He's like the Brett Favre of linux kernel schedulers!
hmm.. wrong place to use football reference?
who am I kidding.. I don't watch football
You need to read the parent post again
Whether we are talking about independence, or the partition.. these may seem like very distinct events, but they're VERY related. Which is why when you talk about partition, you can't disregard independence. EITHER WAY, it's completely irrelevant to what I was saying. But more on that later.
That's because capitalism converges to the optimum with pareto efficient actors (meaning, people "don't do unto others as they would not have done on themselves").
That's a very nice thought, but there is no basis to that whatsoever. (I think you were going for "do unto others as you would have others do unto you"). I'm not trying to defend communism, fascism, or defy capitalism. So lets not digress
Name 2 even reasonably similar species that cooperate without involving violence (ie, members of these species must not be capable of reproducing with a member of the other species, but otherwise they must compete for the same resources).
I see the point you're trying to make, but again your supporting evidence is questionable at best. If you're trying to use nature as an example, there are probably a million exceptions. But that's not important. The criteria that you described is so contrived! So lets skip over all this drivel, because the central argument you made was:
nothing that causes quite so many wars as pacifism does
And that is utter bullshit! Pacifists are victims of war, even in your examples, the pacifists didn't CAUSE the war to happen, they were victims of it! YOU even say that! Forget about your belief that violence is the only way to progress in evolution (which in my opinion is an incredibly stupid). *how are pacifists CAUSING wars*. The people that CAUSE the wars, are the people that are FIGHTING. and pacifists, by definition DO NOT FIGHT #*#*$(#(. Why is this so hard to understand!
Let me preface this by first saying I'm not a pacifist. There are cases where pacifism works, and there are cases when it doesn't. So pacifism is by no means a perfect system (in its implementation). NOW!
There's capitalism, which is a sort of organized and civilized competition for resources, with rules. The problem is that the mere fact that there is a competition increases the available supply of actual richess unbelievably
First off, this makes no logical sense. As you so aptly described, capitalism is a means to organize civilization... the supply of actual richnes does not change with this.
1) Capitalism is by no means the most efficient way to "run" a society. Socialism is probably what is most efficient in extracting resources, human and otherwise, from a civilization.
2) If what you meant was that capitalism makes available the most riches to an individual, then again, you would be wrong. I'd like to introduce you to Manorialism: where one person can go "I am the Lord! I own everything!!".
and this is a problem because said richess immediately disappears when competition falters.
Again, you're saying things, but none of it makes sense.
I honestly can't decipher the point of what you were saying, so I'll jump ahead
I find that the millions who died in the pakistan secession wars are on the head of the commander of the army that let it's own people get massacred. I blame their deaths on mahatma gandhi. Their deaths are the result by pacifism.
I've had this discussion before, and I still find it incredibly idiotic that people try to make this argument.
You have to be incredibly delusional to believe that India could have gained independence from the British through some sort of rebel uprising. The British just had such a stronghold over the country, that Indians could never put together the firepower/resources/fighters to create a viable threat for the British, causing them to leave.
The British didn't rule India for so long through chance... or the lack of will on behalf of Indians. The only way Indians could have gained Independence from the British, is through Mahatma Gandhi, and his pacifism.
Now the question arises: is Mahatma Gandhi responsible for the thousands of deaths that occurred during the separation?
Well, you don't seem to be too fond of Muslims, so let me put it this way. Your reasoning is actually very similar to that of Sharia Law. If a woman shows her ankles while walking down the street, and people decide to gang rape her. It's HER fault! How dare she not cover up.
Now let me say this clearly. You CAN NOT blame the victim for the crimes perpetrated upon them. If I walk down the street, and a drunk driver smashes his car into me, it's NOT my fault I didn't take martial arts to gain ninja-like reflexes and jump out of the way. It's the fault of the person who was wasted, and got behind the wheel.
So no, Mahatma Gandhi is not responsible for the greed, blood lust, and hatred that caused these deaths, because he asked people not fight each other!
And btw, answer me this : how can anyone who "believes" in evolution claim that pacifism works.
This statement may be moot (because of what I said earlier about my views on pacifism). However, what I draw from your statement, is that you believe pacifism somehow conflicts with evolution. This is a very warped perception of evolution. They call it "survival of the fittest", but that's figurative. It's like saying the guy with the biggest muscles is the most likely to reproduce (see effects of steroids on balls). Pacifism is a way of co-existing, there are other ways of doing it, but there isn't one that tends to evolution any more than the other.
If you're saying pacifists are disadvantaged in evolution? Say that to every Indian today that isn't (involuntarily) under the rule of the Queen of England.
In evolution you get to refuse to enter the game, obviously, but there's only one thing that awaits those : death.
Allow me to introduce the real world to you, death is the one thing that awaits all of us
In every hierarchy the cream rises until it sours. -- Dr. Laurence J. Peter