Debate Civilization and Evil: A Debate

Ransoms still exist today, and it isn't doing well to gain the title of minimal casualties. There's your 'reasonable' counterpoint.

As I said, you are doing the same thing in twisting my words to your needs and declaring that it meant something else, so there's no real difference in those arguments. Since this section's only getting more and more off-topic, I believe it would be beneficial just to sever it.

...because they cannot stand human nature, perhaps, or because they have taken the primal instinct too far. Also, they are perhaps doing it in the stead of overzealousness, as everybody claims. Suicide bombing for the glory of Allah or some such. Then again, it wouldn't be proved. You never saw into the mind of the pilots or the suicide bombers, and neither did I. We can't really say much about this because of that.

When people are executing suicides, they don't think they are in danger. They have chosen that path themselves, after all. The danger isn't directly coming from a threat, it is self-imposed.

Concepts exist before people existed. The people only define these concepts.

Well, seeing the state of Earth's resources and how much maintenance even airborne probes, and seeing up, space shuttles and such, incur on our resources, I believe it is pretty obvious (forgive me for the term) that utilizing automation technology for war would be crippling unless colonization is successful on another planet.

You can retake a math course. You cannot retake World War II.

War does prove to be costly once it begins, but when we are also seeing the usage of money to gain political support, as well as a re-election among other things, such as flaunting military power, and still buying into programs such as Missile Defense that seems unnecessary compared to upkeeping the current welfare, it really looks like that the countries are stabbing themselves in trying to 'be prepared'.

Assuming that physical shoving isn't always needed, that speck of dust will just be inserted into a vital capillary, ending blood flow in one way and causing death. Many blood vein mishaps come from the smallest breaches and walls.

 

I never said modern war wasn't bloody. I did however say that hypothetically bloodless war could exist. I'm perfectly just in doing so since you've done absurd hypotheticals too (such as worlds where there are no war mongers).

Well the fact that they shout "ALLAH ACKBAR" before they explode is a pretty clear indicator that its religiously motivated.

So? Just because the danger is self imposed doesn't mean fear runs through peoples minds while attacking. If that wasn't true, people who joined the military of their own free will wouldn't freak out despite training to counter that.

Then chivalry DOES exist. Just because a concept is not often fully embraced doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You know that tech is miniaturizing on an exponential pace, right? While I'm not suggesting that we could immeadiately have tiny airplanes, we -have- had a model airplane make a transatlantic flight. That's a lot of area to cover on a very small gas tank.

You can however repay debts. Thats why the province of British Columbia is no longer in debt IIRC.

I never equipped you with a needle.

 

I never fabricated a world with no war-mongers. I only suggested that war has caused the progression of technology enough that peace is a viable solution to most of our economical and resource-based troubles today. After all, research projects being hosted by the government today are quite... 'varied'. While some may hold the people's thoughts in mind, others concentrate towards military 'self defense' or some such reason.

But what does ALLAH ACKBAR mean to a man who knows he's going to die? Did Allah tell him to blow himself up for the glory that comes with killing of people and property damage? Perhaps it may look as if religiously motivated, but the fact that not all Iraqi are actively blowing the crap out of themselves denotes that the suicide bombers themselves are acting instantly and without thought to what they are doing - a trait of primal instince.

Self-imposed danger and outwardly imposed danger are two different things. Self-imposed danger causes fear, yes, but one can always stop a direction of the blade by the force of his will and the pulling of a trigger, given that he didn't do it already. There is no way to impose your will on another to move his hand, his arm, and such. At least, not yet.

Military training to counter such episodes wouldn't apply much to suicide - if a military general trained such as that has even began to enact self-imposed danger upon himself, he's probably already stressed to a point where he is out of control.

Oh, it did exist. And it always existed. But it is dead, not non-existant. When a person fails to recognize the existance of such a concept, it usually isn't existant in their minds. The out of sight, out of mind train of thought, I suppose.

And the fuel we use for those super-powerful gas tanks either burn much gasoline themselves or use resources that are possibly much more powerful. Yes, we are heading towards nanotechnology, but making nanotechnology work would require a lot of resources - when did small things always cost less?

You can repay debts, yes, but that in itself is incurring a loss of money. Paying war debts wouldn't easily make up damages incurred during a war, and depending on the size of the war debt, it may easily affect factors at homeland. Heck, America got hit pretty hard after the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.

A gun is never 'equipped' with a bullet. But, if you want the shoving part, we can always do one of those Mortal Kombat fatality things that are all the rage these days.

 

:dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2: :dizzy2:

ARGH!!! THE NEGATIVE WAVES ARE KILLING ME!!!

lol, this is getting ridiculous.

 

Oh yes you did. You kept mentioning "where would war be without the warmongers" when we all know that isn't realistic.

Praise Allah, IIRC.

Under their interpretation of the Quran, yes.

Except that it requires planning, so it obviously isn't instant.

Nanotech would be an idiotic warfare tool because nanotech itself has tons of problems. I never went as far as nanotech, however I am referring to small drones. What really takes more resources to build, a full size tank or a small fighter the size of a PC tower?

And they still came out of it ok in the end. Woooooooohooooooo.

Oh yeah, you don't need a bullet to kill with a gun either. ;P

 

Just let them go, sit back, and enjoy the ride. *hands Spriggy popcorn* There's not much more I can add...

 

lol, ok then ^_^
*buys drinks* *puts feet up*

 

By the way their spiritual leaders have interpreted the Quran, they do, but the prinicple only says to 'defend Islam' not 'raise a holy war'.

To them, they are doing something for their religion.

True, you can hit someone over the head with it.

just my two cents

 

That does not imagine a world without war mongers. I only stated the obvious that there probably wouldn't be war, if warmongers did not exist - if the human nature did not enact such ambitions. I know much how it is impossible, but theory can go anywhere.

Praise Allah may serve as a battlecry, but in a suicidal bomber it would probably viewed more as a petition to the 'gods' to view their acts as right or just. But, I don't know much about the depths of Islamic religion nor do I intend to learn for a good time, so I'll just let this rest.

Looketh up.

It is very likely that they don't do the planning - others, say, a 'preacher' or perhaps, probably selects an area to attack, and the bomber sets him up. The act of blowing oneself up with such explosives strapped to himself is pretty instant.

Resources? Smaller objects take less material, yes, but how much would it cost for the fighter to be able to carry out the same amount of destruction as the tank - using compression to retain all of its features?

Where many other countries didn't. It isn't really prudent to use the currently existing countries. All of the current countries has gone through many hardships and difficulties themselves, but they are obviously still there. However, see the countries then that do not exist now.

But killing via bludgeoning can apply to everything. Say the speck doesn't erode, I can slash it across at your eye or such for a given infinite time, and it'll eventually kill you.

 

Then why do you not allow the same consideration for the statement on ransom? Of course its impossible, but theory can go anywhere.

Go study fanatic islam culture.

Oh, that explains it.

Nope. There's the approach towards the target. In addition there is the convincing needed (unless its justified in the bombers mind to begin with). There's also the time spent planning. The bomber helps plan. He very well knows what he's doing, he just doesn't consider his targets human. In fact one defense they've begun to try out is putting pig blood packets on buses so the flesh of the bomber will be soiled and thus due to religious reasons lose out on the very reason he's doing it. If that isn't *** backwards religious reasoning I don't know what is.

Given that prototype lasers have been developed (I can get a pdf of blueprints if you'd like) it may not be too long. Lasers don't need ammunition; they only need power. In addition, there are suitcase sized nukes which do pack quite a wallop (IIRC 10 megatons). Granted, I don't believe you can make nukes any smaller (as in its physically impossible due to resource requirements) but thats proof that you can get great destructive potential in small forms.

But every country ends its existence at some point anyway. It may technically be "reborn" later on but thats a new birth, not a continuation.

If only such a property existed for dust.


P.S. I've gotten a couple questions about why I think nanotech would not be too efficient for warfare, read this if you wish. Granted, I think Mr. Wong is incorrect when he discusses the cost of nukes vs nanobots (even if it cost $50 to make a nanobot, as long as it had self replication programs it could essentially reproduce as many as you need with the only cost being resources, and if the tech for re-arranging atoms is sufficient that could be anything including dirt).

 

Because ransom isn't a product spawned by human nature, and because it already exists, though it isn't working. I didn't say that ransom was impossible , neither did I say that it wasn't used. I only stated that it still existed today, and it isn't working very well to reduce casualties.

Every attack needs a countermeasure, no? And also, did you yourself actually see a planning of a suicide bombing? I haven't seen one yet, but if you have, kindly share it here and perhaps I will see to the points that you refer to in this planning scenario that you put up, and see if they are actual facts.

As with the article that you directed me to in the bottom of the post, laser still needs power. A lot of power, that is, to generate a beam of light concentrated enough to do what is needed. Though ammunition and power is different, both accomplishes the same by fueling the weapon. You can get great destructive potential in small forms, but that's why larger forms can deal a larger punch unless compression, a fairly expensive technique, is used. As an example - A F-14, shrunk to 1/4 its size while retaining usability because of the reduced fuel/engine output needed, would have less firepower, because it simply cannot carry the same weaponry without needing more engine output and therefore fuel to upkeep its viability.

But America hasn't exactly really fallen before - many other countries have experienced downfall throughout the time, and many of them do not recover. Because America survived these wars doesn't mean that the rest of the countries can do so.

Shrug.

That only supports my point that those small fighters will probably still cost more than those large tanks. Because this nanotechnology dealie increases the cost by so much in the creation of such small and yet still somewhat intelligent, I don't doubt that trying to stick an AI into a drone fighter and providing the same amount of fuel would be very hard. And I myself don't disagree with the costs. After all, nanobots need energy to reproduce, like everything else - and they aren't able to pull energy out of nowhere indefinitely.

 

Neither is human compassion.

Nothing "needs" a counter; some are just unlucky enough to have one developed.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/2020/PRIMETIME_011206_suicidebomber_feature.html

http://www3.sympatico.ca/truegrowth/bombs.htm

Sufficient? Obviously the second link is a somewhat dubious source, but you still see a lot of the symptoms I discussed in the first.

Ever consider how much space would be saved simply by eliminated everything needs to care for the human pilot?

Everything has to die at some point so newer, better things can carry on, right? Sure it's cold blooded, sure it isn't fair, but nature isn't fair and this is simply another expression of evolution.

Why? You saved space by eliminating the human component, no? I'm not referring to model size aircraft; think more like fighters the size of a small bed perhaps. Additionally, what do you do if superior forms of engine are made? (We have made an ion engine but I do concede that as it stands its rather large and can barely lift a sheet of paper, but theoretically new drive components could be made.)

http://www.crystalinks.com/nicola.html

Specifically: "'It is perfectly practicable to transmit electrical energy without wires and produce destructive effects at a distance. I have already constructed a wireless transmitter which makes this possible, and have described it in my technical publications, among which / refer to my patent number 1,1 19,732 recently granted.

With a transmitter of this kind we are enabled to project electrical energy IN ANY AMOUNT TO ANY DISTANCE [HAARP's output is a full gigawatt, b] and apply it for innumerable purposes, both in war and peace.

Through the universal adoption of this system, ideal conditions for the maintenance of law and order will be realized, for then the energy necessary to the enforcement of right and justice will be normally productive, yet potential, and in any moment available, for attack and defense. The power transmitted need not be necessarily destructive, for, if distance is made to depend upon it, its withdrawal or supply will bring about the same results as those now accomplished by force of arms.'"

- NEW YORK TIMES December 8, 1915 "

 

Ooo, can I get some twizzlers up in here?!?!?

 

Here. *gives 'rin Twizzler* This is interesting.

 

Of course.

I suppose 'needs' was unnecessary. More... warrants a counter. Any attacks are likely to tell the victim, especially if an organization, that they would need to create a countermeasure for it.

And here I'll use your sources here to retract to the part where you stated that those bombings were very religiously motivated. Now, reading this, I'm seeing religion used as a tool to justify themselves. Here, let's take a look at a few parts.

So, desperation and madness fuels the suicide bomber, and this 'mission' to dehumanize their 'enemies'. Okay, so there may be a degree of fanaticism there, perhaps, but the statements before this, when interviews about the worshipping was given, people pointed to their bullet-ridden houses, and the Israeli tanks. They do not point to their religion.

Though this supplies a large religious motivation, I still question this. The last paragraph, as you see, gives much suspicion to this seemingly religious mission. Perhaps the money helped the way, perhaps both the money and religious motivation... perhaps not. It'll probably be unknown.

Alright, so the bombers, who seem to be slated to their cause, aren't allowed to do something to change their minds, even though the act is verily supported by the family, and the whole society at that? Very strange indeed. An example of this 'support' here.

And also the paragraph below that one (was too long)

I also don't find any signs that the bomber plans with them. Yes, it is secretive, but then again, nobody knows the actual process.

Alright, so he thinks that God will lead him to victory. That thought isn't uncommon - rather, it's believed often... but, what's this? 'I'll blow the crap out of them until they feel the pain our mothers do?' Isn't that an excuse to use God? Oh well, moving on.

"Hmm.. hey, that Hamas group is doing suicide attacks. That sounds like a good idea! How about it?" "Yeah!" Yeah!"

...Sorry, I just didnt like the nature of that paragraph overall. Ignore it if you may.

So, the 'bomber' doesn't know if he's actually going to bomb or just go frenzy-ish until he dies until he is led to his target, where-ever it may be. Yeah, that's a great deal of cooperative planning I see there. Also, the fact that he is told his target, and doesn't even get a say in it, is also a very reasonable planning technique, I see.

Yes, but it will still be a formidable space to fit an engine and a mechanical system that will do everything that a human pilot could have done as well - automatically managing maintenance is hard - and we don't have hundreds of people to control hundreds of little drones, unless we start military training for that kind of stuff. ¬_¬

Yes, yes, it is natural selection and all that. But you are missing the point. I stated that you should use America's economical success as an excuse that war's economical benefits are always booming and positive.

Yes, we have an ion engine. Yes, it doesn't work well. But, see 2 points up.

http://www.crystalinks.com/nicola.html

Yes, you can transmit energy, but still, none of the countries have infinite energy - the methods will eventually run out. Using energy to control an exponentially increasing amount of nanobots would grow gigantic after a short amount of time.

 

Alright, I'll give you more.

http://www.ict.org.il/institute/Projectdet.cfm?ProjectID=3
http://www.parcenter.org/resources/palestinian_studies_today/studies_papers/allen_merip.html
http://www.muslimwakeup.com/mainarchive/000876.php
http://www.ajr.org.uk/pastjournal21.htm

I prove this is enough for you to admit that at the very least an extremely large chunk needs the religious aspect to go through with it.

Oh come, we all know that the biggest reason for war in the middle east is due to religion. I'm sure at least a few were convinced by that extra cash but it isn't hard to see how religiously devoted many of the region are (even a certain M2A mod, while not trying to outright kill anyone, does have religiously fueled racist beliefs. For their protection I am not going to mention names. That person knows who they are.)

It simply said that they less frequently changed their minds after doing a recording. It's akin to not being that afraid of death after writing a will. I think you're reading a bit too much into it.

More religious motivation.

Well using 9/11 as an example, there were masterminds behind that. Why would more minor strikes be any different? Coordination = effectiveness.

You realise that religion is intertwined with essentially ALL aspects of life over there, right? We identify it as a seperate entity from our family, businesses, school and friends. For them it is highly ingrained to the point where an attack on their family is an attack on God.

See how insane these people are?

It's not about getting a say in it. Perhaps "plan together" was a wrong choice of words. More like "conspire together with extreme respect for heirarchy". That region is quite different from ours, especially when it comes to questioning higher-ups.

Certainly couldn't be that hard. Let an AI handle the complex stuff, and make the base flying as simplistic as a video game. If a 14 year old can pilot a realistic simulation of an F-14 fighter jet (complete with blackouts during high g turns) then... well.

Edit: in retrospect I wasn't sure if you meant drones as in drone fighters or repair drones... if you meant repair drones, theres no need for those (indeed how you got the idea is beyond me since we don't use them right now anyway). Simply make the components modular and rotate them on a basis as is needed if the equipment somehow does get that banged up that routinely.

I never said always, I simply said that they could be.

Construct solar panels in space and transmit energy from them. While we're obviously not going to be using Dyson Sphere level panels here (and any race that COULD build a DS doesn't need to) the energy harvest is a lot more efficient up there.

Or of course - consider this scenario. 1 packet of Nanobots is deployed near, say, an enemy war factory. We have enough power free to supply 3 trillion. We simply let them reproduce over and over, with the old ones shutting down (probably scuttling in the process) to accomadate the new ones. The enemy loses his war factory.

Alternatively we "poison" their food supply with nanobots that simply use the biochemical energy found in the human body to power themselves (this has been shown to be possible). Once in the body, the 'bots disperse, oh, lets say a tranquilizing/pacifying drug. Now wouldn't that screw things up?

 

oooh, me too!

 

First link - Alright, a project about the research, with them making all those theories that the bombings become more and more and more about religion. So they may make the decision then for the purpose of glory in the religion, but what may they really think when they are torn apart? What if they don't reach this 'paradise' that is continually referenced too? In a previous article people talked how 'if you died for god, you don't really die, you go to paradise'. And if that's not true? Either way, I am skeptical about Al Qaeda's religious fanaticism, but I'm never skeptical about how they have caused damage, so though it may be my skepticism on religion overall, but this article assures me not, using what seems to be theories and assumptions amplified by the information they gathered for an introduction.

Second link - This provides an interesting contradiction. It seems that, at first, that the population of this Palestinian society... didn't want suicide bombers, because it gave Israel a reason to attack them? And the suicide bombers shocked them instead of pleasing them? This also tells of the power and fame that comes with the suicide bomber, and how the family itself gains solidarity and funding from such an act. Thus, there are many more reasons to become one than mere 'religious' reasons. Also, here comes one particularly interesting point.

Okay, so suicide is not allowed... but twist it into 'martyrdom for Allah', and it is widely supported by all and loved by the society. Also, killing of civilians are generally looked down upon... until the Israeli suppression makes every single on of those civilians into soldiers, settlers, or invaders into the Palestinian's eyes. Oppression and poverty has sparked this bombing as well, I suppose.

Third link - Right at the beginning, it implies that Islamic religion is one of peace. Now, is this fanatical muslim concept just a use of Islamic rules to achieve a reason to do these bombings, nothing more? There are violent extremists to the religion of Islam, just as there are warmongers to America. All in all, it isn't really much different, except that the extremists are developed out of oppression and poverty.

The above supports that point. Remember, it is denoted suicide bombing for a reason - it may be touching on the bomber's suicidal nature, for one. This is more or less a supporting point for my opinion - that religious motivation wasn't as prominent in these acts as one may think with their shouts. A supporting quote..

Yes, the America media, as stated in the same article, is being one-sided about this, not saying anything about Israeli oppression and generally playing favoritism. The persistance of the Israeli politicians also doesn't help. But, this tells of many weapons of how Palestinians may be using suicide bombers out of vengeance, not religion.

Fourth -

Alright, so the bombers are motivated by the promise of paradise? I don't think I would believe of this paradise, but this is basically like any other religious uprising - no real religious reason, just a promise of great wealth and a glorious afterlife if they die. The motivation is there, the true religious spirit is not.

Yes, many of the people there are religiously devoted to their religion, but, as said, Islam has been found to be a peace-loving religion, twisted into a fanatic's religion by this need of attack back upon the Israelis. After seeing that, I really question if the religion is a valid excuse for the bombers, and if they are, if they actually think they are following the true Islamic connotation.

Perhaps, but since this seems to be such a supported thing, and in this time, everybody really IS doing it, I doubt last-minute changes are often, or even allowed. But that's me.

Refer back to the religion thing above.

9/11 was a major strike, needing much coordination. After all, taking over a plane is much more of an intricate operation than strapping on some bombs and striding over to some place with people to blow up in - the job of the suicide bomber. In the processes that your sources have given me so far, the bomber is told where to go - he has no say in it. Yes, there are masterminds to tell them where to blow themselves up, but the point is that the bomber doesn't know where he's bombing until it is too late, and he really doesn't get a choice.

Perhaps, but then why don't all of them just go on, steal some bombs, and do it themselves? They aren't really being stopped from doing so, and they are all offended by this 'oppression'. I still think using religion as such an excuse for these bombings are an abominable thing to do.

No, but I see where they got this idea from, and it is really...strange how it seems that an Israeli group actually started the trend. But that's just me.

Conspire together doesn't really work either. The bombers are stated to be lectured in religion for about 20 days until they are sure that they want to blow themselves up for the glory of Jihad and Allah. Then they are led to one given place and told to blow up where they find the most people without getting caught. That's not as much of conspiring as it is being ordered.

 

If we had AI that was great enough and competent enough to handle a real-life situation like this and not bomb it soem way or another, yes. The AI that we see in video games and such aren't really the best for real-life, and even if the AI utilized for military purposes are much better... well, there's a reason we don't have robotic troopers yet. And modular concepts? Where does that come from?

Err, that statement is shouldn't back there, but eh. But remember, as you said, America's got the best economy. That means that other countries doesn't have as good of an economy as America.

How would this drug be supplied, and how would the drug be dispersed throughout the people? Anyway, as also said in your first source concerning this, any number of nanobots can easily be knocked down with a well-placed electromagnetic pulse. Yes, nanotechnology is a very powerful advancement for military and non-military uses, and I can think of many uses for it - however, I can also think of Prey, the book, even though it seems to be impossible.

Note - Miko, immortalrin, Spiggy, please stop spamming with the justification of 'lightening the mood'. It's not about to work any time soon, and all you are contributing here are pointless one liners that are completely off topic and nowhere near debating.

 

How on Earth am I going to know what happens after they blow up? For that matter how are you?

I already conceded that religious reasons are not the only reasons; however they are certainly the prime reasons.

See? More religious stuff.

Theres also the, y'know, religious differences.

What, do you think that a website made by Muslims trying to educate people about Muslims is going to say "Yes, we are bloodthirsty, evil people who want to kill you all"?

I know that but the fact that these people then twist it into martyrdom for Allah certainly says something.

Before moving on, I need to make clear something - religion provides the strength to actually go ahead and do this. I myself have lost a lot of the natural fear of death due to my spiritual beliefs and hence am more willing to (and have) risk my life. If you took a suicidal man and told him that if he did this, he'd not only get to heaven, he'd have 72 virgins ready for him, he'd be pretty damn ready to go.

Again, take a look at the religion thats meshed into the politics of the area.

You don't, but you have not been surrounded by that culture your entire life and immersed in that religions teachings since day one.

It can be a peace loving religion. It really does depend on how you interpret the Quran. Islam is not inherently peace loving, that much is apparent to anybody who even bothers looking at the Quran. Moderate and Progressive (I'm referring to fanatacism/tolerance levels, not political leanings) Muslims, on the other hand, are peace loving.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/

Read that and try to say that Islam is inherently peaceful.

Read a few snippets from the skeptics annotated quran and you'll see they really are thinking that.

Thats all the coordination needed. With the way you talked earlier, it sounded like you believed the bombers just picked any target they felt like.

Not everyone can or is allowed to. Refer to one of the earlier links that showed that people under 18 are not allowed, nor are people who have wife/kids or are the sole moneymakers of a family.

And of course using religion for such a task is abominable, but look at history. Crusades, witch burnings, inquisitions, jihads, purges... religion is used for this all the time.

Meh.