Fallout Studios Forums

AllStarZ, on 30 Apr 2007, 19:48, said:

Imagine there´d be war and noone would come to fight...

Hinata Prime, on 30 Apr 2007, 19:47, said:

I´m sorry but killing IS natural. Murdering perhaps not, but that depends how you define it.

Killing in self defense IS natural...

Killing in cold-blood is psychotic and unhealthy.

Proved my point. XD

Selfdefense is a quite flexible issue...

Pre-emptive attacks FTW!!!

I do not believe this topic is "subject to jokes". It is quite a sensitive topic for some. Please understand that I am not trying to be rude, it just isn't right to joke about this.

Sorry, but see it rather as sarcasm...

A preemptive strike can very well be defined as an act of selfdefense. This applies to full-scale wars aswell as to conflicts between individual.

In the context you addressed pre-emptive, it seemed as though you meant "killing in anticipation of another action." (Which is the Marriam Webster definition of the word.)

If you did not mean it in that way, I understand and I accept your apology.

However, if you did, shame on you! :(

I did mean it in exactly this way. Though I personally don´t support this stance (thus the blatant "FTW!!!"), it is a logic one.

Hinata Prime, on 30 Apr 2007, 21:19, said:

What for?

Killing someone just because you BELIEVE they will do something wrong is a horrible crime and an unjustice.

Huh? Why should it be? 1) Someone pointing a gun at seomone I care for will shurely be hurt severely BEFORE he pulls the trigger. Defending also includes striking before any major harm is done, thus striking pre-emptive.
2) I personally reject killing, but it is an effective and natural way of defence.

Now put these two together, and BLAM!!!, there you are...

Nice! I agree with you now that you put it that way.

I assumed you meant "to kill without knowledge of a threat. Just an anticipation."

Thanks for clearing that up! ^^

Cold blooded murder is as natural as anything, but certainly unnecessary. It is also unrelated to this topic.

Politics are natural. Simply advanced primal instincts if you think about it. There is quite a leap between who should be leader of a pack and who should preside over a nation or a world. There is also a large gap between grass and oil. But the gap is finite and can be linked to common nature, can it not?

There are bad wars and 'good' wars. 'Good' wars are the thin line between Ying and Yang, because even if it solves something it involves the cost of lives. Regardless of which type of war happens, I'm just glad I'll probably never get to experience of be a part of it.

In my country, all (able-bodied) men are required to go through military training at the age of 18 and if you don't wish to stay for a career you are still considered a reservist which basically means we are all are soldiers waiting for something bad to happen so we can be called back.

However I'd never be able to fight an unjust war, I'm too much of a romantic to fight for something I don't believe in. I'd rather go to jail than to be a part of it. However, if let's say there was an invasion here and people were getting killed.. I'd probably be quite aggresive.

Leatherneck, on 30 Apr 2007, 22:25, said:

Nope. An international political system is not natural. Its human invention. The idea of leadership is natural.

And humans are "unnatural?" The human mind is still a mind, is it not? Something built by our hands and our thoughts is still built by a creature as ourselves.

So yes, I believe they are natural. Every bit of it, including war.

Leatherneck, on 30 Apr 2007, 22:50, said:

But the international politics, as much as they are made by a human mind, exist purely as human invention, because it is replicated nowhere else in nature.

Which international politics are you referring to? To name a few examples? Hard to argue such a broad perspective.