035. [ANON TEXT]

[explosivecombat]

[Well, good evening, network - it seems Seth's device is active again, though at the very least he's not inviting everyone to war like he's throwing the world's most unasked-for party this time around.]

You know, one of the things I've always found most fascinating about human morality is the idea that we're higher beings due to our natural inclination to put others before ourselves. It's generally accepted in society that we should be willing to sacrifice ourselves before harming another; I've always found adhering to that sort of notion to both vaguely admirable and sickeningly saccharine. If you must kill one to save another, that's still a life that's lost; why shouldn't the reward go to the one who's willing to fight for it, rather than the one who did nothing to earn it but sit there in pious devotion to doing nothing wrong?

We claim superiority for suppressing our instincts to survive; if anything, I think that would put us lower than dogs, not above them. All this intelligence and no will to live; it's pitiful.

But then, I suppose my lack of understanding of these things is why I can't be considered one of you.

For the time being, however, say I were to humor you in discussion for a while. Do you think your will to fight to ensure your survival actually needs to be tested? Since I suspect the answer will overwhelmingly be "No," I have another pre-emptive question for the heroic types.

Is there anything outside of arrogance and so-called moral superiority that makes you say so?

[...O...kay that's really not any better but apparently, it's just that kind of night.

You know, full of misanthropy.

Because some nights are like that.]

Comments

[berkthorn]

I think you have living confused with surviving.

Where I'm from, there were times when it was kill or be killed, but we learned that it didn't have to be that way. We adapted, and things are easier now. People are happier. Even if war can't be avoided, you can fight and still try to avoid killing anyone. They deserve to live just as much as you do.

[anon text forever]

[explosivecombat]

So by your logic, people "deserve to live" on merit of existing at all. Is that it?

[berkthorn]

I suppose so. But it's not just people. With a little effort, we can all coexist.

[explosivecombat]

And if that were at all true, war and conflict would have ceased to exist years ago.

Provide humanity with enough calm, and a storm will appear eventually.

[berkthorn]

That's true. Everyone has their own experiences, and can use those to justify their actions. Sometimes to others, and sometimes only to themselves.

Pride, anger, and fear can be terrible things. They make people lash out, try to rule... They make you think nothing can change. I've seen that it can though, and I know that if enough people gave it a chance instead of being afraid of it, we'd have peace. Ideas spread, so you just need to put the right ones out there.

[explosivecombat]

And that's all incredibly idealistic and failing to take actual human nature into account.

But I'd like to hear what you consider these "right ideas" to be. For curiosity's sake, if nothing else.

[berkthorn]

I never said that it would be easy, just that it's possible.

[The second bit...takes a little longer. There were a lot of things he was confident about being right, but putting those out there was a harder thing to think about.]

It's okay to be afraid because it gives you a chance to grow. Conflict doesn't have to lead to bloodshed.

Have you fought the gyms here? Gym leaders fight because they've been challenged, but you don't see them out on the routes picking on other trainers because they have nothing to prove. People fight for reasons, and a lot of the time it's because they've been attacked first, or fear that they will be. You take away those reasons and fighting is pointless.

[explosivecombat]

Ah, but that logic is fundamentally flawed. Do you understand how?

[berkthorn]

Those who don't have to fight are already in power? You can't stop that initial reason from occurring? People assume physical strength and being on top is growth, so they choose that path? You can't stop fear? Take your pick.

Nothing is perfect. I'm still figuring it all out, but I can't let those things stop me.

[explosivecombat]

No, no. Try again - you've actually come closer to it with all of that.

You've stated that most conflict begins because someone has been attacked first, have you not? Or at the very least that they fear that sort of thing, and that sort of fear is generally not unfounded - people who have known peace all their lives are usually naive, not neurotic.

Those who don't have to fight are already in power. Those who cause conflict cause it because they fear it - and sometimes it starts because of uprisings, sometimes because of invasions, but all of those things come about because of those in power.

Those who don't have to fight will bring about a reason to, one way or another.

[berkthorn]

That may be, but that doesn't mean that's their fault, or that they deserve it. What makes these conflicts have to come to war, though?

Maybe I'm not the best with words, but I think it'd be nicer if we would all use them instead. Explaining actions or reactions instead of just adding more... It could solve the problem, instead of pushing it down deeper.

[explosivecombat]

If anything, I think it's a bit arrogant to assume that all conflicts can be resolved with words.

[berkthorn]

Arrogance would be assuming all conflicts could be resolved with my words. I know that's unfortunately not the case.

But I don't know, you seem to be using your words pretty well.

[explosivecombat]

Well, back home I'm a good example of how conflicts can be caused with words, not prevented.

[berkthorn]

Somehow I have no trouble believing that.

That's your choice though, isn't it? Goading people into answering, calling them weak to force them to try to prove themselves. People don't like being wrong, and you're very good at making them sound like they are.

[explosivecombat]

If one's thoughts and beliefs can't hold up to being challenged, they aren't very strong beliefs, are they?

It doesn't matter to me whether they can prove themselves or not, and it's not a matter of right or wrong. I'm interested in seeing reactions, and I'm interested in seeing what conclusions people come to as a result of those reactions.

It's an interesting experience for me. That's all.

[berkthorn]

Okay. I think I can respect that.

But people aren't games, you know? Even if this is fun for you.

[explosivecombat]

That's also my choice.

[berkthorn]

No, it's your choice to create the game -- not everyone realizes that they've been sucked into playing one.

[explosivecombat]

And last I checked, that was their problem, not mine. Every time I've been directly asked a question regarding what I'm doing, I've answered honestly, and I've answered the same way every time.

There's a lack of awareness and then there's perpetuating your own problem.

[berkthorn]

I've got another question for you to answer honestly, then.

Do you like that your words cause conflict? Or do you just think it's interesting?

[explosivecombat]

I'm never opposed to answering questions, you know. You can ask me all you want; I'm not interested in playing with a stacked deck.

However, to answer the current one - it depends on the situation. Personally speaking, it's interesting.

Professionally speaking, back home I enjoyed it because it was part of my job. I take pleasure in carrying out my work as efficiently as possible.

[berkthorn]

That's good to know.

And if it had been your job to use your words to try to create peace? Do you think you still would have enjoyed doing that kind of work?

[explosivecombat]

Considering I deliberately sought out a job where I would be asked to do the opposite, probably not.

[berkthorn]

So it's not necessarily your own efficiency that you like.