Hacker News Reader

Comment by rokhayakebe | Hacker News Reader

This is why I believe there is no religious, political, or any sort of particular war. Men (or male I think) just like to kill each other for some very strange reason. It may even biological.

EDIT:

The downvotes seem to prove my point. We just like to hurt each other. Disagree with someone downvote. Disagree with another punch them. Disagree with another, to the sabres.

Why do we do this?

If men did not have a proclivity for harm, I would not get downvotes when people disagree. They would instead correct me and put me on the right path.

View on HN

First, the claim is about loving war, not loving killing, and there's a difference.

Second, what little research there is suggests (while being far from definitive) that men in fact resist killing[1].

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killology#The_problem_of_non-_o...

Really? "The chief aim of war is to subdue an enemy," by using force. You can't separate war from killing, the proof of that being when we go to war, we do not go with argumentations and documents, we go with guns and fire jets. To love war, is to either love harming others, or subduing others by harming them.

You are not getting the difference. People like the abstract concept of their enemies being defeated. What they don't like is when they are the ones that have to pull the trigger.

Cool. I see now. Thanks!

> It may even biological.

Ah yes , the most base argument to absolve oneself of responsibility.

It's a good thing you don't have that big brain and act on base instincts alone, because that argument would be pretty silly otherwise.

Speaking as a male, I find the idea of killing another human utterly repellent.

If you are an American you were young and had no choice but to serve, and you are either going to defend yourself or die, it is still utterly repellent. But you do it anyway. Blame yourself or your parents or your grandparents for voting for the wrong people.

If you are a from a more peaceful nation congratulate yourself on deciding to be born there.

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted as man's apparent propensity for war is a very curious question. Expert opinions seem quite divided on whether it has biological roots or if is a cultural artefact.

Some interesting reading on the matter:

http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jun/07-is-war-inevitable-by...

http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jun/02-no-war-is-not-inevit...

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2014/09/17/n...

I believe attacking the downvoters usually leads to even more downvotes.

Don't loose sleep over downvotes. It usually either means you broke a rule, or your point of view is largely unpopular. These systems of 'like', 'pluses' and 'up/downvotes' will turn us all into uninteresting sheep if we pay them too much attention.

I agree with your view point, mainly because even though it is sexist, it has managed to mint billions for the toy, movie and game industries. A good portion of the male population do have a proclivity to dominate or destroy or at least simulate those experiences.

I am not worried about the downvotes for Karma reason. But if I am honest, I TRULY from the bottom of my heart do not understand the logic behind a downvote. You know how some people just do not get physics, this is it to me.

What I do understand is, if one downvotes with anonymity/impunity because they disagree, they would 100% hurt someone physically if they could with anonymity/impunity. But this is another subject.

I do not think my point is sexist. Sexism would be to make a judgement that is both true for men and women, then slap it on only one of them.

Men are prone to violence. I mean look at all the acts of terrorism, and wars, etc... mostly it is men who are doing this. Look at the crimes such as robbery, grand theft auto, and such, I mostly see men.

Downvoting being equated to violence is idiotic. People downvote comments that they think are detracting from the conversation. They don't want to hurt you, they just think your contribution is irrelevant and a waste of everyone's time. They are trying to spare other readers the suffering of your comment leading them down the garden path.

Sure. Thanks!

That is a very sexist comment.

How is it sexist when all the evidence shows men are more involved in violent acts than women? Can you please help me understand how this is sexist?

Men wage war physically because they are physically stronger. Women wage psychological war. Women also prefer powerful men, forcing men to 'prove' themselves, ultimately chosing alphas.

Men are more involved, but women are at the root cause of violent acts. Most men are not violent and given time, violent men will be rooted out by brainy meeks. It is women who chose to copulate with violent men than the meek ones.

It is a very bad statement to say 'why men love war', and is only an insidious way of saying the patriarchal statement that 'loving war is manly'. To be expected in 1984, but not today.

"Women also prefer powerful men"

Are you sure that's what it is? From what I've heard time and time again it's confidence which is the most attractive quality in a personality, a clear sense of who they are and what they want. You can be confident without being violent.

Mark my word: powerful. Confidence comes from power. As we move from a largely physical domination to intellectual domination, the form power takes is also changing. So is the form of violence. It is not just true between men and women but in general.

A cave-man or a hunter (man) has only one meaning of powerful - physical. Today the meaning is changing, and Obama is powerful without having much body strength. Whether he is violent or not is something I will let you decide. But my point is that the anti-physical violence rhetoric one hears all day long is only a very recent phenomena and is directly related to what is considered more powerful today - war or politics.

NOTE: To people marking down my answers, what are your opinions about 'why women love cooking?' because statistically more women are found cooking than not, and 'why blacks like slavery?' because statistically more blacks were slaves than not? (HINT: Django Unchained anyone?)

@cubancigar

If my comment was sexist, yours seems to be as well, since you claim it is "women who are the root cause of evil."

At any rate I disagree that women cause men to be violent. As far as I know there may be many reasons to put a suicide vest on, or to drop in the middle of the desert with amos, but impressing women is not one of those. I really don't think men go to war because girls talk them into it directly or indirectly.

It is an evolutionary trait that will reflect in all sorts of places as the society becomes more complicated and then even more. Nobody had to worry about suicide bombers before someone thought of inventing bombs or religion or institutions to promote either one of those. And those institutions were not created with an end goal of suicide bombers, they were created with 'good' thought, ultimately to make the creator look more important and powerful. I hope you get the gist of my argument.

Regarding my comment being sexist - true. But one has to acknowledge the differences of sexes before aiming for equality.

The army - even the generals - aren't usually the ones that get to declare war, though, at least in this day and age.

Downvoters: Go ahead, but please do not delude yourself and think otherwise; for with every downvote you prove your propensity for violence. Feels good doesn't it to just click and see the text go lighter. You can't explain it anymore than those guys can explain the rush of holding a shot gun and contracting their finger repeatedly under the pretense of maintaining peace, or some other reason.

C'mon. You're just getting silly now.

I give up on this one. I just do not see eye to eye with you guys on this and it is apparent I do not have the skills to convince you that you are heading in the wrong direction. At any rate, nice chat.

Here's a better reason; speech has value, some less than others, a feedback mechanism allowing the audience to make a judgement on how much value a given piece has is no more evidence for the innate psychopathy of men than a mute button on a TV remote or an install of adblocker is.

Last statement on this subject:

I will just hold it that I do not agree with all of you and see it as violent. That you do not see as such scares the living crap out of me. Your idea of mute is to downvote, not ignoring a commentator, someone else's idea is just more physical, but ideologically similar.

I think I know what you mean. Your comments remind me if an excerpt from a Situationist work, The Revolution of Everyday Life (by Raoul Vaneigem):

"an obscene hobbling rhythm. In the ebb and flow of the crowds sucked in and crushed together by the coming and going of suburban trains, and coughed out into streets, offices, factories, there is nothing but timid retreats, brutal attacks, smirking faces and scratches delivered for no apparent reason. Soured by unwanted encounters, wine turns to vinegar in the mouth. Innocent and good-natured crowds? What a laugh! Look how they bristle up, threaten on every side, clumsy and embarrassed in the enemy's territory, far, very far from themselves. Lacking knives, they learn to use their elbows and their eyes."

http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/pub_contents/5

So basically, moderation of a forum of discussion is nothing other than an embodiment of bloodlust.

You might have a point if you apply those arguments to actual censorship rather than expressed disagreement or disinterest. Even there though, to say that censorship should be seen as violence obscures more than illuminates.

Downvoting isn't violence. If you feel so hurt by the loss of imaginary Internet points, you need to sit down and seriously think about what has gone so badly in your life to bring you to this point, and how you're going to fix it.

Some of you have treated me of an idiot. Some have insulted me in other ways. Some have said I am being dramatic and all.

Now you are are saying something has gone badly in my life, yet you know close to nothing of me outside this opinion that I have. Wow.

;) I forgive you all for the insults. We have a long way to go.

Edit: Besides, I think I have been around HN long enough to not worry about imaginary points. I have no idea where you got that from.

You compared downvotes to physical violence, but you "have no idea" why I think you care way too much about your imaginary points? Just connect the dots.

you need to sit down and seriously think about what has gone so badly in your life to bring you to this point

Thanks. But always remember for the brief and last encounter we ever have, instead of clarifying where I was mistaken, you chose to insult me. Thanks man.

It's not an insult. I genuinely think that something has gone terribly wrong for you if you care this much about downvotes, and you should do something about it.

@Mikeash. Thanks. Will do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com