Binary

[Age]

Even when we agree, there may be no absolute truth, like back in the days when the Earth was thought to be flat.

This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the ACTUAL POINT I was SHOWING, and POINTING OUT TO the one it was DIRECTED AT, but, anyway, IF, and WHEN, 'we' ALL AGREE, then what IS IN AGREEMENT IS the ABSOLUTE, ACTUAL, and IRREFUTABLE Truth.

Did ALL AGREE that the earth was flat?

The ANSWER to 'this QUESTION' IS OBVIOUS.

Now, how does 'it' FOLLOW FROM, 'Even when we agree', THAT THEN, 'there may be NO absolute truth'?

OBVIOUSLY, if SOME agree, then what they are agreeing with may NOT be the absolute Truth. But, just AS OBVIOUS, IS IF ALL ARE AGREEING ON and WITH some 'thing', then 'that thing' IS the ACTUAL ABSOLUTE and IRREFUTABLE Truth. 'This' can NOT be REFUTED.

So, WHY do people even bring up that COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT example, which you did here?

Because you have not yet clarified your main point, even if you think you have.

So you ARE AWARE, I NEVER thought I had. This is BECAUSE I PURPOSELY DO NOT FULLY CLARIFY ANY POINT I MAKE here. I DO 'this' BECAUSE I WAIT TO FIND 'those' who ARE Truly CURIOS and Truly INTERESTED.

So, ONCE AGAIN, we WAIT, to SEE.

[commonsense]

Well, take my question in the "General" Topics forum. I asked, "is cannibalism immoral"? I gave the answer, "yes". On something like that, a person can reply, "maybe" but I think that would be kind of avoiding the question. I mean, what would "maybe" (for example) mean under those circumstances? It could mean, "I don't know if there is such a thing as objective morality" or it could mean, "I say 'maybe' because I might want to engage in cannibalism under certain circumstances". So give those answers instead of saying that "binary thinking" is causing a problem. People are free to explain themselves. I'm curious where people stand on things like that.

So, the answer to "is cannibalism immoral" will vary depending on whether people are religious, or find the idea disgusting, or are survivors of a remote plane crash, or were raised as cannibals on an island, etc. I don't think it's immoral... but I think it's disgusting. Now if we were talking about a mortician sexually abusing dead bodies, I would think that's immoral. So I guess, for me, morality has to do with 'not abusing the living', and only using dead bodies for what's absolutely necessary...like food. So my answer is 'it depends'. That's probably often my answer.

And then there's Age, who spends a significant amount of his time saying he's got "thee truth" and exclaims no one can figure out what "thee truth" is and then states that he's stated it countless times to us "back in the days when this was written". That I don't understand. I've asked him a couple of times what is "thee truth" and I don't recall getting a straight answer from him. I mean, is there even such a thing as "thee truth"? As in, "thee truth" is that he would like a cheese danish right now?

That's hilarious! It seems you have a great deal of clarity regarding that circumstance.

LOL "gary childress" made AT LEAST FOUR Wrong AND False CLAIMS in that one paragraph, and here "lacewing" IS suggesting that "gary childress" has a GREAT DEAL OF CLARITY.

Which IS ANOTHER example of 'confirmation bias' AT WORK, and AT PLAY, and REAFFIRMING one's ALREADY FIXED ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, and thus RECONFIRMING their ALREADY 'BIASED CONFIRMATION'.

Age, you have gone off the rails, screwed the pooch, flipped your wig, drunk the kool-aid, buttered your bread, made your bed etc.

[Age]

So, the answer to "is cannibalism immoral" will vary depending on whether people are religious, or find the idea disgusting, or are survivors of a remote plane crash, or were raised as cannibals on an island, etc. I don't think it's immoral... but I think it's disgusting. Now if we were talking about a mortician sexually abusing dead bodies, I would think that's immoral. So I guess, for me, morality has to do with 'not abusing the living', and only using dead bodies for what's absolutely necessary...like food. So my answer is 'it depends'. That's probably often my answer.


That's hilarious! It seems you have a great deal of clarity regarding that circumstance.

LOL "gary childress" made AT LEAST FOUR Wrong AND False CLAIMS in that one paragraph, and here "lacewing" IS suggesting that "gary childress" has a GREAT DEAL OF CLARITY.

Which IS ANOTHER example of 'confirmation bias' AT WORK, and AT PLAY, and REAFFIRMING one's ALREADY FIXED ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, and thus RECONFIRMING their ALREADY 'BIASED CONFIRMATION'.

Age, you have gone off the rails, screwed the pooch, flipped your wig, drunk the kool-aid, buttered your bread, made your bed etc.

'you' have MADE 'this sort of CLAIM' at least a couple of times ALREADY. BUT, 'you' NEVER ACTUALLY even 'TRY TO' ATTACK the ACTUAL STATEMENTS and CLAIMS I MAKE. 'you' ONLY 'TRY TO' ATTACK the 'person', INSTEAD.

Now, BECAUSE 'you' seem Truly INCAPABLE of 'arguing' AGAINST 'my WORDS' would 'you' like to EXPLAIN WHY 'you' think 'the above' ABOUT 'me', EXACTLY?

OBVIOUSLY "gary childress" MADE False AND Wrong ACCUSATIONS ABOUT 'me', AND, just AS OBVIOUS then IS "lacewing's" CLAIM that "gary childress" having A GREAT DEAL OF CLARITY IS ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY JUST AS False AND Wrong, as well as be TOTALLY ABSURD and RIDICULOUS.

If 'you' would LIKE TO CLAIM otherwise, then by ALL MEANS PRESENT 'your' REASONS WHY "commonsense". 'I', for one, would be VERY INTERESTED in SEEING, and HEARING, 'them'.

[commonsense]

LOL "gary childress" made AT LEAST FOUR Wrong AND False CLAIMS in that one paragraph, and here "lacewing" IS suggesting that "gary childress" has a GREAT DEAL OF CLARITY.

Which IS ANOTHER example of 'confirmation bias' AT WORK, and AT PLAY, and REAFFIRMING one's ALREADY FIXED ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, and thus RECONFIRMING their ALREADY 'BIASED CONFIRMATION'.

Age, you have gone off the rails, screwed the pooch, flipped your wig, drunk the kool-aid, buttered your bread, made your bed etc.

'you' have MADE 'this sort of CLAIM' at least a couple of times ALREADY. BUT, 'you' NEVER ACTUALLY even 'TRY TO' ATTACK the ACTUAL STATEMENTS and CLAIMS I MAKE. 'you' ONLY 'TRY TO' ATTACK the 'person', INSTEAD.

Now, BECAUSE 'you' seem Truly INCAPABLE of 'arguing' AGAINST 'my WORDS' would 'you' like to EXPLAIN WHY 'you' think 'the above' ABOUT 'me', EXACTLY?

OBVIOUSLY "gary childress" MADE False AND Wrong ACCUSATIONS ABOUT 'me', AND, just AS OBVIOUS then IS "lacewing's" CLAIM that "gary childress" having A GREAT DEAL OF CLARITY IS ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY JUST AS False AND Wrong, as well as be TOTALLY ABSURD and RIDICULOUS.

If 'you' would LIKE TO CLAIM otherwise, then by ALL MEANS PRESENT 'your' REASONS WHY "commonsense". 'I', for one, would be VERY INTERESTED in SEEING, and HEARING, 'them'.

You are so far out of it that your statements cannot be addressed other than to say that the author of the statements, an entity that holds itself apart from the human race, is cray-cray.

[Gary Childress]

'you' have MADE 'this sort of CLAIM' at least a couple of times ALREADY. BUT, 'you' NEVER ACTUALLY even 'TRY TO' ATTACK the ACTUAL STATEMENTS and CLAIMS I MAKE. 'you' ONLY 'TRY TO' ATTACK the 'person', INSTEAD.

Are you sure you're being "attacked"? What do you mean by "attacked"? How do you "attack" a statement without also "attacking" the person who made it?

[Gary Childress]

ribonucleic acid, a nucleic acid present in all living cells. Its principal role is to act as a messenger carrying instructions from DNA for controlling the synthesis of proteins, although in some viruses RNA rather than DNA carries the genetic information.

Is life possible if it does not combine a binary set into a "synthesis"

Deoxyribonucleic acid (abbreviated DNA) is the molecule that carries genetic information for the development and functioning of an organism. DNA is made of two linked strands that wind around each other to resemble a twisted ladder — a shape known as a double helix.

And is all life not a binary thing?

[Gary Childress]

Were we made in a binary computer's image or are binary computers made in our image?

[Gary Childress]

Were we made in a binary computer's image or are binary computers made in our image?

Can a computer counsel its creator? And if not, then what are computers other than computation machines that follow instructions? Is a computational engine made of metal, plastic, silicon, etc, "aware" any more than a steam engine is "aware"? How is carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc. "aware" any more than metal plastic, silicon, etc are aware? And yet, I am said to be "made" of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc. and I am aware. Cogito ergo sum?

[Gary Childress]

thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis is a binary system. Hegel lived in a binary framework. Slaves live in a binary framework. Masters live in a binary framework. Those who do not wish to be slaves anymore wish to become masters. Those who do not wish to become masters anymore become either slaves or else they transcend that duality. And when the former masters transcend, they leave slaves without masters. Do the slaves transcend or must they become their own masters? And if they become their own masters, do they transcend or do they remain binary?

And if all that is around me is not me, then who or what am I?

[Age]

Age, you have gone off the rails, screwed the pooch, flipped your wig, drunk the kool-aid, buttered your bread, made your bed etc.

'you' have MADE 'this sort of CLAIM' at least a couple of times ALREADY. BUT, 'you' NEVER ACTUALLY even 'TRY TO' ATTACK the ACTUAL STATEMENTS and CLAIMS I MAKE. 'you' ONLY 'TRY TO' ATTACK the 'person', INSTEAD.

Now, BECAUSE 'you' seem Truly INCAPABLE of 'arguing' AGAINST 'my WORDS' would 'you' like to EXPLAIN WHY 'you' think 'the above' ABOUT 'me', EXACTLY?

OBVIOUSLY "gary childress" MADE False AND Wrong ACCUSATIONS ABOUT 'me', AND, just AS OBVIOUS then IS "lacewing's" CLAIM that "gary childress" having A GREAT DEAL OF CLARITY IS ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY JUST AS False AND Wrong, as well as be TOTALLY ABSURD and RIDICULOUS.

If 'you' would LIKE TO CLAIM otherwise, then by ALL MEANS PRESENT 'your' REASONS WHY "commonsense". 'I', for one, would be VERY INTERESTED in SEEING, and HEARING, 'them'.

You are so far out of it that your statements cannot be addressed other than to say that the author of the statements, an entity that holds itself apart from the human race, is cray-cray.

LOL So, ONCE AGAIN, we have ANOTHER PRIME example of one who just MAKES A PRESUMPTION, WITHOUT EVER ACTUALLY CLARIFYING, and then BASES ALL of 'its' FURTHER VIEWS ON and OFF A PRESUMPTION, of all 'things'.

While NEVER ONCE STOPPING to even CHECK TO SEE if the PRESUMPTION is RIGHT in ANY way, nor even if AT ALL.

And, all I essentially stated in my statement here is that "gary childress's" presumptions and claims were False AND Wrong. LOL What could possibly be SO HARD or DIFFICULT about just ADDRESSING 'this'?

[Age]

'you' have MADE 'this sort of CLAIM' at least a couple of times ALREADY. BUT, 'you' NEVER ACTUALLY even 'TRY TO' ATTACK the ACTUAL STATEMENTS and CLAIMS I MAKE. 'you' ONLY 'TRY TO' ATTACK the 'person', INSTEAD.

Are you sure you're being "attacked"?

'I', personally, can NOT ACTUALLY be 'attacked', and this is WHY I SPECIFICALLY and PURPOSELY USED the 'try to' words here.

Now, do the following words appear to 'you' as being an 'attempt' at an 'attack' of 'a person', or of 'the words' from one:
'Age, you have gone off the rails, screwed the pooch, flipped your wig, drunk the kool-aid, buttered your bread, made your bed etc.'

What do you mean by "attacked"?

ATTEMPTING TO 'ridicule' "the other".

How do you "attack" a statement without also "attacking" the person who made it?

By FOCUSING ON 'the words' ALONE, and LEAVING OUT ANY and ALL references TO 'the person'.

[Gary Childress]

'you' have MADE 'this sort of CLAIM' at least a couple of times ALREADY. BUT, 'you' NEVER ACTUALLY even 'TRY TO' ATTACK the ACTUAL STATEMENTS and CLAIMS I MAKE. 'you' ONLY 'TRY TO' ATTACK the 'person', INSTEAD.

Are you sure you're being "attacked"?

'I', personally, can NOT ACTUALLY be 'attacked', and this is WHY I SPECIFICALLY and PURPOSELY USED the 'try to' words here.

Now, do the following words appear to 'you' as being an 'attempt' at an 'attack' of 'a person', or of 'the words' from one:
'Age, you have gone off the rails, screwed the pooch, flipped your wig, drunk the kool-aid, buttered your bread, made your bed etc.'

What do you mean by "attacked"?

ATTEMPTING TO 'ridicule' "the other".

How do you "attack" a statement without also "attacking" the person who made it?

By FOCUSING ON 'the words' ALONE, and LEAVING OUT ANY and ALL references TO 'the person'.

I hear you. However, sometimes focusing on the person is a way of holding a speaker "accountable" for what they say. Otherwise, a person could say, "Is murder really wrong, prove it". At which point asking that person if he'd like to be murdered would probably be the best way to pull their head out of their ass. It's better than saying, "I can't prove it". And if they feel invulnerable and say, "You don't know me, you'll never be able to murder me, now answer me and prove that murder is wrong." Then a philosopher has to get even more "personal" or else the interlocutor is going to be running around the Intenet with an immortal feeling of impunity spreading bad that ought not to be spread.

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[Age]

Are you sure you're being "attacked"?

'I', personally, can NOT ACTUALLY be 'attacked', and this is WHY I SPECIFICALLY and PURPOSELY USED the 'try to' words here.

Now, do the following words appear to 'you' as being an 'attempt' at an 'attack' of 'a person', or of 'the words' from one:
'Age, you have gone off the rails, screwed the pooch, flipped your wig, drunk the kool-aid, buttered your bread, made your bed etc.'

What do you mean by "attacked"?

ATTEMPTING TO 'ridicule' "the other".

How do you "attack" a statement without also "attacking" the person who made it?

By FOCUSING ON 'the words' ALONE, and LEAVING OUT ANY and ALL references TO 'the person'.

I hear you. However, sometimes focusing on the person is a way of holding a speaker "accountable" for what they say.

'you ARE absolutely FREE to FOCUS on 'the speaker/writer' AS MUCH AS you like. BUT, in the meantime you are NOT FOCUSING on the 'ACTUAL words' AS WELL, FULLY, then you will OBVIOUSLY LOSE TRACK of what 'it' IS that you WANT TO HOLD 'the speaker/writer' ACCOUNTABLE FOR, EXACTLY?

See, can a 'person' Truly HEAR, and SEE, what IS ACTUALLY being SAID/WRITTEN, FULLY, while 'they' ARE FOCUSING ON some 'thing' ELSE, like, for example, 'the person'?

To be ABLE to HOLD "another" ACCOUNTABLE, for what they say, then one would HAVE TO BE FOCUSING ON 'the words' ALONE. As I have been CONTINUALLY SAYING and STATING throughout this forum here.

Otherwise, a person could say, "Is murder really wrong, prove it".

This sentence here does NOT, LOGICALLY, FOLLOW FROM your previous sentence.

Absolutely ANY one can SAY absolutely ANY 'thing', like 'this' just here, BUT what has 'this' got to do WITH FOCUSING on 'the person'?

If 'you', for example, SAID, 'Murder really wrong', and "another" ASKED and SAID, 'Is murder really wrong, prove it', then what would FOCUSING ON 'the person' ACTUALLY ACHIEVE here?

At which point asking that person if he'd like to be murdered would probably be the best way to pull their head out of their ass.

WHY would absolutely ANY human being ASSUME such a 'thing' as 'this' here?

It's better than saying, "I can't prove it".

I can NOT even FOLLOW what 'you' are saying, and GETTING AT, here, "gary childress".

And if they feel invulnerable and say, "You don't know me, you'll never be able to murder me, now answer me and prove that murder is wrong."

There ARE just SO MANY 'ifs' here.

What happens IF the FIRST of 'your' 'ifs' here did NOT even eventuate IN THE BEGINNING?

Then a philosopher has to get even more "personal" or else the interlocutor is going to be running around the Intenet with an immortal feeling of impunity spreading bad that ought not to be spread.

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

FROM ONE PRESUMPTION, TO ANOTHER, TO ANOTHER, OVER and OVER. ALL BECAUSE 'you' were FOCUSING ON 'the person' INSTEAD OF the ACTUAL WORDS being SAID and USED.

[Gary Childress]

'I', personally, can NOT ACTUALLY be 'attacked', and this is WHY I SPECIFICALLY and PURPOSELY USED the 'try to' words here.

Now, do the following words appear to 'you' as being an 'attempt' at an 'attack' of 'a person', or of 'the words' from one:
'Age, you have gone off the rails, screwed the pooch, flipped your wig, drunk the kool-aid, buttered your bread, made your bed etc.'



ATTEMPTING TO 'ridicule' "the other".



By FOCUSING ON 'the words' ALONE, and LEAVING OUT ANY and ALL references TO 'the person'.

I hear you. However, sometimes focusing on the person is a way of holding a speaker "accountable" for what they say.

'you ARE absolutely FREE to FOCUS on 'the speaker/writer' AS MUCH AS you like. BUT, in the meantime you are NOT FOCUSING on the 'ACTUAL words' AS WELL, FULLY, then you will OBVIOUSLY LOSE TRACK of what 'it' IS that you WANT TO HOLD 'the speaker/writer' ACCOUNTABLE FOR, EXACTLY?

See, can a 'person' Truly HEAR, and SEE, what IS ACTUALLY being SAID/WRITTEN, FULLY, while 'they' ARE FOCUSING ON some 'thing' ELSE, like, for example, 'the person'?

To be ABLE to HOLD "another" ACCOUNTABLE, for what they say, then one would HAVE TO BE FOCUSING ON 'the words' ALONE. As I have been CONTINUALLY SAYING and STATING throughout this forum here.

Otherwise, a person could say, "Is murder really wrong, prove it".

This sentence here does NOT, LOGICALLY, FOLLOW FROM your previous sentence.

Absolutely ANY one can SAY absolutely ANY 'thing', like 'this' just here, BUT what has 'this' got to do WITH FOCUSING on 'the person'?

If 'you', for example, SAID, 'Murder really wrong', and "another" ASKED and SAID, 'Is murder really wrong, prove it', then what would FOCUSING ON 'the person' ACTUALLY ACHIEVE here?

At which point asking that person if he'd like to be murdered would probably be the best way to pull their head out of their ass.

WHY would absolutely ANY human being ASSUME such a 'thing' as 'this' here?

It's better than saying, "I can't prove it".

I can NOT even FOLLOW what 'you' are saying, and GETTING AT, here, "gary childress".

And if they feel invulnerable and say, "You don't know me, you'll never be able to murder me, now answer me and prove that murder is wrong."

There ARE just SO MANY 'ifs' here.

What happens IF the FIRST of 'your' 'ifs' here did NOT even eventuate IN THE BEGINNING?

Then a philosopher has to get even more "personal" or else the interlocutor is going to be running around the Intenet with an immortal feeling of impunity spreading bad that ought not to be spread.

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

FROM ONE PRESUMPTION, TO ANOTHER, TO ANOTHER, OVER and OVER. ALL BECAUSE 'you' were FOCUSING ON 'the person' INSTEAD OF the ACTUAL WORDS being SAID and USED.

Fair enough. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. There are some ways that you speak that create disharmony in me and that's often the first thing I notice in your writings.

The reason I address the person is that I've been reading a lot of Noam Chomsky's political writings and commentary. He tends to hold people accountable for their words and deeds. He names names and speaks truths about the people he names. The truths of what some others have said and done get me riled.

Political leaders of my country have gotten us into one war after another. And they have done it repeatedly in spite of our experiences in EVERY single one of those wars. We should have learned by now that sending soldiers around the world to represent the United States is not the way to do things. But our leaders KEPT DOING IT.

Biden is a little different and is doing things a little differently, however, some in my country are angry at Biden because he "lost" our unjust war in Afghanistan. An unjust war is lost from the very beginning. Biden did nothing more wrong than the leaders who got us into wars that we didn't belong in to begin with. At least Biden didn't bomb Afghanistan before leaving in order to "restore American dignity" as the Nixon administration did in Vietnam in order to bring N. Vietnam to its knees at the bargaining table. And many Afghanis who helped us died because of that withdrawal. But that's what happens when we get ourselves into unjust wars. People die who shouldn't have died.

Many Americans are angry for what our leaders have done in our names. And we don't know who to hold accountable aside from presidents who have stood at the steering wheel and knowingly signed orders to get us into those wars.

[Age]

I hear you. However, sometimes focusing on the person is a way of holding a speaker "accountable" for what they say.

'you ARE absolutely FREE to FOCUS on 'the speaker/writer' AS MUCH AS you like. BUT, in the meantime you are NOT FOCUSING on the 'ACTUAL words' AS WELL, FULLY, then you will OBVIOUSLY LOSE TRACK of what 'it' IS that you WANT TO HOLD 'the speaker/writer' ACCOUNTABLE FOR, EXACTLY?

See, can a 'person' Truly HEAR, and SEE, what IS ACTUALLY being SAID/WRITTEN, FULLY, while 'they' ARE FOCUSING ON some 'thing' ELSE, like, for example, 'the person'?

To be ABLE to HOLD "another" ACCOUNTABLE, for what they say, then one would HAVE TO BE FOCUSING ON 'the words' ALONE. As I have been CONTINUALLY SAYING and STATING throughout this forum here.

Otherwise, a person could say, "Is murder really wrong, prove it".

This sentence here does NOT, LOGICALLY, FOLLOW FROM your previous sentence.

Absolutely ANY one can SAY absolutely ANY 'thing', like 'this' just here, BUT what has 'this' got to do WITH FOCUSING on 'the person'?

If 'you', for example, SAID, 'Murder really wrong', and "another" ASKED and SAID, 'Is murder really wrong, prove it', then what would FOCUSING ON 'the person' ACTUALLY ACHIEVE here?

At which point asking that person if he'd like to be murdered would probably be the best way to pull their head out of their ass.

WHY would absolutely ANY human being ASSUME such a 'thing' as 'this' here?

It's better than saying, "I can't prove it".

I can NOT even FOLLOW what 'you' are saying, and GETTING AT, here, "gary childress".

And if they feel invulnerable and say, "You don't know me, you'll never be able to murder me, now answer me and prove that murder is wrong."

There ARE just SO MANY 'ifs' here.

What happens IF the FIRST of 'your' 'ifs' here did NOT even eventuate IN THE BEGINNING?

Then a philosopher has to get even more "personal" or else the interlocutor is going to be running around the Intenet with an immortal feeling of impunity spreading bad that ought not to be spread.

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

FROM ONE PRESUMPTION, TO ANOTHER, TO ANOTHER, OVER and OVER. ALL BECAUSE 'you' were FOCUSING ON 'the person' INSTEAD OF the ACTUAL WORDS being SAID and USED.

Fair enough. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. There are some ways that you speak that create disharmony in me and that's often the first thing I notice in your writings.

The reason I address the person is that I've been reading a lot of Noam Chomsky's political writings and commentary. He tends to hold people accountable for their words and deeds. He names names and speaks truths about the people he names. The truths of what some others have said and done get me riled.

Okay, but when I mentioned 'attacking' 'the person' here, I am referring to when two are having a discussion/conversation and 'one' is 'attacking' the "other", personally, in direct response to 'them'. Whereas, what that human being you speak of above here is doing is talking ABOUT "others", when NOT speaking TO 'them'.

Holding people ACCOUNTABLE for what 'they' SAY and DO is a completely DIFFERENT 'thing'.

Political leaders of my country have gotten us into one war after another. And they have done it repeatedly in spite of our experiences in EVERY single one of those wars. We should have learned by now that sending soldiers around the world to represent the United States is not the way to do things. But our leaders KEPT DOING IT.

1. I would say a LOT KNOW that that country sending soldiers around the world for the OBVIOUSLY Wrong reasons is NOT 'the way to do things', as some call 'it'.

2. I will suggest that if and when 'you' STOP calling some human beings "leaders", then 'you' WILL STOP FOLLOWING 'those human beings'. And, especially when KNOWING 'those human beings' ARE DOING the Wrong things.

Biden is a little different and is doing things a little differently, however, some in my country are angry at Biden because he "lost" our unjust war in Afghanistan.

What happens in that TINY, LITTLE and INSIGNIFICANT country REALLY does NOT have absolutely ANY 'thing' to do with REAL philosophical ISSUES and QUESTIONS.

An unjust war is lost from the very beginning.

There is NO 'just' war, and NEVER will be. Unless, OF COURSE, we are talking ABOUT a 'war' BETWEEN 'Right' AND 'Wrong' being FOUGHT within. That is; the ONLY 'JUST' war.

Biden did nothing more wrong than the leaders who got us into wars that we didn't belong in to begin with. At least Biden didn't bomb Afghanistan before leaving in order to "restore American dignity" as the Nixon administration did in Vietnam in order to bring N. Vietnam to its knees at the bargaining table. And many Afghanis who helped us died because of that withdrawal. But that's what happens when we get ourselves into unjust wars. People die who shouldn't have died.

Do 'you' think 'you' are able to LOOK OUTSIDE of just what happens in that TINY and LITTLE INSIGNIFICANT country?

Many Americans are angry for what our leaders have done in our names. And we don't know who to hold accountable aside from presidents who have stood at the steering wheel and knowingly signed orders to get us into those wars.

And, HOW are 'those human beings' being HELD ACCOUNTABLE, EXACTLY?