You cant change the world without bloodshed

Insufficient data.

On the face of it, it's a vast generalization, therefore highly suspect as a premise. On the other hand, I can see where a pro argument could be made. But you have to make the argument before it can be rebutted.

0 Replies

Things that have changed the world without bloodshed (by which I assume you mean violence):

Written language
Arabic Math
Computers/The Internet
Antibiotics/Drugs in general
Air Travel
Reliable birth control

0 Replies

Careful, Green Witch.

I agree with you in principle and specifically with the examples of writing, mathematics and birth control. But the rapid development of modern aviation, after the rather primitive Wright Brothers prototype, was spurred in very large part by battlefield needs during and immediately following World War II; many modern medicines were originally developed to treat wounded soldiers on the battlefield; and I wonder whether the electronic superhighway would have come into being as fast as it did were it not for its obvious application to national security.

0 Replies

"Things that have changed the world without bloodshed (by which I assume you mean violence):

Written language
Arabic Math
Computers/The Internet
Antibiotics/Drugs in general
Air Travel
Reliable birth control "

sure but some forms of violence branched from some of these revolutions if you will:
math- super advanced weaponry (missles ect)
computers-involve math and the configuring of super advanced weaponry
antibiotics/drugs-people buy cold pills and make meth, go broke cant buy any more, probable to become violent or steal
air travel- well ....terrorist attacks
birth control- abortion is a form of it

so many things changed the world among these and there will be more changes in the world where that came from....but long story short though people will find a way to use it in a negative way.

0 Replies

Re: You cant change the world without bloodshed

LatinoSoldier wrote:

Do you believe this is true? Why or why not? thnx

Thomas Edison n Alexander Graham Bell changed the world.
How much blood did THAY shed ?

0 Replies

"The world" sheds it's own blood.

0 Replies

Like volcanos, with flowing red lava ?

0 Replies

I am undecided as to wether your way of asking questions is a rethorical style or just a stunning simplemindedness...

But anyway... Blood is shed every day. And if it's done by humans, humans are still a part of the world. We are not something added to it upon it's completion.

0 Replies

Tons of blood, rivers of blood get shed every year. I assume you meant blood will change the world for the better. Thus far, I don't see it.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

I am undecided as to wether your way of asking questions is a rethorical style
or just a stunning simplemindedness...

But anyway... Blood is shed every day.
And if it's done by humans,
humans are still a part of the world.
We are not something added to it upon it's completion.

Does this imply
that if humans do NOT shed blood every day,
then humans are NOT still a part of the world ?

David

0 Replies

What?

I suggest you think that one through. There is nothing in my statement that leads to the conclusion you propose.

I am just saying that your statement that the world cannot be changed without bloodshed is more a romantic consideration, a poetic touch of sorts, than a philosophical proposal. At least it is in the way you put it forth in this thread.

Who's to say that bloodshed and change are directly related. Prove that first, and the discussion may become more interesting.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

What?

Quote:
I suggest you think that one through.
There is nothing in my statement
that leads to the conclusion you propose.

Really ?
Well, u said IF its done by humans, . . .

What if NOT ?

Quote:
I am just saying that your statement that the world cannot be changed
without bloodshed is more a romantic consideration, a poetic touch of
sorts, than a philosophical proposal. At least it is in the way you put it
forth in this thread.

MY statement ?
I never said that.
I denied it.

Quote:

Who's to say that bloodshed and change are directly related.
Prove that first, and the discussion may become more interesting.

I don 't believe that, so I am not going to prove it.
I refuse

0 Replies

Oh... All is well then :wink:

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

Insufficient data.

On the face of it, it's a vast generalization, therefore highly suspect as a premise. On the other hand, I can see where a pro argument could be made. But you have to make the argument before it can be rebutted.

I concur on the last statement, though sweeping generalisations as premises are not at risk (of losing their validity) due to their scope alone; it would depend on the conclusion etc.

Of course, as a conclusion, 'You can't change the world without bloodshed.' is not such a heavy claim on the nature of man- political man. As is, the conclusion is vague; with some qualification, a good inductive argument could be made.

Your opinion?

0 Replies

mellow yellow wrote:

Merry Andrew wrote:
Insufficient data.

On the face of it, it's a vast generalization, therefore highly suspect as a premise. On the other hand, I can see where a pro argument could be made. But you have to make the argument before it can be rebutted.

I concur on the last statement, though sweeping generalisations as premises are not at risk (of losing their validity) due to their scope alone; it would depend on the conclusion etc.

Of course, as a conclusion, 'You can't change the world without bloodshed.' is not such a heavy claim on the nature of man- political man. As is, the conclusion is vague; with some qualification, a good inductive argument could be made.

Your opinion?

The conclusion has been disproven innumerable times.
Beyond major (bloodless) changers of the world, Edison, etc,
the numbers of men who have bloodlessly changed the world
in SLIGHT n subtle ways cannot be counted.

0 Replies

But here's another statement. Do you think it holds true?

You can't change the world WITH bloodshed.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

But here's another statement. Do you think it holds true?

You can't change the world WITH bloodshed.

Well, that, of course, has also been disproven time and time again. Genocide certainly changes the world by removing a sizeable portion of humanity from it.

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

mellow yellow wrote:
Merry Andrew wrote:
Insufficient data.

On the face of it, it's a vast generalization, therefore highly suspect as a premise. On the other hand, I can see where a pro argument could be made. But you have to make the argument before it can be rebutted.

I concur on the last statement, though sweeping generalisations as premises are not at risk (of losing their validity) due to their scope alone; it would depend on the conclusion etc.

Of course, as a conclusion, 'You can't change the world without bloodshed.' is not such a heavy claim on the nature of man- political man. As is, the conclusion is vague; with some qualification, a good inductive argument could be made.

Your opinion?

The conclusion has been disproven innumerable times.
Beyond major (bloodless) changers of the world, Edison, etc,
the numbers of men who have bloodlessly changed the world
in SLIGHT n subtle ways cannot be counted.

Well, the statement does not constitute a theorem, and it can be false depending on its context etc; which is to say that it can be the cl. to an invalid argument and so on. But what it refers to specifies a context- albeit lightly and "through" the words, as it were.

My opinion is that the author of it is referring to a general conception of our state "in" life- or socio-politically- and brings up the sentiment that social and political "change" (in man) may be a function of heavy-handed authority driven to demand it rather than request it through an electorate. "Man is man," it is suggesting, "...and little seems to be done for the better without a force to bring it out."

The Leviathan by Hobbes considers this sentiment.

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

Cyracuz wrote:
But here's another statement. Do you think it holds true?

You can't change the world WITH bloodshed.

Well, that, of course, has also been disproven time and time again. Genocide certainly changes the world by removing a sizeable portion of humanity from it.

I would say that given the world we live in, heavy bloodshed (following J. Nye, Jr) may squander soft power and invite adversarial hard power; unless, of course, such a situation is viewed with considerable justification. Consider WW2.

In any case, it could or could not apply. We are talking about man, no?

0 Replies