Posts by Joel

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

    Quote from Atomik


    Has someone removed your sense of humour gland today? Did you not notice the smilie? I would've thought it was fairly obvious I wasn't being serious. :rolleyes:


    i dont have a sense of humour didnt you know?;)

    Quote from Atomik


    ... and the vast majority of people get by in life without hitting anyone or feeling the need to. Case proved. :harhar:


    i really think thats such an incorrect statement, you seem to paint the majority of the world with no violence in them whatsoever! im sure people restrain themselves for fear of being hit back, but im sure everyones thought about hitting someone at one point or another...its hardly case proved just by saying that its your opinion:whistle:

    Quote from Atomik

    You called me patronising. I responded by being more patronising, thus recognising my own patronising comment for what it was. It's called self-effacing humour. Stop being so uptight. :rolleyes:


    no! its what us middle class postgraduate students are like these days, all sore around the edges:eek:

    Quote from Atomik

    I've not pointed out your spelling mistakes yet. :harhar:


    i suffer from a popular learning disability called "dyslexia" so if you want to point that out...then go for it i can deal with it, it takes nothing away from my point ;)

    Quote from Atomik

    I think you're just confused. ;)


    dont be patronising;)


    Quote


    Now who's generalising? Our reaction to an extreme circumstance doesn't define our nature - it reflects an aspect of us. I'd drink my own piss if I was dying of thirst, but I don't think that makes scat an essential aspect of my character!


    scat is a sexual fetish, however i'd say drinking your own piss to stay alive marked a large instinct and primality toward survival which i would say was an essential aspect of your character.


    Quote


    Tosh. We've evolved to a point where our primal instincts are governed by our reason and our own internal ethical structure. You still seem to be confusing the fact that violence is an aspect of our nature with your supposition that it's fundamental to our nature.


    [/quote]


    this is just a subjective belief tho, internal ethical structures are not set in stone, they arnt eternally relivent! during the 60's homosexuality was evil, nowerdays its acceptable, ethics and morality changes.


    As for saying our instincts are governed by reason thats simply a subjective point of view, personally i'd say that we are still very much subject to our instincts, but thats been clouded by a haze of superiority and seperation from our animality, a want to make humanity grand and distinct. just because we're not mentally aware of the impact of our instincts doesnt make them anymore apparent. We still hold urges to survival, procreation and defence when threatended...i'd say that we had three of our biggest primal urges covered right there.


    Fundementality and aspect are part of the one whole, the whole that formulates itself in my existence


    therefore violence is both an aspect of myself and a part of my fundemental nature, it simply manafests itself in different ways.

    Quote from Atomik

    How can that be a generalisation? I'm asking you a question. If I'm not offering an opinion, it's impossible for me to be generalising.


    You seem to be confusing the fact that violence is an aspect of human nature with the notion that it's a fundamental part of human nature. We all have primal urges based on our underlying biology, but they're not fundamental to our nature since we rarely suffer through failing to act upon them. Nor do the majority of us even feel a need to act upon them.


    surely i could just take those two things to be two parts of one whole? a fundemental aspect? or am i just playing with semantics for my own benefit? prehaps


    However violence and primal urges i'd say were fundamental to our nature, even if we might not realise them in our everday lives, they still define us, they still form the basis for who we essentially are, and if placed in a dangerous situation we would still act upon our primal instincts for survival etc.


    The majority has ignored our primal instinct mainly though the illusion of development, however thats possibly a different subject.:eek:

    Quote from Atomik

    Very interesting thoery, but it has absolutely zero to do with the point to which you refer: which was that violence and conflict are not the same thing. Whether violence is or isn't negative has absolutely no bearing on that.


    YES! sorry! violence, conflict and war etc are all part of the same thing, single parts to a whole. War and violence may be the externalised extremes of conflict, conflict can be both violent and non violent. Violence can be peaceful and nonpeaceful, therefore what i suppose ist hat violence and conflict are the samething, because they have a distinct interrelation. A lot of people who have replied to me have come from the presumption that violence is always a negative externalised action. I disagree with that, because of its interrelation with the friction of human drama.


    Quote


    That sentence barely makes sense. Can you point me specifically to where I've made such a generalisation please?


    "Does the existence of paedophilia mean that paedophilia is an inherent aspect of humanity? "


    This is largely a minor point so i dont want to dwell on it too much, but i'd say that that that was a generalisation. Violence etc, whilst being subjective in who they externalise in, have an objective underlying trait which stems from our primality as animals. :D

    Quote from Atomik

    Wrong. Conflict and violence are not the same thing. Conflict can lead to violence, but it doesn't inherently do so. That's like saying that sexual urges inherently lead to rape.


    Why? Does the existence of paedophilia mean that paedophilia is an inherent aspect of humanity?


    By which definition we're all inherently rapists too. Your argument doesn't track: the only case you're demonstrating is that people have the capacity for violence (which is self-evident), not that it's a fundamental part of our nature.


    i disagree


    your first point only works if you accept that violence is always a negative thing, i dont see it as that, it can be negative, but also has largely possitive attributes. be those social, political or culturally based, or even in the expelling of our own animality.


    its you who are generalising violence to all sorts, im saying that violence is a part of our humanity, however not everyone expresses it the same.


    Therefore we may have violent thoughts or actions, another person may murder, another person may rape etc etc etc...

    Quote from Atomik

    Given that the vast majority of people seem able to live entirely happy and contented lives without the need to kill or even hit other people, I would suggest that violence is about as 'human' as living up trees and picking fleas off each other. It may be in our nature, but its no more integral to who we are than any number of other redundant evolutionary tendencies.


    yes, however we're still prone to conflict, even if it doesnt result in violence, which is still a mild formulation of violent urges. Plus the existence of war, violence, town thuggary, etc etc etc still holds to my point that violence is an inherent aspect of humanity. whilst other parts of the population have suppressed that urge doesnt mean that it doesnt exist.

    Quote from the gardener

    My thought on this is that war is a projection of the conflict that occurs in the human mind. Another thought is that people go to war on belief and not on knowing. War is a reflection of our human inability or lack of desire to reflect and our obsession with action.


    see now thats interesting rather than all this war is wrong...because it is talk

    Quote from shibari.surfer

    I'm guessing that you have little experience of being violent or violence?. I think its fair to say that many people that have been given "licence" to embrace thier "innate violent tendancies" end up suffering from some kind of post traumatic shock. While conflict is often a driving force behind many human activities so is co-operation.


    this is a discussion of war, i have taken an opposing point of view, by which people can comment, so that we may grow and understand why conflict is wrong, im amazed that people are jumping on me in such a manner. I have had plenty of experience of violence, but that isnt the issue, im merely stating that violence is a 'natural' element of humanistic nature. how i choose to express that isnt up for debate.


    Quote from HappyHippy

    What ever made you join a forum of hippies if you really believe any of this dog's doodoo?

    Edited to say:- comment aimed at Joel, not Atomik or the monkey!


    my membership of both the hipforums and this form has been both long and interesting, and that is entirely offtopic



    my key point is that conflict is a primal force behind mankinds development, that rises out of the friction between our social relasionships.


    War is the EXTREME form of that, im not permitting it or denying it, however what i will say is that war no matter how violent, is responsible for our development, and is an important part of who we are, afterall we are defined by our history, and amoungst other things, humanities history is defined by violence.


    As far as hyperthetical situations go, its still relevent as a thought pump and by means of discussing further issues, i would say that killing is sometimes justified and not unhuman. If you wish to define 'human' as peaceful, that which does not harm others, etc etc etc then im afraid we will have to agree to disagree, because i will deem human nature as amoungst otherthings violent.


    :D

    Quote from magicmonkey

    To murder someone and consider yourself to be 'in the right' is to remove yourself from any human level of interaction, you might decide to not agree but you'd be wrong :harhar:


    not really, when you'll remember that "no not kill" is a premise that has only really become 'morality' recently, 2000 years really isnt that long a time in our total history, and its introduction has mainly been a result of christian morality, which proclaims that all moral laws are universal and uneffected by change...which if you agree with that then fine...but i dont;)


    also i'd say that if i murdered someone and considered myself in the right, then i wouldnt be removing myself from a human level of interaction. If i killed hitler before he started on his path would that be 'unhuman'? i'd be saving millions of lives. I dont for one second think that if i kill someone else then i become less than human, i'd say i became more human, because i would have accepted my innate violent tendoncies, that have been a part of me ever since my primal urges ruled my rationality.:D

    Quote from magicmonkey

    The idea of war can be interesting to play with in a philosophical sense, although when you do that you are simply ignoring the reality of the situation and de-humanising yourself through acclimatisation. War is disgusting, immoral and indefensible, regardless of the pseudo-philosophy people who are unaffected by it may believe.


    why is it immoral and indefensible?


    without a universal and eternal conception of 'good' i cant believe that war is always these things...


    Explain:D

    i think caution is a good thing before jumping in and going "NO TO WAR!!", i dont want to sound like the evil git whos pro-war because im really not pro war, i just feel that sometimes, its an option.


    Iran however are a problem, not just against our wonderful western ideals *yawn* but against human rights through laws and ideals which perpetuate hate and violence against innocent people.


    I dont think that war will happen with Iran tho, as somone above pointed out, resources are massively stretched as it is! and they'll probally just bomb them first...the old silent war treatment!


    but yes, anyway, im not sure to put it that way...i dont like the way american are the bullies of the globe, but i dont like Iran either...:insane:

    Quote from dode

    Fine words but I'm not really interested in idea of war in the abstract. I agree that conflict is part of life, a natural result of different ideas, but the idea that conflict = war is just plain wrong. War is one of many possible outcomes of conflict, we can also agree to disagree, reach a consensus, argue and debate there are many other outcomes.


    War is the extreme result of conflict, i agree that conflict doesnt always equal war, however conflict is where war begins and it is fueled by human relasionships which are unavoidable.

    Quote from dode


    We started this in the Iran thread and you still haven't answered my question. How much blood would you be willing to see spilled to reshape the world to match your ideal? How many Iranians is it worth killing to remove a state based on Sharia law? What happens if the population immediately vote to put something similar back in place?


    I suggested that peace was an ideal, and not war. i believe that conflict is natural to all relasionships animal and human. Histoically and genealogically speaking you cannot deny that as far as we can trace our existence back there has always been conflict, which are the result of human relasionships. I dont want to say that we are defined by conflict, but rather that conflict is an unescapable concequence of beings interacting with each other. Therefore this isnt a question of 'spilling blood' it is merely a question of war and its relasionship to the human and animal condition, as to whether conflict and strife have a primacy within us, be that a defensive or offensive primacy to whatever natural goal. This also isnt a question of what do do with Iran, that topic was left back in the other post, however, i will still say that death is a natural process and consequence which happens every day and is unescapable and will continue to occur, Peace i think you'll find is a more abstract ideal than conflict is.

    Quote from dode


    I suppose the big question is how many lifes is an idea worth?


    Dont be silly...surely i can suppose a question and discussion without suggesting that i want people dead...

    Quote from dode


    The question I keep asking my MP is how many Iraqis have to die before he will admit that the war was misconceived. Politcians and maybe philosophers:) like talking about ideas like freedom, they don't like relating the fight for freedom to a cost in human lifes.

    BTW I'm not a pacificist, I'm not that good, just someone who sees violence as the very last resort. I am willing to accept that just because I start a fight with good intentions it doesn't naturally follow that the outcome will be as I intended.


    Thats because sometimes its difficult to discuss each and every case, and sometimes ideas are generalised and made abstract in order to get a general idea to a perticular subject...This isnt a debate as to the rights and wrongs of war, death or particular pragmatic problems, i dont want this to turn into a debate of the ethics of war, but rather a discussion of war and its relasionship to our innate nature as conflict causing beings. You cant not discuss an idea purely because in the real world people die...that is just inintellegable.

    I believe that in truth war is the only discernable fact of existence.


    From the chaotic nature of the universe, to animal relationships we have been born into an existence of chao’s.


    I suggest therefore that war is and always has been the natural result of human relationships, not matter how small the conflict, friction between people results in conflict.


    War gives birth to culture, it makes us constantly aware of the movement of existence, constantly aware of the changing world we live in, if we weren’t aware of this then we would become stagnant, we would have nothing to strive for, if peace was the permanent human condition then we would become stagnant, we would have nothing to worry about, we would become placid, we would be unable to function.


    I refer not exclusively to full blown military conflict, but rather to the fact that without conflict between beings we would be unable to push ourselves forward. The urge of defence and protection from our destruction has always been a way for us to see our horizon and move ourselves towards it.
    I would argue that without this friction, we would be unable to be human, we would no longer be animals, we would simply die, because we would be defying our very primal nature.


    Therefore conflict and war is the father of all things. It defines us, and pushes us forward.


    Also, im not pro-war, i see it as an option, im pro-social-friction in a sense, which sometimes has to result in war

    Quote from Atomik

    Spoken like someone who's never had to watch his little sister hold her own intestines in after being ripped open by a mortar. :rolleyes:


    oh dont think that i dont think that war is a horrific thing, however im merely stating that it is and always has been the human condition, and the friction from human relasionships always results in conflict no matter how minor. Im not for one minute suggesting that it is a pleasent thing.

    yes why not! you've got to crack a few eggs to make an omlette! death is the human condition, war doesnt change anything, and its ideal to think otherwise, peace is a sham, its never been our nature to act as such


    War is beautiful...that doesnt make me a hippy i know, and im sure that no one will agree with me, but what is this country if not for the ability to express our own beliefs:)

    i think its bizzare how people oppose wars, like the iraq one, fair enough the government were a little less than honest, but saddam was a human rights violating bar steward...that was reason enough! :D bring on iran the dirty arms smugglers have it coming, any country that executes women for crimes against chastity have it coming...iran are bastards, simple as that...

    Quote from Truth

    Do you live where they film it or something? or was it just a random uber fan walking around the town?


    theres been a bbc here for you thing local roadshow event happening here for the last 3 weeks...so we've had all sorts of random dr who bbc nonsense happening:D