N
Nazia Iqbal
Guest
...'armies' and 'nukes' ? is it to 'defend ourselves' against 'aggression ?
aggression from who ? other human beings , ourselves namely ?
so by that deduction, does that make the 'aggressor' less civilised and the 'defender' the more civilised group of human beings ?
so maybe we shouldn't call ourselves 'civilised beings' just yet, maybe its premature to do so.
at the lower level of the social ladder, within society we still have differences amongst ourselves, be they socio-economic, religous or ethnic based - these differences are engraved and etched into our souls it seems.
Just how civilised are we as a race in general ?
would a human race that didn't have Armed forces, nukes and Weapons of mass destruction be more civilised than the current one ?
aggression from who ? other human beings , ourselves namely ?
so by that deduction, does that make the 'aggressor' less civilised and the 'defender' the more civilised group of human beings ?
so maybe we shouldn't call ourselves 'civilised beings' just yet, maybe its premature to do so.
at the lower level of the social ladder, within society we still have differences amongst ourselves, be they socio-economic, religous or ethnic based - these differences are engraved and etched into our souls it seems.
Just how civilised are we as a race in general ?
would a human race that didn't have Armed forces, nukes and Weapons of mass destruction be more civilised than the current one ?