Posts made by dij671
RE: The Case for Violence
Civilization has a need for violence. Logic and morality demand it.
This refers not to some abstract need for uncivilized violence, or a psychological need to return to roots, or any such thing, but a inevitable and absolute requirement for violence from first principles.
Take for example, this case -
A woman is late for work and is speeding in a car. She sees police car lights flash behind her and pulls over. She knows, based on previous violations, that her speeding violation will cost her $200. She decides to pull over and let the officer write her a ticket.
Maybe the woman pulled over out of civic duty. But my point is not that some will observe their civic duty. My point concerns those that will not observe their civic duty, those that, absence violence or the threat of violence, would not comply.
Imagine a world in which the absolute limit of authority of police, prosecutors, judges, and so forth, was to issue a stern reprimand. Imagine that not only they, but society at large adhered to a strict policy of “strict reprimand”.
In such a world, it would only take one madwoman to turn everyone’s life (except for hers) into a living hell.
I apply a similar argument to not only individuals, but societies, and even nations. The ability to deal violence (not simply deal WITH violence) is a necessary component of a well ordered society.
On the other hand, one might argue, what if everyone carried around guns and shot each other at the slightest provocation? Might order be self-regulated? Who would want to start hostilities were they to be shot in return? “A well armed society is a polite society”, so to speak? But that is only more idealistic jibber jabber.
In parts of the world, certain behaviors that are considered quite normal are considered incredibly insulting by others. So all you need in that case is a provincial mindset, which humans are more than willing to fall into. Besides that, there are actual conflicts of interest for vital resources, then there’s the human drive to get more more more. What if a thousand other children go hungry, if my children and my friends’ children are well fed and secure? And so forth.
The fact is, when you have a bunch of guns floating all over the place, you’re going to have problems.
So if the solution is not to remove guns from everyone, nor yet to give guns to everyone, what IS the proper solution? It must clearly be an institutionalized system of violence (even if torture &c not inherent, such a system would have to be able to deal violence. Imagine if police officers were made out of gingerbread and M&Ms, with guns that shot low velocity cotton candy.)
In fact, most states, societies, &c DO have this. But the institutionalization of violence has insulated some from reality, who insist that violence cannot be the answer to problems. Such people conveniently ignore the fact that every day of their lives they are protected and nurtured by institutionalized violence. As one so aptly put it, “Freedom isn’t free”.
is this post to long or am I just lazy
RE: Top 10 Conquerers
In my past life on the internet, I was the Raider Leader Gargantua. Leader of The Khans.
Still am. (Just have to res the website)
I appreciate all your comments on my great conquests lol… you guys should see some of these screenshots.
could you yaknow post a few shots
RE: History's Best Elite Fighting Force
They were trained to shoot while raiding a horse, they were very precise (They were shooting only in that half a second when the horse’s legs are not touching the ground), and they had a very hard and strong bow that pierced through heavy plates like a gun through butter.
In Richard Armour’s satirical history of warfare, he states (as I recall) that Atilla the Hun’s cavalrymen used formidable double-handed battle axes which could split in two an enemy rider and his horse, but that sometimes the Huns would get lazy and use their axes one-handed, with the result that the enemy rider would be split in two while his horse would escape with only a slight nick on its back.