"I think all political ideologies are absent of bloodlust. But all those behind them are not."
I disagree that all political ideologies are absent of bloodlust. Let's say (hypothetically of course) that I have a political ideology that teaches that all, say, Belgians must violently die. I would say that that IN ITSELF would be a bloodthirsty political ideology then.
However, I do agree that some of the people behind various (if not all) political ideologies are especially thirsty for blood.
And people make choices and are responsible for their choices, 100%. People hold bloodlust, and they are the ones who invent ideology. So the source will always be those within the ideology, not the ideology itself.
You only happen to think it's exactly the other way around because of the mud you are stuck in.
"And people make choices and are responsible for their choices, 100%."
That doesn't mean that certain ideologies aren't more likely to push people towards the use of violence than others.
"People hold bloodlust, and they are the ones who invent ideology."
Yes, people do indeed hold bloodlust, and are indeed the ones who invent ideology. However, they can invent INTRINSICALLY violent ideologies as well as INTRINSICALLY non-violent ideologies.
"So the source will always be those within the ideology, not the ideology itself."
Couldn't disagree more.
"You only happen to think it's exactly the other way around because of the mud you are stuck in."
"That doesn't mean that certain ideologies aren't more likely to push people towards the use of violence than others"
That proves my point, people in the end are those that hold the bloodlust, translate it, and carry it out. Action movies can fuel a person's violence, but it doesn't cause them to be violent. Porn can fuel a rapist, but it doesn't cause someone to rape. You see, people that do these things are all pushed along by something, but they are going there anyway. Bloodlust is already present in all people. We have long since come to realise these things, and they are generally accepted as truth. Why do you think we don't give the ok on the serial killers insanity defense, because all the many real things that push them do not have an effect on their final actions, you have a choice, always a choice. The exact same goes for ideologies. The thoughts you voice have been put forward to many different causes, always to be proven wrong.
"I could just as easily say that about you"
Yes you could cetainly "say it", but it wouldn't be true and as such it is pointless to do so.
So you implicitly admit that certain ideologies ARE indeed more likely to push people towards the use of violence than others. THAT is what this post is about.
That being said, you do have a point in that bloodlust is already present in all people. I thought your post overall was very interesting BTW.
"Yes you could cetainly "say it", but it wouldn't be true and as such it is pointless to do so."
Obviously I WOULD consider it to be true though. You mentioned the word "pointless." Well, I would say this whole back-and-forth disagreeing is quite pointless.
Is bloodshed an intrinsic part of communism?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
"I think all political ideologies are absent of bloodlust. But all those behind them are not."
I disagree that all political ideologies are absent of bloodlust. Let's say (hypothetically of course) that I have a political ideology that teaches that all, say, Belgians must violently die. I would say that that IN ITSELF would be a bloodthirsty political ideology then.
However, I do agree that some of the people behind various (if not all) political ideologies are especially thirsty for blood.
--
[Old Memory]
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
It's the same principal as "guns don't kill people, people kill people".
My logic is infallible, yours is muddy.
--
BLAh81
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
"It's the same principal as "guns don't kill people, people kill people"."
I don't think that's a very good comparison. A gun in itself doesn't urge people to kill, whereas an ideology in itself certainly can.
"My logic is infallible, yours is muddy."
I happen to think it's exactly the other way around.
--
[Old Memory]
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
And people make choices and are responsible for their choices, 100%. People hold bloodlust, and they are the ones who invent ideology. So the source will always be those within the ideology, not the ideology itself.
You only happen to think it's exactly the other way around because of the mud you are stuck in.
--
BLAh81
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
"And people make choices and are responsible for their choices, 100%."
That doesn't mean that certain ideologies aren't more likely to push people towards the use of violence than others.
"People hold bloodlust, and they are the ones who invent ideology."
Yes, people do indeed hold bloodlust, and are indeed the ones who invent ideology. However, they can invent INTRINSICALLY violent ideologies as well as INTRINSICALLY non-violent ideologies.
"So the source will always be those within the ideology, not the ideology itself."
Couldn't disagree more.
"You only happen to think it's exactly the other way around because of the mud you are stuck in."
I could just as easily say that about you.
--
[Old Memory]
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
"That doesn't mean that certain ideologies aren't more likely to push people towards the use of violence than others"
That proves my point, people in the end are those that hold the bloodlust, translate it, and carry it out. Action movies can fuel a person's violence, but it doesn't cause them to be violent. Porn can fuel a rapist, but it doesn't cause someone to rape. You see, people that do these things are all pushed along by something, but they are going there anyway. Bloodlust is already present in all people. We have long since come to realise these things, and they are generally accepted as truth. Why do you think we don't give the ok on the serial killers insanity defense, because all the many real things that push them do not have an effect on their final actions, you have a choice, always a choice. The exact same goes for ideologies. The thoughts you voice have been put forward to many different causes, always to be proven wrong.
"I could just as easily say that about you"
Yes you could cetainly "say it", but it wouldn't be true and as such it is pointless to do so.
--
BLAh81
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
"That proves my point"
So you implicitly admit that certain ideologies ARE indeed more likely to push people towards the use of violence than others. THAT is what this post is about.
That being said, you do have a point in that bloodlust is already present in all people. I thought your post overall was very interesting BTW.
"Yes you could cetainly "say it", but it wouldn't be true and as such it is pointless to do so."
Obviously I WOULD consider it to be true though. You mentioned the word "pointless." Well, I would say this whole back-and-forth disagreeing is quite pointless.
My apologies for the late response BTW.