How about Violence be the next "Gay Movement"?

[McBell]

By that statement you also declare, our children and children's children will need to fear a world such as this.

You assume to much.

What I am proposing quite possibly could create a world where this sort of thing never needs to be worried about. It is a shame it isn't being considered.

could.
But then it might not.
Like I said, dieing for a lost cause is not something many people are actually willing to do more than talk about....

Let's just stick with our old ways and be prepared to kick some ***

I agree.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

It's all good folks. My brain does not allow me to view realty very long without getting bored. As such I try to focus on areas that might need improving. Whether it is a personal aspect of myself that needs improving or some injustice or fouled ideology in the world.

Thanks for the feedback...

 

[Just_me_Mike]

How can anything change among those in a society so long as no one wants anything to change?

If we live in a society where violent tendencies are high, are we to believe that these tendencies are unable to change? Or is it we think the task is to great to undertake?

How is it Gay people have more rights, or are more accepted these days? Is it because they didn't want change? How is it black people are equal now? Is it because they didn't want to be equal?

Likewise, how can our society become less violent, and eventually violence free? By doing more violence and not wanting it to change? That makes no logical sense, so what really is your argument?

 

[Skwim]

Are you that naive, to actually think the US went in like John Wayne to save the day?

is THAT what guns and ammo implies? Boy, talk about knee-jerk reactions and jumping to conclusions. Anyway . . . . . . . .

The US is a War Profiteering Nation, they went in to make money and gain land control, and they succeeded in spades.

So the nation made money did it.

From 1941 to 1946 (inclusive) federal spending breaks down in billions of dollars as:

1940 $ 9.47 (for comparison)
1941 $13.00
1942 $30.18
1943 $63.57
1944 $72.62
1945 $72.11
1946 $55.23
____________
306.71 billion dollars (1940 dollars), which in 2009 dollars would be: $4,641,300,000,000, over 4 and a half trillion dollars.

As for defense dollars only spent.

1940 $ 1.66 (for comparison)
1941 $ 6.13
1942 $22.05
1943 $43.98
1944 $62.95
1945 $64.53
1946 $42.68
______________
242.32 billion dollars (1940 dollars), which in 2009 dollars would be: $3,666,910,000,000, over three and a half trillion dollars.


As a percentage of all federal spending, defense spending amounted to.

1941 47.15%
1942 73.06%
1943 69.18%
1944 86.68%
1945 89.49%
1946 77.30%

Assuming no war took place and defense spend remained steady at a generous 2 billion dollars a year for six years, deducting 12 billion from the 242.32 billion dollars leaves a total WWII defense coast of 240.32 billion. So, if you provide the income the USA received as a result of the war we should get a good idea of all the profit you claim the USA made from it. I assume it will be far greater than the $240,320,000,000 cost.

source

 

[Just_me_Mike]

is THAT what guns and ammo implies? Boy, talk about knee-jerk reactions and jumping to conclusions. Anyway . . . . . . . .


So the nation made money did it.

From 1941 to 1946 (inclusive) federal spending breaks down in billions of dollars as:

1940 $ 9.47 (for comparison)
1941 $13.00
1942 $30.18
1943 $63.57
1944 $72.62
1945 $72.11
1946 $55.23
____________
306.71 billion dollars (1940 dollars), which in 2009 dollars would be: $4,641,300,000,000, over 4 and a half trillion dollars.

As for defense dollars only spent.

1940 $ 1.66 (for comparison)
1941 $ 6.13
1942 $22.05
1943 $43.98
1944 $62.95
1945 $64.53
1946 $42.68
______________
242.32 billion dollars (1940 dollars), which in 2009 dollars would be: $3,666,910,000,000, over three and a half trillion dollars.


As a percentage of all federal spending, defense spending amounted to.

1941 47.15%
1942 73.06%
1943 69.18%
1944 86.68%
1945 89.49%
1946 77.30%

Assuming no war took place and defense spend remained steady at a generous 2 billion dollars a year for six years, deducting 12 billion from the 242.32 billion dollars leaves a total WWII defense coast of 240.32 billion. So, if you provide the income the USA received as a result of the war we should get a good idea of all the profit you claim the USA made from it. I assume it will be far greater than the $240,320,000,000 cost.

source

Of course the US people, citizens didn't make anything off the war. You have to look at those instigating the war, research who profited off the war and what role they played in the build up to the war.

You will find almost identical stories to how Haliburton engineered the war in Iraq.

I appreciate the time you took to write all of that, but completely off base there. The German Steel Corporation and several key banks made TONSSSSSSSSSSSS off of WW2. Several other industries made out like a bandit too, and if you look up who was running these companies, you will also find their close ties with Government officials, banking institutions both here and abroad.

What is your point? I get that it is the ways of man, if you have a gun in my face I am suppose to defend myself. Hoo Ra! and all of that. I am merely attempting to understand that thought process, its origins, and what can be done to change it.

 

[Skwim]

Of course the US people, citizens didn't make anything off the war. You have to look at those instigating the war, research who profited off the war and what role they played in the build up to the war.

You will find almost identical stories to how Haliburton engineered the war in Iraq.

The German Steel Corporation and several key banks made TONSSSSSSSSSSSS off of WW2. Several other industries made out like a bandit too, and if you look up who was running these companies, you will also find their close ties with Government officials, banking institutions both here and abroad.

What is your point? I get that it is the ways of man, if you have a gun in my face I am suppose to defend myself. Hoo Ra! and all of that. I am merely attempting to understand that thought process, its origins, and what can be done to change it.

The US is a War Profiteering Nation,

"The US Nation."


The United States of America
is a
War Profiteering
Nation.
​

Individual enterprises don't constitute a nation, and I still await your income figures so we can do a bit of subtraction and tally up all the profit the Nation made.

I appreciate the time you took to write all of that, but completely off base there.

Pretty much a simple cut and paste job. .

 

[Venatoris]

Again, I already thought of this position, and it is largely based on a position of fear. Fear that nothing will change, if I stand there letting you stab me.

Fear? It takes the exact opposite of fear to defend yourself and other people effectively. Fear gets you killed.

If we educate while putting into action or education, things can change. If I teach my child that my death to you was to show the world that not everyone has to be violent, they can begin to see, you were wrong, and I was right, even though I am dead.

Do you think your children will see it as a statement against violence to be emulated or will they despise you for having to grow up without a father?

Just look at your reaction to my thread, you sound almost like George Bush here, and I don't even know you, so no offense meant by that, I am just making a point.

Which Bush? I don't know whether to be offended or not.

Thanks for trying to point out how I am naive, I know you mean that in a good way, but if you are not interested in fleshing this idea out, no worries. Carry on as usual.

On the contrary, I think a world where violence isn't necessary is a very good thing to strive for. I do however disagree about how we can make it happen. Passivism doesn't deter violence in any way. Fight fire with fire, If more people would resort to violence in defense of others(even if you don't know the person) they are making a statement that assaulting people will not be tolerated. There is no moral high ground to be had by not intervening when a person is being attacked. If I have to take the life of an offender to save the life of a victim, I will do so at the risk of my own life.

 

[Midnight Pete]

for starters, define "violence"

You know what violence is. Don't play word games.

 

[bobhikes]

But then I'm not gay. I subscribe to Thomas Malthus priciples whereas war, famine and death are necessary for the survival of Human Kind as a whole.

I have never understood this desire to save every living thing on the world or even just all the humans. That effort if sucessful would destroy the world in a very short time.

 

[fantome profane]

It is not that you are wrong about this exactly, just that it is incredibly general and vague. A movement against “violence” is kind of like a campaign to rid the world of “badness”, or a war on terrorism. It is just so vague and abstract that it is totally meaningless.

 

[linwood]

......

I believe there is simply too much tolerance towards violence of any nature, be it self defense, murder, protecting a loved one, or protecting a country.

Would you my brothers and sisters join me in trying to put an end to violence period, in all forms.

Nope.

I have no interest in endangering myself or my family by adding such a silly concept to my worldview.

 

[linwood]

Yes I am suggesting stand there and die. ....

However, if we teach generation after generation to act in such a way, it is possible that killing and violence goes out of style so to speak.

If we do as you suggest violence is the only thing that will remain.

There will be no generation after generation of non-violent people because they would die before they were able to pro-create.
If they managed to live long enough to pro-create then they AND their offspring would die because they refuse to defend them.

It seems insane, ..

That`s because it is insane.

 

[McBell]

You know what violence is. Don't play word games.

Having you define what you mean by "violence" is an attempt to prevent word games.
For example, do you consider football violent?
Some people do. Some people don't.

Now if you are wanting to be intentionally vague, then it is you who are playing the word games.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

It is not that you are wrong about this exactly, just that it is incredibly general and vague. A movement against “violence” is kind of like a campaign to rid the world of “badness”, or a war on terrorism. It is just so vague and abstract that it is totally meaningless.

I thought it would be common sense, but I get your point.
I am suggesting violent tendencies in human beings across the board for any reason, we need to minimize it which will eventually lead to stopping it for the majority.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Nope.

I have no interest in endangering myself or my family by adding such a silly concept to my worldview.

If we do as you suggest violence is the only thing that will remain.

There will be no generation after generation of non-violent people because they would die before they were able to pro-create.
If they managed to live long enough to pro-create then they AND their offspring would die because they refuse to defend them.



That`s because it is insane.

To me this is the identical response a white person would have given to a child that might have wanted to defend colored people. Verbatim: "Son, you just can't do that you'll endanger your whole family and die in the course of your action, why in the world would you want to do that son?"

Son: "Because dad it is the right thing to do"

To each his own though Linwood, I am just discussing ideas right now, and getting a better understanding of people's initial objections. They are all the same objection that come to my mind as well, however, that shouldn't stop us from thinking through the idea and finding a real practical use...

 

[EverChanging]

So would you stand by and watch non-violently while your children were being murdered? I'm all for decreasing violence, but I have no problem with self-defense. This idea is not only a hopeless one, but it is immoral.

 

[ZooGirl02]

Seriously , let me explain. I have made a couple of threads on here discussing killing and violence and its place in society.

I believe there is simply too much tolerance towards violence of any nature, be it self defense, murder, protecting a loved one, or protecting a country.

Would you my brothers and sisters join me in trying to put an end to violence period, in all forms.

It will be a harder journey then race equality and also gender equality, it will require lots of education and rethinking what we commonly accept as "normal".

I have already gotten a taste of it on this forum lightly discussing the topic.

Sure! I consider myself to be a Pacifist. I do support the Just War Doctrine though. You can learn about that here:

Catholic Answers: Just War Doctrine

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

I find the idea of denouncing self defense to be asinine.

 

[McBell]

I find the idea of denouncing self defense to be asinine.

As do I.

NOw don't get me wrong, I believe that violence should be used as a last resort, unless my family or children are involved, but I still find that at times, albeit very rarely, violence is the only thing that will break through the veil of stubbornness some people sport.

 

[Midnight Pete]

As do I.

NOw don't get me wrong, I believe that violence should be used as a last resort, unless my family or children are involved, but I still find that at times, albeit very rarely, violence is the only thing that will break through the veil of stubbornness some people sport.

Aye, but violence is far from the best method of conflict-resolution.