One's hero is another's villain. It is just a matter of perspective, and highly subjective.
One's hero is another's villain. It is just a matter of perspective, and highly subjective.
More about our favourite person at the moment.
Apparently people he trolled on a forum are his friends. Heh. Though apparently bodybuilder.com has some nice people who want to offer help to a psycho.
13 huh? I wonder if things struck me differently when I was 12 I would be crazy axemurder by now. Once again with psycho topics I see the parallels with myself. Though it appears to have festered in a dangerous way for this guy.
More parallels. Though I'm neither racist nor narcissistic.
I think.
And why do 'murrican psychologists always homosexual urges? :V
BEHOLD! THE SIG OF GOLDEN TRUTH! Pillaged from McJon, Tsukikan et al.
All that PUA talk last page reminded me off this show, which for some reason aired on the Comedy Network.
Binged All Of Gundam In 4 Years, 1 Week and All I Got Was This Stupid Mask
FF XIV: Walked to the End
Started Legend of the Galactic Heroes (14/07/23), pray for me.
That's why you have a choice to get help from law enforcement, don't you? But then... [0]Originally Posted by Detective Blackstone
This grimdark line of thinking of your doesn't work in reality, neither does it differentiate those who have done wrong for various reasons and in various degrees.
If you killed someone to save lives, what does that make you? Would you rather rather kill one to save many, or let one survive while letting the many die? On the latter, you could do something but you did nothing because you wanted to be obsequious to your moral code, but you still have blood on your hands.
[0]...this. If you think that law enforcement are not allowed to kill, then have an absolute, as in absolute, disarmament of them. Else, demand to your government to guarantee the right of self-defense.
Running away means you have given your attacker what it wants. Such attack is analogous to a war in an individual level. General von Clausewitz say that the objectives of war is to disarm or overthrow your enemy to make him bend to your will. Therefore, this policy of running away means the attacker has won. Regarding your means of survival as evil means you will not survive.
To consult General von Clausewitz again, it is a huge mistake to think that there is a skillful away to disarm the opponent without resorting to violence once war has started.
Have you considered that criminals, human beings might they be, are outlaws who have chosen to disregard the rights of other people as a means to a goal? I mean, there's always the Non-Aggression Principle: You don't thread on other people and don't let other people thread on you. If they do, you are allowed to stop them by all means necessary.
Last edited by Ivan The Mouse; May 27th, 2014 at 12:24 AM.
Ivan, so chuuni.
Look, I can give more reasons why his brand of morality is more "chuuni" than the one I'm espousing right now.
Because if I am one, then General Carl von Clausewitz and Sun Tzu, two of the most celebrated military theorists in the field, are also chunni or what-have-you-got. To think that military men and other people from all around are entrusting their knowledge from these two people and then you call their ideals as "chunni" should sink some unfortunate implications to you.
And do you know what's worse? Von Clausewitz's wife Marie said that writing his book "On War" and procuring research for it is one of things he did when he has his time of leisure, if her preface on the book is to believed. Sun Tzu, on the other hand, didn't ignore aspects of diplomacy in his book "The Art of War", as well as said these favorite lines of mine: "There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare." and "It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on." (The latter line means war should be ended quickly or else it would be disastrous for a nation.)
To insinuate that these people who have taken their time and used their knowledge to write books instructing how to deal with wars just to "show their edge" is not just ignorant but also insulting to their efforts and, by extension, to people who entrusted them to be taught by their books.
Both of you are espousing your morality as objective, I gather. There is not objective morality. Period.
I know. But his morality is like a giant accusation on life, humanity, human civilization and natural will to live of being inherently evil. If I am being told that everything in this world is evil or wrong, it would naturally pique my indignation.
When exactly would this law enforcement arrive. It's pointless if they don't before the crime is carried out and if they arrive afterwards they will be just there to clean up the mess. I need immediate solutions. Those are impossible though.
Oh, I think it does. It's not like there are people out there who haven't lied, stolen, of exaggerated claims of themselves or their righteousness. What of those who have done wrong for no reason?This grimdark line of thinking of your doesn't work in reality, neither does it differentiate those who have done wrong for various reasons and in various degrees.
What of the apathetic citizens who do nothing as a child is run over by not once but twice. The uncaring masses with no will or passion. Just machine repetition. Those who have done wrong for a reason does not excuse that they have done wrong and have had the gall to justify their wrongs.
A killer who saved someone by killing instead of any other means. There is never a situation where you have just one option. You are either too weak or too incompetent to find some other way.If you killed someone to save lives, what does that make you?
I am not the person you should be asking that question. If you're directing that question to someone who actually cares about righteousness and wants to be a hero; I believe a hero would be someone who would save the one from themselves and those many from that one.Would you rather rather kill one to save many, or let one survive while letting the many die?
I respect what a hero is but I am not a hero.
I don't have a moral code. I do what I want when I want regardless of any consequences. A hero would do the impossible. A normal person would just fight and hope for the best. Whether they end up killing their aggressor or not is totally up to luck and skill.On the latter, you could do something but you did nothing because you wanted to be obsequious to your moral code, but you still have blood on your hands.
I don't have the power to do that. Don't think anyone really does. I am no politician nor can I sway the opinion of anyone of significant influence.[0]...this. If you think that law enforcement are not allowed to kill, then have an absolute, as in absolute, disarmament of them.
Then proceed to have my voice denied and my demands dismissed. You act like I have actual power over the state of affairs in my nation.Else, demand to your government to guarantee the right of self-defense.
So, I would risk my life and the life of whom I am protecting to fight this unknown attacker instead of retreating with the victim.Running away means you have given your attacker what it wants.
A fight is unpredictable. If I run away with the hostage I can ensure both of our survival. Now tell me which is smarter and less likely to lead to violence or death?
General von Clausewitz is not God in these matters and we are not talking about war.Such attack is analogous to a war in an individual level. General von Clausewitz say that the objectives of war is to disarm or overthrow your enemy to make him bend to your will. Therefore, this policy of running away means the attacker has won. survive.
There are no winners is war either. The only way to win a war is to not be a part of it to begin with. Otherwise, there are just different degrees of losing and taking.
Why can't I see the act of killing as evil and still do it anyway for my own convenience or survival?Regarding your means of survival as evil means you will not survive.
I disagree.To consult General von Clausewitz again, it is a huge mistake to think that there is a skillful away to disarm the opponent without resorting to violence once war has started.
There are such things as peace treaties, armistice, and negotiation. War ends. It's not indefinite. It's often a case of disagreement of ideologies or a need for resources. The latter is easily mended whilst the former is more complicated. A combination of the two make it impossible to deal with in any sane way.
Have you considered the friends of those criminals, their families, their children, and most of all their reasons to commit those crimes. You believe anything can be justified with the proper reasoning am I right?Have you considered that criminals, human beings might they be, are outlaws who have chosen to disregard the rights of other people as a means to a goal?
Why can't it be justified and righteous for me to steal and kill in order to provide for my family. It's a good cause after all. Regardless of who I am killing or stealing from.
I would like to do that but I am not allowed to without getting into trouble with police. Playing the vigilante or standing my ground is not an option unless I want to exchange my freedom in order to express myself.I mean, there's always the Non-Aggression Principle: You don't thread on other people and don't let other people thread on you. If they do, you are allowed to stop them by all means necessary.
Then would you rather get overwhelmed by force greater than you than to seek help from people who hold that force that can help you? Furthermore, if you can't do anything against this attacker but do not trust a force to help you in doing so, then what can you do? You've given yourself a handicap.
There is no such thing as people doing things for no reason. They might have done something unforgivable, but that doesn't mean they don't have a reason.
To say that citizens are totally apathetic is missing the fact that people will still react to their surroundings. Just because a person didn't react the way we want them to be doesn't mean they are apathetic.
Moreso, just because wrongdoings can be justified doesn't mean it is automatically forgiven. People can justify what they did. It doesn't mean people will just forgive it, for they have their own judgement and reasoning.
There are times when there are solutions which would take time to realize themselves and usually, problems involving the safety and lives of other people don't have the luxury of that length of time. And of course, you said that you need immediate solutions. I cannot blame you, either. Sun Tzu said that, might there be that there is such thing as stupid haste, fulfillment of goals are never associated with long delays.
If then so, how could you then have say on what a hero is? You have ideals about heroism, yet you claim that you have no care about righteousness.
I'm sorry to say but yes, you do. The fact that you consider killing as wrong is already a sign of a moral code itself. And no, heroes don't do impossible things. To do impossible things is a paradox. Heroes come from normal people who tried to fight, hope for the best and, in doing such, achieved doing something great that would earn the respect of those people who know what they did.
By that answer, you are implying that will disarm your law enforcement if given the ability to do so, risking the lives of innocent people who will need a force that can save them if they confronted with a threatening force that can jeopardize their safety. Also...
...If you still vote, then you should stop doing so because your mindset is that. And don't act like you're the only person in the world who can dare to have an opinion that you can present in the state. This isn't the novel "1984" where an individual cannot have the ability to convince others of their point of view. It's a common mistake to think that you are the only thinking person in the world and the rest are mindless sheep who are afraid to deviate from the main.
And if you are caught by the attacker who, in most cases, have their watch on their hostages, are you going to keep running away and not fight even if he has a weapon? If violence or death is inevitable, what are you going to do?
To dismiss his claims about these matters because he is "not God" of it is akin to dismissing a Calculus professor about those matters because he is not Isaac Newton. And he also already mentioned that war is only a duel between two people on a grander scale, so to dismiss his theories because "we aren't talking about war" is like saying the fire triangle can only be applied to big fires, not to small ones.
To say such is also saying that the Allies never won against the Axis on World War 2 and didn't able to achieve their goal of stopping the advance and expansion of the Nazis. It is also saying that the US never politically lost the Vietnam War despite of failing to protect South Vietnam from the North. And it is also saying that the Triple Entente wasn't able to beat the Triple Alliance in World War 1 and not mandate anything to them, as well as saying that the Coalition wasn't able beat the French Empire in the Napoleonic Wars and not get Napoleon I to exile and stop the French Empire from further expanding.
Because you speak and argue as if it is an absolute evil which must not be done at all cases, akin to active seduction of children.
They always go by the saying that "the pen is mightier than the sword" but historically ignore the fact that everything that happened in the course of the war has an influence and repercussions on the overall diplomatic climate. Whatever the sword did, the pen always considers. I mean, would you be able to say no to a peace treaty or armistice if your armed forces are practically annihilated? Because that's exactly what happened to Germany during the signing of armistice. And their subsequent acceptance of the Treaty of Versailles, regardless of the fact that it has heavy restrictions on them regarding their territories, their armed forces and generally what they can do as a nation.
Do you seriously think that these criminals are always accepted by their families regardless of their actions? They can be doing it secretly, knowing that they would be disowned if discovered. Moreso, I didn't say that just because something is justifiable means it is absolutely forgivable. Neither did I say that things are absolutely unforgivable regardless of the reasons behind it. There are times when we should weigh the graveness of the action to it's goals. And...
...If it goes to a point where a thief is killing his targets to get their money, it is usually not for the sake of his family. He could be on drugs, for example.
So you're not going to do what's right and only will do what's legal, regardless of how absurd the laws are? If you're living in a state where self-defense and standing your ground is considered vigilantism, then to not live in fear is foolishness.
Last edited by Ivan The Mouse; May 27th, 2014 at 02:28 PM.
Already answered that question. I would either fight or run. It's escape that's usually the most realistically plausible option. People are not kung-fu masters that can disarm people with knifes or guns in the blink of an eye.
I don't have a reason for lying all the time. Sometimes I just lie because I feel like lying. The same when I'm taking something. Sometimes it's juts because I want it and nothing else. You know, like an action figure of that one wrestler I happen to like etc.There is no such thing as people doing things for no reason. They might have done something unforgivable, but that doesn't mean they don't have a reason.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXEs9VkBiwQTo say that citizens are totally apathetic is missing the fact that people will still react to their surroundings. Just because a person didn't react the way we want them to be doesn't mean they are apathetic.
I would think a couple of people just walking past a child that's been run over by a truck twice is something I would call criminally apathetic.
Then why should I forgive someone who refused to be more than what they are. Why do I have to forgive and adore a "hero" who kills? I won't go out of my way to hate them but I certainly won't worship them either.Moreso, just because wrongdoings can be justified doesn't mean it is automatically forgiven. People can justify what they did. It doesn't mean people will just forgive it, for they have their own judgement and reasoning.
Yeah, and that's why violence and combat is always the most assured way of achieving victory. It's the quickest and most assured way of saving someone or stopping someone. However, that does not make it right. That just makes it efficient and convenient.There are times when there are solutions which would take time to realize themselves and usually, problems involving the safety and lives of other people don't have the luxury of that length of time. And of course, you said that you need immediate solutions. I cannot blame you, either. Sun Tzu said that, might there be that there is such thing as stupid haste, fulfillment of goals are never associated with long delays.
Also, you can't undo it either. You think someone is pointing a gun at you, you shoot them, and then you find out it was fake or just a toy. You can't undo what you did just then. You shot a guy maybe even some stupid because it was dark out and you couldn't see things clearly because you were overly cautious.
Just because I don't believe in the principals myself does not mean I don't what they are. We were all kids once and wanted to be heroes once. I think about how I always wanted to just "kill the bad guys" and realize how messed up it is. Children shouldn't be looking up to stuff like that as heroism. They shouldn't find joy and pleasure in the thought of killing someone else even if they are evil or risking the lives of others.If then so, how could you then have say on what a hero is? You have ideals about heroism, yet you claim that you have no care about righteousness.
If I don't uphold myself to that code then it's worthless what I think. If I know it's wrong but do it anyway because I am confident enough to do it any other way then I have broken whatever principles I have held and I am not worthy of them.I'm sorry to say but yes, you do. The fact that you consider killing as wrong is already a sign of a moral code itself.
Not literally impossible but difficult in the sense that most people can't be brought to do something like saving the few and the many because they simply don't have the power or skill to do it.And no, heroes don't do impossible things. To do impossible things is a paradox.
Often we label the things heroes do as impossible and miracululous but that's because we could never picture ourselves doing the same. Just someone as simple as a firefighter is a hero for risking his/her life to help strangers.
That's part of the problem.Heroes come from normal people who tried to fight, hope for the best and, in doing such, achieved doing something great that would earn the respect of those people who know what they did.
If we glorify "heroes" that are little different than the villains and monsters they fight we encourage people to mimic their behavior. Instead of trying to be more than them we just settle for just them when there's so much more we could be.
I was not suggesting disarming them. What I would suggest for them is that are more self-aware of when to and how to use their resources. Particularly, their guns and armaments. If we leave those in the hands of people who are grossly irresponsible or amoral then all we will be doing is arming another threat to the citizens.By that answer, you are implying that will disarm your law enforcement if given the ability to do so, risking the lives of innocent people who will need a force that can save them if they confronted with a threatening force that can jeopardize their safety. Also...
http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangster...n_davis/4.html
Just take how corrupt the NOPD was for example. I don't want them anywhere near a gun.
No, I stopped the moment I realized how incredibly superficial it was and that all I was voting was little more than a figurehead that could achieve little to no actual change....If you still vote, then you should stop doing so because your mindset is that. And don't act like you're the only person in the world who can dare to have an opinion that you can present in the state. This isn't the novel "1984" where an individual cannot have the ability to convince others of their point of view. It's a common mistake to think that you are the only thinking person in the world and the rest are mindless sheep who are afraid to deviate from the main.
I know people are not sheep. They are perfectly aware of the events that are occurring in the world especially now with the power of the internet. The problem is that even if you are aware there is nothing you can do if you do not have power. Might controls everything, and without it you can only achieve a semblance of change.
Do what I have no choice but to do and fight but I won't be going around calling myself a hero for it. A violent bastard who happened to help out sure but that's most I would say. If I end up killing him by some measure of dumb luck then a killer that had an ironically heroic goal.And if you are caught by the attacker who, in most cases, have their watch on their hostages, are you going to keep running away and not fight even if he has a weapon? If violence or death is inevitable, what are you going to do?
Aye, so how about "he is just some guy I don't even know so I won't waste even two seconds to bother thinking about what he said." So what, if some famous general says this is how every war and confrontation is going to go down. That it's always fight or die and nothing else. The world is too large for that to always be the case.To dismiss his claims about these matters because he is "not God" of it is akin to dismissing a Trigonometry professor about those matters because he is not Isaac Newton.
This is not a duel either. A duel is a planned fight between two people who are miffed at each other and who are restricted by certain codes of conduct else they dishonor their names in breaking them. A war is much more brutal and horrific than just some duel. There are no rules in a real war. It's take or get taken from no matter what you have to do.And he also already mentioned that war is only a duel between two people on a grander scale, so to dismiss his theories because "we aren't talking about war" is like saying the fire triangle can only be applied to big fires, not to small ones.
Nazis are bad I get that but do you really think the war started because of some sense of righteous indignation? No, it started because of the need of the Allies to defend themselves. It was an act of self defense and while that's not evil it's not good either. It just is what it is.To say such is also saying that the Allies never won against the Axis on World War 2 and didn't able to achieve their goal of stopping the advance and expansion of the Nazis.
It's when you unnecessarily kill in the act of self defense which is undoubtedly evil.
So, neither side lost soldiers then? Neither of the sides lost resources and land? Neither of these forces lost anything at all in the heat of these wars?It is also saying that the US never politically lost the Vietnam War despite of failing to protect South Vietnam from the North. And it is also saying that the Triple Entente wasn't able to beat the Triple Alliance in World War 1 and not mandate anything to them, as well as saying that the Coalition wasn't able beat the French Empire in the Napoleonic Wars and not get Napoleon I to exile and stop the French Empire from further expanding.
In war everyone loses and gains something. There are no real complete and utter victors in a war. There are sacrifices and lives that are lost. War is loss and gain, simultaneously.
Not an absolute evil but a necessary one for those too weak to be more than what they are. It's certainly not as bad as committing crimes against humanity or diddling children. There are people who are going to come to a point in their lives where they might just have to. It's a natural evil that is common place.Because you speak and argue as if it is an absolute evil which must not be done at all cases, akin to active seduction of children.
Just because we do something evil does not mean we don't deserve to live or exist though. You think I see killing as unforgivable. I think it's wrong, and I think we should remember that it is wrong regardless of circumstances, but that's just so those that succeed us can be better than we are.
No, then that's not even a real peace treaty or armistice then. It's just completely crushing your enemy and keeping pleasantries for the sake of PR and lying through your teeth about having to do this when you can just take over completely.They always go by the saying that "the pen is mightier than the sword" but historically ignore the fact that everything that happened in the course of the war has an influence and repercussions on the overall diplomatic climate. Whatever the sword did, the pen always considers. I mean, would you be able to say no to a peace treaty or armistice if your armed forces are practically annihilated?
Yes, and that's exactly why it's such a bad example. It was not a deal brokered between equals. It was a bunch of guys kicking one guy on the ground at the same time after already kicking his arse whilst asking "would you kindly sign this?"Because that's exactly what happened to Germany during the signing of armistice. And their subsequent acceptance of the Treaty of Versailles, regardless of the fact that it has heavy restrictions on them regarding their territories, their armed forces and generally what they can do as a nation.
Not that Germany did not deserve it at the time but there were a lot of other members of the Axis of Evil that deserved that treatment not just Germany.
You would be surprised by how close some families are. One of my cousins is a drug dealer that deals in marijuana and crystal meth and we're surprisingly close. Not because of the meth and marijuana. Well, maybe because of the marijuana. It's good stuff.Do you seriously think that these criminals are always accepted by their families regardless of their actions?
Also, had an uncle who used to be a cocaine addict. We're still all pretty close regardless of the past.
They can be doing it secretly, knowing that they would be disowned if discovered. Moreso, I didn't say that just because something is justifiable means it is absolutely forgivable. Neither did I say that things are absolutely unforgivable regardless of the reasons behind it.While ignoring the means we used to achieve such goals or ends, and not trying to do better the next time we do the same thing leading to a continuous and endless cycle of societal stagnation?There are times when we should weigh the graveness of the action to it's goals.
Or, the thief could be killing the corrupt and misanthropic and giving to the poor like some sort of weird Robin Hood? The thing is we don't know and chances of actually knowing are slim....If it goes to a point where a thief is killing his targets to get their money, it is usually not for the sake of his family. He could be on drugs, for example.
Oh no, as I said before I do what I want when I want. If I want to defend myself or someone I will regardless of what happens afterwards. I just have to deal with being in jail a couple days.So you're not going to do what's right and only will do what's legal, regardless of how absurd the laws are? If you're living in a state where self-defense and standing your ground is considered vigilantism, then to not live in fear is foolishness.
Last edited by Fingolfin; May 28th, 2014 at 04:26 PM.
I know. But his morality is like a giant accusation on life, humanity, human civilization and natural will to live of being inherently evil. If I am being told that everything in this world is evil or wrong, it would naturally pique my indignation.
Like Zarath- Nietzsche said:
What some judge as evil actually have had its use for the species in general. We only banned murder (to extent, death penalty and wars still happen) when first settlements emerged and the phenomenon of nomadic families murdering other nomadic families became obsolete. But this exact drive to better hunt and deny strangers territories drove us to develop better tools as back as in early Stone Age. Justifying or condemning that drive based on subjective morality is fruitless since their is no objective viewpoint except for that it seems to benefit the species in general (if agressive behavior in our line of primates was a dead end, we would not be agressive)"Man is evil"--so said to me for consolation, all the wisest ones. Ah, if only it be still true to-day! For the evil is man's best force.
Last edited by Kat; May 27th, 2014 at 04:34 PM.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-n...killer-3614553
Holy Jesus Christ I can't breathe
10/10 reporting everybody should know about the dangers of creatine
How many more people have to die before we stop this menace!?
Now I'm picturing the kid being all buff and shit. Killing people by flexing them between his thighs until they pop like balloons.
Oh god I am an evil person.
- - - Updated - - -
Thigh muscles as strong as steel.
Then why can't you get a knife or a gun instead? And I already said it, it is a huge mistake to think that there is away to skillfully disarm an opponent without resorting to violence once it has started.
That's you. Even then, you have reasons still, such as "you feel it" and "you want it". Those are still reasons.
Those are a couple. How about those people who have their heartstrings piqued by the KONY 2012 campaign? How about those people who felt deep sadness and anger over the September 11 attacks? How about when talking about the Shoah or any genocide ever?
Because it is for the greater good. There is a ethical difference between killing one to save many and killing many to save one. The former is for the greater good, the latter is not just selfish but also inefficient, impractical and wasteful. And usually when violence happens, it is inevitable.
And usually when it is the most assured way, it is right because we can weigh the benefits from the resulting action to its costs. Violence against a rampaging criminal is right because the death of one will save the many. Robbery-homicide is wrong because not only does it kill one to save one or few, it also a social suicide.
Being pointed with a toy or fake gun is violence already, however threatened, and it is excusable because the person refused to back down and you didn't know it. If he shows you a gun like that and doesn't run away at the sight of your own gun, he is tactically idiotic. I mean, how are you supposed to know that the guy had a fake gun instead?
So you're saying that children should have unrealistic expectations when faced with "bad guys" and think that there is always a way to disarm or overthrow an opponent, however unfeasible that line of thinking is? You really want them to do impractical and oftentimes erroneous actions just because of an unnecessary obsequiousness to a moral code?
Just because you can't do them doesn't mean you don't have a moral code. You have ideals, you just can't follow them.
Such thinking is one of the reasons why people seem to act apathetic sometimes: They think heroes do impossible things. The irony of this is that you regret that people are "apathetic" to their surroundings, ignoring that they aren't, yet espouse that heroes do impossible things, which isn't true.
Do you really think that people glorify heroes for what they did, instead of glorifying them for the results of those deeds? Why do you think people glorify Eisenhower, a fighting soldier, and Gandhi, a pacifist, at the same time? It's because of the results of their actions, not the actions themselves.
Well, speaking of cops and their armaments, I don't necessarily think that they are...
http://www.ammoland.com/2013/10/poli...#axzz2hdcNdmYG
I am not saying that they are always indiscreet with the power given to them, but they aren't as "more self-aware" than you think they are. On the other hand...
Do you know what they other problem is? Is that they usually don't want to band amongst themselves to reach a common goal, sometimes only taking care of their pet cause while excluding the others. There is power in numbers, see?
Regardless of what a person did, that person can't call himself a hero. Only people and time can tell if you're a hero. No matter what you did, if people think it benefited them, they would still call you a hero. Even if you think you are a killer, you will still be called a hero if the multitude thinks and feels like you are.
You might be dismissing him because you don't want to bother but you can't dismiss what he said. Else, you are not open to discussion and that only proves that you don't want to learn anything. And that's a death knell for a person's social survival and moral matter. More so, if the world is too large for that, then how come he is considered as one of the greatest military theorists of all time. It only means that everything he said still has weight until this day, no matter where you come from.
And if real war is more brutal and horrific than a duel, do you really think real duels always restricted to their codes of conduct? I mean, war has it's own written laws too, yet in practice it can't always be followed. How more so duels?
If the Allies simply wanted to defend themselves, why would you think they had advanced towards Germany from both sides to recapture held territory? World War 2 is considered to be one of the wars where it was won because the opposing force does not exist anymore. This concept is what we call, in the laws of war, as "debellatio"
I beg to differ. War and business are similar on the fact that you have to lose something and risk it in order to gain more than what you lost. The victors in war are those who are able to get what they want from the whole ordeal. If you say that there are no victors in war, so shall it be in business. Therefore, why should people do business?
If you think it is a natural evil and think it is common place, you are therefore insinuating that the world is evil. Such outlook is ignoring the common good.
And to say such means if you killed to save, let us say, your children or family, you are saying that they are living and prospering under the shadow of your sins. And what if you saved your country? What if you saved the whole world? Do you think that telling them that they are in peace now because of evil would not make people feel that they have been living under the shadow of past evil?
Have you considered that completely taking over a nation that's not your own and doesn't have their loyalty to you would not just be economically unfeasible but also managerially disastrous? This is why do you don't just take over a country that instant when you defeat them.
And again, war is the use of force to compel an enemy to do your will, to disarm or overthrow them. You have to expel force and make them feel the threat of disarmament, sometimes make them imagine that you would do more than what you are willing to do.
There was no "Axis of Evil" during World War 1. Don't confuse the two great wars into one.
But your uncle changed and you use marijuana too. But besides, the thing with drug use is that isn't inherently evil because it is the choice of the one using it, just like tobacco and alcohol. While drug use can lead to murder, it is only because of the circumstances surrounding the use of it.
Societal stagnation only happens if the problems plaguing society are one and the same all the time and if we are not nipping it by the bud. You should realize that we have yet to discover the roots of why evil exists. And even if we did, questions will still be asked and things would still be considered. Combating evil is not easy, neither is it pleasant.
If the ambiguity is there, who would know? Besides, if this weird Robin Hood only targets the corrupt and misanthropic, chances are they won't attack the common folk.
If it is only a couple days, what's the point of it?
Last edited by Ivan The Mouse; May 28th, 2014 at 01:48 AM.
Is it a bird? Is it a plan? Nay-it is Tighman!
Well that is hilarious.
[20:47:33] I3uster: in 2015 a crack memer was sent to skype prison by a court of his Peers for a crime he didnt commit. he promptly escaped from his Maximum security Forum into the twitter Underground. Today, still wanted by the skype Group he survives as memer of fortune. If you Need a shitpost, if nobody else can fuck up a thread, and if you can find him, maybe you can hire: June.
20.06.2014 Never forget
I didn't.
I thought we were talking about both wars. The Triple Alliance was WWI and the Axis of Evil was WWII. It does not change the fact that Germany was always the one that got the short end of the stick in both those wars.
I would also say the stipulations laid out in the Treaty of Versailles is what made Germany so weak and desperate enough that someone like Adolf Hitler was able to take control over it.
It has already be discussed, again by Von Clausewitz, that "Lastly, even the final decision of a whole War is not always to be regarded as absolute." Besides, war is politics by force; politics don't have an absolute end and so it is safe to say that things can always have repercussions. "Thus, therefore, the political object, as the original motive of the War, will be the standard for determining both the aim of the military force and also the amount of effort to be made." It only means that after the war, the military should always be ready to move if ever the political climate dictates it and, in turn, there should always have a will to use force when it comes to politics. And given the pacifism of the French during that time, the appeasement policy of Britain and the failure to act when Hitler remilitarized Rhineland, perhaps it is inevitable that things would go haywire as they happened, even when not speaking from hindsight.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
