First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
War Ethics
Posted 5/8/11

Lauriet wrote:


Sonovabitch wrote:



As it is an ethic in war, your self-defense is rightful. However, he will, in the context of debate, use any anger you might feel to make you irrational. We call it "putting people on the defensive" so they lose sight of the finer points in a discussion. This is a suitable tactic for a confrontation, though many might consider it dirty.


So, he's doing exactly what I said to do in warfare, but in the form of debate.....

Ah-huh.... He's starting to make less sense now.


His ethical philosophical war in the form of debate has been done for the sake of shits and giggles.

I think he might concur...
Posted 5/8/11

Sonovabitch wrote:


Lauriet wrote:


Sonovabitch wrote:



As it is an ethic in war, your self-defense is rightful. However, he will, in the context of debate, use any anger you might feel to make you irrational. We call it "putting people on the defensive" so they lose sight of the finer points in a discussion. This is a suitable tactic for a confrontation, though many might consider it dirty.


So, he's doing exactly what I said to do in warfare, but in the form of debate.....

Ah-huh.... He's starting to make less sense now.


His ethical philosophical war in the form of debate has been done for the sake of shits and giggles.

I think he might concur...


Now that we've (we as in you) confirmed Dom is indeed the Extended Discussion troll and/or residential jackass, let's knock this thing back on topic. I genuinely think reading about what people think on war ethics and morals is interesting, and I think this would be more insightful and enjoyable if we just dropped the current subject and went back on-thread coherency.

Posted 5/8/11

Lauriet wrote:


Sonovabitch wrote:


Lauriet wrote:


Sonovabitch wrote:



As it is an ethic in war, your self-defense is rightful. However, he will, in the context of debate, use any anger you might feel to make you irrational. We call it "putting people on the defensive" so they lose sight of the finer points in a discussion. This is a suitable tactic for a confrontation, though many might consider it dirty.


So, he's doing exactly what I said to do in warfare, but in the form of debate.....

Ah-huh.... He's starting to make less sense now.


His ethical philosophical war in the form of debate has been done for the sake of shits and giggles.

I think he might concur...


Now that we've (we as in you) confirmed Dom is indeed the Extended Discussion troll and/or residential jackass, let's knock this thing back on topic. I genuinely think reading about what people think on war ethics and morals is interesting, and I think this would be more insightful and enjoyable if we just dropped the current subject and went back on-thread coherency.



It is still "on-topic", but we can shift it around any way we like using anything, or anyone, as an example.

I recall the Trojan Horse and its application of deceit in warfare. Can this be called ethical? Yes, for part of war is survival regardless of it being an obvious lie concealing a deadly truth.
Posted 5/8/11
I believe war is inherently unethical. We should do anything we can to destroy the enemy while minimizing the death of innocent civilians/non-combatants.
Posted 5/9/11 , edited 5/9/11

Lauriet wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Just what were the resources being fought for during the Korean and Vietnam Wars? Some sorta PR stunts?

What twisted excuse of a Darwinian are you? When you took the "survival of the fittest" quote completely out of the context of natural selection, and mutilated the theory of evolution beyond recognition, with your stupid false negative confirmation bias and arrogance. Nature does not favor the strong when it comes to fitting in, while it only rewards the most adaptive and sustainable biosphere with continual survival. Therefore it doesn't matter what you believed to be right, the objective reality is that you're simply unaware of just how wrong you were. You should had won a Darwin Award for your own stupidity, so loose the "tough guy" act when I'm not falling for it over the Internet.

And about your stupid "setting an example" excuse? Well that's not even the logic behind the incendiary bombs, which BTW killed more civilians and caused more collateral damage, than the two A-bombs combined.

So never mind your "meaningless" psychobabble, when your straw man fallacy on war ethics doesn't fly with the logic of tit-for-tat. Thus ultimately your bonehead garbage is gobbledygook for a whole lot of nothing in the long run, even a 9 years old can tell you why the need for war ethics as a moral oversight. Because you are now an institutionalized power with a God-like oversight of invulnerability. And I can't help but to worry about our collective future inspired by arrogance and an illusion of overconfidence, while there are obvious social benefits from within our power of vulnerability.


Uh, hey. I want to know what gives -you- the right to throw around 'stupidity' and 'objective'. Aren't you arrogant yourself for doing that? I want to know what twisted excuse for a trash talker you are, how's that for a counter-question?

Reported. Because I'm tired of your incapability to acknowledge faulty logic, degradation of site members, and freqient harassment. You actually spending half of that post hyper-linking and trash talking is just cementing the fact you're more of a cyber bully then a logician. I've seen logicians, philosophers, and academically superior people remain modest enough to not pick a post and talk down to it just because it doesn't suit your logic. Because it doesn't suit your perspective.

How is fallacious logic offensive to you? How is people being illogical and subjective always warranting a lecture from you? You talk just to talk down, and that's about it. There is a fine line between correcting and trying to conform everyone to fit your perceptions. Which is, guess what?

Faulty. Now go talk down to yourself and try to rationalize it. Maybe extended discussion will get some life back into it once you stop hounding people.
What's so arrogant about the logic that I presented? When 93% of human communication is nonverbal, only 7% is actually verbal language that simply carries conceptual models. Not real emotions. Thereby whatever negative emotions that you just felt were originated from within yourself, not mine.

That being said, you're only putting on an appearance of winning by yourself attacking my person, but not my argument. Which BTW I've seen arrogant logicians well liked by a lot of people, they're called comedians.


Lauriet wrote:



So, he's doing exactly what I said to do in warfare, but in the form of debate.....

Ah-huh.... He's starting to make less sense now.
Wrong again, when once again you didn't even try to attack the evidences which support my argument. Whereas myself OTOH didn't claim to know everything, just enough to know that you misinterpreted evolution. If this is really about insinuating a war, I'm the one allowing you to inspect my weapon stockpile through hyperlinks. Whereas yourself OTOH lack the common courtesy nor honor, while you made cheap shots on my person.

Finally if this was a real intellectual warfare, you've just wasted your effort on attacking the wrong target. Because it's not me who's your biggest threat, but rather it's my categorical logic based on consequential reasons of real war, that's defeating your already faulty logic based on your own logic fallacy and cognitive limitations. I could care less on what you think about my person, as long as my logic prevailed, I've succeeded with my mission objective. That's the professionalism and dedication of a sniper applying psychological manipulation; to trap an entire platoon by just wounding one of their comrades, thereby luring the rest of them out of their cover, when they attempt to rescue their wounded. Case in point, I simply wounded your ego, and just look at how your attack had completely miss the real target that's my argument.

So shall I continue to wound your ego like you had allowed me to thus far? Or are you gonna smarten up.
2468 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / Half-Blood Camp
Offline
Posted 9/24/11
I agree, War is the best way to control human population. It may sound wrong, heck, it even sound wrong to me but thats just the way life goes.

Posted 9/24/11

missy115 wrote:

I agree, War is the best way to control human population. It may sound wrong, heck, it even sound wrong to me but thats just the way life goes.
Then start learning some real life science, when you're in fact making bogus claims without factual evidences.

Also, there are observable alternative methods of population control other than war. While some animal species are so good at it, they practice population control naturally. But when you yourself lack the patient and self-discipline to discover for yourself that I've already defeated the same argument, you only got yourself to blame for your own arrogance.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.