Welcome


Thank you for visiting our new forum! To start posting again please follow the link below to create a new password. First time forum users please follow the link to register. CFI thanks you for continuing the discussion on evidence-based thinking and humanist values.

Iran


Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 79 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #301339
    @thatoneguy
    Participant

    Then apply your logic to the nazis. Comfortable?

    Not saying it’s necessarily a good thing, just the way it always works.

    #301350
    @bigmouth
    Participant

    “Thatoneguy. Then apply your logic to the nazis. Comfortable? ”

    Can’t resist; a two-in-one

    Ad hominem attack AND Godwin’s law in one sentence, impressive.

    2 cents:  Once again; there are no such things as innate rights.

    Countries have no right to exist. They do so only for as long as they can defend themselves against their neighbours. Have a good look at political maps of the world going back a hundred years at a time, for say 500 years.. Perhaps begin with looking at Africa and Eastern Europe.

    ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    Godwin’s law (or Godwin’s rule of Hitler analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1”;[2][3] that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds, the point at which effectively the discussion or thread often ends. Promulgated by the American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990,[2] Godwin’s law originally referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions.[4] It is now applied to any threaded online discussion, such as Internet forums, chat rooms, and comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and other rhetoric[5][6] where reductio ad Hitlerum occurs.

    Godwin has stated that he introduced Godwin’s law in 1990 as an experiment in memetics.[2]

    In 2012, “Godwin’s law” became an entry in the third edition of the Oxford English Dictionary.[7]

     

    • This reply was modified 10 months, 2 weeks ago by Patrick D.
    • This reply was modified 10 months, 2 weeks ago by Patrick D.
    #301352
    @bigmouth
    Participant

    “It’s more about what you can do rather than what is just and legal. After all, the strongest man in the room decides what is just and legal and enforces those terms.”

    Or as Mao said ” Power grows from the barrel of a gun”.  The basis of Realpolitik . From that proposition one can infer the claim that in power generally, war and politics specifically, there is one and only one guiding principle; ” the ends justify the means”

    Light reading :  Sun Tzu”The Art of War’ written approx  5th century bce.  “The Prince” .  Niccolo Machiavelli, first sedition 1513 ce.  Both are thin volumes.

    #301358
    @player
    Blocked

    PatD

    “Countries have no right to exist. They do so only for as long as they can defend themselves against their neighbours”

    An oxymoron??

     

     

    “After all, the strongest man in the room decides what is just and legal and enforces those terms.”

    So war crimes dont apply to the strongest according to that one guy and Pat D.

    #301362
    @bigmouth
    Participant

    “So war crimes dont apply to the strongest according to that one guy and Pat D.”

     

    I didn’t say that, but it’s inferred. So, yeah you bet your  bippy.

    Take a look at WW2 and exactly who were prosecuted for war crimes?  How many members of all allied forces combined were prosecuted for war crimes? Perhaps begin with the D Day invasion and shooting of german prisoners of war.

    The victors in war get to punish the defeated  and to write the official history.

    Pretty I’ve made it clear that my perception is based on the specific, and well known notion of realpolitik. I’ve even made reference to two famous books and this concept of power.  It’s called ‘conflict theory’.

    Perhaps do a bit of reading before coming over all self righteous. You do that a lot.   It’s not only tedious, but is not conducive to rational discussion.

    Disagree? Fine, but do try to present your position like a grown up, there’s a good boy.

    )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    “Realpolitik (from German: real; “realistic”, “practical”, or “actual”; and Politik; “politics”, German pronunciation: [ʁeˈaːlpoliˌtiːk]) is politics or diplomacy based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral and ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism. It is often simply referred to as “pragmatism” in politics, e.g. “pursuing pragmatic policies”. The term Realpolitik is sometimes used pejoratively to imply politics that are perceived as coercive, amoral, or Machiavellian.[1]”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik

     

    • This reply was modified 10 months, 2 weeks ago by Patrick D.
    • This reply was modified 10 months, 2 weeks ago by Patrick D.
    #301364
    @player
    Blocked

    Pat D

     

    “I didn’t say that, but it’s inferred. So, yeah you bet your  bippy.”

    So then you agree with theoneguy on this!!!! The strongest at the time make the rules so what the SNP did in their time when they were in power was legit. According to you two knuckle heads

     

    And while we are talking about your non sequitur postings, you have insulted the Israelis by repeating no country has a right to exist. Why are you so anti semetic.

     

    #301365
    @bigmouth
    Participant

    “And while we are talking about your non sequitur postings, you have insulted the Israelis by repeating no country has a right to exist. Why are you so anti semetic.”

    Oh dear, trolling again. Get over yourself. I was stating a position , from which I do not resile.

    It was not my intention to insult anyone (except you of course; you’re too easy) .  My opinion that no country has a right to exist is a generalisation which I hold to be true.  There are over 200 countries on the planet, Israel is simply one them. I did not mention Israel, you did.–and you accuse me of non sequiturs.  Not convinced you know what the term means.

    Bored now.

    • This reply was modified 10 months, 2 weeks ago by Patrick D.
    • This reply was modified 10 months, 2 weeks ago by Patrick D.
    #301368
    @player
    Blocked

    Because Israel is the only country in the world that keeps screaming out that it has a right to exist.

     

    Pat D

     

    Why do you say Israel does not have a right to exist?

    • This reply was modified 10 months, 2 weeks ago by Player.
    • This reply was modified 10 months, 2 weeks ago by Player.
    #301393
    @thatoneguy
    Participant

    So war crimes dont apply to the strongest according to that one guy and Pat D

    That is exactly what history shows. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m saying that’s how it always unfolds.

    #301394
    @player
    Blocked

    Thatoneguy – lets spell it out for you.  the iraq war is a war crime.

    #301408
    @timb
    Participant

    Might makes right.  That philosophy has been around probably as long as civilization.  The concept of Justice came along, i think in Roman times.  Since then it has moderated “might makes right” somewhat.  When the most mighty can be controlled by cultural norms or other social mechanisms, like laws, for instance, then they can often be convinced that their might doesn’t necessarily make them right.

     

    #301411
    @player
    Blocked

    Question is make right for who?

    #301454
    @thatoneguy
    Participant

    Thatoneguy – lets spell it out for you.  the iraq war is a war crime.

    Keep saying that that and watch how the US continues to get away with it.

    #301456
    @thatoneguy
    Participant

    Might makes right.  That philosophy has been around probably as long as civilization.  The concept of Justice came along, i think in Roman times.  Since then it has moderated “might makes right” somewhat.  When the most mighty can be controlled by cultural norms or other social mechanisms, like laws, for instance, then they can often be convinced that their might doesn’t necessarily make them right.

    The strong make the laws and cultural norms are either to flimsy to make a difference or brutally enforced by the strong.

    All roads lead to “might makes right”.

    #301458
    @player
    Blocked

    Not the strong. Rather, its the ruling class that sets the narrative

    • This reply was modified 10 months, 2 weeks ago by Player.
    • This reply was modified 10 months, 2 weeks ago by Player.
Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 79 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.