3 ms·
It's a distinction without a difference- one could argue a less primitive species wouldn't have found itself caught in world wars. The man-children starting wo
by anotherman554 5y ago
It's a distinction without a difference- one could argue a less primitive species wouldn't have found itself caught in world wars. The man-children starting world wars are paralleled by the children-children killing each other on the island.
- jpttsn 5y agoYour ”less primitive” species would have had what reason to split the atom?
- anotherman554 5y agoI think it's fair to say that pacifists do in fact, sometimes invent things.
- filleduchaos 5y agoReducing the historical and contemporary reasons why humans engage in war to people being "man-children" is a level of sticking-my-head-in-the-sand that I hope to never attain. I've never understood the urge to think of people and things one morally/politically disagrees with as simply stupid, braindead or immature - but there seem to be way too many people who seem incapable of contending with the idea that humans can be intelligent and highly amoral/immoral.
- MomoXenosaga 5y agoI have had the privilege to visit concentration camp museums. I actually didn't have the feeling these were unintelligent savage places. It was actually trying to be orderly, efficient and exceedingly bureaucratic. These institutions were very much a part of civilization. Everything was thought through. They weren't run by man children.
- filleduchaos 5y agoExactly. My parents lost members of their families to genocide. The people who planned it were not stupid. Ruthless yes, calculating and callous and cruel yes. But not stupid, and it's both amusing and highly frustrating to see people who've mostly never had to confront these things pretend that it's just the work of "man-children" (because gods forbid that we contend with the idea that the intellectualism and intelligence we place on pedestals might ever be morally bankrupt).
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]