What I find amazing is:
-
How society functions so well, relatively speaking, given that there are so many sociopaths out there
-
How this person could have been raised by a mother whom he describes as
Look, Czarcasm, this is a well known game theory problem. If everyone cooperates we’ll all do better. But if one person cheats, he does better and his neighbors do worse, for a net lower score.
But the trouble is that simply following the “always cooperate” rule is unstable. The cheaters inevitably take over the system, and the equilibrium state is to always cheat. This is why animals eat each other.
Now, you say that if only everyone would cooperate we’d be better off, and you’re right, but that doesn’t matter, because “always cooperate” is a losing strategy. No animal that takes that strategy will survive. The only possible strategy is one that is an equilibrium strategy, one that is able to deal with both cooperation and cheating. If you wonder why so many people seem ANGRY at you for your pacifism, it’s because “always cooperate” doesn’t lead to a world of cooperators, it leads to a world of “always cheat”, because in a world of always cooperate, then always cheat is the optimum strategy.
Since we live in a world where people are born, live, then die, any strategy that can’t be an equilibrium strategy won’t exist for long. And this why everyone insists that if you don’t arrest the criminals, then the criminals take over. And when the criminals take over, the first thing the do is rob and kill the pacifists, and then no one is left to spread pacifism to the next generation.
Which is why “self defense” is the only workable moral choice. You cooperate first, and continue cooperating with anyone who cooperates, but if someone cheats then you cheat. But when they start cooperating again, you start cooperating again. Stable strategy. If everyone adopts this strategy, everyone wins, and, get this, no one actually has to “cheat”, because everyone else is cooperating. But when you get an “always cheat” introduced to the game, the always cheater is punished. If an always cooperator is introduced, they also thrive, but the thing is, they rely on the ones willing to punish the cheaters, because unless the cheaters are punished they’ll take over.
And so that’s the source of the annoyance. You’re a free rider, you rely on others to help you, and you feel good about yourself because you don’t have to actually punish any cheaters.
I hear you, but I beg to differ. To me, force is on the violence continuum. To me, pinning a person’s arms is a violent act, admittedly low down on the violence continuum, but a violent act nonetheless.
Practically, arresting someone by pinning their arms is done with the implied threat of an escalation along the violence continuum. Something along the lines of, “if you resist, I will squeeze harder, if you resist more, I will use a pain compliance hold, if that doesn’t work, I will kick your legs from under you and try to subdue you that way, if you still resist…” and up and up you go along the violence continuum.
The moment you set your hands on someone’s person in order to arrest them, I believe you have stepped on to the violence continuum. A lot of people resist arrest, it is a fact of life, and a natural human reaction. I don’t see how one can practically arrest a human without bringing the prospect of violence into the equation.
That would be a laugh riot. If everyone felt that way i’d be running things in a week, and I’m not a particularly violent guy. “Arm pinning”. I’m laughing now, because it would be rewarded with “nut-kicking” and “tooth loosening”.
Kudos to this explanation! My moral compass is certainly aimed the same way as **Czarcasm’s **, but it is exactly this pragmatic and practical approach to the theory that makes more sense in everyday life with everyday problems.
It also seems to me that this is what lies behind the ‘kill the world for my child’ mentality. Those that advocate as such are the ‘cheaters’ in the game, putting their own needs well beyond the rest of humanity. It’s quite reassuring that the overwhelming response has been one of concern and disgust at such a selfish outlook on life.
I am against the use of violence, using the definition of physical violence I put forth in a previous posting, not the definition of violence you put forth here. Clear enough?
How many times do I have to clear this up?
So, I guess the question comes down to “How much dick would you suck for world peace?”
No need to get pissy, Czarcasm. I heard you the first time, loud and clear. My response was to MrDibble, not you.
If I found out my Dad nuked Australia to save my life I’d kill the cunt myself.
As an economist, my default response to assessing a situation is “compared to what?” (It buys some time.) Threads like these - even allowing for some posturing - are a reminder of the miracle of civilisation. To some degree it tames these monsters. And despite the failings of government and criminal justice systems it’s easy to forget how well they do in reining in the instinctual, the amoral, the selfish and the self-righteously other-disregarding. After all, probabilistically these threats are everywhere.
… and Australia still exists, un-nuked. 
Wait a minute, last week we were willing to exterminate 1/3 of the population of earth to save non-existant people who won’t even be born for 5000 years, yet we can’t even off just one to save someone who actually exists? Hell, we were willing to off 300 Australias just a week ago!
You people confuse me.
It’s perfectly simple. You claim that you would not use violence, and don’t wish for violence to be used on your behalf. Thus you don’t (allegedly) want the police or military to use violence to make arrests. wring explained it rather well.
Yes, that is why we really go to war (for the most part).
Well, OK, providing you include stuff like “Jews die by the tens of millions, the Taliban continues to support the murder of innocents, North Korea enslaves South Korea and the SK starves like North Korea did instead of becoming one of the Pacific Tigers”, etc., etc., under “the world spinning on”.
Just like the Germans and Japanese did in the 1940s and 50s.
:shrugs:
You’re in La-La Land, like most pacifists. And the only reason La-La Land is not the slave of everybody is because so few people live there instead of the the real world.
Regards,
Shodan
Wars cause war-look into the underlying reasons for what happened in Germany and Japan. Power is gathered, reasons to right past wrongs are brought up, scapegoats are brought forth, the people are energized with thoughts of revenge and/or gain, and the enemy is dehumanized. Soon, the grunts on both sides are fighting for the cause of patriotism and/or survival, but no lessons will be learned, because the side that loses will remember that retribution is necessary. It’s a fucking vicious cycle that can only escalate. It’s the reason for bigger and better weapons. It’s the reason for nuclear stockpiling. It’s the reason the Jews were made into scapegoats. It’s the reason for the current mideast unrest. “The debt of revenge cannot ever be paid in full”-I wish I could remember who said that.
Yeah, maybe I’m a Pollyanna. I guess it would many generations to turn this way of thinking around, but it either starts somewhere, or it doesn’t start at all. Since I am already incapable of inflicting violence upon others, I figure I might as well go all the way.
I am for passive means of restraint, and will donate money for its development.
I am for early childhood education and intervention.
I am willing to have my taxes raised for mental health programs.
I will continue to protest the death penalty.
I will continue to protest war.
Again I ask, how’s that “meeting violence with violence” solution working out for y’all?
Man, how did I miss this ridiculous thread until now? Comedy gold, people. 
Anyway, to the question at hand: would I rape a baby for Australia? Well, I guess it’d depend on if the baby was a girl or a boy, 'cause, you know, I’m not gay. Also, no fat babies.
Oh, wait, that wasn’t it. So, would I kill Australia to save a kid? Hmm. I’m not sure. I think the best solution would be for me to have two kids. That way, if it ever came up, I could save one by killing half of Australia. And the other kid would die but half of Australia would live. It’s win win, I figure. 
Can’t you get anything right?
It’s not “Would you rape a baby for Australia?”, its “Would you rape all Australians to save your baby?”.
Or is it “Which would you rather rape, all of Australia or your baby?”
No, wait, I remember now! It’s “Who would you kill for a Klondike Bar?”
How many Clydesdales would you fellate to keep Shagnasty from annihilating China to save his daughter?
How many times would you consent to be ass-raped by specially genetically enhanced Mandrils to save Australia? On cable TV?
Oh, my mistake. Hmm, that puts me in a tough moral quandary. I mean, on the one hand, there’s a lot of hot Australian chicks, but on the other hand raping an entire nation of (checks CIA factbook) 20 million people has got to be seriously tiring work. I just don’t think I’m physically up for it (pun intended). So, sorry hypothetical baby, but it’s your turn in the barrel.
I want 15% of the take-gross, not net, and it better not be The Move Channel. HBO or Showtime only.
The Monkeysphere is how the world is, not how it should be. This thread makes Baby Buddha cry.