On wars

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

KLewchuk
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:11 am

Re: On wars

Post by KLewchuk »

commonsense wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 12:45 am
KLewchuk wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 12:43 am
commonsense wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 12:05 am

So true.
OMG, this gets so tiresome.

Would you sell your wife or child for a TV? If so, you are unhealthy and don't know what brings well being. Would you sell your TV for someone else's life? Well, you have no empathy. Does empathy ultimately, in balance, contribute to well being more than a TV? Yes. So, you have no idea of what brings well being.

Is this really that complicated?
Are you suggesting that because I have the belief that a war’s victor decides how history will view the war and its causes and how each side’s methods will be judged, I have no empathy?
Again, OMG. This is a clear discussion of "is-ought". Yes, the victor "often" (not always) write history in practice. However, they should NOT write history if it is contrary to history.

Not that complicated.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2464
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: On wars

Post by FlashDangerpants »

KLewchuk wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 1:09 am
commonsense wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 12:45 am
KLewchuk wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 12:43 am

OMG, this gets so tiresome.

Would you sell your wife or child for a TV? If so, you are unhealthy and don't know what brings well being. Would you sell your TV for someone else's life? Well, you have no empathy. Does empathy ultimately, in balance, contribute to well being more than a TV? Yes. So, you have no idea of what brings well being.

Is this really that complicated?
Are you suggesting that because I have the belief that a war’s victor decides how history will view the war and its causes and how each side’s methods will be judged, I have no empathy?
Again, OMG. This is a clear discussion of "is-ought". Yes, the victor "often" (not always) write history in practice. However, they should NOT write history if it is contrary to history.

Not that complicated.
An actual consequentialist would cheerfully approve of false histories as long if propaganda reduces some form of stress or pain, which is (via shame aversion) pretty much what they are most often for.
commonsense
Posts: 2535
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: On wars

Post by commonsense »

KLewchuk wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 1:09 am
commonsense wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 12:45 am
KLewchuk wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 12:43 am

OMG, this gets so tiresome.

Would you sell your wife or child for a TV? If so, you are unhealthy and don't know what brings well being. Would you sell your TV for someone else's life? Well, you have no empathy. Does empathy ultimately, in balance, contribute to well being more than a TV? Yes. So, you have no idea of what brings well being.

Is this really that complicated?
Are you suggesting that because I have the belief that a war’s victor decides how history will view the war and its causes and how each side’s methods will be judged, I have no empathy?
Again, OMG. This is a clear discussion of "is-ought". Yes, the victor "often" (not always) write history in practice. However, they should NOT write history if it is contrary to history.

Not that complicated.
It was a discussion of “is” until you brought in “ought”.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8813
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: On wars

Post by henry quirk »

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.)
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: On wars

Post by RCSaunders »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 3:09 am 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 has any of that got to do with war? Individuals don't have wars, only gangs and governments have wars, and no gang or government is interested in protecting your life, your wife, your tv, computer, spatula, toothpick, piece of moldy bread, or anything else, no matter what lies they tell you to the contrary. Wars are only possible because individuals are willing to subordinate their own life and interests to the causes of their favorite gangs or governments.

No war is, "just." All war is wholesale murder, oppression, and destruction, but so long as human beings believe their own life is determined by what collective they belong to and not their own choices and actions, or believe that force is an appropriate way for human beings to deal with one another there will be wars.

See, "War Is A Racket," and, "Anti-War," a series, (my articles).
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8813
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: On wars

Post by henry quirk »

What has any of that got to do with war?

hell if I know...I was respondin' to a non-war comment made up-thread by klewchuk
commonsense
Posts: 2535
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: On wars

Post by commonsense »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 2:58 pm
henry quirk wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 3:09 am 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 has any of that got to do with war? Individuals don't have wars, only gangs and governments have wars, and no gang or government is interested in protecting your life, your wife, your tv, computer, spatula, toothpick, piece of moldy bread, or anything else, no matter what lies they tell you to the contrary. Wars are only possible because individuals are willing to subordinate their own life and interests to the causes of their favorite gangs or governments.

No war is, "just." All war is wholesale murder, oppression, and destruction, but so long as human beings believe their own life is determined by what collective they belong to and not their own choices and actions, or believe that force is an appropriate way for human beings to deal with one another there will be wars.

See, "War Is A Racket," and, "Anti-War," a series, (my articles).
I understand from your articles that you are anti-war, and not a pacifist, and that you served in uniform for quite some time. Am I also to understand that you were in a war or even in combat?
KLewchuk
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:11 am

Re: On wars

Post by KLewchuk »

commonsense wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 12:45 am
KLewchuk wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 12:43 am
commonsense wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 12:05 am

So true.
OMG, this gets so tiresome.

Would you sell your wife or child for a TV? If so, you are unhealthy and don't know what brings well being. Would you sell your TV for someone else's life? Well, you have no empathy. Does empathy ultimately, in balance, contribute to well being more than a TV? Yes. So, you have no idea of what brings well being.

Is this really that complicated?
Are you suggesting that because I have the belief that a war’s victor decides how history will view the war and its causes and how each side’s methods will be judged, I have no empathy?

Apologies, accidentally replied to your post vs lines above.
Gary Childress
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: On wars

Post by Gary Childress »

commonsense wrote: Mon Sep 14, 2020 5:53 pm The war in Vietnam has been called an unjust war. What wars have been just? Why so?
I don't know about "wars" in and of themselves being just but there have been times when some belligerents were probably justified in fighting in a war. For example, I should think WW2 was unjust from the German and Japanese side of things, however, the Chinese, Poles, and Soviets were probably as justified as it gets in fighting back against the German and Japanese invasions. I would think when a country is fighting an unprovoked war against an invader, then it's justified to fight back. And in so far as the US was fighting on behalf of countries that were being unjustly invaded by Germany and Japan, I would think we fought for a just cause for the most part.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On wars

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 3:09 am 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?
commonsense
Posts: 2535
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: On wars

Post by commonsense »

HQ, if you were the right age for it, would you go to war?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8813
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: On wars

Post by henry quirk »

commonsense wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 2:50 pm HQ, if you were the right age for it, would you go to war?
yep
commonsense
Posts: 2535
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: On wars

Post by commonsense »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 2:56 pm
commonsense wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 2:50 pm HQ, if you were the right age for it, would you go to war?
yep
me too
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8813
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: On wars

Post by henry quirk »

Age wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 2:00 pm
henry quirk wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 3:09 am 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
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8813
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: On wars

Post by henry quirk »

commonsense wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 2:59 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 2:56 pm
commonsense wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 2:50 pm HQ, if you were the right age for it, would you go to war?
yep
me too
it's got to be what I judge as a just war

if it is: I'll serve
Post Reply