Look it up.
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.
Look it up.
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.
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.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:57 pmShield 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.
I'll never have to do any of that. I'm "privileged."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.
Did you MISS or did you FORGET the part where you said; " 'his' country", in relation to "henry quirk"?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 3:19 pmAre 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 pmSo, is that parcel of land generally known as the "united state", "henry quirks"?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 anyone who moves to a new land is an, "invader," in your opinion? [/quote]Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:56 pmOBVIOUSLY.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm No war in history can be justified, including the American Revolutionary War.
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 Before that, the United States did not exist as a country.
No, the exact opposite, in fact.
I do not believe any thing. I neither disbelieve any thing as well.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm Do you really believe all the land in the United States was, "stolen?"
Not with first-hand experience, no.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm Are you not aware of the relationship between the American Indians and first settlers?
You wrote: "I would NOT hesitate to kill ANY one who 'physically' threatened me".RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pmIf 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 pmSo, 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?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,
Is that the ONLY 'alternative' you can think of?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pmOf course. You can allow yourself to be killed, if your life does not matter to you. It's a choice.
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 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.
Okay.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pmEverything 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.
Whether the threat is genuine or rhetoric has NEVER been what it is in question here.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pmI know the difference between a genuine threat and rhetoric.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'?
LOLRCSaunders 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.
How would 'I' or 'you' KNOW whether a mosquito has malaria or not?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pmBecause 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 pmSo, WHY EXACTLY would you do it?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm but I would detest having to do it and would never celebrate it.
This CERTAINLY DOES NOT apply to me.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pmThe 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.Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:56 pmBut who would really care either way, anyway? It was after all only a building?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.
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.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 really have NOT had much experience outside of your own little 'world', have you?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:57 pmShield 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.
Okay, done that.
The word 'vernacular', by definition, is such a highly subjective and relative word that what you wrote here does not make any logical sense.commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:39 pmYou 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.
No.Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 1:58 amDid you MISS or did you FORGET the part where you said; " 'his' country", in relation to "henry quirk"?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 3:19 pmAre you being intentionally obtuse or do you really not understand. I'm only talking about what Henry said.
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.
So anyone who moves to a new land is an, "invader," in your opinion?Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:56 pmOBVIOUSLY.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm No war in history can be justified, including the American Revolutionary War.
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 Before that, the United States did not exist as a country.
No, the exact opposite, in fact.
I do not believe any thing. I neither disbelieve any thing as well.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm Do you really believe all the land in the United States was, "stolen?"
Not with first-hand experience, no.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm Are you not aware of the relationship between the American Indians and first settlers?
You wrote: "I would NOT hesitate to kill ANY one who 'physically' threatened me".RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pmIf you don't know how to discern when a threat is a genuine one, you'll probably only learn the difference by dying.
Is that the ONLY 'alternative' you can think of?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pmOf course. You can allow yourself to be killed, if your life does not matter to you. It's a choice.
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 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.
Okay.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pmEverything 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.
Whether the threat is genuine or rhetoric has NEVER been what it is in question here.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pmI know the difference between a genuine threat and rhetoric.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'?
LOLRCSaunders 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.
How would 'I' or 'you' KNOW whether a mosquito has malaria or not?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pmBecause 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?
This CERTAINLY DOES NOT apply to me.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pmThe 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.
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.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 win! You get a cookie.
Just showed this to my wife. Gave us a good laugh. Gracias! kòp kun mâak (ขอบคุณ มาก)!
...................RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:09 pmNo.Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 1:58 amDid you MISS or did you FORGET the part where you said; " 'his' country", in relation to "henry quirk"?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.
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.
So anyone who moves to a new land is an, "invader," in your opinion?
Why would you think such a thing, or think I meant such a thing?
No, the exact opposite, in fact.
I do not believe any thing. I neither disbelieve any thing as well.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm Do you really believe all the land in the United States was, "stolen?"
Not with first-hand experience, no.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pm Are you not aware of the relationship between the American Indians and first settlers?
You wrote: "I would NOT hesitate to kill ANY one who 'physically' threatened me".RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pmIf you don't know how to discern when a threat is a genuine one, you'll probably only learn the difference by dying.
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?
Is that the ONLY 'alternative' you can think of?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pmOf course. You can allow yourself to be killed, if your life does not matter to you. It's a choice.
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 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.
Okay.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pmEverything 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.
Whether the threat is genuine or rhetoric has NEVER been what it is in question here.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pmI know the difference between a genuine threat and rhetoric.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 am not sure why you are only focusing on that part.
LOLRCSaunders 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.
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.
How would 'I' or 'you' KNOW whether a mosquito has malaria or not?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pmBecause 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?
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.
This CERTAINLY DOES NOT apply to me.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:04 pmThe 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.
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".
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.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 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]
What for? And WHY?
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?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.
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 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.
You appear to be going even FURTHER away from ANY thing that I have actually said, and meant, here.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.
WHY?RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:18 pmJust showed this to my wife. Gave us a good laugh. Thanks!
Don’t expect a reply from me. I only read the first 3 lines.Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:14 amOkay, 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?
The word 'vernacular', by definition, is such a highly subjective and relative word that what you wrote here does not make any logical sense.commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:39 pmYou 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.
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'.
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.
Okay.
If this is the ONLY purpose of 'proof', to 'you', then so be it.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:26 pmThe only purpose of, "proof," is to ensure my own reasoning is correct.
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 pmI do not need or want anyone else's approval or agreement with what I know to be true.
Well that is one ASSUMPTION and CONCLUSION, which by the way was arrived at from 'what', EXACTLY?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.
So, you reply to me to tell me not to expect a reply from you. Okay.commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 1:54 pmDon’t expect a reply from me.Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:14 amOkay, 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?
The word 'vernacular', by definition, is such a highly subjective and relative word that what you wrote here does not make any logical sense.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.
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'.
If you read just one more, then you would have realized that I was just asking you a question, for clarification.