On wars

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

commonsense
Posts: 2888
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: On wars

Post by commonsense »

Age wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:20 am Since when have you become the overseer and judicature over ALL of what is a faulty, or a non faulty, definition of words?
Look it up.
Age wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:20 am 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.
You seemed to misuse the phrase “acts of terror”, which in the vernacular means the same as “terrorist acts”, but apparently not so in this thread, at least according to your judicature.
commonsense
Posts: 2888
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: On wars kip

Post by commonsense »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:57 pm
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.
OK, I won’t shield you. Now you’re drafted to go to war, or arrested for resisting the draft. Or you could leave your home forever, hoping that amnesty will be granted in your lifetime. Or petition the government for status as a conscientious objector, but you’ll still have to go to war, to prison or to a foreign country.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: On wars kip

Post by RCSaunders »

commonsense wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:46 pm OK, I won’t shield you. Now you’re drafted to go to war, or arrested for resisting the draft. Or you could leave your home forever, hoping that amnesty will be granted in your lifetime. Or petition the government for status as a conscientious objector, but you’ll still have to go to war, to prison or to a foreign country.
I'll never have to do any of that. I'm "privileged."
Age
Posts: 5300
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On wars

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 3:19 pm
Age wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:56 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm

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.
Did you MISS or did you FORGET the part where you said; " 'his' country", in relation to "henry quirk"?

See, in case you are NOT YET AWARE, EVERY word here, is written in a 'philosophy forum', and if the words, within a philosophy forum, are NOT of what thee actual Truth IS, ONLY, then I do NOT know of ANY other better place for speaking thee actual Truth, and ONLY thee Truth, ALONE.

I ALREADY understood PERFECTLY that you were talking about what "henry quirk" said.

I just asked you a clarifying question in regards to your claim that the "united states" was 'his', "henry quirks".

What appears now is that it was actually you who was the one who did not really understand what I was talking about and referring to here, correct?

Or were you the one being 'intentionally obtuse'?

What I recommend now is you either just answer the clarifying question OPENLY and Honestly, or you choose better, or MORE Honest, words, and then rewrite what you wrote, especially since this is a philosophy forum. Otherwise, you will continue on writing things, which are completely and utterly FALSE, UNTRUE, or INCORRECT.
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? [/quote]

No.

Why would you think such a thing, or think I meant such a thing?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm Are you opposed to all immigration?
No, the exact opposite, in fact.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm Do you really believe all the land in the United States was, "stolen?"
I do not believe any thing. I neither disbelieve any thing as well.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm Are you not aware of the relationship between the American Indians and first settlers?
Not with first-hand experience, no.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm
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.
You wrote: "I would NOT hesitate to kill ANY one who 'physically' threatened me".

The saying; "I am going to hurt your finger", when said, to you, is a 'genuine physical threat', to you. Therefore, if what you say is True, then you would NOT hesitate to kill that one who said that, correct?

If this is NOT correct, then what part of what you have said and are saying am I misunderstanding, or is just a lie?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm
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.
Is that the ONLY 'alternative' you can think of?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm 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.
I am not sure what this has to do with what I was talking about, and meaning.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm
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.
Okay.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm
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.
Whether the threat is genuine or rhetoric has NEVER been what it is in question here.

I am not sure why you are only focusing on that part.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm 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.
LOL

I am questioning you in regards to WHEN do you move from 'not hesitating' to 'hesitating' NOT in regards to whether the threat is genuine or not but in regards to how far removed does the person or thing have to be, from you? As can be CLEARLY SEEN in my writings above.

If you are capable then just imagine each and every threat I talk about is genuine.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm
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?
How would 'I' or 'you' KNOW whether a mosquito has malaria or not?

Also, what you are proposing here is a bit different to what you alleged you would do above, that is; NOT hesitate to kill a human being if they physically threatened to kill you or yours.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm
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.
This CERTAINLY DOES NOT apply to me.

You seem to have great concern and worry over just physical material 'possessions', yet seem to have absolutely no concern nor worry at all about killing a human being just because they physically threatened you, or the physical things, which you call "yours".
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm 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?
You can 'guess' that if you like. But, if it is even remotely somewhat close to thee actual Truth of things might be something else.

You appear to have a very short-sighted and very narrowed field of view, centered around that one individual 'self' and its perspective only.
Age
Posts: 5300
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On wars kip

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:57 pm
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.
You really have NOT had much experience outside of your own little 'world', have you?

How many actual countries have to been to?
Age
Posts: 5300
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On wars

Post by Age »

commonsense wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:39 pm
Age wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:20 am Since when have you become the overseer and judicature over ALL of what is a faulty, or a non faulty, definition of words?
Look it up.
Okay, done that.

Still does NOT answer the clarifying question, which I posed, to you.

Since when have 'you' become the ONE who KNOWS what a faulty or non faulty definition of A word IS?
commonsense wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:39 pm
Age wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:20 am 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.
You seemed to misuse the phrase “acts of terror”, which in the vernacular means the same as “terrorist acts”, but apparently not so in this thread, at least according to your judicature.
The word 'vernacular', by definition, is such a highly subjective and relative word that what you wrote here does not make any logical sense.

I seemed to misuse the phrase "acts of terror", actually to who and/or what, EXACTLY?

What does the phrase, "terrorist acts" mean, to you, or to the specific group, which you are referring to here, in the 'vernacular'?

If you can NOT or will NOT define what these phrases mean, to you, then you would be the last one who could logically make the claim about "faultiness of defintions" and/or "misuse of phrases".

By the way, who is 'my judicature'?

Also, if you want to logically argue against;

All states of conflicts between groups of armed human beings is terrifying.
All states of armed conflict are acts of terror.
Therefore, if 'war' is a state of armed conflict between different groups of people, then war is an act of terror, as well as being unjust.

Then go right ahead. I AWAIT your 'argument'.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: On wars

Post by RCSaunders »

Age wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 1:58 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 3:19 pm
Age wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:56 pm

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.
Did you MISS or did you FORGET the part where you said; " 'his' country", in relation to "henry quirk"?

See, in case you are NOT YET AWARE, EVERY word here, is written in a 'philosophy forum', and if the words, within a philosophy forum, are NOT of what thee actual Truth IS, ONLY, then I do NOT know of ANY other better place for speaking thee actual Truth, and ONLY thee Truth, ALONE.

I ALREADY understood PERFECTLY that you were talking about what "henry quirk" said.

I just asked you a clarifying question in regards to your claim that the "united states" was 'his', "henry quirks".

What appears now is that it was actually you who was the one who did not really understand what I was talking about and referring to here, correct?

Or were you the one being 'intentionally obtuse'?

What I recommend now is you either just answer the clarifying question OPENLY and Honestly, or you choose better, or MORE Honest, words, and then rewrite what you wrote, especially since this is a philosophy forum. Otherwise, you will continue on writing things, which are completely and utterly FALSE, UNTRUE, or INCORRECT.
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?
No.

Why would you think such a thing, or think I meant such a thing?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm Are you opposed to all immigration?
No, the exact opposite, in fact.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm Do you really believe all the land in the United States was, "stolen?"
I do not believe any thing. I neither disbelieve any thing as well.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm Are you not aware of the relationship between the American Indians and first settlers?
Not with first-hand experience, no.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm
Age wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:56 pm

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.
You wrote: "I would NOT hesitate to kill ANY one who 'physically' threatened me".

The saying; "I am going to hurt your finger", when said, to you, is a 'genuine physical threat', to you. Therefore, if what you say is True, then you would NOT hesitate to kill that one who said that, correct?

If this is NOT correct, then what part of what you have said and are saying am I misunderstanding, or is just a lie?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm
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.
Is that the ONLY 'alternative' you can think of?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm 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.
I am not sure what this has to do with what I was talking about, and meaning.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm
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.
Okay.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm
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.
Whether the threat is genuine or rhetoric has NEVER been what it is in question here.

I am not sure why you are only focusing on that part.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm 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.
LOL

I am questioning you in regards to WHEN do you move from 'not hesitating' to 'hesitating' NOT in regards to whether the threat is genuine or not but in regards to how far removed does the person or thing have to be, from you? As can be CLEARLY SEEN in my writings above.

If you are capable then just imagine each and every threat I talk about is genuine.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm
Age wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:56 pm
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?
How would 'I' or 'you' KNOW whether a mosquito has malaria or not?

Also, what you are proposing here is a bit different to what you alleged you would do above, that is; NOT hesitate to kill a human being if they physically threatened to kill you or yours.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm
Age wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:56 pm
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.
This CERTAINLY DOES NOT apply to me.

You seem to have great concern and worry over just physical material 'possessions', yet seem to have absolutely no concern nor worry at all about killing a human being just because they physically threatened you, or the physical things, which you call "yours".
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm 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?
You can 'guess' that if you like. But, if it is even remotely somewhat close to thee actual Truth of things might be something else.

You appear to have a very short-sighted and very narrowed field of view, centered around that one individual 'self' and its perspective only.
[/quote]

...................
Age wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 1:58 am You appear to have a very short-sighted and very narrowed field of view, centered around that one individual 'self' and its perspective only.
You win! You get a cookie.

I'm totally selfish and refuse to think outside the very narrow confines of the truth.

I have the very narrow view, that if I do not make the best of myself to be and produce all I can or I'm dead, I'm not going to be of much value to anyone else, much less myself. If I'm going to clothe, feed, provide medicine or anything else of value to any human being it will be in some physical form, and if I'm to do it, it will have to be my effort that does it. Wishing and praying and have empathetic feelings never fed, clothed, or comforted anyone.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: On wars kip

Post by RCSaunders »

Age wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:00 am You really have NOT had much experience outside of your own little 'world', have you?

How many actual countries have to been to?
Just showed this to my wife. Gave us a good laugh. Gracias! kòp kun mâak (ขอบคุณ มาก)!
Last edited by RCSaunders on Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Age
Posts: 5300
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On wars

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:09 pm
Age wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 1:58 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 3:19 pm
Are you being intentionally obtuse or do you really not understand. I'm only talking about what Henry said.
Did you MISS or did you FORGET the part where you said; " 'his' country", in relation to "henry quirk"?

See, in case you are NOT YET AWARE, EVERY word here, is written in a 'philosophy forum', and if the words, within a philosophy forum, are NOT of what thee actual Truth IS, ONLY, then I do NOT know of ANY other better place for speaking thee actual Truth, and ONLY thee Truth, ALONE.

I ALREADY understood PERFECTLY that you were talking about what "henry quirk" said.

I just asked you a clarifying question in regards to your claim that the "united states" was 'his', "henry quirks".

What appears now is that it was actually you who was the one who did not really understand what I was talking about and referring to here, correct?

Or were you the one being 'intentionally obtuse'?

What I recommend now is you either just answer the clarifying question OPENLY and Honestly, or you choose better, or MORE Honest, words, and then rewrite what you wrote, especially since this is a philosophy forum. Otherwise, you will continue on writing things, which are completely and utterly FALSE, UNTRUE, or INCORRECT.
Age wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:56 pm

OBVIOUSLY.



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?
No.

Why would you think such a thing, or think I meant such a thing?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm Are you opposed to all immigration?
No, the exact opposite, in fact.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm Do you really believe all the land in the United States was, "stolen?"
I do not believe any thing. I neither disbelieve any thing as well.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm Are you not aware of the relationship between the American Indians and first settlers?
Not with first-hand experience, no.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm
Age wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:56 pm

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.
You wrote: "I would NOT hesitate to kill ANY one who 'physically' threatened me".

The saying; "I am going to hurt your finger", when said, to you, is a 'genuine physical threat', to you. Therefore, if what you say is True, then you would NOT hesitate to kill that one who said that, correct?

If this is NOT correct, then what part of what you have said and are saying am I misunderstanding, or is just a lie?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm
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.
Is that the ONLY 'alternative' you can think of?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm 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.
I am not sure what this has to do with what I was talking about, and meaning.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm
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.
Okay.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm
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.
Whether the threat is genuine or rhetoric has NEVER been what it is in question here.

I am not sure why you are only focusing on that part.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm 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.
LOL

I am questioning you in regards to WHEN do you move from 'not hesitating' to 'hesitating' NOT in regards to whether the threat is genuine or not but in regards to how far removed does the person or thing have to be, from you? As can be CLEARLY SEEN in my writings above.

If you are capable then just imagine each and every threat I talk about is genuine.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm
Age wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:56 pm
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?
How would 'I' or 'you' KNOW whether a mosquito has malaria or not?

Also, what you are proposing here is a bit different to what you alleged you would do above, that is; NOT hesitate to kill a human being if they physically threatened to kill you or yours.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm
Age wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:56 pm
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.
This CERTAINLY DOES NOT apply to me.

You seem to have great concern and worry over just physical material 'possessions', yet seem to have absolutely no concern nor worry at all about killing a human being just because they physically threatened you, or the physical things, which you call "yours".
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm 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?
You can 'guess' that if you like. But, if it is even remotely somewhat close to thee actual Truth of things might be something else.

You appear to have a very short-sighted and very narrowed field of view, centered around that one individual 'self' and its perspective only.
...................
Age wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 1:58 am You appear to have a very short-sighted and very narrowed field of view, centered around that one individual 'self' and its perspective only.
You win! [/quote]

But what did I, supposedly, "win"? I do NOT mean what is the 'prize', but rather what was being contested, in the beginning.

To me, in a philosophy forum, points of view are put forward, in the best logically reasoned way. There is NOTHING to win, NOR lose.

To me, just reaching agreement is the goal.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:09 pm You get a cookie.
What for? And WHY?
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:09 pm I'm totally selfish and refuse to think outside the very narrow confines of the truth.
If you are saying you are TOTALLY 'selfish', then so be it. But 'you', "rcsaunders", would be the VERY FIRST human being that I have observed admit that they are TOTALLY 'selfish'. Are you able to back up and support this claim of yours here?

To me, for a human being to be TOTALLY 'selfish' would be just about IMPOSSIBLE. So, I am curious to SEE how you could PROVE this to be part of the 'truth', which you also claim you refuse to think outside of.

From my perspective, you have just ALREADY PROVEN that you do NOT actually refuse to think outside the very narrow confines of the 'truth', itself, at all. This is, of course, unless you now PROVE otherwise.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:09 pm I have the very narrow view, that if I do not make the best of myself to be and produce all I can or I'm dead, I'm not going to be of much value to anyone else, much less myself.
I am NOT sure what this is in regards to NOR what this is even about. It appears to have just about NOTHING AT ALL in relation to what I have said, and have pointed out.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:09 pm If I'm going to clothe, feed, provide medicine or anything else of value to any human being it will be in some physical form, and if I'm to do it, it will have to be my effort that does it. Wishing and praying and have empathetic feelings never fed, clothed, or comforted anyone.
You appear to be going even FURTHER away from ANY thing that I have actually said, and meant, here.
Age
Posts: 5300
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On wars kip

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:18 pm
Age wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:00 am You really have NOT had much experience outside of your own little 'world', have you?

How many actual countries have to been to?
Just showed this to my wife. Gave us a good laugh. Thanks!
WHY?

What is the little secret you and your wife are, supposedly, laughing at?

I just asked you two VERY SIMPLE, OPEN clarifying questions.

Were you, and/or your wife, PRESUMING that those clarifying questions were actually saying or meaning some thing other than just being Truly OPEN clarifying questions, posed for CLARIFICATION?
commonsense
Posts: 2888
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: On wars

Post by commonsense »

Age wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:14 am
commonsense wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:39 pm
Age wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:20 am Since when have you become the overseer and judicature over ALL of what is a faulty, or a non faulty, definition of words?
Look it up.
Okay, done that.

Still does NOT answer the clarifying question, which I posed, to you.

Since when have 'you' become the ONE who KNOWS what a faulty or non faulty definition of A word IS?
commonsense wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:39 pm
Age wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:20 am 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.
You seemed to misuse the phrase “acts of terror”, which in the vernacular means the same as “terrorist acts”, but apparently not so in this thread, at least according to your judicature.
The word 'vernacular', by definition, is such a highly subjective and relative word that what you wrote here does not make any logical sense.

I seemed to misuse the phrase "acts of terror", actually to who and/or what, EXACTLY?

What does the phrase, "terrorist acts" mean, to you, or to the specific group, which you are referring to here, in the 'vernacular'?

If you can NOT or will NOT define what these phrases mean, to you, then you would be the last one who could logically make the claim about "faultiness of defintions" and/or "misuse of phrases".

By the way, who is 'my judicature'?

Also, if you want to logically argue against;

All states of conflicts between groups of armed human beings is terrifying.
All states of armed conflict are acts of terror.
Therefore, if 'war' is a state of armed conflict between different groups of people, then war is an act of terror, as well as being unjust.

Then go right ahead. I AWAIT your 'argument'.
Don’t expect a reply from me. I only read the first 3 lines.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: On wars

Post by RCSaunders »

Age wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:50 pm So, I am curious to SEE how you could PROVE ....
I have no interest in proving anything to anyone else. The only purpose of, "proof," is to ensure my own reasoning is correct. I do not need or want anyone else's approval or agreement with what I know to be true. If you need that, you must have some doubt about your own ability to think and discover the truth. That's your problem, not mine.
Age
Posts: 5300
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On wars

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:26 pm
Age wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:50 pm So, I am curious to SEE how you could PROVE ....
I have no interest in proving anything to anyone else.
Okay.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:26 pmThe only purpose of, "proof," is to ensure my own reasoning is correct.
If this is the ONLY purpose of 'proof', to 'you', then so be it.

If your OWN, so called, "reasoning" is correct within your OWN 'thinking', then all is well and good then, correct?

Some people, however, like to use 'proof' to back up and support their claims, to "others".

Oh, and by the way, what is usually expected in a philosophy forum is that when one is expressing their propositions and claims, then they are at least able to back up and support those propositions and claims with some 'thing', which is EVIDENCE for, or better still preferably PROOF for, what has been said.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:26 pmI do not need or want anyone else's approval or agreement with what I know to be true.
Okay. As long as you are happy in your OWN beliefs and OWN knowledge, then that is all that really matters, to you, right?
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:26 pm If you need that, you must have some doubt about your own ability to think and discover the truth. That's your problem, not mine.
Well that is one ASSUMPTION and CONCLUSION, which by the way was arrived at from 'what', EXACTLY?

All I was saying here was that I was curious to SEE what actual proof you have for your already gained and maintained assumptions and beliefs about what is true or not.

If you do NOT want to, or you can NOT, share that knowledge with "others", then that is all well and good.
Age
Posts: 5300
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On wars

Post by Age »

commonsense wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 1:54 pm
Age wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:14 am
commonsense wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:39 pm

Look it up.
Okay, done that.

Still does NOT answer the clarifying question, which I posed, to you.

Since when have 'you' become the ONE who KNOWS what a faulty or non faulty definition of A word IS?
commonsense wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:39 pm

You seemed to misuse the phrase “acts of terror”, which in the vernacular means the same as “terrorist acts”, but apparently not so in this thread, at least according to your judicature.
The word 'vernacular', by definition, is such a highly subjective and relative word that what you wrote here does not make any logical sense.

I seemed to misuse the phrase "acts of terror", actually to who and/or what, EXACTLY?

What does the phrase, "terrorist acts" mean, to you, or to the specific group, which you are referring to here, in the 'vernacular'?

If you can NOT or will NOT define what these phrases mean, to you, then you would be the last one who could logically make the claim about "faultiness of defintions" and/or "misuse of phrases".

By the way, who is 'my judicature'?

Also, if you want to logically argue against;

All states of conflicts between groups of armed human beings is terrifying.
All states of armed conflict are acts of terror.
Therefore, if 'war' is a state of armed conflict between different groups of people, then war is an act of terror, as well as being unjust.

Then go right ahead. I AWAIT your 'argument'.
Don’t expect a reply from me.
So, you reply to me to tell me not to expect a reply from you. Okay.
commonsense wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 1:54 pm I only read the first 3 lines.
If you read just one more, then you would have realized that I was just asking you a question, for clarification.
Post Reply