11
   

Is War Justifiable?

 
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 02:57 am
@bigstew,
As this isn't on the subject of manipulation : which I've spoken about enough, and more to the point of your inability to logically follow a conversation :
bigstew wrote:
Really? What about cases of humanitarian intervention in response to genocide?

bigstew wrote:
Humanitarian intervention in the case of war is synonymous with self defense.

vikorr wrote:
Self defense is quite different to humanitarian intervention.

bigstew wrote:
A attacks B. C intervenes to defend A. Is C not justified in defending A?

C is a case of humanitarian intervention. Humanitarian intervention in the case of war is synonymous with self defense. That is a very basic point, and I've illustrated it clearly. Now move along.


bigstew wrote:
This is the clear and logical way of approaching this analogy:

If A (lets say Poland) is attacked by B (lets say Germany), wouldn't C (lets say France be justified in assisting A?


Sorry, that's one country defending another from invasion - not the topic of the conversation you've been having (of humanitarian intervention, and also how it is synonymous with self defense)

Humanitarian intervention in the way you have been talking about, is related to genocide...ie a country where the attacks occur from within - in your initial analogy, both the aggressor and the victims belong to country 'A'.

You were trying to say 'part of country A=A, and part of country A=B' and third party country = C...well, you have to compare apples with apples, not with oranges, so both parties from country A are 'A' and country C will be (in the case the next letter) 'B'. That said, the analogy is simplistic in the extreme (because you are trying to represent lets say a million people, with the number 1), probably to the point of unworkability.

You can talk about how logical you are all you like, but your consistent misinterpretations (there's been a hell of a lot of them), niaive view of life, inability to follow the conversation you are having, and erraticly flawed logic make a fluent conversation with you pretty much impossible.

bigstew
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 11:57 am
@vikorr,
vikkor wrote:


Sorry, that's one country defending another from invasion - not the topic of the conversation you've been having (of humanitarian intervention, and also how it is synonymous with self defense)

Humanitarian intervention in the way you have been talking about, is related to genocide...ie a country where the attacks occur from within - in your initial analogy, both the aggressor and the victims belong to country 'A'.


Obviously you cannot follow a conversation, or logic:

Case of Genocide: Rwanda

Ruling Hutu's (A) systematically slaughter Tutsi population (B)

This is 2 distinct groups from within a country is it not? I simply referred to states to try and dumb it down as much as possible for you. Still, the analogy logically follows.

vikkor wrote:

You were trying to say 'part of country A=A, and part of country A=B' and third party country = C...well, you have to compare apples with apples, not with oranges, so both parties from country A are 'A' and country C will be (in the case the next letter) 'B'. That said, the analogy is simplistic in the extreme (because you are trying to represent lets say a million people, with the number 1), probably to the point of unworkability.


Incoherent. The Rwanda example is not only historically correct, but coherent. It was quite apparent to everyone in the world that Tutsi's were being slaughtered by the Ruling Hutu's. Hutu's were intentionally targetting Tutsi villages, systematically slaughtering its people, maiming women, kidnapping children to convert into child soldiers etc. These groups maintained distinct identities. Why else was one groups specifically targeted? Use common sense. They are not "A & A" as you try and claim. Thus we have 2 distinct groups, inhabiting the traditional borders of Rwanda. Any other group which intervenes would logically constitute a third group. This is plainly obvious. Now move along.



vikkor wrote:

You can talk about how logical you are all you like, but your consistent misinterpretations (there's been a hell of a lot of them), niaive view of life, inability to follow the conversation you are having, and erraticly flawed logic make a fluent conversation with you pretty much impossible.


If you can not even grasp the above example, which by the way makes sense to anyone else that I talk to about it, then it seems reasonable to suppose that you are the one that has problems understanding very simple examples.
Might also explain why you fail to understand more complex arguments I present.

The "naive" comment is great. An easy thing to say when you do not fully comprehend what is at issue. Now run along.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 03:25 pm
@bigstew,
Your example of two groups fighting makes fine sense, wasn't the point of what I was saying, which point is blatantly obvious, but somehow you miss that...

....but that's because you are so emotionally caught up in your theory that you can't see your flawed logic, nor the logic in anything else ...

....for once you add a single third party country into your analogy, you start comparing apples with oranges (ie two cultural groups with a country).

And you still face the problem of reducing millions of people to 1.

So, I.T. ?
bigstew
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 04:07 pm
@vikorr,
vikkor wrote:

Your example of two groups fighting makes fine sense, wasn't the point of what I was saying, which point is blatantly obvious, but somehow you miss that...


OK then.

vikkor wrote:
....but that's because you are so emotionally caught up in your theory that you can't see your flawed logic, nor the logic in anything else ...


First, you already said it "makes sense," so I wouldn't call it "flawed logic." If it only makes sense because it is logical.

Second, I wouldn't call it "emotionally caught up." Instead, I would argue it is the morally right view to take, given the reasons.

vikkor wrote:

....for once you add a single third party country into your analogy, you start comparing apples with oranges (ie two cultural groups with a country).


I'm not sure how any of this follows. The analogy begins with 2 distinct groups, which you have already accepted above. How does a third party complicate that distinction?

Answer me this, how would it not be possible to defend Tutsi's villages if a third party intervened. Obviously anyone who attacked the village would be liable to attack, as the soldiers there have done no wrong either.

vikkor wrote:


And you still face the problem of reducing millions of people to 1.



I do not understand, could you articulate your objection?

0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 04:10 pm
@bigstew,
For your last post - that should be obvious.

For your two above response once again misinterprets my position - this is a consistent and ongoing problem you have. How you believe anyone will give you credibility when you choose to hold a view / emotions that skew your perspective of what anyone else is trying to say, is beyond me.

At times I think your erracticness is so bad that you can't quite be all there, but maybe there is another explanation.

Continuing this conversation is pointless, because you will continually clutch at straws (through the following), misrepresent positions (you've shown a long history of that by now), try and take the conversation onto tangents (plenty of history of that), and fail to see flaws in your position. Thanks for the debate up until now, but it has been bizarre in the extreme. I've pretty much lost interest.
Seed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 04:14 pm
@bigstew,
From what I have seen. No
bigstew
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 04:36 pm
@vikorr,
vikkor wrote:

For your last post - that should be obvious.


Can you clarify?

vikkor wrote:

For your two above response once again misinterprets my position - this is a consistent and ongoing problem you have. How you believe anyone will give you credibility when you choose to hold a view / emotions that skew your perspective of what anyone else is trying to say, is beyond me.


Misinterpret what? I think I have offered quite a clear example arguing for a justified case of humanitarian intervention. If you disagree, you have to offer substantive arguments explain why such is the case, instead of just appealing to an ad hoominen "misinterpretation."

Emotions? Call it what you will. My arguments speak for themselves. If you want to persuade me, you have to give me good reason to.

vikkor wrote:

Continuing this conversation is pointless, because you will continually clutch at straws (through the following), misrepresent positions (you've shown a long history of that by now), try and take the conversation onto tangents (plenty of history of that), and fail to see flaws in your position. Thanks for the debate up until now, but it has been bizarre in the extreme. I've pretty much lost interest.



Again, no substantive evidence regarding any objection to a quite clear example . If there is something wrong with it, you have to offer substantive reasons why that is the case.

So far, you have shown me nothing to be the case. Your continual reliance on "manipulation" is a continual hasty generalization. You continually confuse subjective justification with objective justification. Those are inherent problems with your arguments, not mine. Ive continually asked you to clarify topics for me. If your lack of clarity frustrates you, again that is your problem, not mine.


So overall, you have accomplished nothing in regards to my last post.

If you can't do that, then by all means omit yourself from the discussion because it is impossible to argue with anyone that can not reason.

bigstew
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 04:40 pm
@Seed,
Agreed, many contemporary wars have been unjust. Vietnam, 2003 Iraq invasion, Rwanda Genocide etc. Yet sometimes that has to do more with the conduct of war then the actual causes for war (though to be clear the mentioned examples had no just causes). A question:

Do you think there was justifiable cause to invade Afghanistan? (separate from the question of how the war is being fought in Afghanistan which can be addressed later).
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 05:47 pm
@bigstew,
Quote:
If you want to persuade me, you have to give me good reason to.

Sorry, not interested in 'persuading' you of anything anymore.

As a last explanation then - the main problem I have with having a conversation with you is that I've followed everything you've said (despite your belief that I haven't, which is your own problem, but shows through in pointless exercises of yours in 'you believe such and such') - your conversation has been greatly erratic, but comprehensible.

On the other hand, you don't comprehend what I've been talking about...which appears to be because of your fixation on your pet theory, your incomprehension of the difference between logic and human nature, and possibly other issues.

The result has been that you have often believed I misrepresented your position - probably every one of which has been a misinterpretation on your part of what I have said (I would have to check - there is always a possibly a did in fact misrepresent you on one or two things, though I don't recall having done so..though that wouldn't change the greater body of the statement).

These 'issues' of your have lead to you misread a great deal of other comments I've made, fail to comprehend how examples tie in, forgotten examples so that you've said 'you didn't give any examples'.

Because you've misunderstood other things, and failed to comprehend others, or maybe because you don't want to deal with the examples (or some other reason), you attempt to take tangents not related to the specific area we were talking about.

I hadn't bothered providing examples of this sort of behaviour by you at the beginning, because you were talking about 'logic' (a just war theory), and I was talking about human nature (human nature has as a general rule, always reigned over logic)...but your misinterpretations became clearer and more concrete, such that believed you were paraphrasing my views, when you were not (and doing so over and over again).

It's not conducive to any cogent conversation....it has been a really bizarre conversation. Eventually, I've become tired of this bizarreness. So thanks again for the conversation, but it's been too odd.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/18/2019 at 10:34:49