Why aren't there more pro-war bands?

[Guynemer]

Those TRB guys suck something fierce.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ecthy


He's a "scientist". Which means he makes in natural sciences and his therefore totally resistent to any thinking that cannot easily be transformed into some form of maths.

Good thing you 2x posted, or he wouldn't be able to get it.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
verbose nonsense, about pacifism and intelligence.

i seem to remember you posting a thread, about chining someone who committed the awful crime of smoking on a bus.

[Blaupanzer]

Whaleboy seems to equate "intelligence" with his personal, pacifist-oriented view. He also juxtaposes schoolboy fighting-style violence with the use of military forces on the international stage. However, quite a few champagne swillers who would be horrified to see personal violence at one of their soirees are quite pro-war as long as that is conducted off in the third world somewhere. They are some of the most intelligent people in this country, they actually run the place -- without, of course, getting directly involved. An awful lot of scientists willingly benefit from Government, war-related grants and programs. They are intelligent (by Whaleboy's definition) and not anti-war. Hmm?

Yes, semantics is a branch of philosophy, and yes, debating words is a boring, frustrating way to approach philosophy. However, the questions of whether war and preparation for war are worthy behaviors within society are quite different from whether a particular war is a good idea.

I believe that a lot of artist-types are pacificist leaning -- all violence is bad. I also notice that a lot of "performers" tend to make a point about being patriotic, some to the point of Jingoism. So I think Che is wrong about the left-related issue as being involved here. (Besides Trotskyites generally are expected to hate Soviet art. What's up with Che?)

Rock-and-Roll has a rebellious streak at its heart. US war efforts are the maximum exercise of state authority. So, you would expect most Rock-and-Roll bands to be anti-war. I think the answer to the theme question might really be that simple.

[Dis]

Yeah that's what I figured. It's all about being anti-establishment.

[ajbera]

Which suggests that if the Establishment ever becomes progressive/leftist, rock music & other rebellious art forms would be conservative/rightist.

Do socialist societies produce rebellious art? What shape does it take?

[Zoid]

Originally posted by cronos_qc
@Dis
Listen to skinheadz music, black metal nazi and stuff like this...

Now you'll find your pro-war bands!!!

There´s some really ****ed up BM **** coming out of Norway. Much of it is just for show, but some of it is real loonie ****.

[snoopy369]

Back on topic ... Dis, I'd think a sou'westerner like you would have some pro-war musicians on rotation ... I mean, what music is there down in the Texas Nation (ie, texas/nm/nv/ok) than country AND western?

Toby Keith ... Charlie Daniels ... they're the heart and soul of America's Fighting Spirit

[Whaleboy]

i seem to remember you posting a thread, about chining someone who committed the awful crime of smoking on a bus.

What did you expect? Me to stick a flower in his mouth after putting out his *** on my hand?

Given that the most intelligent decision based on available information will not always achieve optimal results, the most intelligent decision is still the most intelligent decision precisely because it leads to the best consequences within all foreseen possibilities. How are "the intelligent choice" and "the correct choice" not synonymous given those constraints? He's splitting hairs in a fairly arbitrary way, methinks.

Not at all, you’re instantly assuming a consequentialist (utilitarian) approach which begs the question. Two ways you can judge whether a course of action is “correct” under the circumstances:

Do what is right according to the principles of that course of action, i.e., the ends don’t justify the means

Or do what is right according to the expected consequence of that course of action, i.e., the ends justify the means.

The problem with the latter, on which your argument depends, is that in that case not all information is available; you cannot predict with certainty the outcome of your actions.

So you see how the intelligent choice and the correct choice are not necessarily synonymous. It does not say that they are necessarily different, but it allows for an intelligent decision which may not necessarily be the correct decision.

Whaleboy seems to equate "intelligence" with his personal, pacifist-oriented view.

Where?

He also juxtaposes schoolboy fighting-style violence with the use of military forces on the international stage.

Where?

They are intelligent (by Whaleboy's definition) and not anti-war. Hmm?

Actually not, I limited my argument to social intelligence, and accounted for the fact that it may well only be a trend, and not absolute. Try reading.

Rock-and-Roll has a rebellious streak at its heart. US war efforts are the maximum exercise of state authority. So, you would expect most Rock-and-Roll bands to be anti-war. I think the answer to the theme question might really be that simple.

I don’t think so, since artists, classical musicians, philosophers that I know are also anti-war. You could argue (possibly with some success) that any kind of self-expression is inherently anti-authority, but this would be the only premise that would make your argument work.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
Yes, semantics is a branch of philosophy, and yes, debating words is a boring, frustrating way to approach philosophy.

Semantics is a lot of fun. I'm a top notch philosopher. Liar.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
Rock-and-Roll has a rebellious streak at its heart.

QFT.

This is, as you say, the simple answer to the question. Playing in a band is the epitome of free creative spirit and fighting wars are the antithesis.

I'm generally anti-war, but I'm not a pacifist, and I believe in a country's right to defend itself. What constitutes 'self-defence' is up for debate, of course.

Rock 'n Roll politics is usually naive posturing, with tendencies towards a superficial understanding and a moral reaction rather than a measured one. I played in 'political' bands when I was a kid, and frankly I'm very happy to have grown out of it.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Elok
Yes, but I make a terrible scientist. I interned at Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in high school. Those poor scientists. I probably set our understanding of Photorhabdus luminescens back by a good thirty years just by being there. Which is a pity, since that microbe kicks major arse.

Cool bug

You may be surprised to learn that we scientists need no help from interns to **** things up.

[mrmitchell]

Remember when Britney Spears said we should "all just trust the President"?

Yes, this is what it comes down to. Britney Spears vs. Slayer.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Not at all, you’re instantly assuming a consequentialist (utilitarian) approach which begs the question. Two ways you can judge whether a course of action is “correct” under the circumstances:

Do what is right according to the principles of that course of action, i.e., the ends don’t justify the means

Or do what is right according to the expected consequence of that course of action, i.e., the ends justify the means.

The problem with the latter, on which your argument depends, is that in that case not all information is available; you cannot predict with certainty the outcome of your actions.

So you see how the intelligent choice and the correct choice are not necessarily synonymous. It does not say that they are necessarily different, but it allows for an intelligent decision which may not necessarily be the correct decision.

You left out virtue ethics. And I'm familiar with the distinction, thanks. But from the perspective of a planned action, all philosophies are "consequentialist." You make a decision based on achieving a desired result, whether that result is to succeed in observing one's principles or to achieve some specific physical end. If you have a deontological ethics that says "do X in situation Y," both the intelligent and the correct decision (assuming the truth of that ethics) is to do X in situation Y. In deontologicals, the decision is in effect also the result as far as behaving rightly is concerned.

In the case of inadequate information on the part of the actor, it's a whole different ballgame regardless of which branch of ethics is employed. Of course I acknowledge that inadequate information can lead to incorrect actions, but if the person in question has made all possible efforts to get the relevant information, said person can hardly be faulted for "making bad decisions" if the decision accorded with the information that was available.

So, it is possible for a non-intelligent person to act "correctly" while a wiser person fails, but only by what amounts to an accident. Unless you can think of an exception?

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Sikander
The more war there is the more likely that band members would be called to fight and have to give up all those free drugs and underage girls.

qft

Originally posted by Whaleboy
You have to have some modicum of intelligence to produce works of art (though methinks Slayer tests that theory, but nevertheless...), and intelligence -> pacifism.

you know, you were the first and the most solid case of proof for me when I was wondering whether this equation would be BS.