Making war more unacceptable

Post Reply New Topic

You just like playing the games.

Life is a game. I like being alive.

Life is not war. Life is not the love of war.

It seems you are implying that I was implying that life is war. Perhaps from somes perspective. This is not what I was implying though.

War makes for good box office and console games, but the reality is that war is a black hole of suffering, death, and destruction. It should not be celebrated or glorified.

I agree. Though I stand by my original assesment as well. Simulations are educational material.

Once war has been made into fun and entertainment, there's no going back, unfortunately. Maybe these simulations should be even-handed in their approach to presenting modern warfare. Maybe they should include some of the less savoury, less joy-joy aspects of war. Since it's just a game, the player never has to confront the real-life consequences.

I fully agree with your assessment. Except the part that their is no going back. If this was the case, it would already be to late. I maintain hope for a peaceful future.

Are we missing the fact that war forces quantum jumps in technological progress? Or that unity in the face of a common foe has created many long lasting and profitable alliances?

I suspect that enforced anthropophagy is not going to lessen conflicts. For one: do you really want squaddies to EAT the remains of your beloved family? The very concept itself is an affront to most. For two: it would merely encourage the recruitment of people willing to devour flesh. Its a bad idea to encourage murderers and sociopaths to join up. Look at Africa.
For three.. species eating themselves can lead to some unusual health problems. (Creutzfeldt-Jakob anyone?) For four: There is enough of an AIDS issue in the world anyway without making people eat the insurgent rebel they just shot. For five: If Health and Safety wont let coppers have kettles, do you really think they are going to let soldiers eat people?

There are many more reasons, each as compelling as the last. So.. next suggestion?

While we're at it, let's remove all literature that features war, war-like acts, or acts of aggression from public access.

Of course, this includes the Holy Bible as well...

Endless, aimless war is unacceptable. I believe that it is sometimes necessary, given certain circumstances. It is a process of massive change and upheaval. and peace is the fruit of war. War happens when peace expires. Granted, war and peace often happen simulataneously, but in the context of peace between major powers, that is what we should keep an eye on.
War is both ugly as sin and an art form in its own right.

I'm not being facetious. I'm taking the original assertion to an obvious conclusion. The Bible is one of the most violent books around.

Of course, committing any atrocity in the name of God makes it alright, right?

Right.