Comment: I don't understand how you

(See in situ)

I don't understand how you

I don't understand how you can compare Man to other species and try to draw conclusions about his development from species which have nothing like culture. Or how you can contrast humans as young as against other species, as though there were a longer gestation period to perfect frog culture, as though frog behavior were comparable to the unique thing which is human culture. I don't see how this thinking is any more sound than your attempts, above, to quantify and average sums of morality as though they could be weighted and quantified.

On ideas vs militaries, let's avoid the pitfalls of fuzzy thinking and just clarify what we're even talking about.

You stated that ideas are more powerful than militaries, as though the two were in conflict and ideas won. No, only people are in conflict. Since there is no place in the world without an active military, I just objected that ideas have not gotten rid of militaries, militaries are quite healthy.

Yes, after ruining hundreds of thousands of American lives, the preponderance of social forces turned against the continuance of the failed war and Nixon was pressured to end it before he was made scapegoat for all the corruption and evil of that era. (He was evil in his own banal way, but hardly the popular bogeyman who was sacrificed to atone for all the sins of that era).

All wars end. We've been at war repeatedly since then. Where did the anti war idea triumph, and defeat the human propensity for war, and the presence of the military? Only people compete and conflict, militaries and ideas are weapons used by people. The scoreboard today displays that every country has a military, and we're at war in many of them.

Ideas can change. That is not proof they will change in any specific direction. Possibility is not probability.