalism was a fitness advantage in the ancestral environment; doesn't mean you have to keep letting it run your life.

[Olwen]

It is about a lot of things

here are some examples:

being part of a community or having an "identitity"

as you said self-perpetuation through genes, history, culture, custom, etc

standing against foreigners invasion (notice how invasion is different from immigration, patriotism is not against immigration, it's against invasion)

just well-being, you always feel better when people around you have common points with you

[Oberyn]

Obviously they're an evolutionary adaptation, as is everything else. But now that humanity has developed self-awareness, humans no longer need to be the slaves of evolutionary adaptations. Tribalism was a fitness advantage in the ancestral environment; doesn't mean you have to keep letting it run your life.

Just being self-aware does not preclude being subject to evolutionary pressures. A group posessing the same language and culture and above all a large number of adherents is most definetely a fitness advantage in the modern world...same way it's always been.

[Gnjus]

Bloberyn you better go teamkill some Russian archers instead of arguing here. Oh wait.......

[Xant]

Just being self-aware does not preclude being subject to evolutionary pressures. A group posessing the same language and culture and above all a large number of adherents is most definetely a fitness advantage in the modern world...same way it's always been.

No, being self-aware does obviously not preclude one from being subject to evolutionary pressures, as is evident enough. What it gives you is a fighting chance, and every individual of sufficient intelligence has the possibility of deciding against the primal instincts. I never said tribalism isn't a fitness advantage in the modern world, it's just irrelevant whether it is or isn't.

[Oberyn]

Well it's easy to say that from a position of relative comfort. In many parts of the world a tightly knit group is an immediate necessity, not just a potential one. Having the luxury to opt out is only possible in small areas of the globe, and only recently. Who can say for how long the streak will last.
The way I see it even in the indolent and safe first world a sense of communal identity is a sure safety net. When the shit hits the fan, that's the first thing people turn to for support.

[Xant]

Well it's easy to say that from a position of relative comfort. In many parts of the world a tightly knit group is an immediate necessity, not just a potential one. Having the luxury to opt out is only possible in small areas of the globe, and only recently. Who can say for how long the streak will last.
The way I see it even in the indolent and safe first world a sense of communal identity is a sure safety net. When the shit hits the fan, that's the first thing people turn to for support.

You know, I'm not even sure what you're trying to debate here. Obviously you seem to be of the opinion now that it is possible to "opt out" of tribalism. Yet, before you mentioned that being self-aware doesn't preclude you from evolutionary pressures. I took that to mean that you thought people aren't capable of reasoning themselves out of irrational behavior like it, but it seems not? So what are you actually trying to say here? That tribalism is useful in some third world countries? That's more than debatable, but that was never under discussion here, was it? Unless England is one of these areas of the globe where having a tight knit group is an immediate necessity.

[War_Ferret]

Are you talking about evolutionary pressure in the literal sense, or socio-evolutionary pressure - group vs group, if you will?

[Xant]

Are you talking about evolutionary pressure in the literal sense, or socio-evolutionary pressure - group vs group, if you will?

Or perhaps the paragdim shift whence it was augurred that the tabula rasa theory was hitherto not averred, but taken to the abattoir for the nonce; the whole substratum was found unconscionable and abstruse, its substitute so far withstanding the assiduous probing despite the no-doubt pernicious perennial effects.

[War_Ferret]

Or perhaps the paragdim shift whence it was augurred that the tabula rasa theory was hitherto not averred, but taken to the abattoir for the nonce; the whole substratum was found unconscionable and abstruse, its substitute so far withstanding the assiduous probing despite the no-doubt pernicious perennial effects.

That would have been my next guess, obviously.

[AntiBlitz]

I don't care about your personal attacks and assumptions. I won't go down on that level with you. Not when talking about something as serious as this, at least. That's what people do as a last resort, when they are wrong or simply don't know the first thing about debating.

I'm not gonna list all the serious human rights violations that existed and still exist in this world (including genocides), which never got any attention or intervention from the US, UN or anyone. But if you want to think your government was only interested in liberating the population of Iraq, Afghanistan and Co., then yes, I think you are very naive. I don't hate or blame you though 


edit: Lol, I actually read your post now. The first time I stopped somewhere after your first ranting and assumed you would have said the humane thing to say and replied accordingly to be done with it. After reading your actual position, I'm kinda speechless. Something like you can't insult me.

For you Ferret

(click to show/hide)

i will, not a last resort, it was my first.  I cant help but stereotype you into a tinfoil child in a basement with anti-government thoughts, you said all that yourself, so of course i can only make those assumptions, which i still hold as correct considering you'd rather not answer them.

I dont have those beliefs you describe either, you just put those in my mouth, but thanks for trying, it makes you look cooler to type out the typical post of, "im too cool to respond".

none of this is serious, because its talk on the internet, and 99% of it is coming out of everyones ass(i myself at times), they have not a clue what they are talking about, posting Wiki links and shit like they knew wtf they were talking about prior to researching it to prove some sort of point...

We have the never wrong, relentless Xant,

War ferret, the conspiracy theorist,

and cmp, who interacts with his consumers as well as he develops games, way to go pal, keep driving em away, you're doing great.(one post, and it was wrong, never included anything to do with it being America VS europe, nor anything even to include the word europe in my post, way to go bud)

ofc there are others, but you are the most notable in the past few pages, stop acting like your on some sort of high horse bud, too cool to respond to every person here.  Do you notice how the only person you are making discussion with is Xant, i wonder why?

fucking A-team right here

@AntiBlitz,

(click to show/hide)

First of all Saddam was an official US ally all throughout his worst atrocities, including the war with Iran, the brutal, oppressive dictatorship, the use of chemical weapons on the Kurds and similar massacres, in fact that is where he got both the approval (yes, unlike today this was a time shortly after the first Gulf War where nothing on this scale happened in the region outside US control), weapons and weapons programmes, up and until the attack on Kuwait. There even was a civil and military coup attempt against him but the US refused to aid the rebels, and continued to support the murderous regime as long as it served US economic and political interests.

This went on especially through the Reagan years until those same people came back into government (the Bush administration(s)), and where good ol' Saddam now suddenly was an outcast, enemy to the World society and a terrorist. Thus it cannot be for 'democracy', 'Iraqi freedom' or whatever other contrived propaganda that has been spewed to manufacture consent. It is simply self-contradictory and facts to the contrary are well-documented in the historical record. And we all know it was against international law and that the first, incredibly weak premise for war (WMDs) were an utter farce. The US also has an unflinching record of supporting dictatorships over democracies, as they are easier to control, especially all over the Middle East and South America, but also in Africa and Asia, from the Apartheid regime in South Africa and to the various despots of Indo China.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2402174/CIA-helped-Saddam-Hussein-make-chemical-weapons-attack-Iran-1988-Ronald-Reagan.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

Secondly, the Iraq war was about oil (and other things of course but mostly oil), more specific the control of oil. This is from the mouths of US policy makers themselves. We have learned from declassified government documents from among others the Truman, Carter, Reagan, Nixon, Kennedy, Clinton and Bush administrations, that the control of Middle East oil is and has been a core strategic principle for US world domination (yes, world domination is a US principle, too) since WWII destruction of Europe brought about a chance for American hegemony (for a time).

It is as you correctly point out not about using the oil for American consumption but more importantly the diplomatic leverage gained from controlling one of the world's largest concentrations of oil.


In a 1945 memorandum to President Truman written by the Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs in the U.S State Department, Gordon Merriam, stated:


Albert A. Berle, one of Franklin Roosevelt’s closest advisers, particularly in relation to the construction of the post-War world, years later remarked that controlling the oil reserves of the Middle East would mean obtaining: 'substantial control of the world'.




A recommended comment on the conflict:

right and we asked him to destroy it later on, to which he said he did, and when we sent inspectors they could not find them, where they should have been.  This doesnt mean he did not have them, just means we could not find them.  I'm not saying either way what happened, this isnt black and white as everyone wants to make it out to be, because frankly, not finding something doesnt make it not true, its just what we can prove based on facts that people want to throw around.  He quite possibly could have still had them, but knowing he was going to be attacked, being told he will be dethroned from power, dont you think the man would have made some great leaps and bounds to make sure he could topple easier, or maybe not? maybe surrender from the get go, or produce something even if it wasnt his to begin with?  Instead the man stood behind the "3rd largest army in the world"  and said, come and get me, in a fucking bunker basement.....

using oil as a scapegoat is the catch all argument winner, everything is always about oil with the U.S right?  well of course if you have the opportunity to benefit from war, you will grab the reigns and make sure you get it, but to say we just fire up wars all over oil is silly. Benefiting your country from world affairs is what must be done when the world literally depends on you making it revolve. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#2010.E2.80.93present

Just look at that link, not even 95% of those operations included oil as a war goal.

But the bolded statement is what leads to going back on topic, which is why rivalry between countries and patriotism is a good thing, it puts my country where it is, and im proud of it, though i dont look down upon anyone, nor put myself on a pedestal because of it. I know that great things will come from this country, and it will continue to strive to be better and in turn create and produce those said things to continue leveraging itself towards the top, which speaking generally is a good thing for advancement of technology. Social aspects are a whole other story, and i dont think we will ever overcome the things we have set in place, or created, just cope with what we have made, and learn to get along, which like i said before, seems easier to do when your country has it all, and you arent just from a single culture, but a vast group of cultures making up one society, which is what we are as Americans.  Never did i claim the whole world was American, War ferret.....

[Christo]

Benefiting your country from world affairs is what must be done when the world literally depends on you making it revolve. 

are u srs

[AntiBlitz]

are u srs

well of course, speaking economically, the United States impact on the world is quite large, something as little to other countries as the attack on the world trade center waked in to economical problems for every country around the world,  other events as well such as the stock market crashes and such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Crash_of_1929

and this even occurs in reverse, countries as little as Hong Kong, hurt the whole world, and they are just a city, the U.S is huge in comparison.  So yes, though the words i used are a little drastic, it is pretty true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Monday_%281987%29