By telling him that the boot hurts and the tyrant realizing that he shouldn't hurt me, and so removes his boot ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Join my worldview, you know you want to. And it'll leave only 6.498.000.000 others to convince...
Printable View
By telling him that the boot hurts and the tyrant realizing that he shouldn't hurt me, and so removes his boot ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Join my worldview, you know you want to. And it'll leave only 6.498.000.000 others to convince...
I am to much of a realist, your tactic was tried once and the world suffered from 6 years of bloodly war because of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
There is an old quote by Thomas Jefferson about the tree of liberty, it still applies to today's world.
Hello,Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Am I correct, you consider Norwegian resistance to the Nazi invasion of their homeland as immoral?
Yes. I consider every act of killing immoral. We should have convinced hitler to smell flowers instead...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
No-no, the world has never had an entire population who consider violence as something that should never, ever happen...Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Throw away the realistic thinking, and join me so we can hop around, smelling flowers and sing! :yes:
Again that stance was tried with Hilter by a certain Englishman.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
There is a very simple reason for that - men do not often like to live with the boot of tyranny on their neck,Quote:
No-no, the world has never had an entire population who consider violence as something that should never, ever happen...
Sorry that is an impossible task - I have no ability to carry a tune or hop around.Quote:
Throw away the realistic thinking, and join me so we can hop around, smelling flowers and sing! :yes:
Does this include the killing of any living thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Thats funny, conspiracy theorists have you hopping all over the place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Hopping no - stomping yes, since I have pretty much stomped on each and every one of them......Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
Of course not. I'm a human, hence I don't kill other humans. Any other species are called "dinner"... Or "snack"...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Ah, but if everybody thought this way, there wouldn't be any tyrants in the first place, now would it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
You can sit under a tree and hum if you want?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I see. Why do you consider killing people as immoral?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Simply put: because I'm a human, and they are humans. But most of all because it is ALWAYS avoidable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Hence your postion goes beyond the simplicity of naive into something worse. Your postion leaves off the most basic trait of the human condition.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
To hum requires one to be able to carry a tune also - ie I believe a sense of timing is also required, alas a trait that I do not have. No hopping or singing for me, only queit reflection on the traits of human beings,Quote:
You can sit under a tree and hum if you want?
Absolutely, positively NO!
War in general is rarely justifiable, but it must always be the last resort of diplomatic solution. Never the first, and certainly must not be allowed to become a policy of state in a democracy.
Europe had 25-30 years of failed diplomacy and minor conflicts (between smaller nations - e.g. the Pig Belly Wars) preceding WWI. Once it began both conflicting parties (alliances) pointed at the other as having started it. Germany is blamed for "pre-emptive", but all the nations had their sabers rattling and armys amassed on their borders. Diplomacy failed on a scale that is out and out frightening (especially when one considers that most of the leaders of the opposing forces were all related), no one thought it would really happen - but no one would make even a token concession to stem the tide towards war. The slaughter that followed was on a scale no one could have imagined, and it didn't have to happen. So much botched diplomacy and unnecessary intrigues, and the final excuse for war nothing more than an hype to start the killing.
What we have in the world today is almost a mirror of that pre-war eras inability to properly employ diplomacy without rattling sabers at the same time. Per-emptive strikes were quite popular then as well.
WWI was not inevitable, and neither was the US invasion of Iraq.
A nation proclaiming itself to have high morals does not
use preemptive war as a diplomatic policy. It's that simple.
:balloon2:
How would diplomacy have saved Japan and America?
I voted niet.
Technically any war is always justifiable as long as it is won.
But I suppose that the christian you quote places your question from a moral point of view.
As what is called pre-emptive war is simply the choice of a war declaration and the first strike, this supposes that no other option but war is available at a given moment.
Intimidation, sabre rattling and negotiations make this assumption false so no, pre-emptive war is not justifiable from a moral point of view.
You don't have to justify a Just War, it is it's own justification.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
The Just War is about seeking justice through violence. You cannot have pre-emptive justice, since this would be justice served before the crime has been committed. So a pre-emptive war cannot be a Just War.
It can, however, still be justified.
In answer to your second question: Strictly speaking no it cannot. If, once the action is taken, it turns out to have served justice then that is merely a happy coincidence.
It can never be justified for that simple reason that you start a state of war, with another state and you start it without having been engaged first. If the state in question 'plans' to attack your country it will remain speculation only, since they have not done it yet, and therefore cannot be proven 100%. If, however, you could prove it 100% then yes it would be justified. The only circumstance I can think of that will prove such a thing is time travelling.
So no, it cannot be justified. It can be used of course as an excuse to wage a war, justified it can never be.
There is no justification in taking a man's life without him having done you any wrong, which he hasn't in the case of pre-emptive war. Can you prove 100% that he will do it as I said then yes, it is justified, but you can never prove such a thing.
The designate: being human doesn't say anything about not killing other humans. Avoidably doesn't imply moral standing. Neither of these points speaks to a moral posture.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
This doesn't speak to my question.Quote:
Originally Posted by me
The above is a contradiction.Quote:
The Just War is about seeking justice through violence. You cannot have pre-emptive justice, since this would be justice served before the crime has been committed. So a pre-emptive war cannot be a Just War.
It can, however, still be justified.
Interesting, if a policeman shot and killed a person who was himself drawing on the cop, the policeman would have committed an unjust act because his action was anticipatory?Quote:
In answer to your second question: Strictly speaking no it cannot. If, once the action is taken, it turns out to have served justice then that is merely a happy coincidence.
I didn't take any offense, but pointed out that "just war" isn't a concept originating from the Christian tradition. However, the latin concept "bellum iustum" was coined by a philosopher that was part of the Christian tradition, though often went against the majority view within this church (and it's not really surprising that the latin concept was coined by Christian tradition, since latin was mostly used by Christian tradition after 300 AD).Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Indeed, to speak about just war theory requires you to be a very warlike and violent culture/religion so you have experience to base your conclusions on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
My point which you addressed isn't concerned with the concept 'just war' but Just War Theory. The ideas of the tie between justice and war are quite old. Thucydides' writing on the Melian debate would be a simple example. Just War Theory is distinct in that it is a more fully flushed out theoretical positioning. I went with the Christian Tradition because it is under St. Augustine and others like St. Thomas, whose work I referenced, that this was done.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
I think your idea on St. Augustine's idea being against the majority view of the Church is anachronistic.Quote:
However, the latin concept "bellum iustum" was coined by a philosopher that was part of the Christian tradition, though often went against the majority view within this church (and it's not really surprising that the latin concept was coined by Christian tradition, since latin was mostly used by Christian tradition after 300 AD).
Latin was not the mostly used language by the Christian Tradition after 300. The core of Christianity was in the East where Greek was the standard. This can be seen not only in four of the five Patriarchies being in the East, but that the Ecumenical Councils were all held in the East (in Greek) the first of which was in 325.
Crusades, inquisition, excommunication as means of political intrigue, papal "pornocracy" rule period, blaming the death of Jesus on Jews and encouraging anti-semitism, Sixtus I's trying to look like the Messiah by trying to enact prophecies, the pope's selling indulgencies and threatening with burning in hell rhetoric period, massacres of "heretics" who thought different, etc etc? Do you think these examples - which constitute the majority of the Christian church tradition - are in accordance to the more peaceful and just teachings of Augustine? I would say no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Thomas of Aquino and St Augustine went against the majority within church tradition in their works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
Who does the pronoun refer to?
St. Augustine and bellum iustum predate the Crusades, and the inquisition. Excommunication does not speak to just war. Papal "pornocracy" rule, blaming the death of Jesus on the Jews, encouraging anti-Semitism or Sixtus I 'trying to look like the Messiah' does not speak to just war.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
The above doesn't relate to your earlier post. Even so, neither St. Augustine or St. Thomas were pacifists, both accepted excommunication as valid. Both considered Jews in a dim light.Quote:
Do you think these examples - which constitute the majority of the Christian church tradition - are in accordance to the more peaceful and just teachings of Augustine? I would say no. Thomas of Aquino and St Augustine went against the majority within church tradition in their works.
you/one, not "the person I'm speaking to".Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Indeed, and thus they say different than St Augustine, wouldn't you say? And if what they say is different than what St Augustine says, then what St Augustine says is different from what they say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
But thereby not necessarily as a power tool to be (ab)used in all the ways in which it was (ab)used in practise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Ah, but I know that trait, and I'm not fool enough to ignore it, however, I genuinely believe that it can be removed. Just like the religious things and private property.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
And Pindar, I'm not really sure how to answer your question, I guess it's one of those things I've gotten from birth... To me, being a human means that I should not kill another human being no matter what. And as for being avoidable, to me that means immoral, because killing is always the easy way. To accomplish your goal without killing anyone is always harder...
BTW, just to clarify, I do not hate people who have killed, and I do not condemn the act of killing. I have nothing against evil, as long as people realize that what they have done is evil...
Pindar:
How does Hobbes fit in to this?
If you accept a Hobbesian view of the state of nature, it implies to me that peace is the exception and war -- pre-emptive or otherwise -- the rule.
I see.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
Your statement did not speak of difference, but that the one was against the other. This is the anachronism.Quote:
Indeed, and thus they say different than St Augustine, wouldn't you say? And if what they say is different than what St Augustine says, then what St Augustine says is different from what they say.
I don't think you will find any Catholic thinker who will argue either war or excommunication should be abused.Quote:
But thereby not necessarily as a power tool to be (ab)used in all the ways in which it was (ab)used in practise.