How exactly do they prove him incorrect?

Remember the stipulations of his example.
There are two and only to players.
Both players have a pool of finite resources.
Those resources can be captured and they can be expended but they cannot be replenished once expended.
Both you are your enemy have to power to destroy each other without a significant expenditure of resources.
Cooperation is unlikely or impossible.
There will be no retaliation from higher powers no matter what actions are taken.

In such a situation you have two options, attack the enemy's resources and hope to expended them before your own resources are expended, or attack your enemy directly. Attacking the enemy directly is by far the most efficient choice since greatly reduced the resource loss on both sides. In fact, it so much more reliable than attacking enemy resources that one must assume that the enemy will destroy you at the first given opportunity. In this case, assuming both are rational actors, the person who acts first should always destroy the other. If the person who acts first chooses not to destroy the other then it is exceedingly likely that the person who acts second will destroy the person who acted first.


However, these situations are few and far between. They pretty much never happen in the real world, only in isolated games and thought experiments. In fact, they can only happen in isolation when there are only two individuals involved. When there are three players the person who attacks first always loses because the third player will act in his own best interest and destroy the first. Similar outcomes can be expected for all numbers of players greater than two, but are not guaranteed. (Incidentally, this means that 3 is the ideal number of people for a stable Mexican Standoff as no rational actor will ever attack in three-person Mexican standoff.)

In the real world, murder invites retaliation from authorities who are far more powerful than any individual and there are always others concerned individuals to worry about even if one believes that it is possible to avoid the authorities.

Really? Funny that. Because my own 'personal experience' has proven what I've said to also be true. And as I've said so has the history of the human race. Not in every case. As I've said repeatedly. And there often are, as hyzmarca said third party influences which can seriously change everything.

But what if it's just as in his example you and one other person? Even with a group working togeather certain things can.... shall we say spiral out of control. Let me give you one real world example I had. No one was actually killed at the time over this but actual phsyical violence WAS a part of it.

A number of years ago I was living on the street. It's not exactly a high point in my life. And I made friends with the type of people... I normally wouldnt. But you either made some friends in the situation I found myself in or well... other less happy things happened.

Now there was one guy we all got to know who went around calling himself 'Romeo'. Seemed think he was all 'suave with the ladies' kinda thing. Flat out crook. He robbed, he stole, had a pretty good head on his shoulders and unlike some of my other 'associates' he didnt desend into a binge of drug use. He however did screw us all over. He litterally over a period of two weeks started stealing money from alot of people. $20 here, $200 there, another $35 over here..

Now consider the fact that were on the street. We have no jobs. No one will GIVE us jobs. Now and then you were able to get something under the table perhaps. But it was allways shit pay less than minmum wage and there was no such thing as enforced safety rules. But it was do it or starve really.

Needless to say he pissed off alot of people. Now through some of the guys I actually was friends with there were 'associates' with which I had friendly relations. Now the problem is, when your on the street and some one steals from you. The cops dont give a shit. Even if you can point out who did it you cant really prove it, and around where I was at the time. They sure as hell wernet even goign to stop and give you the time of the day. The usual resonse was pretty much 'go fuck yourself'.

At the same time he just about bragged to anyone about how he was 'in' with the cops and telling them things etc. Now... some of the folk on the street, particularily those that were regularily stealing things to feed their drug habbits dont like it when people rat them out. Then add insult to injury in the fact that he stole money from a good many of us at the same time.

Now we wanted our money back. Romeo being a scheming, lying weasle wasnt about to give us a cent back if he could avoid it. At the same time he made the very dumb ass mistake of thinking no one would touch him. So what happened? Romeo found himself one day being beaten up by a group of 12 folk who were very pissed off with him. I wasnt personally involved in beating him. As much as I very much wanted to. He is, I think at the time, -extremely- lucky that he wasnt flat otu beaten to death. It happeend in an abandoned, boarded up house, in a pretty much dead zone of town. Cops dont usually go through there, nor do many people walk through the area. THe house to this day is abandoned. So even if he had been killed if his body had been say.. dumped in the rotting basement. He might still not have been found to this day.

End result he wound up with some severe bruises which were convinently explained away by him as having 'tripped down some stairs'. He paid back some money to a number of the more... violent individuals he'd stolenf rom and promptly vanished. Last I'd heard of him some members of the Hell's Angles were after him. Though I dont know if thats true or not. And I sure as hell do not want to know. I'm not the type of person to kill people. But they are. And they have.

Was this the best solution? Ehh.. even now I really dont know. 'Negociating' sure as hell didnt go anywhere. Even after he admitted openly to stealing money. And I still dont know if I'd give him a good solid punch in the face if I ever saw him again. I'm still.... quite angry with him. But again I'm not the type of person to beat people up shy of actual self defence. And especially now the ammount of money invovled is really.. jsut a pittance. I've got a good job these days, and while life for me isnt the best, it's sure a HELL of alot better than living on the street. Meanwhile my 'friend' Romeo probably still is on the street assuming he's still alive somewhere.

For the more 'violent individuals' however they DID get some of their money back. Money they would NOT have seen otherwise. Afterall I never phsycialy threatneed him and.. I never got a cent back out of him. Nor will I ever. Those that took the more violent path.. did however. Of course alot of them have since wound up in jail for assorted crimes. And I've long since lost contact with all of them, mostly because as I've said before it's more 'association' out of need for survival than actually having been friends with too many of em.

Not only that but what direct reprocussions did they suffer from attacking him? None. No one was ever charged, no one was ever arrested. Hell pretty much no one ever will in person openly admit it ever happened. And there were absolutely no witnesses.

Life, alas. Is a brutal place James. The good guys dont allways win like they do in the movies. Some times the brutal guys who kill people and take their stuff do. Not too often, since that third party often steps in to help in some way. And then look at the various stabbings there have been around here over the years. There's still a few case where some one was robbed and stabbed to death. And the people who did it are still out there somewhere. They were never identified, never caught. THey might well have been for -something else-. But not for that particular incident.

So you cannot, I fear, ever convince me that violence wont ever solve a 'problem'. I totally agree that it's not the option one should use. But you cannot ever convince me that in the right circumstances it cannot be wholely and completely effective.

Besides if it wasnt again.. we would have no wars. We would have no troops in the middle east. America would not now have soldiers shooting peole and being shot in Iraq, Canada would not have the same in Afghanistan.

I dont, nor did I ever support the reasons for invading either country. And in the case of Afghansitan, since by violent means we as a country helped distabilize the region even further. I DO stand behind our current continued involvement. We caused the problems through acts of violence. We will continue doing so. But hopefully with the proper application of continued force we can actulaly minimize the potential damage and eventually actualy return the place to some degree of stability for a time.

In either case our (as a country) violent reaction, caused problems. It is then I feel up to us to help solve the problems it caused as a side effect.

True ... I don't recall any stories of Mandela doing any scalping. Otherwise though, don't kid yourself.

Umkhonto we Sizwe, the terrorist armed resistance organization that Mandela led, bombed banks, restaurants, sports stadiums, bars, and court houses, and other populated civilian targets in addition to military and industrial targets. In fact, civilian targets were more common due to the fact that they were easier. Inevitably the vast majority of those killed and maimed in the resistance campaign were civilians.

He was a great man who was fighting the good fight, but don't forget that the good fight often involves reducing young children to bite-sized chunks.

The 'Good Fight' is typically defined by the winner.

True, but there are some cases that are pretty much objectively definable. South Africa under apartheid was pretty much a caricature of a Lawful-Evil D&D regime. Except for the whole holocaust thing, they made the Third Reich look good by comparison.

I imagine many people in Iraq say the same thing about Moqtada al-Sadr.

And they are correct.

I wouldnt consider either choice to be a good way to go.

And on the issue of 'resistance' fighters. The thing is ultimately? Almost all of them can be defined as 'terrorists'. The only real difference some times is what the actual goals are. Because both 'resistance' fighters and 'terrorists' will kill even innocent people 'for the greater good'. But Terrorists use terror as their main weapon, or at least try to. They want to inflict fear, because if people fear you that is control. Violence is power, killing is negociation.

'Resistance fighters' are... well a mixed bag. It sounds soooo much nicer to call yourself a 'resistance fighter' than 'terrorist'. Which is why so many actual terrorists call themselves resistance fighters. But not all resistance fighters are inherently bad. They fight for what they belive is right, and I can respect that. That some times some one has to be killed for the 'greater good'. Well.. that really sucks.. and situation to situation I may agree or disagree based uppon what I know of circumstances.

But ultimately to me, 'True Resistance Fighter' doesnt specifically aim at civilian populace. They instead aim at 'the powers that be'. Since obviously in this case 'the powers that be' are the ones that they consider to be corrupt or what ever. In many cases this is true. It doenst mean in the least that the resistance movement is actually any better, or will put in a better system. 'True' resistnace fighters to me, -would- be open to chances of negociation. Though most of the cases it woudl be 'you invaded our country, WE want you to leave'. And they wont accept anythign else as an answer. That is still to me a valid enough reason in a way.

Afterall if the 'offending party' does leave. And the 'resistance' does nothing at that point to agrivate anyone else. Then really that particular matter is settled isnt it?

The problem you have with places like Iraq is that really alot of the Middle East, along with alot of Africa is really still in a barbaric tribal age. They attack to kill 'traitors'. 'traitors' being loosely defined as anyone who in anyway peacefully associates with americans etc. They hate americans, and they will kill you just because you are an American. Or British, or in some cases ultimatley, just becuase your not from Iraq, or the middle east or your nto of their particular religious sect.

For many theres no real other motivation at all. Or their motivations have become twisted and deluded over time. They obviously belive themselves to be right in doing what they do in some way however or they wouldnt be doing it in the first place.

And at least for the Middle East religion is still really the big problem there, or certainly.. one of them. This horribly twisted version of the Koran thats spouted. It's the same thing you have with Christianity, or many other religions though. There's this one book I read about a guy who walked through most of Afghanistan a few years before the war. It's a very interesting book, and I supose I really should tryt o remember ot dig it up and give folk the title of it so they can read for themselves.

But here's one example. Durring his travels he came across this one relatively poor village. In this village was a man who could recite the Koran, word for word flawlessly. Anything he said or did and claimed was justified by the Koran was assumed to be true. He claimed intimate knowledge of the Koran and could arguably prove it because he COULD recite it word for word flawlessly. But when the author dug deeper and asked him. Did he even know what he was saying? The shocking thing is the answer was no.

It's generaly considered an unforgiveable sin for some (to me strange) reason or other to translate the Koran. These people didnt speak Arabic or what ever language it is that is the Koran's mother language. They ddnt even understand a word of it or at most maybe only a few words here and there. So they didnt even -really- know what was being said. They were just told that this ment this.

So you wind up with a situation where lets take the BIble for example. Since i"m sure more of the readers here are familar with that than the Koran. Certainly I am and I'm hardly a religious person. But thats mostly because it's native language is english.

So lets assume for a moment that I could recite anythign and everything word for word out of the bible to you. But you dont understand english. You speak... lets say Italian. So can I in this scenario. So I tell you the bible says its ok to kill people who engage in something called 'idoletry'. I'll even spout a few choice words out of the bible to 'prove' it. But you dont speak english so you just assume i know what i"m talking about. Afterall I can recite it word for word!

But is that what the bible -really- says? ANd then look at all the times the bible has been modified. Completely changed. Even Christain historians studying the bible have agreed that various parts were significantly changed especially around the 13th-17th centuries. I dont think anyone really knows what the very first bible even said. The one taht could be argued to be the 'one true bible'. Afterall as I understand it the true native language of the bible was Aramaic. Well I sure as hell dont speak or read Aramaic. So if some one told me that such and such an Aramaic word ment say.. apple. I've no reason to doubt them. I dont know for myself via experience that yes.. infact that word DOES mean apple.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the bible was originally in Latin. Most English translations can be traced to the King James version/translation. At least I am going to assume the native language was latin as that is the language used to say mass until recent history.

The bible is also one of those documents that it is hard to take as fact. It was passed on orally for 300 years before anyone started to write it down. It is also documents several POV, and omits others, which is why you have The Gospel according to Mathew or according to John or whomever.

[edit] It does not really ruin your point though, because who knows what bias or mistake the original translators had or made. If the king wanted to further the divine right of kings to rule, you can be sure a translation he commissioned is going to have that bias. [/edit]

[further edit] just noticed you posted that the original language was other than English. Sorry. [/further edit]

Aye, no worries. The openining wasnt really properly worded. I suppose what i should have said is the language the bible is most commonly found in.

Course that too could be wrong. But I dont -think- it is. English being one of the most widely spread lanaguages of the modern world afterall. You go to Germany people speak english there. Quite well infact. Not everyone can but enough that you can get by just fine without knowing a word of german.

I think Chinese is actually it's main competitor when you look at the ratio of how many people know English and how many people know Chinese. But again.. I could be wrong. I've never actually looked at the hard numbers. All I know is English has some how become, largely through the antics of those crazy English expansionists of ye old yonder days, one of the most pervasive languages about.

French is also pretty common in some areas of the world. Like Africa. Hell infact, in some areas french totaly replaced what ever native language was ever there to begin with.

But yeah. Thats really the thing. Unless you actually know the real true orrigional language of a document in question. ANd can not only speak it but more importantly -read- it. Since we are talking about writtten material in this case. You dont -really- know what some one says do you? I mean look at a translation scenario.

Native: Tell the filthy barbarian that he must appologize immediately or I will cut his head off and kill his filthy whore of a wife.

Translator to 'Visitor': Your words have angered him. He demands immedate appology or he will have you executed along with your wife.

The 'jist' of what is said is still carried over. But it hardly conveyed the true meaning an implication of what was said. And you could allways have the following scenario come up:

Native: Tell him he has made me angry. And that if he does not appologize he will be executed.

Translator: He says your wife is a whore, and that if you do not appologize and give us both one hundred pieces of gold he will have you raped by a donkey untill you are dead.

Sorry

I think you mean Hebrew and probably Greek (some possibility of Aramaic or Hebrew again). I'm not aware of any portion of the bible that was probably originally Latin.

~J

No, I meant Latin. I just happened to be incorrect.

I answered based on Mass being said in Latin for centuries, and figuring Latin was the language of the Roman Empire. I was also only addressing the New Testament.

Upon further research, it looks like the Old Testament was primarily written in Hebrew and Greek, and the New Testament in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

Last I heard the Vatican refused to acknowledge the contents of the Dead Sea scrolls. Also at least from what I've heard, alot of what it -really- says is at odds with quite a few things out of the bibble.

Alot of these books were also written a good while after Christ died from what I understand ontop of that. I've never seriously dug into it myself but there's been a fair bit of old running conterversy over various things thats popped up again and again in recent years.

Utlimately though I was just using the Bible as an example. Since most folk in the Middle East are as I understand it Muslims. In this case it's not the Bible but the Koran that's being 'misquoted'. Just as the bible has, and continues to be in other parts of the world.

I dont know enough about either to come up wtih specific examples, but I do know enough to know that it happens fairly often and has happend often in the past. And again that whole translation thing comes up. Do you actually really know for a fact that say.. that 800 year old bible says the same thing as this latest edition printed in english? That the meanings and connotations are also the same? I sure a hell dont. I cant read latin, and I'd have a hell of a time reading an english bible writting say.. durring the crusades. English was a language back then sure, but it changed a great deal over time.

Just look at the use of the word gay. These days it's almost allways taken to mean homosexual. The irrigional meaning was much like happy. John was gayly (sp?) hoping through the meadow. These days it's written as John was happily hoping through the meadow. Same thign with the term faggot. Now a derogertary term for Homosexuals again. Orrigionally it was a term for a bundle of sticks bound togeather, a form of stichery, a ciggarette, or even a welding term.

Thats 5 different definitions for one english word alone. Now you tell me some one who isnt a native english speaker isnt goign to be abit confused by some statment you make when using that word depending on what interpretation they've been given.

I mean if you use enoguh old english the average english speaker cant even understand what the hell your even saying.

That's pretty cool. What entry was all that under?

so the only thing that separates terrorists from freedom fighters is whether or not they fight on the side of the "good guys"?

Members of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging aren't exactly winners but I'm pretty sure that they see themselves as the good guys in their struggle. The "Good Guys" are whomever you support. Unless, of course, you're an lawful-evil aligned D&D character, in which case you really should be plotting how to best harvest human souls to use in the creation of evil magical items.

Now now... none of that....

You have to take baby steps you know. First it's figguring out how to exploit your team mates... and offload that uptight Paladin. That or figgure out how to get that surgically implanted stick out of their ass. Turn them into something abit more... usful to the cause.

After that you just convinently sacrifice the odd person 'by accient' of course into making some nifty little items to use. That or you know, if it's one of these things that has to be done 'willingly'. One need only... arrange the proper circumstances where some one woud willingly give up their lives.