On wars

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 5285
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On wars

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:35 am 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
Has ANY human being, reading this thread, ever even imagined war is waged by some thing other than people, themselves?

If yes, then will you please say what that thing is or what those things are? Thank you in advance.

henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:35 am 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
What, EXACTLY, would there be that could and would make a war 'just', to you?

henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:35 am How can wholesale murder of strangers and destruction of property ever be just?

how is repellin' an invasion unjust?
Because of how the word 'invasion' can used to 'try to' "justify" the killing of "others".

If you REALLY BELIEVED that 'invasion is unjust' and that the 'repelling of an invasion is just', then you would have NO issue at all of handing back over the property, which your ancestors had STOLEN, from "others", correct?
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:35 am how is overthrowin' an oppressive gov unjust?
Because of how the word 'overthrowing' can be used to 'try to' "justify" the killing of "others".

Armed conflict is always UNJUST. FULL STOP.

But repelling invaders and overthrowing oppressors can JUSTIFIED, and so can be VERY JUST.

But, how are you defining the word 'war' here?
Age
Posts: 5285
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On wars

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:44 am And what about my three other clarifying questions, why did you not answer those ones?

all the answers are in my post,
Maybe all of your, so called, "answers" are in your post. BUT, your "answers" do NOT answer the ACTUAL clarifying questions that I asked you.
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:44 am if you're willin' to tease 'em out...
There is NOT a human being that could FIND nor TEASE OUT from your, so called, "answers", nor replies, answers to the ACTUAL clarifying questions, which I posed to you about YOUR 'wife'.

This is, of course I am PROVEN otherwise.

You OBVIOUSLY could NOT prove otherwise, so let us SEE if ANY other human being can and will PROVE me WRONG here, okay?
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:44 am I'm not goin' through an endless cycle of dissections with you, age...
You would NOT HAVE TO, IF you just answered the ACTUAL clarifying questions, which I ask you.
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:44 am been there, done that: no fun
This is just an attempt at PURE DISTRACTION from the fact that if you did answer my ACTUAL clarifying questions, OPENLY and Honestly, then what would be CLEARLY SEEN is that would be consistently CONTRADICTING what you have previous stated.

So, to be CLEAR you would have NO hesitation shooting your wife, because she took YOUR television, from 'you', correct?

Your DISMISSIVENESS of answering this actual clarifying question posed to you speaks volumes, and says more about 'you' than you could have imagined.

henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:44 am 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...
And, where, and when, 'you' are from, children grow up BELIEVING that depriving "others" of their life, their liberty, and their property can be JUSTIFIED. Just like 'you' do.

See, because of where you came from, you are NOT YET AWARE of your ONE WAY and ONE SIDED view of things here. You have been so badly ABUSED that you actually now, when this is being written, BELIEVE that you have the right to ABUSE "others". As evidenced above in YOUR OWN writings.
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:44 am 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
And 'shoot 'em dead', is your motto, if they try to, correct?

The way you actually speak in this forum is encouraging people to disrespect the lives, liberties, and properties of "others", just as 'you' do.

But, at the moment, you can NOT see this, as you are too BLINDED by your OWN BELIEFS.

I have been using our past discussions to slowly HIGHLIGHT, SHOW, and REVEAL this fact, which more and more are starting to SEE, and realize.
Age
Posts: 5285
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On wars

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:20 am
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:35 am 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).
How far back in history do you actually LOOK, and SEE?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:20 am 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.
Age
Posts: 5285
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On wars

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:31 am 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
Yes we KNOW that 'you' have absolutely NO problem at all in killing or trying to to kill "other" human beings.

You have consistently said this and have made this PERFECTLY CLEAR.

What you have YET to make PERFECTLY CLEAR is if you have absolutely NO problem at all at killing 'YOUR' wife for doing the EXACT SAME thing "another" human being would? That is; taking 'YOUR' television, or spatula, for example?

YOUR 'distractions' do NOT work on me.
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:31 am 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
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2146
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: On wars

Post by RCSaunders »

Age wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:04 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:20 am
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:35 am 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).
How far back in history do you actually LOOK, and SEE?
Not far enough for the subject, but I was only addressing Henry's argument about defending against invasion of his country, which happens to be the United States.

No war in history can be justified, including the American Revolutionary War. Before that, the United States did not exist as a country.

It would be easier to believe those who defend war on the basis of defense if they said about it what I say about self defense: I would not hesitate to kill anyone who physically threatened me or mine and left me no alternative, but I would detest having to do it and would never celebrate it. In the days before antibiotics and modern antiseptics, the only way to eliminate some infections (like anthrax) from a building was to burn it down. It was necessary and solved the problem, but nobody celebrated it as some kind of victory. I've never met anyone who defends war who does not do it without a sense glee and lust for glory, as though it were something grand and noble, instead of an appropriate sense of horror and disgust.

Any means of evading war is preferable to war. That does not mean, "appeasement," which is only bending to extortion, but it does mean not supporting the only possible agencies of wars, governments.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9319
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: On wars

Post by henry quirk »

Maybe all of your, so called, "answers" are in your post. BUT, your "answers" do NOT answer the ACTUAL clarifying questions that I asked you.

make do, age
Age
Posts: 5285
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On wars

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:13 pm Maybe all of your, so called, "answers" are in your post. BUT, your "answers" do NOT answer the ACTUAL clarifying questions that I asked you.

make do, age
ANOTHER deflection tactic, "henry quirk"?

You OBVIOUSLY can NOT answer my clarifying question Honestly, without contradicting your claims. So, you can attempt to deflect, as much or as often as you like. This does NOT change what thee Truth IS.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9319
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: On wars

Post by henry quirk »

Age wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:18 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:13 pm Maybe all of your, so called, "answers" are in your post. BUT, your "answers" do NOT answer the ACTUAL clarifying questions that I asked you.

make do, age
ANOTHER deflection tactic, "henry quirk"?

You OBVIOUSLY can NOT answer my clarifying question Honestly, without contradicting your claims. So, you can attempt to deflect, as much or as often as you like. This does NOT change what thee Truth IS.
oh no...age thinks poorly of me

meh
Age
Posts: 5285
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On wars

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm
Age wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:04 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:20 am
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).
How far back in history do you actually LOOK, and SEE?
Not far enough for the subject, but I was only addressing Henry's argument about defending against invasion of his country, which happens to be the United States.
So, is that parcel of land generally known as the "united state", "henry quirks"?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm No war in history can be justified, including the American Revolutionary War.
OBVIOUSLY.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm Before that, the United States did not exist as a country.
But it did exist as a parcel of land, which human beings lived on, and with. But, which sadly was taken, or stolen, from them, by those who 'invaded'.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm It would be easier to believe those who defend war on the basis of defense if they said about it what I say about self defense: I would not hesitate to kill anyone who physically threatened me or mine and left me no alternative,
So, some one could say, "I am going to hurt your finger", or, " I am going to hurt those who are "yours" ", and, to you, 'you' are "justified" to then just go and kill that one, correct?

By the way, there is ALWAYS an 'alternative'.

Oh, and how 'many' are 'yours', exactly? And, when, exactly, do you go from 'not hesitating to kill any one' to 'hesitating to'?

For example, if I was to say, "I want to and I am going rape and torture your children", then would you 'not hesitate to kill me', right?

But, If I was to say, "I want to and I am going to rape and torture your grandmother's first removed second cousin "fred" ", then would you "hesitate to kill me" or still "not hesitate to kill me"?

If you still would "not hesitate to kill me", then when would you move from 'not hesitating' to 'hesitating'?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm but I would detest having to do it and would never celebrate it.
So, WHY EXACTLY would you do it?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm In the days before antibiotics and modern antiseptics, the only way to eliminate some infections (like anthrax) from a building was to burn it down. It was necessary and solved the problem, but nobody celebrated it as some kind of victory.
But who would really care either way, anyway? It was after all only a building?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm I've never met anyone who defends war who does not do it without a sense glee and lust for glory, as though it were something grand and noble, instead of an appropriate sense of horror and disgust.

Any means of evading war is preferable to war. That does not mean, "appeasement," which is only bending to extortion, but it does mean not supporting the only possible agencies of wars, governments.
Age
Posts: 5285
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On wars

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:22 pm
Age wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:18 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:13 pm Maybe all of your, so called, "answers" are in your post. BUT, your "answers" do NOT answer the ACTUAL clarifying questions that I asked you.

make do, age
ANOTHER deflection tactic, "henry quirk"?

You OBVIOUSLY can NOT answer my clarifying question Honestly, without contradicting your claims. So, you can attempt to deflect, as much or as often as you like. This does NOT change what thee Truth IS.
oh no...age thinks poorly of me

meh

Why 'you' are, the exact way that 'you' ARE, is already Truly understood. So, I do NOT think poorly of 'you' at all. That was just and ASSUMPTION of YOURS, only.

Your different tactics at attempting to divert away from YOUR INABILITY to be OPEN and Honest and not contradict what you have previously said, however, is not at all that interesting. In fact it has become Truly BORING. But perfectly understandable anyway.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9319
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"In fact it has become Truly BORING"

Post by henry quirk »

I'm okay with that
commonsense
Posts: 2849
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: On wars

Post by commonsense »

commonsense wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:06 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 6:45 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 3:04 pm

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.
RC, why would anyone who is eager to die be expected to love government?
Last edited by commonsense on Sat Sep 19, 2020 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2146
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: On wars

Post by RCSaunders »

Age wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:56 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm
Age wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:04 am
How far back in history do you actually LOOK, and SEE?
Not far enough for the subject, but I was only addressing Henry's argument about defending against invasion of his country, which happens to be the United States.
So, is that parcel of land generally known as the "united state", "henry quirks"?
Are you being intentionally obtuse or do you really not understand. I'm only talking about what Henry said.
Age wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:56 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm No war in history can be justified, including the American Revolutionary War.
OBVIOUSLY.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm Before that, the United States did not exist as a country.
But it did exist as a parcel of land, which human beings lived on, and with. But, which sadly was taken, or stolen, from them, by those who 'invaded'.
So anyone who moves to a new land is an, "invader," in your opinion? Are you opposed to all immigration? Do you really believe all the land in the United States was, "stolen?" Are you not aware of the relationship between the American Indians and first settlers?
Age wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:56 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm It would be easier to believe those who defend war on the basis of defense if they said about it what I say about self defense: I would not hesitate to kill anyone who physically threatened me or mine and left me no alternative,
So, some one could say, "I am going to hurt your finger", or, " I am going to hurt those who are "yours" ", and, to you, 'you' are "justified" to then just go and kill that one, correct?
If you don't know how to discern when a threat is a genuine one, you'll probably only learn the difference by dying.
Age wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:56 pm By the way, there is ALWAYS an 'alternative'.
Of course. You can allow yourself to be killed, if your life does not matter to you. It's a choice.

Human beings do not deal with one another by use of force. An organism, no matter how much it looks like a human being, that resorts to the use of force is not human. I am under no obligation to consider the life or welfare of a vicious animal that threatens me. That's why rabid animals have to be put down.
Age wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:56 pm Oh, and how 'many' are 'yours', exactly? And, when, exactly, do you go from 'not hesitating to kill any one' to 'hesitating to'?
Everything of value that is mine because I have earned or produced it and everyone I love and is a part of my life is mine, because they are my life. To threaten any of those is to threaten my life. In most cases, I can and do protect what is mine without ever having to resort to force.
Age wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:56 pm For example, if I was to say, "I want to and I am going rape and torture your children", then would you 'not hesitate to kill me', right?
But, If I was to say, "I want to and I am going to rape and torture your grandmother's first removed second cousin "fred" ", then would you "hesitate to kill me" or still "not hesitate to kill me"?

If you still would "not hesitate to kill me", then when would you move from 'not hesitating' to 'hesitating'?
I know the difference between a genuine threat and rhetoric. As with everything else in life, one has to make their judgments based on their best evidence and reason, part of which is evaluating the risk involved in any choice. When an individual goes out of his way to convince me he really intends to do harm to me or mine, it's worth the risk to defend the innocent against the threat of evil.
Age wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:56 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm but I would detest having to do it and would never celebrate it.
So, WHY EXACTLY would you do it?
Because I have values and I value what is mine higher than I value a vicious animal that would destroy what I value. Wouldn't you kill a mosquito that carries malaria or yellow fever to save a child?
Age wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:56 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm In the days before antibiotics and modern antiseptics, the only way to eliminate some infections (like anthrax) from a building was to burn it down. It was necessary and solved the problem, but nobody celebrated it as some kind of victory.
But who would really care either way, anyway? It was after all only a building?
The one whose home it is would certainly care. A building must be created by someone's effort as a means of serving some human purpose, such a shelter and a place to live and raise a family, for example. Like all other human possessions, it represents the product of one's life, just as much as one's hair and skin.

In this day when so may are worrying about the poor homeless, I guess you'd say, what do they need a home for, it's only a building?
commonsense
Posts: 2849
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: On wars kip

Post by commonsense »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:59 pm
commonsense wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:06 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 6:45 pm
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.
Take his place at what??? At going to war and having the chance to kill and/or be killed.

Let’s look at it this way—there’s a war going on and the government needs to send another person to be an infantryman. There are 2 people to choose from: me, and you.

I will volunteer because I don’t want you to have to go in place of me. I am braver than you. I am stronger than you. I can better tolerate excessive thirst, hunger, blazing heat, frigid cold and being soaking wet than you.

I will not let you take my place. Nor will I let any random person out of hundreds of thousands of available candidates take my potential turn to go. I will hate to do it, but I will do it, in order to protect you from the horrors of killing and/or being killed.

You’ll be safe because I will shield you.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2146
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: On wars kip

Post by RCSaunders »

commonsense wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:38 pm You’ll be safe because I will shield you.
Shield me from what? The "enemy" is not interested in me, it's only interested in taking over the government. I don't like any government, the one that would oppress me now, if it could, or the one that takes over, if it can. I'm able to live as I choose under any government or leave for a place where I can. You won't be protecting me from anything.
Post Reply