[Schneider]

Greetings everyone !

First,i want to say that i hope everyone is well feed and warm at the beginning of 2007 (and hope you will all still be like that at the end of this year )..

Call me a pussy,but i think that some warm feelings don't hurt for many of us,expecially in this topic on such a difficult subject ! So here what this topic will be about : a thoughtful debate about killing,murdering and genocide !

I think that many of us got the feeling that the future of mankind will not be pretty at the least..Here a place to debate about our greatest fears..

So we got 2 schools of thought i'd like to debate with you ,theses two ways of thinking how humans reacts ..


The first one might be the one of Dave Grossman,autor of On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society talking about a innate resistance to kill a fellow human being,even while facing death ..

The second is the one of Gary Bretcher,called the War Nerd where the norm is killing,murdering and even genocide is the usual way to go of humankind when dealing with conflicts between each others !

Personnally,i must admit that i have a bias for Gary Bretcher but i've buyed yesterday "On Killing" (along with "On Combat" wich is more practical book than a academic one) for the sake of debating the issue ! To me,mankind have a looong history of massacres,who don't have blood on his hand ?

Very fews if you ask me : The Germans with the Jews (holocaust),the turcs with the amenians,the Spanish with the Aztecs and Incas,Americans with the native redskin,the Chineses with the Tibetans,Australians with the aboriginals,the trade of black peoples,the French's,the Britains,the Japaneses..Even us,Canadians have some blood on our hands..Mankind history seem to be nothing more than a chain of atrocities we don't seem to be able to finish !

We seem to be living on a pile of corpses,but humans are supposed to be "good"..

But it is only my opinion ,now it is your turn !

Schneider
French-Canadian

[Jack]

I believe that human-kind is, fundamentally, a predator, red in tooth and claw. Killing others is in our blood - pun intended.

We will kill others for being different, for being a threat, because they have something we want, or because they don't do as we say they should. The instances of genocide are numerous.

Perhaps most amusing are the self-anointed pacifists. Those fine folks will make peace, even if it means slaughtering everyone who disagrees with them.

I have great confidence in human-kind's capacity for mayhem. I'm sure they will not disappoint.

[Fergus]

Well, when you say 'who does not have blood on their hands' you are generalizing and holding the son guilty of the fathers sins.

I personally did not shoot a single indian in the old west. I know my ancestors never did either as I am first generation american on my mothers side and 2nd generation american on my fathers side.

I am not sure what question your asking here.

But know that man is just an animal that developed higher forms of reasoning and logic then other animals. There are 6.4 billion of us living on this planet. That gives you about 6.4 billion reasons why we kill, and 6.4 billion reasons to rationalize killing others.

As for genocide, well again, you cant hold all germans responsible for Hitlers actions. Certainly not todays germans. Just as you cant hold me responsible for what the early americans did to the redskins.

Killing is something animals do to one another for various reasons, namely hunger, protecting territory or young. Man is the only animal that let emotions, feelings and ideas influence their actions. Almost all other animals act on instinct and experience. Only man lets his actions be determined by feelings, desires or ideas. (how many pple have died in the name of religeon, as opposed to giraffes?)

When talking about killing and the animal MAN, you can not fit it into 2 or 3 nice and neat premises. We kill for about 6.4 billion reasons, ideas and feelings. There has to be more then 2 schools of thought on this to, try 6.4 billion schools of thought. We are all individual and vary in degrees from very small differences to insurmountable differences.

[NEOPO]

Only 2 schools of thought???
I hate it when that happens

This is one of those subjects that ...errr uhm...forces some of us to really pause and think.
Uh yeah I hope everyone is fed and warm also ....maybe not the NEOCONS!!! ..... now onto the killing!!! muahahah

I am torn within and I do not think I am alone.
Not all creatures struggle as we do so I cannot believe it is completely natural yet many creatures do..... so for them at least it seems natural enough.
The definition of natural/normal are always in flux based upon observation thus I do understand why many people have a problem with the terminology.

I would agree to this: "For many human cultures and up to the present day it appears that killing is completely natural"

Ultimately I believe that we will evolve beyond it and that a small percent of mankind already has.
Not evolve into helpless pacifists no....
I am a pacifist if that means I am against war but I will fuck you up if you cross the "line"

Is that a good description of what I am trying to emulate and what I think people should strive for??? I think it is.

I have known many "fighters" and with my history it could be said that I am one also.
As far as my experiences go the meanest mofo's out there are the one's who try to remain calm and only fight when forced.

Be a bad ass - not a bully.
End shit but dont start any.
Grasshopper!!!



<hitches a ride on the back of a giraffe while waiting for the other stupid monkeys to evolve and quit fucking up paradise for us all!!!>

Jack - Could you give the class an example of a self annointed pacifist please?

Fergus - So you do believe we evolve right? heheh

To the rest of you who might be asking "why does he do that!?"
Uhm I dont know - I see a chance to walk around in circles with people and I guess I enjoy it

Yes mankind has evolved from animals very good and this means?
class?class???
OOOH OOOH OOOOOH!
Yes horseshack?
That we evolve mr kotter?
Yes horseshack - we evolve.
And this means? class? class???
Yes Washington?
That we are evolving mr Kotter?
Yes Washington that we are evolving.
I have a question mr kotter.
Yes Vinny?
Does that mean we are evolving right now mr kotter?
<audience laughter que>
Yes Vinny we are evolving as we speak....

welcome back welcome back welcome back.......

[TorrKing]

I can guarantee you, that at some point your ancestors have killed someone, Fergus

I like to think of it this way: We all have our burdens. Women is birth (with potential complications) and rape, to men it is potential injury or death in combat. That's how the world used to be. It's natural for a man to die violently.

[TorrKing]

Tribal warfare is a very good means of controlling the growth of the population. This does however not suit the merchants and rulers in a more "advanced" society. They want population growth, because that means higher profits for themselves.

"Pacifist" religions like Christianity are excellent tools for this. On the other side they can just as well declare holy war on someone if needed. So it's a win-win situation for the rulers.

[coyote]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', 'P')erhaps most amusing are the self-anointed pacifists. Those fine folks will make peace, even if it means slaughtering everyone who disagrees with them.

[WildRose]

I believe humans kill for a variety of reasons, but generally I think it comes down to motivation and circumstance. For example, "crimes of passion": if you came upon a scene where someone you loved was murdered and the perpetrator was still there, would you kill that person? You might, because of the intense anger you felt and the distraught state you were in. But if it was after the fact, say, you saw the person responsible for your loved one's death a while later, when you had time to think about the consequences... your action may not be the same.

I don't know if I'm a self-appointed pacifist - I surely would not bring harm to anyone without provocation, but I would defend my loved ones and myself quite fiercely. To kill for an ideology is a little more blurry, as far as I'm concerned. I'd have to be really motivated.

[malcomatic_51]

You are basically asking whether we will all degenerate into genocidal mobs following Peak Oil. The answer is I do not know, but I will hazard that it will depend on how close a given society is to the experience of war.

North America and Europe are now settled for decades, with sophisticated political structures for the resolution of disputes. These structures are not "fair", but they serve the majority interest, without abusing minorities to the extent that they become dangerous terrorists - except in a few cases.

Elsewhere the picture is mixed. The Big Death following Peak Oil will not happen in the industrialised countries anyway. Ironically, the 20% of the world currently having some access to the advantages of the energy lifestyle also have the buying power and weaponry to assert their interests over the 80% who live on the breadline.

My prediction is that Peak Oil will gradually lead to vast starvation in the Third World. The industrialised nations will pull the veil over and turn up the pop music. Peak Oil will get them to, or rather, eventually shortages will reach into NAm and Eur and starvation will commence in those countries. That will lead to fragmentation and the return to something close to feudalism as people seek safety with local "barons".

Maybe hundreds of years in the future a new civil society will arise. I have not the slightest idea what it will be like.

[BILL_THA_PHARMACIZT]

you need to kill to exist - either mammmals or plants - you kill.
It's all completley natural. If it wasn't natural it wouldn't exist.

If this post is asking the question "why do humans kill each other" - that depends on time place and circumstance...ultimatley nobody knows "why".


there is a book called "blood rites" by a lady named Barbra Ehrenrich which is based on the philosophical foundation that our ancient ancestors in order to survive needed to band together to protect themselves from larger mammals - and as time passed and we became more dominant in our abillity to control our enviorment - those charachteristics never left -

however now that we're the dominant mammal on the planet we have the remnants of those times imbedded in our nature ...

so we direct them at one another - since we've basically already conquered every other mammal

[BlisteredWhippet]

Killing should be quick, arbitrary, and limiting to your own risk.

The proper attitude is to do it and not think about it.Mentally, just think of the person as evil. Imagine them as a walking lump of potatoes. A lightbulb you're about to turn off.

Physically, the best way to kill is a way in which they don't see it coming, ie. from behind, "Lights out" style.

Socially, the best way to kill to not give any indication that you are capable of or going to do it. In other words, they never "see it coming". This killing style necessarily involves getting up close and working or living with the person. None of this has anything to do with the psychology of killing at a distance or within the scope of a state of war or open conflict.

A good pattern for the conceptualization of this kind of killing is Lenny killing George in Of Mice and Men. Mentally, it must be framed as a necessary act, avoiding all unnecessary complications (bloody struggle, long death). You can practice preparing for this frame of mind by trapping small nuisance animals and drowning them. This is the "Mice, to Men" process.

Any concepts of "fairness", "propriety", "honor", etc. are actually counterproductive and represent mental obstacles to being decisive and effective. It isn't trivial to be emotionally or morally conflicted when killing. For example, if George hadn't been retarded, or Lenny had been too overly emotional while killing him, the chances of the victim's discovery rise exponentially, leading to a much more complicated scenario. If you have been emotionally conditioned, for example, with heavy moralism for "women and children", there is a real psychoemotional dynamic that is going to steal thought processes and fight instinct and reason when you're faced with a ramping bitch and her brood all armed with knives or AKs. Similarly, if you have some inbred Jesus-logic imprinted, you're going to stumble like a 40-year old virgin attempting to have sex for the first time. You're going to be trying to plunge a knife into some motherfucker's back, and mental images of your grandma are going to be popping up, saying "I didn't raise you to be a baaad boy!", increasing the odds of the complication.

To get rid of these unnecessary impulses, its a good idea to visualize killing people of all kinds, ages, and sexes frequently to eliminate the prejudicial instinct. As your value scale is probably already distorted if you cannot even bring yourself to even invoke these visualization exercises, its unlikely that this conditioning can be erased from your imprinted personality. In real terms, all this means is that, like other sheep, you are at a disadvantage in killing.

Excessive moralism or emotionality is problematic for the same reason. Killing someone should be made as simple and easy as possible, for both people involved. People with the moral inclination to frame the killing act as moral punishment run the risk of sabotaging themselves at the "moment of truth".

Killing is simply not for people who, by habit, feel a pervasive need to ask for permission to do things, create strict moral heirarchies along a good-evil continuum, have guilt-complexes, or shame reactions imprinted from childhood conditioning. The best psychic makeup is one that facilitates a self-contained will to be "judge, jury, and executioner", the ability to calculate risk accurately and quickly, and simply being decisive.

It is not going to be good, I'm afraid, for most other psychological types. Psychotics might be effective in the short term, and Sheeple might be effective in some instances. But to be truly successful means having a self-contained psycho-emotional justification, a worldview which conceptualizes a person's purpose and aligns it with an objective (killing), in a specific way. In short, become an assassain. Legitimizing by role assignment is the short-cut way human societies have evolved to morally excuse any action, so an effective killer would do well to use it. For example, the military tells a person his role is "soldier", and this numbs the psychological reaction by binding the consequences to an arbitrary condition "soldierhood".

A sheep can plan a murder but cannot carry it out. A Wolf can. But a wolf, in sheep's clothing, is the most effective.

Post TEOTWAWKI, there will be lots and lots of sheep, and lots of wolves. All will be operating in the paradigm of kill or be killed. The sheep, being killed far more often than killing, and the wolves killing about as much as they themselves are killed.

Killing at a distance is so removed from immediate visceral reality it is almost indeliberate, making it the most accessible way to kill for wolves, sheep, and psychotics alike. And being killed from a distance remains the most likely way anyone is going to be killed by anyone else since sheep and wolves alike will be killing by this method.

I would also add that in any scenario involving killing force or intent, the less burdened you are with the "Care Bear" suite of moral prejudices, the higher your chances of survival, wether the killing force is directed at you or at another. Sheeple suffer disadvantages in being unable to act decisively even in killing to defend themselves. Only in Hollywood do sheep prevail (usually after a long, protracted combat with an unusually verbose antagonist.)

For this reason, "pacifists" are extremely unreliable companions and liabilities in any scenario where killing forces are involved. Organizationally, the pacifsts on your team should be lumped together with other noncombatants, the women and children, or used in sacrificial ways, like minefield clearing, point on patrols, and decoys for drawing sniper fire in order to expose a sniper's position. If they cook really well or are resourceful in other ways its best to just keep them as a meat shield of last resort for the reproducing females. Or, paint them up as females and trade them to neighboring tribes for cigarettes, liquor, or drugs.

[TigPil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a') innate resistance to kill a fellow human being,even while facing death ..

[Uzi]

Hello everybody,

it is my first post here. I read all your posts about killing and wonder two things:

First, i read (book was i think 'History of wars') that history of humankind is a history of wars. I don't have extensive knowledge in the history to give my personal opinion but in general i think that the author of that book was right. People fought wars and kill each other at all times including modern times. So question about killing is rather rhetorical. People kill each other every day even at this exact moment and maybe in large numbers. We just don’t know.

Second, all these posts about 'wolves and sheep' assume that wars and killings would have local character. While history again shows that people used every advantage in weapons to oppress or occupy their enemies. For example, every new tactic or weapon gave an advantage to its holder. So very soon the holder of the more advanced weapon was able to capture neighboring countries. But soon others understand advantage of the new weapon and regain their positions.

So my question is:

What does make you think that this time is going to be different? Why will countries with nuclear weapons withhold them in case of extreme economic difficulties or acute threat from their enemies?

And if these weapons are going to be used which i believe they will then it doesn't really have much sense to discuss people’s propensity to kill. Nearly everybody will be killed in the war and people who might survive won’t have chance to interact closely. I think no killing skills will be necessary in case if things will go as bad as many people think. Others will make all decisions for you and me.

[Fergus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Torjus', 'I') can guarantee you, that at some point your ancestors have killed someone, Fergus

I like to think of it this way: We all have our burdens. Women is birth (with potential complications) and rape, to men it is potential injury or death in combat. That's how the world used to be. It's natural for a man to die violently.

[gg3]

There is a necessary balance between pacifists (those who oppose war on moral grounds) and militarists (those who are eager to go to war for whatever reason; which I differentiate from warriors who are those who do the actual fighting).

If a society has too many pacifists it will fail to prepare adequately for its own defense, and thereby leave itself open to being attacked and destroyed by aggressive neighbors.

If a society has too many militarists it will wage aggressive wars until its neighbors decide it is too great a threat to tolerate any further, thus it too is at risk of being attacked and destroyed.

The ideal balance point is to be sufficiently capable of waging war as to deter any reasonably foreseeable aggressors; to not engage in aggressive warfare; and to participate in military alliances that are likely to provide reciprocal aid in times of need.

====

Re. Blistered Whippet's items above:

Tell it to the Marines. "Every Marine is first a rifleman," and they are taught somewhere between 9 and 13 (I've forgotten the exact number) ways to kill another human in hand to hand combat without any weapons.

They are one of the most ferocious and capable fighting forces in the world, and they would not tolerate a loose cannon such as BW among them.

The Marines have a moral code and moral compass. Duty, honor, integrity, you've heard those words hundreds of times but they really mean something when you're the first attack force on the ground and the hostiles are still at full strength. The Marines operate under the UCMJ and the laws and treaties of these United States. The United States military's training says that hatred of the enemy is to be avoided because it clouds one's judgement and causes mistakes that can be fatal. But neither does the US military teach soldiers to view OPFORs (opposing forces, i.e. enemy soldiers) as subhuman.

Teaching yourself, as BW suggests, to view other humans as sacks of potatoes or blobs of clay or suchlike, and drowning mice for sport, is a short path toward learning to be a sociopath. Sociopaths make shitty soldiers. Sociopaths can't be trusted to watch your back in the thick of close combat. You don't want a sociopath next to you in the trenches when the mortar rounds are whizzing overhead.

The United States military's training makes effective killers and human-hunters by emphasizing two things: One, kill only when acting within the law and within the lawful orders of your chain of command. Two, practice the necessary actions to the point where they can be done as reflexes without conscious thought. Thus when you go into combat, you know you are prepared to do whatever is called for, and thus you do it.

It's considered normal that the first time a soldier kills an opponent, he'll get sick to his stomach and throw up. Yet they return to combat, almost without exception, because their training overcomes their gut reactions. We should be a bit concerned about those who do the deed and don't suffer the after-effect.

This balance between the warrior's morals and ethical code, the training to kill OPFORs as a reflex action without need to dehumanize them first, the law and the chain of command, and the human instinct to puke after seeing what happens at the other end of the scope, is similar to the balance between pacifism and militarism in a society at-large.

Too much of one, and you fail in one direction. Too much of the other, and you fail in the other direction. Walk in balance and you succeed in peace and in war alike.

[max_power29]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BlisteredWhippet', '
')For this reason, "pacifists" are extremely unreliable companions and liabilities in any scenario where killing forces are involved. Organizationally, the pacifsts on your team should be lumped together with other noncombatants, the women and children, or used in sacrificial ways, like minefield clearing, point on patrols, and decoys for drawing sniper fire in order to expose a sniper's position. If they cook really well or are resourceful in other ways its best to just keep them as a meat shield of last resort for the reproducing females. Or, paint them up as females and trade them to neighboring tribes for cigarettes, liquor, or drugs.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BlisteredWhippet', '
')Post TEOTWAWKI, there will be lots and lots of sheep, and lots of wolves. All will be operating in the paradigm of kill or be killed.

[seahorse2]

If blisteredwhippet and Jack are not one and the same, they should marry. Problem is, they would probably spend their entire lives visualizing killing each other

You can love and still kill. Killing doesn't mean you have to become a void, an ice cube otherwise unable to enjoy the best that the world has to offer during the short time you have to enjoy it. There's nothing wrong with pleasure. In fact, I would argue that all this visualization of killing in order to do it without emotion is just fear. You fear to kill, or are afraid you may not be able to, so you try to visualize killing to overcome your own lack of courage. There are plenty of heros out there that never visualized killing, but were able to do so when they had to, yet they still enjoyed people, life and everything that's in it.

Maxpower,

The problem with the "wussy" in Saving Private Ryan was a leadership problem, not a problem with the soldier. The scene where the wussy fails to protect and aid his fellow soldier, in my opinion, was the fault of the Captain, not the wussy. The Captain screwed up by placing a soldier on his own and compounded the error by placing a noncombative soldier on his own on the battlefield. First, it is well known not to isolate any soldier on the battlefield. Even seasoned soldiers can and will get the "rabbit complex" if put alone, meaning they would rather hide than fight. Leaders are taught, therefore, not to put any soldier alone, always fight in twos. Group peer pressure forces people to fight. The book "on Killing" talks about this, but a better book is "War on the Mind" which is referenced by "On Killing."

The Captain compounded this "rabbit complex" by then by isolating this trained clerk (not a combat arms trained soldier) on the battlefield, thus virtually ensuring the soldier would hide and not fight. As Vegetius wrote in the training of the Roman soldier, that more often courage is "learned" not born in people. Wiki Vegitius

This guy in the movie never had a chance. Alternatives? The mission was to deny the bridge to German forces, blow it if necessary. The Captain should have postitioned this non combat arms soldier on the "near side" of the bridge next to the blasting device with the mission simply to push the lever if any German forces started to cross the bridge. This ensures that someone is there to blow the bridge, allows this noncombat soldier to "hide" in the building housing the blasting device, and not have to confront the enemy. Just blow and go (retreat).

However, the Captain's biggest mistake was his decision to defend the "far side" of the bridge (the enemy side). There simply was no reason for this, other than making a bloody last scene of the movie. The mission was simple, deny the Germans the bridge. Thus, the Captain should have positioned his forces on the "near side" of the bridge, the friendly side, with the river between his forces and the Germans. If Germans start to cross, blow it, mission accomplished. It was potentially a fatal error not to have anyone positioned at the blasting device, as his forces almost were not able to retreat to it. Big mistake. This makes for a good last scene of the movie, but no trained combat leader would have made this mistake.

[BlisteredWhippet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BlisteredWhippet', '
')Post TEOTWAWKI, there will be lots and lots of sheep, and lots of wolves. All will be operating in the paradigm of kill or be killed.

[seahorse]

It would be foolish to ever speak in term of absolutes - like always attack or always defend. In fact, a defense often involves some form of offense. Self-defense could easily mean you fire first or you don't fire at all.

However, the decision to attack and defend is highly dependent on the factual circumstances, which constantly evolve. I understand what Doly says, and based on "her?" situation, it may be foolish to plan on any form of "attack."

However, even with small numbers, never rule out the attack, as the British SAS says "who dares wins", or Napoleon who wrote in his Maxims of War that, when surrounded "attack", or Rommel who wrote his famous book "Attack" after his experiences in WWI.