"Lest we forget"

**bogan** · 19th December 2014, 15:10

Originally Posted by mstriumph

so, like trying to teach a dog to crochet, we've reconfirmed that persistence doesn't always result in understanding

Because you persist in avoiding to address any one of my points. Understanding cannot commence unless we talk about the same things; I mean none of that post even talked vaguely about war. The one before were not much better. A while back you started avoiding the questions I asked to gain a better understanding of your viewpoint. I would theorise the avoidance simply means that on some level you understand your viewpoint is too simplistic.

**mstriumph** · 19th December 2014, 15:13

there's been a massive outpouring of emotion following the Martin Place siege/shooting (Martin Place, Martin Bryant ... whoah, coINcidence? I don't THINK so!!)...

The guy that died trying to tackle the do-badder seems to be being eulogised to 'hero' status...

He chose to do what he did (realistically most here would have chosen similarly - hopefully with more success) ... his choice wasn't tainted by government propaganda, smoke and mirrors (see rest of thread)... he was following his own agenda, no-one was pulling his strings. His choice was free, his action brought about the end of the siege (and possibly the saving of other lives), his death wasn't wasted.

**mstriumph** · 19th December 2014, 15:15

Originally Posted by Akzle

not the jewdayo xtian bit...

But the humans being a small part of existing. Yuh.

knew if we kept at it long enough we'd find something to agree about

... good chatting with you.

**mstriumph** · 19th December 2014, 15:18

Originally Posted by bogan

Because you persist in avoiding to address any one of my points. Understanding cannot commence unless we talk about the same things; I mean none of that post even talked vaguely about war. The one before were not much better. A while back you started avoiding the questions I asked to gain a better understanding of your viewpoint. I would theorise the avoidance simply means that on some level you understand your viewpoint is too simplistic.

there you go again, inferring something not implied from something I said (or didn't say) to build an unsubstantiated hypothesis from which to draw an erroneous conclusion... *sigh*

you aren't another lawyer are you?

**Akzle** · 19th December 2014, 15:25

Originally Posted by mstriumph

knew if we kept at it long enough we'd find something to agree about

... good chatting with you.

darling, we agree on a lot. Lets get together, i'll give you some penis.

**bogan** · 19th December 2014, 15:30

Originally Posted by mstriumph

there you go again, inferring something not implied from something I said (or didn't say) to build an unsubstantiated hypothesis from which to draw an erroneous conclusion... *sigh*

you aren't another lawyer are you?

Well you seem to be trying to have a discussion without saying anything about the subject matter; so what can I do but make inferences about that which you have previously said?

Here's some excerpts of from around when you stopped discussion the subject. Please discuss these if you want to come to an understanding.

"The point I'm making, is that if you keep touting false justifications as reason to never go to war; displays a logical inconsistency. That is, that if the reasons were true, it would have been justified, so going to war is sometimes acceptable.

My other point is that defending your home soil and by extension the current govt is not always morally right either."

You seem to get the second bit, and haven't brought up false justifications again; but rather than me inferring from those things, perhaps you would do a proper answer to them; just for understandings sake.

**mashman** · 19th December 2014, 17:08

Originally Posted by mstriumph

there you go again, inferring something not implied from something I said (or didn't say) to build an unsubstantiated hypothesis from which to draw an erroneous conclusion... *sigh*

you aren't another lawyer are you?

I've tasted his words in my mouth before. Psychic Brain Surgeon.

**TheDemonLord** · 19th December 2014, 19:26

Originally Posted by mstriumph

no on all counts

You say that, yet you clearly contradicted yourself.

For reference you said:

as a basic principal I'll defend wherever I am if attacked ... that's self-defence

BUT IF I (or any of my kin) go to somewhere, we are NOT living at the time, weapons in hand and mayhem in mind, that's warmongering, invasion and definitely out of line.

............ which is *sigh* exactly the essence of what I've been saying since post one.

But then you said:

Sensible question. In all honesty, that close to home, it would probably fall within the definition of the attack being on 'me and mine' ...

These two view points are mutually exclusive.

So which is it - Is it:

A: Only acceptable to fight when it is self-Defence
or
B: Is there a time when it is acceptable to Fight that is not for Self-Defence of you and your country directly (as in defending Australia)

If the option is A - then why would you fight to defend Australia (as you claimed) as that is clearly a violation of:

go to somewhere, we are NOT living at the time, weapons in hand and mayhem in mind, that's warmongering, invasion and definitely out of line.

If the option is B - Then my original point is validated - that occasionally, with a specific set of circumstances, when all diplomatic and peaceful means have been exhausted, that Force (and that may include war and invasion or assisting an ally) is necessary

**mstriumph** · 22nd December 2014, 02:26

Originally Posted by Akzle

darling, we agree on a lot. Lets get together, i'll give you some penis.

Let's not, I am not a good role model for your children

**mstriumph** · 22nd December 2014, 02:29

Originally Posted by bogan

Well you seem to be trying to have a discussion without saying anything about the subject matter..............

Laughable in view of the fact that I started the thread ...

**mstriumph** · 22nd December 2014, 02:38

Originally Posted by TheDemonLord

You say that, yet you clearly contradicted yourself.

For reference you said:

But then you said:

These two view points are mutually exclusive.

So which is it - Is it:

A: Only acceptable to fight when it is self-Defence
or
B: Is there a time when it is acceptable to Fight that is not for Self-Defence of you and your country directly (as in defending Australia)

.....................................

No contradiction. Depends on how you define 'self' ... you were talking about NZ being attacked, a place were I have family ... as I have family in Australia. To me, me and mine constitute 'self' (I think I said that elsewhere) 'country' is a whole other issue subordinate to 'self' as I view it. I can't honestly see myself fighting for any particular government - as I've already said, for me it's personal.

**TheDemonLord** · 22nd December 2014, 05:41

Originally Posted by mstriumph

No contradiction. Depends on how you define 'self' ... you were talking about NZ being attacked, a place were I have family ... as I have family in Australia. To me, me and mine constitute 'self' (I think I said that elsewhere) 'country' is a whole other issue subordinate to 'self' as I view it. I can't honestly see myself fighting for any particular government - as I've already said, for me it's personal.

So, your definition of self is:

'Whatever I want it to be, to retain my faux moral high ground that separates me from those evil war mongers!'

By your same logic displayed in the above - your definition could easily be stretched and warped into any justification: fighting for Britain, due to large number of Expats. Fighting for SA for the same, etc. What if 2 pacific Island nations went to war? Which side would NZ back? Whichever side had the higher ex-pat population in NZ?

Both would claim self defense against aggression (as is the case with all wars throughout history), how then would your definition of when it is right to fight be put into play?

As others have stated, the view you put forward is both naive and simplistic, the definitions used in your views have changed throughout the course of the debate to suit the needs of the argument you are putting forward. This IMO is the most dangerous of moral arguements. I grant you that when someone of sound mind and rational thought is at the centre, then a loose definition can be advantageous, but put a tyrant in the same place - and the loose definition becomes a curse.

On the flip side, however - my position has not changed: Sometimes it is right to kick down the door and shoot the bad guys. When it is right, depends on a myriad of factors - sometimes we get it right, sometimes we get it wrong, sometimes we get it right for the wrong reasons, sometimes we get it wrong for the right reasons (ad infinatum, ad nauseum) and as always, force should be the last resort when all other options have failed.