8
   

If you're not with me, you're against me.

 
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Mon 22 Aug, 2011 02:09 pm
@Arella Mae,
The problem is that what you used to counter his point didn't disagree with him.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Aug, 2011 02:35 pm
@ehBeth,
The point is I could provide a "source" for the statement and all HE had was I bets and I am sures. Now, it's very possible someone, somewhere, wherever, or whenever said that statement but I provided a source where he did not.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Aug, 2011 02:36 pm
Everything has to be a flipping argument. I give up.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Mon 22 Aug, 2011 02:46 pm
@Arella Mae,
...arguing is healthy although I concede that many don´t use it with an healthy intention...nevertheless regardless it is quite probable that such sentence or a very similar version was already around long before Christ don´t you think ?...
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Aug, 2011 02:55 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Um, I believe I said that it is very possible.

I'm just sick of it. These aren't discussions. These are oh I'm smarter than you because I know more. CRAP! I was doing it myself!
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Aug, 2011 03:30 pm
@Arella Mae,
...you are right...we all fall for it time to time...yet I like to believe some of us are not really that much tempted only on that basis...I for one am truly willing to learn further down most subjects even if I have my ass kicked in the process, it is a good trade...what I often dislike is the use of education and formalism to hide mediocrity...and we all have experienced some of that in life somewhere...you seem to be a nice person and I am sure you know what I am talking about...
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Aug, 2011 03:52 pm
In some instances, this is true, but it certainly isn't universal.

If you (meaning an individual or a nation) are engaged in an existential struggle with a avowed enemy, then anyone who is not with you might as well be an enemy, and should be considered an enemy if they provide succor or support, of any kind, to your mortal foe.

It's hard to justify considering a truly neutral party an enemy, but if you're in a fight for your life, taking out someone who helps your foe in anyway makes sense.

Now, whether or not any of the individuals who have used this phrase in public were actually in a fight for their lives is subject to debate.

ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Aug, 2011 03:59 pm
@Arella Mae,
I personally don't think it's about "smarter" than anyone else. I see much of A2K as a great opportunity to learn about things - whether I learn directly from other posters or from research/reading I do as a result of what I read here.

I know there are "me smarter" chest-pounders of all species/genders here, but I don't think all discussions here are based on that way of thinking.


Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Aug, 2011 04:00 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
...what you said does n´t prove it in any way...
...a truly neutral entity would n´t be helping either side...if it was the case of helping an enemy, then it could be reasoned it is not being neutral even if formally it did n´t declared war to you...however if such entity is not favouring any side at time X it can be argued that there is a fair chance of making him an ally in the future reason why it should not be viewed as a foe just for not lining with you from the start...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Aug, 2011 04:42 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
...however the usefulness in such reasoning when coming from a strong position it is precisely in granting a huge amount of support from those who are in a less powerful situation and that are forced to make up their mind...
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 22 Aug, 2011 05:53 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
neutral party an enemy, but if you're in a fight for your life, taking out someone who helps your foe in anyway makes sense.



Let me think was it not neutral Switzerland who provided Germany with a supply of ball bearings after we lost hundreds of bombers taking out the ball bearing factories in Germany?

I guess the US and Britain should had bomb Switzerland in WW2 under that theory.


rosstaylor
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 22 Aug, 2011 11:29 pm
@hamilton,
yes this philosophy is absolutely correct one who is not with us he is against with us.
0 Replies
 
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2011 02:59 am
@hamilton,
I think it could be said to be true, within proper context.
Bear in mind, it requires that both parties are on the same field of play.
Neutrality might be considered as recusing oneself from the field of play.

That said, the statement is never used within such philosophical constraints.
What the statement is, is a bald faced intimidation technique, used to force a commitment from persons inclined to withhold judgement.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2011 07:11 am
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

I personally don't think it's about "smarter" than anyone else. I see much of A2K as a great opportunity to learn about things - whether I learn directly from other posters or from research/reading I do as a result of what I read here.

I know there are "me smarter" chest-pounders of all species/genders here, but I don't think all discussions here are based on that way of thinking.





If I had any sense then I'd stop trying to be civil to certain people and just totally ignore them. I am way too stubborn for my own good. I try to believe in everyone there is a good person but sometimes that just isn't true. So, I get frustrated, angry, and *itchy. I have a horrible flaw of taking it out on the wrong people. So then I feel worse because I probably mouthed off to someone who meant me no harm at all. In the end I have no one to blame but myself. Someday I may learn. Maybe.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2011 07:35 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Which is why I wrote that it would be tough to justify considering a truly neutral entity as an enemy.

However, an entity that sells products to you and your enemy (the same quantities; and at the same price) might also be considered neutral, and yet if you can survive without their product, but your enemy cannot; and the neutral entity refuses your demand that they stop selling to your enemy, it could make sense to take them down.

Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2011 07:38 am
@BillRM,
Assuming the "neutral" Swiss refused the Allies' demand that they not sell ball bearings to the Germans, it would have made sense to bomb their ball bearing factories as well.

By refusing the demand the Swiss would have met the conditions of the phrase in question.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2011 08:27 am
@Arella Mae,
Clearly there's hope for you.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2011 08:27 am
@Arella Mae,
Clearly there's hope for you.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2011 08:27 am
@Arella Mae,
If half of the persons I already met here would admit a tenth of what you just did the place would be far more productive, so I guess in the end of the day you are wiser then most, even if you sometimes get a bit *itchy in the process, I have the same problem far to often I reckon...commonly I get reactive to people which I may even admire at some level or instance but that tend to present an arrogant or linear approach onto a complex problem to many times...regarding philosophy dialogues the quality I valued the most is the capacity to conduct an honest enquiry even if such enquiry ends up questioning our own believes, thus honesty is central to progress, and understanding why, vital to enlightenment ...unfortunately most people are far more concerned with defending their own territory and pissing around some trees conducting knowledge as a self serving self praising activity...they use philosophy and education to hide their own insecurity's or to strengthen they comfort zone of believes, or even worse, as a kindergarten playground of wild imagination full of non sequiturs, they don´t really give a **** to learn a new perspective upon anything at all...
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2011 08:31 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Yes, within the category of "truly neutral entity" is the "absolute passivist." I could not consider them enemies simply because of their passivity.
FdA, you have the makings of a game-theorist.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 06/28/2022 at 07:00:12