Does war justify killing people?
- Thread starter J7.
- Start date
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']We declared war on Germany because Germany declared war on us.[/QUOTE]
This. Hell we never declared war on Finland even though they were apart of the axis. Actually, nobody attacked them except for the UK like once.
This. Hell we never declared war on Finland even though they were apart of the axis. Actually, nobody attacked them except for the UK like once.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']We declared war on Germany because Germany declared war on us.[/QUOTE]
Only because we declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor but I guess that's neither here nor there.
Someone didn't give Finland the memo because by the end of 1944, they were fighting Nazi Germany in the Lapland War. Those crazy Finns.
Also, the UK didn't attack Finland. The Soviets fought two full on wars with them in the early 40s.
And don't forget that Finland never signed the Tripartite Pact thus they weren't technically a part of the Axis even though they were considered co-belligerent with Germany.
Only because we declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor but I guess that's neither here nor there.
Someone didn't give Finland the memo because by the end of 1944, they were fighting Nazi Germany in the Lapland War. Those crazy Finns.
Also, the UK didn't attack Finland. The Soviets fought two full on wars with them in the early 40s.
And don't forget that Finland never signed the Tripartite Pact thus they weren't technically a part of the Axis even though they were considered co-belligerent with Germany.
Last edited by a moderator:
Access_Denied
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 89 (100%)
[quote name='cindersphere']Short answer no.
Longer answer. Never, because murder is still murder. You can dress it up and say it is patriotic, but the end result is the same. Someones mother/father/son/daughter/family member will still grieve. In some cases it is needed, but never morally justified in any sense.[/QUOTE]
I would say that depends on your morals. Since my morals are close to non-existent, I don't really care. War is war, and it's you or him. Personally, I'd rather it be him.
Longer answer. Never, because murder is still murder. You can dress it up and say it is patriotic, but the end result is the same. Someones mother/father/son/daughter/family member will still grieve. In some cases it is needed, but never morally justified in any sense.[/QUOTE]
I would say that depends on your morals. Since my morals are close to non-existent, I don't really care. War is war, and it's you or him. Personally, I'd rather it be him.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='dohdough']The real question regarding declaring war in WW2 is what environment was fostered in Germany which led to the decision to just start taking over countries. *hint*It wasn't cause they just hated Jews.[/QUOTE]
The shame of World War I was a huge factor. Mix a little xenophobia in there and you have a recipe for disaster.
The shame of World War I was a huge factor. Mix a little xenophobia in there and you have a recipe for disaster.
[quote name='depascal22']The shame of World War I was a huge factor. Mix a little xenophobia in there and you have a recipe for disaster.[/QUOTE]
As well as making the Axis be responsible for paying back the Allies for the war and the pyramid scheme that ensued because of it.
As well as making the Axis be responsible for paying back the Allies for the war and the pyramid scheme that ensued because of it.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
It wasn't the Axis in World War I. They were called the Central Powers.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
Well, Germany was the only country that was in both alliances. Italy was supposed to fight with Germany and Austria-Hungary but got out of it because it wasn't a defensive war against Serbia.
[quote name='depascal22']Well, Germany was the only country that was in both alliances. Italy was supposed to fight with Germany and Austria-Hungary but got out of it because it wasn't a defensive war against Serbia.[/QUOTE]
Btw, thanks for correcting me. It IS important to be accurate with these things. I forget things in my old age. :thumbs up:
Btw, thanks for correcting me. It IS important to be accurate with these things. I forget things in my old age.
:thumbs up:
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='Clak']I've usually heard them referred to as the Triple Alliance, but same difference.[/QUOTE]
The original Triple Alliance actually ended at the beginning of World War I. Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy entered into the Triple Alliance in the 1880s but Italy refused to fight an offensive war and effectively ended the Triple Alliance. They decided it wasn't worth it fight a war over the life of one archduke. To them, an alliance didn't justify killing. Italy actually entered the war on our side later on.
The original Triple Alliance actually ended at the beginning of World War I. Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy entered into the Triple Alliance in the 1880s but Italy refused to fight an offensive war and effectively ended the Triple Alliance. They decided it wasn't worth it fight a war over the life of one archduke. To them, an alliance didn't justify killing. Italy actually entered the war on our side later on.
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='Access_Denied']I would say that depends on your morals. Since my morals are close to non-existent, I don't really care. War is war, and it's you or him. Personally, I'd rather it be him.[/QUOTE]
So supporting murder is your moral? I kid, I doubt it is. But most people believe that not murdering is a universal moral, those who disagree usually occupy nice little cubbyholes in big concrete buildings. My point is that while killing may be needed, in which case I am right there with you with it being him rather than me, need itself does not justify an action. If that were true than every homeless person should be allowed to steal and pillage because they have a need to feed, however most people and courts have said it is not justification, even if these actions lead to the death of a person.
I guess what I am saying is do what you need to do to get business done, just don't expect forgiveness at the end of the day, however punishment can get rescinded in certain cases.
This thread was also hella derailed.
So supporting murder is your moral? I kid, I doubt it is. But most people believe that not murdering is a universal moral, those who disagree usually occupy nice little cubbyholes in big concrete buildings. My point is that while killing may be needed, in which case I am right there with you with it being him rather than me, need itself does not justify an action. If that were true than every homeless person should be allowed to steal and pillage because they have a need to feed, however most people and courts have said it is not justification, even if these actions lead to the death of a person.
I guess what I am saying is do what you need to do to get business done, just don't expect forgiveness at the end of the day, however punishment can get rescinded in certain cases.
This thread was also hella derailed.
tivo
CAGiversary!
[quote name='cindersphere']
This thread was also hella derailed.[/QUOTE]
Well, it was a dumb thread to begin with. Anyway, the answer is no different from the murder/self defense question but consists of greater special case exemptions. I.e. it has the twist of the legitimacy of certain wars/conflicts, the legitimacy of combatants involved, the use of certain weapons and fighting techniques, and it also hinges on the unfortunate reality of collateral damage. Overall, as long as a formal stance of war is addressed and the Geneva conventions are followed by everyone involved then I dont think one can complain about justice.
"Only the dead have seen the end of war" - Plato
This thread was also hella derailed.[/QUOTE]
Well, it was a dumb thread to begin with. Anyway, the answer is no different from the murder/self defense question but consists of greater special case exemptions. I.e. it has the twist of the legitimacy of certain wars/conflicts, the legitimacy of combatants involved, the use of certain weapons and fighting techniques, and it also hinges on the unfortunate reality of collateral damage. Overall, as long as a formal stance of war is addressed and the Geneva conventions are followed by everyone involved then I dont think one can complain about justice.
"Only the dead have seen the end of war" - Plato
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='tivo']Well, it was a dumb thread to begin with. Anyway, the answer is no different from the murder/self defense question but consists of greater special case exemptions. I.e. it has the twist of the legitimacy of certain wars/conflicts, the legitimacy of combatants involved, the use of certain weapons and fighting techniques, and it also hinges on the unfortunate reality of collateral damage. Overall, as long as a formal stance of war is addressed and the Geneva conventions are followed by everyone involved then I dont think one can complain about justice.
"Only the dead have seen the end of war" - Plato[/QUOTE]
Plato never said that, ever.
"Only the dead have seen the end of war" - Plato[/QUOTE]
Plato never said that, ever.
[quote name='Msut77']We declared war on Germany because Germany declared war on us.[/QUOTE]
If Germany never declared war on the US we would've sat back and reclined the chair further?
[quote name='tivo']Well, it was a dumb thread to begin with. Anyway, the answer is no different from the murder/self defense question but consists of greater special case exemptions. I.e. it has the twist of the legitimacy of certain wars/conflicts, the legitimacy of combatants involved, the use of certain weapons and fighting techniques, and it also hinges on the unfortunate reality of collateral damage. Overall, as long as a formal stance of war is addressed and the Geneva conventions are followed by everyone involved then I dont think one can complain about justice.
"Only the dead have seen the end of war" - Plato[/QUOTE]
A dumb thread is one that has no discussion tied to the purpose of the thread. Furthermore, looking at the poll I see that people's views on this vary quite a bit. It's not a one-sided discussion. BTW why are you here and why are you giving your viewpoint towards the question asked?
So whatever happens in war is okay until a situation occurs where the convention applies. Not counting all the violations of the convention in every war. War equals justice?
[quote name='Il Duce']Well like somebody else said if you are being invaded and you have no choice but to fight for your life then yes killing is justified, you can't simply lay down and die.[/QUOTE]
People have, people have also run away instead of kill or be killed.
If Germany never declared war on the US we would've sat back and reclined the chair further?
[quote name='tivo']Well, it was a dumb thread to begin with. Anyway, the answer is no different from the murder/self defense question but consists of greater special case exemptions. I.e. it has the twist of the legitimacy of certain wars/conflicts, the legitimacy of combatants involved, the use of certain weapons and fighting techniques, and it also hinges on the unfortunate reality of collateral damage. Overall, as long as a formal stance of war is addressed and the Geneva conventions are followed by everyone involved then I dont think one can complain about justice.
"Only the dead have seen the end of war" - Plato[/QUOTE]
A dumb thread is one that has no discussion tied to the purpose of the thread. Furthermore, looking at the poll I see that people's views on this vary quite a bit. It's not a one-sided discussion. BTW why are you here and why are you giving your viewpoint towards the question asked?
So whatever happens in war is okay until a situation occurs where the convention applies. Not counting all the violations of the convention in every war. War equals justice?
[quote name='Il Duce']Well like somebody else said if you are being invaded and you have no choice but to fight for your life then yes killing is justified, you can't simply lay down and die.[/QUOTE]
People have, people have also run away instead of kill or be killed.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']Maybe.[/QUOTE]
Definately. There was even a slight chance that we could've entered the war on the Axis side if Britain had fallen and the Japanese had decided to stop at half the Pacific. There were many pro-German groups operating in this country in the 30's and early 40's that agitated against war with Germany even after Pearl Harbor. At the least, we would've signed a worthless non-aggression pact that would've looked stupid after they did the same thing to Russia.
Definately. There was even a slight chance that we could've entered the war on the Axis side if Britain had fallen and the Japanese had decided to stop at half the Pacific. There were many pro-German groups operating in this country in the 30's and early 40's that agitated against war with Germany even after Pearl Harbor. At the least, we would've signed a worthless non-aggression pact that would've looked stupid after they did the same thing to Russia.
[quote name='Msut77']Maybe.[/QUOTE]
Therein lies the paradox. We don't goto war against Germany unless they declare on us and we let genocide go on unchecked. We declare war, we kill people, including the innocent in order to stop genocide among other things. Thus, we're not heroes and we're not monsters. War is inevitable sometimes. It's too bad people have to witness horrendous shit to prevent it from happening again. I fear any generation that has not had another living generation bear witness to such things. Is teaching and videos of such things enough to stop it from happening again? Certainly not when parts of the world are taught the direct opposite of what they should be.
[quote name='depascal22']Definately. There was even a slight chance that we could've entered the war on the Axis side if Britain had fallen and the Japanese had decided to stop at half the Pacific. There were many pro-German groups operating in this country in the 30's and early 40's that agitated against war with Germany even after Pearl Harbor. At the least, we would've signed a worthless non-aggression pact that would've looked stupid after they did the same thing to Russia.[/QUOTE]
That is a scary scenario. If we were on the Axis side we would ultimately be at war with Germany. Japan would probably side with Germany. Who would win and what future would they hold?
Therein lies the paradox. We don't goto war against Germany unless they declare on us and we let genocide go on unchecked. We declare war, we kill people, including the innocent in order to stop genocide among other things. Thus, we're not heroes and we're not monsters. War is inevitable sometimes. It's too bad people have to witness horrendous shit to prevent it from happening again. I fear any generation that has not had another living generation bear witness to such things. Is teaching and videos of such things enough to stop it from happening again? Certainly not when parts of the world are taught the direct opposite of what they should be.
[quote name='depascal22']Definately. There was even a slight chance that we could've entered the war on the Axis side if Britain had fallen and the Japanese had decided to stop at half the Pacific. There were many pro-German groups operating in this country in the 30's and early 40's that agitated against war with Germany even after Pearl Harbor. At the least, we would've signed a worthless non-aggression pact that would've looked stupid after they did the same thing to Russia.[/QUOTE]
That is a scary scenario. If we were on the Axis side we would ultimately be at war with Germany. Japan would probably side with Germany. Who would win and what future would they hold?
[quote name='tivo']If Rome Total War said he did then I believe he did. Good day sir.[/QUOTE]
You're an ignorant douchebag. You hear something erroneously quoted one place and choose to use it, fine. When someone calls you on it, you self-importantly back it up without research or attribution.
Plato didn't say it. It's earliest use was by George Santayana in response to the claim that WWI was the "War to end all wars."
http://plato-dialogues.org/faq/faq008.htm
This is why you're an idiot. Not because you believed an incorrect attribution, but because you continued to believe it without question even when told it was incorrect. This is why every argument you make in this forum is unreliable. You're unable to reevaluate your position when new evidence is raised. The first source of your information is to you, always the most reliable-regardless whether it's a scholarly research paper or a video game.
It's one thing to be misinformed, its something entirely different to be willfully misinformed.
You're an ignorant douchebag. You hear something erroneously quoted one place and choose to use it, fine. When someone calls you on it, you self-importantly back it up without research or attribution.
Plato didn't say it. It's earliest use was by George Santayana in response to the claim that WWI was the "War to end all wars."
http://plato-dialogues.org/faq/faq008.htm
This is why you're an idiot. Not because you believed an incorrect attribution, but because you continued to believe it without question even when told it was incorrect. This is why every argument you make in this forum is unreliable. You're unable to reevaluate your position when new evidence is raised. The first source of your information is to you, always the most reliable-regardless whether it's a scholarly research paper or a video game.
It's one thing to be misinformed, its something entirely different to be willfully misinformed.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
And that's why I have tivo on ignore...
Looks like the derailment worked out then. You could say that sometimes war doesn't justify killing. The political circumstances that led to a certain country fighting in a war usually have correlation to national sercurity.
The Poles sent the third most troops to Iraq. 23 died and many more injured. Did Iraq have anything to do with Poland? At least our President could say that Saddam tried to kill his father and previous President, George H.W. Bush. What did Poland have to do with Iraq other than being our political ally?
Looks like the derailment worked out then. You could say that sometimes war doesn't justify killing. The political circumstances that led to a certain country fighting in a war usually have correlation to national sercurity.
The Poles sent the third most troops to Iraq. 23 died and many more injured. Did Iraq have anything to do with Poland? At least our President could say that Saddam tried to kill his father and previous President, George H.W. Bush. What did Poland have to do with Iraq other than being our political ally?
[quote name='Magus8472']
[/QUOTE]
Cool and worth reading.
I question the premise that Germany & Japan would have made it far enough to battle over our land before one of them had obliterated the other, unless they waited to attack each other until they got rid of us. You would think they would have to hold back reserves to prevent being blindsided, but then would they actually defeat us? Maybe we would've dismantled them both with our atomic bombs?
It is strange to think of a world with only one race, as Germany wanted, but given enough time that would change again anyways so their purpose was ultimately pointless. Unless all they really cared about was the time they were alive, showing their idealism to be a farce.
Without globalization and education beyond even the level it is today I don't see any way one government could hold power over the entire globe. It would break up. Ugh, but separate countries doesn't work out either. Something beyond total and separate control is needed. Enlightenment is the only answer I see.
[quote name='depascal22']And that's why I have tivo on ignore...
Looks like the derailment worked out then. You could say that sometimes war doesn't justify killing. The political circumstances that led to a certain country fighting in a war usually have correlation to national sercurity.
The Poles sent the third most troops to Iraq. 23 died and many more injured. Did Iraq have anything to do with Poland? At least our President could say that Saddam tried to kill his father and previous President, George H.W. Bush. What did Poland have to do with Iraq other than being our political ally?[/QUOTE]
You could say Poland was more righteous if the only thing our president could say is that. Ya, it's not that simple but it's something to spur thought. What does Poland do without the support of political allies, when it comes down to it they're really in the same position. If we lose, they're that much more likely to lose, (in general - not Iraq).
I originally voted undecided because I wasn't sure what to think and I'm not sure of what to think still. I don't think I can say it is justified or that it's not, even if it's in defense. This is not a good position to hold. #-o
Cool and worth reading.
I question the premise that Germany & Japan would have made it far enough to battle over our land before one of them had obliterated the other, unless they waited to attack each other until they got rid of us. You would think they would have to hold back reserves to prevent being blindsided, but then would they actually defeat us? Maybe we would've dismantled them both with our atomic bombs?
It is strange to think of a world with only one race, as Germany wanted, but given enough time that would change again anyways so their purpose was ultimately pointless. Unless all they really cared about was the time they were alive, showing their idealism to be a farce.
Without globalization and education beyond even the level it is today I don't see any way one government could hold power over the entire globe. It would break up. Ugh, but separate countries doesn't work out either. Something beyond total and separate control is needed. Enlightenment is the only answer I see.
[quote name='depascal22']And that's why I have tivo on ignore...
Looks like the derailment worked out then. You could say that sometimes war doesn't justify killing. The political circumstances that led to a certain country fighting in a war usually have correlation to national sercurity.
The Poles sent the third most troops to Iraq. 23 died and many more injured. Did Iraq have anything to do with Poland? At least our President could say that Saddam tried to kill his father and previous President, George H.W. Bush. What did Poland have to do with Iraq other than being our political ally?[/QUOTE]
You could say Poland was more righteous if the only thing our president could say is that. Ya, it's not that simple but it's something to spur thought. What does Poland do without the support of political allies, when it comes down to it they're really in the same position. If we lose, they're that much more likely to lose, (in general - not Iraq).
I originally voted undecided because I wasn't sure what to think and I'm not sure of what to think still. I don't think I can say it is justified or that it's not, even if it's in defense. This is not a good position to hold. #-o
IAmTheCheapestGamer
Banned
The last four wars the U.S. has been involved in(Vietnam, Korea, Gulf, Afghanistan/Iraq/etc) have been nothing but huge wastes of time, money and human lives.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='J7.']You could say Poland was more righteous if the only thing our president could say is that. Ya, it's not that simple but it's something to spur thought. What does Poland do without the support of political allies, when it comes down to it they're really in the same position. If we lose, they're that much more likely to lose, (in general - not Iraq).
I originally voted undecided because I wasn't sure what to think and I'm not sure of what to think still. I don't think I can say it is justified or that it's not, even if it's in defense. This is not a good position to hold. #-o[/QUOTE]
Would you die over being righteous? Iraq was no threat to Poland past or present. Saddam wasn't going to blitzkrieg Warsaw like he did Kuwait. Al-Qaeda terrorists weren't going to slip through the Polish-Ukranian border. I'll say it again. Iraq was and is zero threat to the Poles. They proved to be great allies but what did they really gain for themselves?
I originally voted undecided because I wasn't sure what to think and I'm not sure of what to think still. I don't think I can say it is justified or that it's not, even if it's in defense. This is not a good position to hold. #-o[/QUOTE]
Would you die over being righteous? Iraq was no threat to Poland past or present. Saddam wasn't going to blitzkrieg Warsaw like he did Kuwait. Al-Qaeda terrorists weren't going to slip through the Polish-Ukranian border. I'll say it again. Iraq was and is zero threat to the Poles. They proved to be great allies but what did they really gain for themselves?
[quote name='depascal22']Would you die over being righteous? Iraq was no threat to Poland past or present. Saddam wasn't going to blitzkrieg Warsaw like he did Kuwait. Al-Qaeda terrorists weren't going to slip through the Polish-Ukranian border. I'll say it again. Iraq was and is zero threat to the Poles. They proved to be great allies but what did they really gain for themselves?[/QUOTE]
My point is the personal beef Bush had with one person is actually worse than Poland supporting a political ally. It's not that simple and I know you know that, but that's how you stated it. Poland is
ed without political allies, just like many other countries. They've learned this already in the past. They don't want that to happen again. If they are our allies, they should support us, otherwise they're not going to count on us to support them. Not supporting us can hurt them far more than supporting us does. Yes they have no threat from Iraq and such, but they're looking out for their longterm interest. They view our support as better protection than they view alienating themselves against those countries/groups. It's a ed up situation.
My point is the personal beef Bush had with one person is actually worse than Poland supporting a political ally. It's not that simple and I know you know that, but that's how you stated it. Poland is
ed without political allies, just like many other countries. They've learned this already in the past. They don't want that to happen again. If they are our allies, they should support us, otherwise they're not going to count on us to support them. Not supporting us can hurt them far more than supporting us does. Yes they have no threat from Iraq and such, but they're looking out for their longterm interest. They view our support as better protection than they view alienating themselves against those countries/groups. It's a ed up situation.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
Supporting an ally's bad decision is even worse than the bad decision? I can dig supporting an ally but I'd be very hesitant to send my country men to die for a bad reason.
I understand they're our ally because of our historical ties and our support after the Iron Curtain fell but it seems like we took advantage of them and their support might not be there when we really need it.
We could also be asked to support the Poles when it might not be in our best interest to do so. Do we have any business in Ukraine? Nope. But we might if the Poles get into it with them.
Washington was right. Neutrality is the best course long term.
I understand they're our ally because of our historical ties and our support after the Iron Curtain fell but it seems like we took advantage of them and their support might not be there when we really need it.
We could also be asked to support the Poles when it might not be in our best interest to do so. Do we have any business in Ukraine? Nope. But we might if the Poles get into it with them.
Washington was right. Neutrality is the best course long term.
[quote name='depascal22']Supporting an ally's bad decision is even worse than the bad decision? I can dig supporting an ally but I'd be very hesitant to send my country men to die for a bad reason.
I understand they're our ally because of our historical ties and our support after the Iron Curtain fell but it seems like we took advantage of them and their support might not be there when we really need it.
We could also be asked to support the Poles when it might not be in our best interest to do so. Do we have any business in Ukraine? Nope. But we might if the Poles get into it with them.
Washington was right. Neutrality is the best course long term.[/QUOTE]
That's not what I'm trying to convey, but you make good points.
Poland did not know our decision was bad based on the intel we said we had. Even if they had known, them not supporting us is like them forfeiting a war or starting a war that is going to destroy them entirely, because they need our support if someone went to war with them and who the hell knows who and how many could goto war with them. Supporting us can be the only means of saving themselves. They view that gamble less risky than not supporting us.
If they feel we took advantage of them based on legitimate evidence then we don't deserve to have their support, but they wouldn't have known this until after it happened. We should support them to a certain extent if they supported us, it may not make it right, and I would hope we would try other solutions first. Any country attacking an ally of another country should also realize what they're really up against.
Neutrality is the best course unless the odds are not stacked in your favor. While we preach neutrality we don't practice it enough.
I understand they're our ally because of our historical ties and our support after the Iron Curtain fell but it seems like we took advantage of them and their support might not be there when we really need it.
We could also be asked to support the Poles when it might not be in our best interest to do so. Do we have any business in Ukraine? Nope. But we might if the Poles get into it with them.
Washington was right. Neutrality is the best course long term.[/QUOTE]
That's not what I'm trying to convey, but you make good points.
Poland did not know our decision was bad based on the intel we said we had. Even if they had known, them not supporting us is like them forfeiting a war or starting a war that is going to destroy them entirely, because they need our support if someone went to war with them and who the hell knows who and how many could goto war with them. Supporting us can be the only means of saving themselves. They view that gamble less risky than not supporting us.
If they feel we took advantage of them based on legitimate evidence then we don't deserve to have their support, but they wouldn't have known this until after it happened. We should support them to a certain extent if they supported us, it may not make it right, and I would hope we would try other solutions first. Any country attacking an ally of another country should also realize what they're really up against.
Neutrality is the best course unless the odds are not stacked in your favor. While we preach neutrality we don't practice it enough.
tivo
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Quillion']You're an ignorant douchebag. You hear something erroneously quoted one place and choose to use it, fine. When someone calls you on it, you self-importantly back it up without research or attribution.
Plato didn't say it. It's earliest use was by George Santayana in response to the claim that WWI was the "War to end all wars."
http://plato-dialogues.org/faq/faq008.htm
This is why you're an idiot. Not because you believed an incorrect attribution, but because you continued to believe it without question even when told it was incorrect. This is why every argument you make in this forum is unreliable. You're unable to reevaluate your position when new evidence is raised. The first source of your information is to you, always the most reliable-regardless whether it's a scholarly research paper or a video game.
It's one thing to be misinformed, its something entirely different to be willfully misinformed.[/QUOTE]
At least I didn't have the misquote woven into an oval shaped rug.**
and ps. you're the myopic jackass who has only ever pointed out this infinitesimally small misquote and blow in up into a "whats wrong with me" rant. The quote was an afterthought and was written because it is 1) a good quote and 2) it is related to the thread on the basis of war. It had nothing to do with my answer to the posted question or anything else. And my rebuttal when called out for the misquote, was simply and clearly a jest. I used a VIDEO GAME as my source and then even said a joking "good day sir" at the end. You had to know I was kidding, right? if not, lighten up. If you still feel that way about my arguments, POINT THEM OUT. Discuss those annotations instead of bothering me about a simple and inconsequential misquote.
also, side issue, I rarely see evidence provided by people when they issue a stance and I've said it before, its all obdurate opinions here without any substance. For example, look at depascal's posts. She never ever posts anything except what the three or four neurons in her head tell her. That is why I've been pulling out of this forum. no substance, no new ideas, no evidence, and no sense of humor. It's like I'm talking with a room full of high school drop outs. There aren't any sapid ideas and the kids are either too lazy or don't know proper punctuation (I'm talking about your second to last sentence).
Plato didn't say it. It's earliest use was by George Santayana in response to the claim that WWI was the "War to end all wars."
http://plato-dialogues.org/faq/faq008.htm
This is why you're an idiot. Not because you believed an incorrect attribution, but because you continued to believe it without question even when told it was incorrect. This is why every argument you make in this forum is unreliable. You're unable to reevaluate your position when new evidence is raised. The first source of your information is to you, always the most reliable-regardless whether it's a scholarly research paper or a video game.
It's one thing to be misinformed, its something entirely different to be willfully misinformed.[/QUOTE]
At least I didn't have the misquote woven into an oval shaped rug.**
and ps. you're the myopic jackass who has only ever pointed out this infinitesimally small misquote and blow in up into a "whats wrong with me" rant. The quote was an afterthought and was written because it is 1) a good quote and 2) it is related to the thread on the basis of war. It had nothing to do with my answer to the posted question or anything else. And my rebuttal when called out for the misquote, was simply and clearly a jest. I used a VIDEO GAME as my source and then even said a joking "good day sir" at the end. You had to know I was kidding, right? if not, lighten up. If you still feel that way about my arguments, POINT THEM OUT. Discuss those annotations instead of bothering me about a simple and inconsequential misquote.
also, side issue, I rarely see evidence provided by people when they issue a stance and I've said it before, its all obdurate opinions here without any substance. For example, look at depascal's posts. She never ever posts anything except what the three or four neurons in her head tell her. That is why I've been pulling out of this forum. no substance, no new ideas, no evidence, and no sense of humor. It's like I'm talking with a room full of high school drop outs. There aren't any sapid ideas and the kids are either too lazy or don't know proper punctuation (I'm talking about your second to last sentence).
Obviously the problem couldn't be on your end.
That would just be silly.
Like the way you post the same bloviating nonsense in threads connected in any way to economics and then withdraw when shown to have no idea what you are talking about.
No one is impressed with the highfalutin blather you find on your "Learn a new word a day" calendar.
tivo
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Msut77']Obviously the problem couldn't be on your end.
That would just be silly.
[/Quote]
obviously.
That would just be silly.
[/Quote]
obviously.
I think it is easier to correct irrational social ideas by focusing attention on the more cut and dry economic issues and then drawing them back so that they have the big picture in mind. If politicians would simply ask themselves, "will this bill make the country stronger?" and acted accordingly, instead of trying to impose their views of what the country should be like then we would all be better off. I also don't think I've withdrawn. there was a thread about Keynes which wasn't getting the views so I stopped but had backed up the 8 or so issues (in quite a bit of detail with examples) and another where I asked myke to stop critiquing and provide his ideas about how to mitigate inequality and how would it help the economy which he never did. Lastly, looking back, there was a post from douhbogh (sp?) where he asked me to examine the average sqft of space of Americans and Europeans with respect to population density. I did not understand this request at all as my original post provided all the necessary evidence that the American "poor" have more living space than average Europeans and how 40% of Swedes make
[quote name='tivo']I think it is easier to correct irrational social ideas by focusing attention on the more cut and dry economic issues and then drawing them back so that they have the big picture in mind.[/quote]
If by "easier" you "simpler for you" then yeah.
But the reason why everything is so cut and dry in tivoland is because you don't know much of anything.
If by "easier" you "simpler for you" then yeah.
But the reason why everything is so cut and dry in tivoland is because you don't know much of anything.
tivo
CAGiversary!
ill give an example of looking at economics to determine social issues:
regardless of pro-life/pro-choice ideas about life, if the pro-choice position was furthered then it would more than likely be added by the government onto health insurance coverage plans (like the current mandated pregnancy coverage regardless of personal choice). This will then raise health insurance costs for everyone. This will move millions of dollars out of consumer's hands and into the health care/abortion clinic industry causing all other industries not related to health care/abortions to see less business. Does this make the country better? It is at least not a "yes" so why further it from its present state. One can get an abortion but pay out of pocket for your mistake or don't have an abortion but then give the baby up for adoption. Pro-life side can be viewed similarly by looking at the economic impact and unintended consequences to derive an answer/alternative.
I think I know quite a bit. I would be interested to know your credentials and hear why you're so worldly.
regardless of pro-life/pro-choice ideas about life, if the pro-choice position was furthered then it would more than likely be added by the government onto health insurance coverage plans (like the current mandated pregnancy coverage regardless of personal choice). This will then raise health insurance costs for everyone. This will move millions of dollars out of consumer's hands and into the health care/abortion clinic industry causing all other industries not related to health care/abortions to see less business. Does this make the country better? It is at least not a "yes" so why further it from its present state. One can get an abortion but pay out of pocket for your mistake or don't have an abortion but then give the baby up for adoption. Pro-life side can be viewed similarly by looking at the economic impact and unintended consequences to derive an answer/alternative.
I think I know quite a bit. I would be interested to know your credentials and hear why you're so worldly.
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='tivo']ill give an example of looking at economics to determine social issues:
regardless of pro-life/pro-choice ideas about life, if the pro-choice position was furthered then it would more than likely be added by the government onto health insurance coverage plans (like the current mandated pregnancy coverage regardless of personal choice). This will then raise health insurance costs for everyone. This will move millions of dollars out of consumer's hands and into the health care/abortion clinic industry causing all other industries not related to health care/abortions to see less business. Does this make the country better? It is at least not a "yes" so why further it from its present state. One can get an abortion but pay out of pocket for your mistake or don't have an abortion but then give the baby up for adoption. Pro-life side can be viewed similarly by looking at the economic impact and unintended consequences to derive an answer/alternative.
I think I know quite a bit. I would be interested to know your credentials and hear why you're so worldly.[/QUOTE]
So use your economic outlook to explain the rationale behind suicide bombers.
regardless of pro-life/pro-choice ideas about life, if the pro-choice position was furthered then it would more than likely be added by the government onto health insurance coverage plans (like the current mandated pregnancy coverage regardless of personal choice). This will then raise health insurance costs for everyone. This will move millions of dollars out of consumer's hands and into the health care/abortion clinic industry causing all other industries not related to health care/abortions to see less business. Does this make the country better? It is at least not a "yes" so why further it from its present state. One can get an abortion but pay out of pocket for your mistake or don't have an abortion but then give the baby up for adoption. Pro-life side can be viewed similarly by looking at the economic impact and unintended consequences to derive an answer/alternative.
I think I know quite a bit. I would be interested to know your credentials and hear why you're so worldly.[/QUOTE]
So use your economic outlook to explain the rationale behind suicide bombers.
tivo
CAGiversary!
[quote name='cindersphere']So use your economic outlook to explain the rationale behind suicide bombers.[/QUOTE]
that isn't an issue our politicians will ever vote on. This method examines the big picture of seemingly isolated issues in order to examine all unintended consequences and consider alternatives from either extremes/poles.
that isn't an issue our politicians will ever vote on. This method examines the big picture of seemingly isolated issues in order to examine all unintended consequences and consider alternatives from either extremes/poles.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='tivo']also, side issue, I rarely see evidence provided by people when they issue a stance and I've said it before, its all obdurate opinions here without any substance. For example, look at depascal's posts. She never ever posts anything except what the three or four neurons in her head tell her. That is why I've been pulling out of this forum. no substance, no new ideas, no evidence, and no sense of humor. It's like I'm talking with a room full of high school drop outs. There aren't any sapid ideas and the kids are either too lazy or don't know proper punctuation (I'm talking about your second to last sentence).[/QUOTE]
Did you read any of this thread?
I've stated that killing is wrong unless you're defending family, friends, and neighbors.
My stance is that war doesn't justify killing because the reasons behind war are so complex.
World War I took thousands of lives because one Austrian archduke got himself shot in Sarajevo. Everyone rushed to battle without really thinking about it. It was just a way to test new things like tanks and mustard gas. Do you think war like that is noble? Were we justified in killing Germans just because of treaties that were signed decades before the war?
Then I brought up the Polish involvement in Iraq. They had nothing to do with Iraq but rushed to our aid. They're the good friend that jumped into the bar brawl that started when they were in the bathroom. They have no idea who started it but they're jumping in to help like a good friend. Polish grandkids will ask their grandparents, "Why did you fight in Iraq?." The answer will be, "Because the Americans asked us to. They kinda made us feel guilty for the help they provided during World War II. It doesn't matter that they hung out with the Brits and French while we were partitioned by the Nazis and Soviets. It doesn't matter that they allowed the Iron Curtain to go up after the war. It's OK that the Allies used us for shock troops because we had no country. We need to repay the debt like we would expect them to do for us when the Ukraine comes looking for North Sea property. At least we hope."
But I guess I have no substance. Back to ignore with you, tivo.
Did you read any of this thread?
I've stated that killing is wrong unless you're defending family, friends, and neighbors.
My stance is that war doesn't justify killing because the reasons behind war are so complex.
World War I took thousands of lives because one Austrian archduke got himself shot in Sarajevo. Everyone rushed to battle without really thinking about it. It was just a way to test new things like tanks and mustard gas. Do you think war like that is noble? Were we justified in killing Germans just because of treaties that were signed decades before the war?
Then I brought up the Polish involvement in Iraq. They had nothing to do with Iraq but rushed to our aid. They're the good friend that jumped into the bar brawl that started when they were in the bathroom. They have no idea who started it but they're jumping in to help like a good friend. Polish grandkids will ask their grandparents, "Why did you fight in Iraq?." The answer will be, "Because the Americans asked us to. They kinda made us feel guilty for the help they provided during World War II. It doesn't matter that they hung out with the Brits and French while we were partitioned by the Nazis and Soviets. It doesn't matter that they allowed the Iron Curtain to go up after the war. It's OK that the Allies used us for shock troops because we had no country. We need to repay the debt like we would expect them to do for us when the Ukraine comes looking for North Sea property. At least we hope."
But I guess I have no substance. Back to ignore with you, tivo.
Last edited by a moderator:
bread's done