Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About geekmarine

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Single Status Update

See all updates by geekmarine

  1. So I've been thinking about the subject of war, and I just can't help but think about something. Recently, there's been an interesting trend. Consider the Star Wars Prequels... An enormous war breaks out throughout the galaxy. Many people valiantly die for the cause, and yet in the end, it turns out that the entire thing was simply a distraction created by Palpatine so that he could take over the galaxy. It really didn't matter how the war came out... The result would have bene the same.

    Then I realized that Lord of the Rings is another similar situation. Massive war breaks out in Middle Earth, but the point of the war was not what it seemed. Once again, the victor wasn't important; the point of the war was to provide a distraction so that Frodo could destroy the Ring.

    Of course, there are plently of political implications for Bush's current war in Iraq. Is all war like this? Do the powers-that-be simply pull the wool over our eyes, convince us that we're fighting for a cause worth killing or dying for, and simply reap the benefits of their political maneuvers? Of course the more I think about it, the more wars I realize were politically motivated, but is it possible that all wars are? I mean, I have a hard time believing that this is why we fought World War II, for example, but it does raise questions. And it really is a horrifying thought, the fact that some people are willing to send entire armies off to fight and die.

    Geez... It's not that I didn't know that many wars were not worth the lives lost, but the thought that the concept of war itself is not just... Well, of course, I've never condoned war, but I always assumed that there were righteous causes out there (survival, etc.) worth fighting for, but now I just can't imagine that to be the case. Wow, I'm really having a "Duh" moment here. Then again, think about how many millions, if not billions, of people there are in the world who don't realize that war is not right.

    1. Show previous comments  23 more
    2. Janderson


      I was just attempting and failing to back the losing side.

      My beliefs are that war is not exactly neccessary but in some cases it has moved us further along socially at least, it definitely helps linguistically. IIRC English is the easiest European language to learn simply because we have been invaded by almost everyone in our area, UK English incorporates elements of both the latin and germanic sides of the track making it easier for a german to learn english rather than french and blah, blah, blah.

      But then again language is the easiest thing to create so I guess another one of my inane points is null. :)

      I am a master-debator.

    3. Quast


      Jayextee said:

      Really? Ask Charles Darwin if his "survival of the fittest" theory extends to those that are made artificially the "fittest" via extraneous means (In this case, arms).

      While I kind of disagree with what Janderson said, and what you say is technically true (only in the sense that we have no horns or claws, if that is what you're implying), it doesn't matter in the least. One could easily argue that artificial or not, our weapons play a large role in survival of the fittest...he who has the bigger stick to beat down those with smaller ones will survive to sire children (or at least far more than his competetors, and that is what survival of the fittest is), while those others will not.

      It doesn't need to be this way, but that's the way we are and the way things have been.

      Oddly enough, I was thinking about this at work today. In relation to european imperialism of the americas. You want survival of the fittest AND see it with guns? There you go. Native fitness from north and south america has been decimated by european conquest. And that is one large example.

      Janderson said:

      But then again language is the easiest thing to create


    4. Janderson


      If you stick two children in solitary confinement at a very early age, with good hearing and speaking, they will have a simple language set up by the time they are six. If they are mute and/or deaf they will communicate through signals. You hear about it all the time with those sick bastards who lock their children up. Hell you've even got kids who learn to act and bark like dogs.