On wars

[RCSaunders]

yep

me too

it's got to be what I judge as a just war

if it is: I'll serve

You sure must love government if you're eager to die for it.

[commonsense]

me too

it's got to be what I judge as a just war

if it is: I'll serve

You sure must love government if you're eager to die for it.

eager?

Maybe Henry, like me, just doesn’t want someone else to take his place. Maybe he hopes not to die.

[henry quirk]

me too

it's got to be what I judge as a just war

if it is: I'll serve

You sure must love government if you're eager to die for it.

first, if the cause is just (I determine that) I don't give a flip if gov is on my side or the other side

second, if I'm lucky, I won't be the one dyin'

[RCSaunders]

it's got to be what I judge as a just war

if it is: I'll serve

You sure must love government if you're eager to die for it.

eager?

Maybe Henry, like me, just doesn’t want someone else to take his place. Maybe he hopes not to die.

Take his place at what? Maybe you don't want to die, and hope you won't, but if you do, which is very likely, you'll be called a hero who laid down his life for his country, which means the government, not the country's earth and people.

[RCSaunders]

it's got to be what I judge as a just war

if it is: I'll serve

You sure must love government if you're eager to die for it.

first, if the cause is just (I determine that) I don't give a flip if gov is on my side or the other side

second, if I'm lucky, I won't be the one dyin'

If there's a war, it will be the government that wages it. Individuals do not start wars, only gangs and governments do. So it doesn't matter what you, "give a flip," about, if you hand yourself over to the government to fight it's war that's what you'll be supporting. And you'll probably die doing it, and be called a hero for throwing your life away to line some munitions manufacturer's pockets.

How can wholesale murder of strangers and destruction of property ever be just?

Oh, I know. It's always, "I don't want to go to war, the other guy does." Well, he doesn't either, he's just bought the same lie you have. So there will always be wars because nobody is willing to admit the "justification," is always one big lie, and most people just love to wallow in it and call themselves patriotic.

[commonsense]

You sure must love government if you're eager to die for it.

first, if the cause is just (I determine that) I don't give a flip if gov is on my side or the other side

second, if I'm lucky, I won't be the one dyin'

If there's a war, it will be the government that wages it. Individuals do not start wars, only gangs and governments do. So it doesn't matter what you, "give a flip," about, if you hand yourself over to the government to fight it's war that's what you'll be supporting. And you'll probably die doing it, and be called a hero for throwing your life away to line some munitions manufacturer's pockets.

How can wholesale murder of strangers and destruction of property ever be just?

Oh, I know. It's always, "I don't want to go to war, the other guy does." Well, he doesn't either, he's just bought the same lie you have. So there will always be wars because nobody is willing to admit the "justification," is always one big lie, and most people just love to wallow in it and call themselves patriotic.

I think you have a good basic understanding of war, but nothing beyond that.

[Age]

Would you sell your wife or child for a TV?

no, cuz I love them, and, slavery is wrong, but: sure as shit, I'll shoot a stranger who comes into my home and tries to make off with what's mine (tv, computer, spatula, toothpick, piece of moldy bread, etc.)

What happens if your wife or child attempts to steal "another's" tv, spatula, toothpick, or piece of moldy bread, do you then value that tv or that moldy piece of bread more than your wife or your child's life? Is it okay for the owner of that tv or that toothpick to shoot those 'strangers' who are your wife and/or child?

What about if your wife or your child steals your tv, do you still value that tv more than those thieves lives? Would you shoot either of these people?

If no, then why not?

I would prefer my kid not be a thief, and if I'm doin' my job as his uncle, he'll never be, but, reality is: if he's dumb enough, greedy enough, to put himself at risk that way, he'll get what he deserves when he gets shot

for the record: I've made it clear to him if I find him deprivin' another of life, liberty, or property, I'll kick his ass up one side and down the other

And what about my three other clarifying questions, why did you not answer those ones?

I also asked about your wife as well, would you shoot her if you caught her stealing your tv, or your toothpick?

By the way, some call kicking children's asses, especially in the manner of "up one side and down the other" as depriving them of their liberty and abuse of their property. But to you that is NO concern at all, correct? Because to you 'that wife' and 'that child' are YOUR property, and you can do whatever you like with YOUR property, correct?

Also, along with your type of thinking comes the BELIEF that NO can tell you what you can do with YOUR property NOR deprive you of YOUR property also, am I right?

If yes, then this would include NO human being is allowed to protect YOUR property from being pissed or from being abused by you. Because you BELIEVE you have the right to YOUR property, true?

[Age]

If 'war' is a state of armed conflict between different groups of people, then no war can be just.

All states of conflicts between groups of armed human beings is terrifying. All states of armed conflict are acts of terror.

Acts of terror can NOT be justified.

Therefore, all war can NOT be justified, and thus war, itself, is UNJUST.

[commonsense]

If 'war' is a state of armed conflict between different groups of people, then no war can be just.

All states of conflicts between groups of armed human beings is terrifying. All states of armed conflict are acts of terror.

Acts of terror can NOT be justified.

Therefore, all war can NOT be justified, and thus war, itself, is UNJUST.

I agree with your conclusion. War is unjustifiable.

I wish you had not based your argument on a faulty definition of terrorist acts.

First of all, that an incident is terrifying does not make it consistent with terrorism.

Acts of terrorism occur during peacetime or against civilians or non-combatants in wartime.

Also, acts of terror are justified on religious or political grounds all the time by the perpetrators. Whether their reasoning is valid is a relative matter.

If wars did not exist, unarmed conflicts would still occur but unarmed arbitration would be the final resolution of conflict. It is not necessary for wars to exist.

[commonsense]

Killing a human, as an aggression, is immoral and illegal in peacetime. Why is this not the case at all times?

[henry quirk]

If there's a war, it will be the government that wages it.

there's always war, and it's always waged by people...some of the people operate under the umbrella of gov and others don't


it doesn't matter what you, "give a flip," about

sure it does: if I find the war unjust, I ain't fightin' it; if I do, I will


How can wholesale murder of strangers and destruction of property ever be just?

how is repellin' an invasion unjust? how is overthrowin' an oppressive gov unjust?

[henry quirk]

And what about my three other clarifying questions, why did you not answer those ones?

all the answers are in my post, if you're willin' to tease 'em out...I'm not goin' through an endless cycle of dissections with you, age...been there, done that: no fun


By the way, some call kicking children's asses, especially in the manner of "up one side and down the other" as depriving them of their liberty and abuse of their property

where I from, it's called discipline & consequence...the abuse is to let a child get away with theft, to encourage them, through inaction, to disrespect the lives, liberties, and properties of other folks

[RCSaunders]

How can wholesale murder of strangers and destruction of property ever be just?

how is repellin' an invasion unjust? how is overthrowin' an oppressive gov unjust?

There is nothing wrong with repelling an invasion of those who would kill stangers and destroy their property. It is wrong to kill strangers and destroy their property. If the only way you can stop those who kill and destroy things is to kill and destroy things, you've become the same as the invaders. I don't see how local thugs who want harm me are better than foreign ones.

The United States has never been invaded. (Yes, attacked, but not invaded). The worst war ever had nothing to do with repelling invaders--the so-called "civil war" which was perhaps the most uncivilized act ever perpetrated on this continent. Was that a, "just," war?

Is war the only way a government can be overthrown? Not that it makes any difference. Overthrowing an oppressive government by force always results in an even more oppressive government.

[henry quirk]

If the only way you can stop those who kill and destroy things is to kill and destroy things, you've become the same as the invaders

if one, or many, come to kill & destroy, absolutely I have no problem tryin' to to kill them & destroy their stuff first


Is war the only way a government can be overthrown?

of course not: subversion, cultural shift, citizen ennui, can take a nation or gov down as well


I don't see how local thugs who want harm me are better than foreign ones.

obviously

[Age]

If 'war' is a state of armed conflict between different groups of people, then no war can be just.

All states of conflicts between groups of armed human beings is terrifying. All states of armed conflict are acts of terror.

Acts of terror can NOT be justified.

Therefore, all war can NOT be justified, and thus war, itself, is UNJUST.

I agree with your conclusion. War is unjustifiable.

I wish you had not based your argument on a faulty definition of terrorist acts.

Since when have you become the overseer and judicature over ALL of what is a faulty, or a non faulty, definition of words?

Also, and by the way, WHERE, EXACTLY, did I, supposedly, actually define the words "terrorist acts"? I do NOT recall defining ANY thing here, and when I LOOKED BACK I could NOT find absolutely ANY evidence of this.

First of all, that an incident is terrifying does not make it consistent with terrorism.

I agree, as this, to me, is OBVIOUS.

Acts of terrorism occur during peacetime or against civilians or non-combatants in wartime.

I agree, as this, to me, is also OBVIOUS.

Also, acts of terror are justified on religious or political grounds all the time by the perpetrators.

If you are going to go down this line of thinking, then ABSOLUTELY ALL behaviors, by ALL human being,s are, so called, "justified" on some grounds by the perpetrators.

Obviously NO behavior could be done by a human being if it was NOT "justified" on some ground, by that human being perpetrating that mis/behavior.

And, as you would say;

" Whether their reasoning is valid is a relative matter".

Is also an absolutely VERY OBVIOUS fact.

If wars did not exist, unarmed conflicts would still occur but unarmed arbitration would be the final resolution of conflict.

If, and when, wars exist, then unarmed arbitration could also be the final resolution of conflict. But, so what?

Also, if wars did not, then unarmed conflicts would NOT necessarily still occur. This is because when thee True resolution to conflict is shared among human beings, then that would be the FINAL resolution of conflict.

It is not necessary for wars to exist.

OBVIOUSLY.

This is like saying; It is not necessary for televisions, computers, spatulas, nor money to exist. What is SO OBVIOUS usually does NOT 'need' saying nor pointing out. Also, what also is NOT necessary to exist is ANY 'conflict' AT ALL.

But, maybe, to you, I have "provided" ANOTHER, so called, "faulty definition" here?