RE: How a Weak Country can Prevent Being Conquered by a Stronger Country
Good morning! Before I answer, thank you for your openness to a little debate ;-)) It's become rare here...
Okay. Where to start...? At least I don't succumb to the misconception that people don't use the weapons they own. But that's only half the truth. The other half tells me that many people/civilians/citizens who are given a weapon will certainly learn to shoot at targets wonderfully, but would not pull the trigger on a human being in an emergency. Let's compare it to the bite inhibition of some dogs... They are then in greater danger than without a weapon – they give the impression of being a dangerous opponent and are therefore attacked more fiercely than a supposedly defenceless victim...
I find it amusing to lump Cain, Marx and rampage killers together ;-)) The only anti-humanistic element in this list, in my opinion, is the rampage killer. As a socialist, Marx was certainly not right in all areas and was not necessarily free of hypocrisy, but fundamentally, the socialist idea is very much concerned with humanistic ideals. Cain – today, I suppose he would be diagnosed with one syndrome or another.
Abortion is a difficult topic and certainly cannot be dealt with conclusively in a few sentences. My position on this is ambivalent. I can only decide for myself whether it would be acceptable. And for myself, as a young woman, I have already decided that I could not do it. However, I cannot judge other women; it must be an individual decision and viewed from the outside without judgement.
Human beings are part of nature, the environment, the ecological system of this earth. They have neither outgrown nor risen above it. Their role in nature is marginal. So we shouldn't take ourselves too seriously ;-)) Our nature, on the other hand, which in this case refers more to fundamental traits and predispositions, can be controlled and changed over long periods of time thanks to our developed consciousness, moral and ethical values, and capacity for reflection. Away from the archaic, warlike model and towards a rational, coexistent one.
This is my point. You have a somewhat coherent philosophy, it just happens be to coherently delusional as a denial of reality. Many intelligent people have this same delusion as well, because it makes them feel better. Einstein was a socialist, he realized for it to work human nature would just have to be changed, and it naturally would result in mass slavery, but if people are fine being slaves then it could work. You have the same basic philosophy, that things would be fine if humans could be comfortable being slaves. William James thought that humans could replace war with civil service. Another delusion that didn't prevent WW1 or WW2. You see child sacrifice as just a personal preference, as you noted in your stance on abortion. You see murder as not anti-humanistic, as noted in your stance on Cain. You see mass enslavement and killing as not anti-humanistic, as noted in your stance on Marx. You make the case that humans won't use weapons so they shouldn't be given them, and you make the case that humans will use weapons so they shouldn't be given them. You can see here that it's not a type of reasoning, it's an ideological and even religious belief that you have that humans should be disarmed, and you'll use any possible reason to arrive at that conclusion. You make the case for disarming victims, making them easier victims. You can see how you still have that East German anti-humanistic philosophic idealism of creating victims and the trans-humanistic philosophy of changing human nature.