Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
KaskadskyjKozak

Taking dancing on your grave to a new level...

Recommended Posts

In other words, you are denying the effectiveness of soldier desensitization training despite the overwhelming evidence.

 

no, i'm not saying that. obviously our soldiers are good at killing people and have been for a long time. the sick fucks at sand creek in 1864 oughta be a fine example of that.

 

I don't follow the logic. If dehumanizing desensitization techniques are effective how could they not play a role in what soldiers do today, irrespective of past atrocities.

 

more like saying that it's not the military so much as society in general that prepares people to kill. obviously the military builds on that burgeoning skill, and for good reasons - soldiers who won't shoot straight are just as useless as ones who can't, no?

 

Although nations have always demonized their enemies, I don't especially feel that society prepares people to kill. In fact, society tends to place a premium on getting along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...meekness doesn't necessarily seem to have been a trait that would lead to inheriting the earth.

 

I doubt that "inheriting the earth" has ever made becoming a butcher worthwhile to anybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...meekness doesn't necessarily seem to have been a trait that would lead to inheriting the earth.

 

I doubt that "inheriting the earth" has ever made becoming a butcher worthwhile to anybody.

 

Anybody but folks ranging from Ghengis Khan to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, etc, etc, etc, etc?

 

Is that the reason that the average human has 2-3X more female than male ancestors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...meekness doesn't necessarily seem to have been a trait that would lead to inheriting the earth.

 

I doubt that "inheriting the earth" has ever made becoming a butcher worthwhile to anybody.

 

Anybody but folks ranging from Ghengis Khan to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, etc, etc, etc, etc?

 

Is that the reason that the average human has 2-3X more female than male ancestors?

 

It sure was difficult to come up with those obscure counterexamples, eh Jay? ;-)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only having constant paranoia about people plotting against you (among the numerous sequels that result from being a murderous asshole) isn't my idea of enjoying life but a good share of these people didn't have a long life or especially peaceful death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not only constant paranoia about people plotting against you (among the numerous sequels that result from being a murderous asshole) isn't my idea of enjoying life but a good share of these people didn't have a long life or especially peaceful death.

 

Stalin and Mao lived to be in their 70's and 80's respectively. And damn, but they enjoyed their life of privilege as much as anyone you despise (corporate multimillionaires).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not only constant paranoia about people plotting against you isn't my idea of enjoying life but a good share of these people didn't have a long life or especially peaceful death.

 

Is this a sentence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not only constant paranoia about people plotting against you (among the numerous sequels that result from being a murderous asshole) isn't my idea of enjoying life but a good share of these people didn't have a long life or especially peaceful death.

 

Evidently it was their idea of enjoying life, and all things being equal I doubt they'd trade place with the folks' who's heads they were stacking in pyramids. I'd say on net the following is a negative for mankind, but in evolutionary terms lots of these dudes "won" big-time:

 

In 2003 a groundbreaking historical genetics paper reported results which indicated that a substantial proportion of men in the world are direct line descendants of Genghis Khan. By direct line, I mean that they carry Y chromosomes which seem to have come down from an individual who lived approximately 1,000 years ago. As Y chromosomes are only passed from father to son, that would mean that the Y is a record of one’s patrilineage. Genghis Khan died ~750 years ago, so assuming 25 years per generation, you get about 30 men between the present and that period. In more quantitative terms, ~10% of the men who reside within the borders of the Mongol Empire as it was at the death of Genghis Khan may carry his Y chromosome, and so ~0.5% of men in the world, about 16 million individuals alive today, do so.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/1-in-200-men-direct-descendants-of-genghis-khan/

star2.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You talk about them as if the individuals who perpetrated these mass murders benefited from them. What do you think is the proportion of warriors part of Genghis Khan's first raid that survived the last raid and enjoyed the benefit of dominating Asia? Nobody knows, right? but in all likelihood, not very many considering how easy it is to die doing what they were doing. In other words, they enjoyed that life until it was their turn to have their head put on a spike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its unfortunate how we train our soldiers to be damn fine killers and desensitize them to death and put them in a warzone with the constant threat of being killed but expect then be able to flip a switch and act like Mr. Rogers in other contexts. Of course taking pictures of the Taliban-pissers was just plain dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is why soloing is so taboo, I believe. That is, because it skirts the line between life and death so closely, and reminds us why we climb. It will always be the purest type of climbing.

 

Apparently solo glissading with crampons on isn't so pure though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its unfortunate how we train our soldiers to be damn fine killers and desensitize them to death and put them in a warzone with the constant threat of being killed but expect then be able to flip a switch and act like Mr. Rogers in other contexts. Of course taking pictures of the Taliban-pissers was just plain dumb.

 

:tup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...but I do wish that people who haven't had to walk the walk would incorporate a bit of self-reflection and humility into their outrage.

Be sure and explain that to the nervous Marines who are just arrived or deploying for a tour in the Helmand Province which, by the way, was actually calming down before these crackers got all GoPro. The only thing we know for sure is it won't be them dying because of their video.

 

I think it was the romans that said "Offenses against the Gods are the business of the Gods." The Marines you speak of have every right to be outraged on their own behalf anytime one of their own - or someone ten thousand miles away - makes choices that needlessly increase the risk to them.

 

If they've nominated you to be outraged on their behalf for the risks that they, and not you, will have to endure as a consequence of their fellow marines' action then let me know. Otherwise feel free to criticise what I've said for your own reasons, but spare me the presumption that you're entitled to criticise something I've written on their behalf.

I haven't written anything on behalf of anyone. I've only spoken to the lamentable facts on the ground as they are about to unfurl. More of our troops are going to die as a direct result of these morons' action while folks who have no way to personally relate to those risks spew political and intellectual dreck online. In this case the value to your post count far exceeds any other contribution to the matter thus far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not only constant paranoia about people plotting against you (among the numerous sequels that result from being a murderous asshole) isn't my idea of enjoying life but a good share of these people didn't have a long life or especially peaceful death.

 

Stalin and Mao lived to be in their 70's and 80's respectively.

 

So you found 2, out of how many perpetrators? (also note that we weren't talking about those calling the shots from behind a desk until your pal Jay put it there). btw, how many former accomplices of Mao and Stalin died in some form of gulag?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In other words, you are denying the effectiveness of soldier desensitization training despite the overwhelming evidence.

 

no, i'm not saying that. obviously our soldiers are good at killing people and have been for a long time. the sick fucks at sand creek in 1864 oughta be a fine example of that.

 

 

I don't follow the logic. If dehumanizing desensitization techniques are effective how could they not play a role in what soldiers do today, irrespective of past atrocities.

yes, dehumanization is effective - it has always been done and will continue until pigs learn to play poker

more like saying that it's not the military so much as society in general that prepares people to kill. obviously the military builds on that burgeoning skill, and for good reasons - soldiers who won't shoot straight are just as useless as ones who can't, no?

 

Although nations have always demonized their enemies, I don't especially feel that society prepares people to kill. In fact, society tends to place a premium on getting along.

listen to bob dylan's "w/ god on our side" - our society has always revered those who kill in the name of the state and held them out as examples to be followed, especially if they can turn the killer instinct on/off at will and go back to being peaceful - george washington, john paul jones, audy murphy, ira hayes, stonewall jackson, sgt. york, joshua lawrence chamberlain, william t sherman, stephen decatur, teddy roosevelt, yadda, yadda, yadda.

 

again, society sends mixed signals. be peaceful, but also be ready to be a stony-eyed killer when we want you to be. is that even a bad thing? sometimes motherfuckers do have to pay, eh?

 

i'm speaking out of my ass of course, but if my experience roaming about the east coast and europe the first half of my life is representative of the rest of the world, i bet there are more monuments in this world to state-sanctioned killers than healers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why soloing is so taboo, I believe. That is, because it skirts the line between life and death so closely, and reminds us why we climb. It will always be the purest type of climbing.

 

...and my favorite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×