| 03 Feb 2007 03:39 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 2  Joined: 12 May 2006 Posts: 2,132 OFFLINE | We as in my Country. Of course there are other reasons why were there, but mine were to keep the peace.
| |
 |
| 03 Feb 2007 03:40 pm |
Strange little girl Rep: 43  Joined: 03 May 2006 Posts: 7,096 | the21gamer wrote:
Etain wrote:
the21gamer wrote:
Etain wrote:
Savage Snake wrote:
Etain wrote:
Savage Snake wrote:
So lets get on a topic shall we? War? Why do we rage it and what good comes out of it?
I thought the topic was “what’s philosophy?" hehe
We wage war because we want something that someone else has. Or we perceive someone to be too foreign to our way of thinking and perceive them as a threat because of this.
It’s difficult to say whether any good can ever come of war because there has never truly been a “good war”. There are some wars that might seem to be waged for humanitarian reasons, but at the bottom of it a country entered such a war to benefit themselves or to protect themselves.
What about the current war in Iraq? We are there for the people, to protect them, help rebuild. We are there for them, not for us.
I’m sure you really don’t want me to get into that 
The fact that Savage was there for a different reason then you say counters your argument. Only he can decide what he fights for, not the government. Even if the government did have a different reason does not mean his reason can be ignored or outspoken.
I wouldn’t argue against his personal reason. I have no right to do that. But he said “we” - the collective.
Therefore war can indeed have noble causes.
That really doesn’t follow logically, 21.
---
 | |
| 03 Feb 2007 03:41 pm |
King of the Gamer Army Rep: 34 Joined: 22 Nov 2005 Posts: 14,674 OFFLINE | Etain wrote:
the21gamer wrote:
Etain wrote:
the21gamer wrote:
Etain wrote:
Savage Snake wrote:
Etain wrote:
Savage Snake wrote:
So lets get on a topic shall we? War? Why do we rage it and what good comes out of it?
I thought the topic was “what’s philosophy?" hehe
We wage war because we want something that someone else has. Or we perceive someone to be too foreign to our way of thinking and perceive them as a threat because of this.
It’s difficult to say whether any good can ever come of war because there has never truly been a “good war”. There are some wars that might seem to be waged for humanitarian reasons, but at the bottom of it a country entered such a war to benefit themselves or to protect themselves.
What about the current war in Iraq? We are there for the people, to protect them, help rebuild. We are there for them, not for us.
I’m sure you really don’t want me to get into that
The fact that Savage was there for a different reason then you say counters your argument. Only he can decide what he fights for, not the government. Even if the government did have a different reason does not mean his reason can be ignored or outspoken.
I wouldn’t argue against his personal reason. I have no right to do that. But he said “we” - the collective.
Therefore war can indeed have noble causes.
That really doesn’t follow logically, 21.
Savage had a noble cause and so the war had a noble cause. That seems quite logical.
---
 the21gamer wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Did you hear me? I’m a bigger better pussy than you’ll ever be.
Wtf...
| |
| 03 Feb 2007 03:41 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 2Joined: 12 May 2006 Posts: 2,132 OFFLINE | Yes it does. Saving millions of Jews and other people wasn’t noble? It sounds pretty noble to me.
| |
| 03 Feb 2007 03:42 pm |
King of the Gamer Army Rep: 34Joined: 22 Nov 2005 Posts: 14,674 OFFLINE | Etain wrote:
the21gamer wrote:
Etain wrote:
the21gamer wrote:
Etain wrote:
ChaosSpartan wrote:
Well, ignoring the problem, or appeasing it, won’t make it go away. Appeasing Hitler didn’t work, he continuously wanted more. We had to beat him down to keep the peace, or bring it back at least.
Actually most countries were happy to ignore the problem until they were being threatened.
I don’t see how ignoring Jews and others being rounded up helped.
Umm..yes that’s exactly what I’m saying 21. We might look back on it and think that in WWII countries were interested in the plight of the Jews. The truth was they really didn’t care so much about that - and were even turning Jewish refugees away from their borders. It was when they perceived their own country to be threatened by Hitler that they took action.
However, I am overgeneralizing. Denmark, for example, did care very much about the welfare of the Jews living there.
That has nothing to do with the argument. The argument is war isn’t always fought for 'gain'.
We shouldn’t be asking the governments but the soldiers what they fought for and I know countries stayed out, even we stayed out for a while, which was a pretty bad chose I think.
21 - I do believe it is the government, not the soldiers, who decide whether a war will happen in the first place. Therefore that does have to be considered.
So a government’s reasons cover the soldiers' reasons? Something’s wrong if that is so.
---
the21gamer wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Did you hear me? I’m a bigger better pussy than you’ll ever be.
Wtf...
| |
| 03 Feb 2007 03:42 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 8 Joined: 02 Apr 2006 Posts: 1,586 OFFLINE | *sigh* The US did not enter WW2 until Pearl Harbour was attacked, and the government knew the Japanese {rather} were about to attack, but let it happen, so they had an excuse to go to war
---
"The Problem with the English language is that it is as pure as a crib-house whore. it has chased other languages down dark alley-ways, clubbed them unconscious and rifled their pockets for new vocabulary."Last edited 03 Feb 2007 03:43 pm by James R. LeClair | |
| 03 Feb 2007 03:43 pm |
King of the Gamer Army Rep: 34Joined: 22 Nov 2005 Posts: 14,674 OFFLINE | James R. LeClair wrote:
*sigh* The US did not enter WW2 until Pearl Harbour was attacked, and the government knew the Germans were about to attack, but let it happen, so they had an excuse to go to war
That’s the government, not the people and the soldiers that fought. There is more than just the governments and the politics but I think we should have entered earlier before that happened.
---
the21gamer wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Did you hear me? I’m a bigger better pussy than you’ll ever be.
Wtf...
| |
| 03 Feb 2007 03:43 pm |
Strange little girl Rep: 43Joined: 03 May 2006 Posts: 7,096 | the21gamer wrote:
Etain wrote:
the21gamer wrote:
Etain wrote:
the21gamer wrote:
Etain wrote:
Savage Snake wrote:
Etain wrote:
Savage Snake wrote:
So lets get on a topic shall we? War? Why do we rage it and what good comes out of it?
I thought the topic was “what’s philosophy?" hehe
We wage war because we want something that someone else has. Or we perceive someone to be too foreign to our way of thinking and perceive them as a threat because of this.
It’s difficult to say whether any good can ever come of war because there has never truly been a “good war”. There are some wars that might seem to be waged for humanitarian reasons, but at the bottom of it a country entered such a war to benefit themselves or to protect themselves.
What about the current war in Iraq? We are there for the people, to protect them, help rebuild. We are there for them, not for us.
I’m sure you really don’t want me to get into that
The fact that Savage was there for a different reason then you say counters your argument. Only he can decide what he fights for, not the government. Even if the government did have a different reason does not mean his reason can be ignored or outspoken.
I wouldn’t argue against his personal reason. I have no right to do that. But he said “we” - the collective.
Therefore war can indeed have noble causes.
That really doesn’t follow logically, 21.
Savage had a noble cause and so the war had a noble cause. That seems quite logical.
1 person doesn’t necessarily represent the collective 21, as I’m sure you know.
Let’s put it this way - suppose a law is passed to validate gay marriages. But you don’t agree with this. Does that therefore mean that:
a) Because the collective agrees with it it therefore means you do
or
b) Because you disagree that means you represent the collective opinion?
---
| |
| 03 Feb 2007 03:43 pm |
Nyarlathotep Rep: 12 Joined: 26 Jun 2005 Posts: 6,923 OFFLINE | Savage Snake wrote:
Yes it does. Saving millions of Jews and other people wasn’t noble? It sounds pretty noble to me.
The results were noble.
---
Not dead that which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons death may die.
- H. P. Lovecraft Join the Order | |
| 03 Feb 2007 03:44 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 2Joined: 12 May 2006 Posts: 2,132 OFFLINE | Because they didn’t want it to result in their soldiers being killed. Germany and Japan attacked us, Germany told Japan to attack us in order for Hitlers rain to spread to the west.
| |
| 03 Feb 2007 03:44 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 8Joined: 02 Apr 2006 Posts: 1,586 OFFLINE | the21gamer wrote:
James R. LeClair wrote:
*sigh* The US did not enter WW2 until Pearl Harbour was attacked, and the government knew the Germans were about to attack, but let it happen, so they had an excuse to go to war
That’s the government, not the people and the soldiers that fought. There is more than just the governments and the politics but I think we should have entered earlier before that happened.
oh my bad.. it’s ok if you are lied to, so long as you believe the lie.. forgot about that
---
"The Problem with the English language is that it is as pure as a crib-house whore. it has chased other languages down dark alley-ways, clubbed them unconscious and rifled their pockets for new vocabulary." | |
| 03 Feb 2007 03:44 pm |
Strange little girl Rep: 43Joined: 03 May 2006 Posts: 7,096 | ChaosSpartan wrote:
Savage Snake wrote:
Yes it does. Saving millions of Jews and other people wasn’t noble? It sounds pretty noble to me.
The results were noble.
Yes, exactly. The results wound up being good - but the results of freeing the Jews were not the reason the countries choose to enter the war.
---
| |
| 03 Feb 2007 03:45 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 2Joined: 12 May 2006 Posts: 2,132 OFFLINE | I have to quote more often.
| |
| 03 Feb 2007 03:45 pm |
Nyarlathotep Rep: 12Joined: 26 Jun 2005 Posts: 6,923 OFFLINE | Stop quoting.
---
Not dead that which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons death may die.
- H. P. Lovecraft Join the Order | |
| 03 Feb 2007 03:45 pm |
King of the Gamer Army Rep: 34Joined: 22 Nov 2005 Posts: 14,674 OFFLINE | Etain wrote:
the21gamer wrote:
Etain wrote:
the21gamer wrote:
Etain wrote:
the21gamer wrote:
Etain wrote:
Savage Snake wrote:
Etain wrote:
Savage Snake wrote:
So lets get on a topic shall we? War? Why do we rage it and what good comes out of it?
I thought the topic was “what’s philosophy?" hehe
We wage war because we want something that someone else has. Or we perceive someone to be too foreign to our way of thinking and perceive them as a threat because of this.
It’s difficult to say whether any good can ever come of war because there has never truly been a “good war”. There are some wars that might seem to be waged for humanitarian reasons, but at the bottom of it a country entered such a war to benefit themselves or to protect themselves.
What about the current war in Iraq? We are there for the people, to protect them, help rebuild. We are there for them, not for us.
I’m sure you really don’t want me to get into that
The fact that Savage was there for a different reason then you say counters your argument. Only he can decide what he fights for, not the government. Even if the government did have a different reason does not mean his reason can be ignored or outspoken.
I wouldn’t argue against his personal reason. I have no right to do that. But he said “we” - the collective.
Therefore war can indeed have noble causes.
That really doesn’t follow logically, 21.
Savage had a noble cause and so the war had a noble cause. That seems quite logical.
1 person doesn’t necessarily represent the collective 21, as I’m sure you know.
Let’s put it this way - suppose a law is passed to validate gay marriages. But you don’t agree with this. Does that therefore mean that:
a) Because the collective agrees with it it therefore means you do
or
b) Because you disagree that means you represent the collective opinion?
Nor do the politicians represent the people and the soldiers. All they represent is the political side, nothing more.
1 noble cause from 1 person is enough to say there was some nobility in a war whether you agree with the war or not.
---
the21gamer wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Did you hear me? I’m a bigger better pussy than you’ll ever be.
Wtf...
| |
| 03 Feb 2007 03:45 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 2Joined: 12 May 2006 Posts: 2,132 OFFLINE | Etain wrote:
ChaosSpartan wrote:
Savage Snake wrote:
Yes it does. Saving millions of Jews and other people wasn’t noble? It sounds pretty noble to me.
The results were noble.
Yes, exactly. The results wound up being good - but the results of freeing the Jews were not the reason the countries choose to enter the war.
Well War isn’t pretty.
| |
| 03 Feb 2007 03:47 pm |
King of the Gamer Army Rep: 34Joined: 22 Nov 2005 Posts: 14,674 OFFLINE | James R. LeClair wrote:
the21gamer wrote:
James R. LeClair wrote:
*sigh* The US did not enter WW2 until Pearl Harbour was attacked, and the government knew the Germans were about to attack, but let it happen, so they had an excuse to go to war
That’s the government, not the people and the soldiers that fought. There is more than just the governments and the politics but I think we should have entered earlier before that happened.
oh my bad.. it’s ok if you are lied to, so long as you believe the lie.. forgot about that
What are you talking about? I just agreed with you but said that the government is not the people and the JAPANESE attacked, not the Germans.
---
the21gamer wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Did you hear me? I’m a bigger better pussy than you’ll ever be.
Wtf...
| |
| 03 Feb 2007 03:48 pm |
King of the Gamer Army Rep: 34Joined: 22 Nov 2005 Posts: 14,674 OFFLINE | Etain wrote:
ChaosSpartan wrote:
Savage Snake wrote:
Yes it does. Saving millions of Jews and other people wasn’t noble? It sounds pretty noble to me.
The results were noble.
Yes, exactly. The results wound up being good - but the results of freeing the Jews were not the reason the countries choose to enter the war.
Government does not override the people. They may choose but they do not override the people and their reasons.
---
the21gamer wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Did you hear me? I’m a bigger better pussy than you’ll ever be.
Wtf...
| |
| 03 Feb 2007 03:48 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 2Joined: 12 May 2006 Posts: 2,132 OFFLINE | How do you think North and South America came to be? Millions of civilizations were murdered and killed so that we can call this place home. War is how everything is formed, from the Battle of Heaven to the future world wars. In order to have a home, you need to fight for it.
| |
| 03 Feb 2007 03:49 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 2Joined: 12 May 2006 Posts: 2,132 OFFLINE | the21gamer wrote:
James R. LeClair wrote:
the21gamer wrote:
James R. LeClair wrote:
*sigh* The US did not enter WW2 until Pearl Harbour was attacked, and the government knew the Germans were about to attack, but let it happen, so they had an excuse to go to war
That’s the government, not the people and the soldiers that fought. There is more than just the governments and the politics but I think we should have entered earlier before that happened.
oh my bad.. it’s ok if you are lied to, so long as you believe the lie.. forgot about that
What are you talking about? I just agreed with you but said that the government is not the people and the JAPANESE attacked, not the Germans.
but the Germans convinced them to do it.
| |
|
Previous Page - Post Reply - Next Page |
»
Off-Topic
» a philosophy topic
