So Islam is a religion of peace?

[Angst]

Rattling battleaxes and all that.

Oh right, tanks. Rattling tanks.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Rattling battleaxes and all that.

...Okay, I'm interested in why you wrote battleaxes.

 

[Angst]

Because I don't think military force and suppression is a good tool for ensuring stability or happiness, and I think it's ineffective even as a necessary evil to prevent other interests in using military force against you.

Most Western nations realized this after World War II where the supposed war to end all wars escalated in one of the greatest humanitarian disasters in history; it infact is so culturally important to Western thought that we can't freaking stop talking about it, and the internet had to invent the Godwin to prevent people from throwing metaphors about the conflict around.

Of course, we haven't stayed on track, but it has been better than before the disasters of the two world wars.

And the battleaxes are a rhethorical attribution of primitivity; I personally imagine a Viking or some estranged barbarian chieftain believing he can get his way if he swings the axe and yells loud enough.

Basically I think that not using warfare and suppresion to further your means is a sign of maturity; like a child stopping fighting at some point, I look at Europe and get that nations can do that too.

 

[BasketCase]

Straw man? Your the one who called all people made homeless by the forced evictions "dirtbags."

And that's another straw man right there. By leaving out the word "if" at the start of my sentence, and slipping in the word "all", which I did not use, you twisted the meaning of the sentence into something it's not.

dolt

idiotic

We'll talk when you stop using words like these.

Because I don't think military force and suppression is a good tool for ensuring stability or happiness, and I think it's ineffective even as a necessary evil to prevent other interests in using military force against you.

Problem is, other people do. The reason we shoot back when somebody else shoots at us without provocation is because nothing else works for preserving our lives. People who don't shoot back end up dead.

Basically I think that not using warfare and suppresion to further your means is a sign of maturity

You need to stop thinking this way. Assuming that anybody who disagrees with you is childish is inappropriate in a debate.

 

[Ailedhoo]

And that's another straw man right there. By leaving out the word "if" at the start of my sentence, and slipping in the word "all", which I did not use, you twisted the meaning of the sentence into something it's not.

Avoiding the true notion? I was observing what you said. I observed what you implied. Your using the "straw man" critic in unproffessionial style now. Maybe you should ensure your sentance does not seem bigoted before criticing other peoples sentance structure then mate.

 

[BasketCase]

Your observations were mistaken. My sentences don't seem bigoted to me. Whatever meanings you see in them, is your problem.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Your observations were mistaken. My sentences don't seem bigoted to me. Whatever meanings you see in them, is your problem.

It is bigoted though to those of observation.

It is not just a problem that you have commence should ugly notions.

 

[Traitorfish]

Your observations were mistaken. My sentences don't seem bigoted to me. Whatever meanings you see in them, is your problem.

 

[Angst]

Problem is, other people do. The reason we shoot back when somebody else shoots at us without provocation is because nothing else works for preserving our lives. People who don't shoot back end up dead.


You need to stop thinking this way. Assuming that anybody who disagrees with you is childish is inappropriate in a debate.

There's a difference between national development and personal development; I'm not saying you are childish, I'm saying that some political systems are more developed than others.

But yeah, if you think shooting people increases your own security, you can't blame "them" for killing you eventually. I could whistle EU's declared anthem Ode to Joy all day. "But what if they attack?" you might ask; well, I live in a country with an 800-year old conflicts with our closest neighbour, a country that currently are among Denmark's closest friends; the other closest friends we have being our previous subjects. Perhaps you could learn from us. The whole peace movement happened about one hundred and fifty years ago, and now I wouldn't dream of killing a Swede.

I guess it's us Europeans that are the only ones tired of pointless killing.

 

[del62]

I guess it's us Europeans that are the only ones tired of pointless killing.

Hmm, you must have missed the skirmishes in the Balkans.

 

[Angst]

Being the leftover product of 50 years of ruthless armed suppression by a malign power-hungry dictatorship, and before that handled by a cruel Austrian dominion, I think that these "skirmishes" are representative of the very fact that using weapons or power to lessen violence doesn't work. And I would be an idiot if I were to point the Balkans out as an examplary product of Post-WWII peace policy, just like I would be an idiot if I were to point out impoverished capitalist Eastern European post-bloc countries as examples why capitalism is a failure.

I'm not deliberately being vague in my assertions, but seeing that your added comment does nothing but prove my point, I don't have a problem with you splitting hairs.

 

[BasketCase]

It is bigoted though to those of observation.

There's no way my statements can possibly be bigoted. I repeat: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

What did I say? I said "if the people being deported are dirtbags who can't live peaceably alongside people of other religions, then I say boot 'em out". The word I used is PEOPLE. I did not say "Muslims", I said "people". Therefore bigotry is not possible, and if you perceive bigotry, your perceptions are flawed.

But then, progressives these days pull the race card on just about everything.

There's a difference between national development and personal development; I'm not saying you are childish

Yes you are. What did you say? Your exact words: "not using warfare and suppresion to further your means is a sign of maturity". You're saying anybody who does is childish.

I'm saying that some political systems are more developed than others.

No you're not. You're saying non-violence is more developed--which has absolutely nothing to do with political systems. Any political system on the planet can be violent and shoot people and conquer other countries.

But yeah, if you think shooting people increases your own security, you can't blame "them" for killing you eventually.

Wrong. You forgot something: they can't "kill me eventually" if they're already dead. With the possible exception of this guy.

 

[Angst]

Yes you are. What did you say? Your exact words: "not using warfare and suppresion to further your means is a sign of maturity". You're saying anybody who does is childish.

I distinguish between the maturity of a state and the maturity of an individual, but use the metaphor of the violent child because I think there is a connection there; but I apologize for the sake of your feelings if you seriously believe that me stating that American violent intervention in the Middle East make that guy in one New York apartment a violent, short-sighted brute.

No you're not. You're saying non-violence is more developed--which has absolutely nothing to do with political systems. Any political system on the planet can be violent and shoot people and conquer other countries.

Uh, what.

If non-violence is more developed and some political systems choose to be non-violent, those political systems are more developed. q => r, p has the property of q, p has the property of r. It's a basic logical deduction, which you might not agree with, but it's logically valid.

None of this has to do with capabilities (The keyword here is that any political system can be violent, as you put it). What you said is a statement of, say, "Denmark has a military". Yes, yes we do have a military. We are capable of acting transgressive. But the fact that a country can act transgressive does not equal that a country must act transgressive; a political system with a military force can easily be mature in my logical deduction.

Wrong. You forgot something: they can't "kill me eventually" if they're already dead. With the possible exception of this guy.

Killing someone from a group of people will make the group resentful towards you, which often in turn leads to their violence towards you; what is your solution then? Kill the rest of the group? Read into your own statement. You're supporting cultural cleansing through military actions. It's despicable.

(I know, it's a strawman, but if you don't wish it to be present, rephrase your rambling.)

 

[ParkCungHee]

Because I don't think military force and suppression is a good tool for ensuring stability or happiness, and I think it's ineffective even as a necessary evil to prevent other interests in using military force against you.

No, I mean your specific choice of words.
Were you aware of the English idiom of sabre rattling and made a play on it, or if there's a similar Danish idiom about battleaxes.

 

[BasketCase]

I distinguish between the maturity of a state and the maturity of an individual

I don't. A state (and it's government) are merely groups of people.

Uh, what.

If non-violence is more developed and some political systems choose to be non-violent, those political systems are more developed.

Then, if a political system chooses to be violent, it is less developed, correct?

That's my whole point. Every political system on Earth, for all of history, has been peaceful at some times and extremely violent at others. Democracy, theocracy, monarchy, socialism, fascism. You name it, it beat the crap out of somebody somewhere. Your Denmark is a constitutional monarchy, correct? Constitutional monarchies have waged wars on each other many times throughout history.

Political systems do not choose whether to be violent. Individual governments and people do. One democratic state may be entirely non-violent--another democratic state may beat the crap out of Islamic nations all the time. One progressive liberal may participate in a non-violent demonstration, while another progressive liberal takes a swing at a cop with a two-by-four. One socialist nutcase may be a pacifist, while another happens to be the head of the USSR and tries to "liberate" the whole planet through violent revolution.

Of course, the assumption that nonviolence = maturity is exactly that. An assumption. One I disagree with. Maturity = the ability to deal with unpleasant realities and take the necessary action even if that action is unpleasant. Firing missiles at Nazis is a nasty business. Letting Nazis conquer the planet is far nastier. So buckle up and start pulling the trigger.

Killing someone from a group of people will make the group resentful towards you

Correct.

which often in turn leads to their violence towards you

Wrong. They hate you, but at the same time they fear you. And fear is much more effective for preserving peace than anything else.

what is your solution then? Kill the rest of the group? Read into your own statement. You're supporting cultural cleansing through military actions. It's despicable.

Wrong. I never specified a culture. The word "culture" is only in there because you put it there.

"Kill the rest of the group"? No. Simply kill (or deport or whichever line of argument this was) any person who tries to kill me and my countrymen, and I don't give half a damn what group or race or religion they are.

(I know, it's a strawman, but

So you admit it.

(I know, it's a strawman, but if you don't wish it to be present, rephrase your rambling.)

No. You will knock off the strawman crap, and until you do, I will call you out every time I catch you doing it. No matter what the content of my posts, a strawman is always a logical fallacy, and its use is never appropriate.

 

[schlaufuchs]

No, I mean your specific choice of words.
Were you aware of the English idiom of sabre rattling and made a play on it, or if there's a similar Danish idiom about battleaxes.

Now I genuinely want to know the answer to this too.

 

[Angst]

Oh, no, there isn't a Danish idiom. I just now realized sabre rattling was a thing.

BasketCase, it's despicable that you find it ever fair to control a group with fear. And if you think it's a recipe for peace... Well...

"Facing the facts" doesn't have anything to do with using guns either. The whole point is that it's completely stupid to only rely on gunfire to get your point across. It will, in turn, always lead to conflict.

And the issue with my strawman is that it's the exact thing that happens when you wage your warfare; people will resent you and fight back. Leading you to killing more people in the name of your countrymen. It's despicable, inhuman and wrong. And it doesn't matter, really, what terms I used: I could've said culture, religion, nation. If one man from any such group is respected somehow and you kill him in self-defense, more people from the group will turn on you, having you kill them; cause-and-effect leading to an eventual, well, genocide.

 

[Flying Pig]

There's a difference between national development and personal development; I'm not saying you are childish, I'm saying that some political systems are more developed than others.

But yeah, if you think shooting people increases your own security, you can't blame "them" for killing you eventually. I could whistle EU's declared anthem Ode to Joy all day. "But what if they attack?" you might ask; well, I live in a country with an 800-year old conflicts with our closest neighbour, a country that currently are among Denmark's closest friends; the other closest friends we have being our previous subjects. Perhaps you could learn from us. The whole peace movement happened about one hundred and fifty years ago, and now I wouldn't dream of killing a Swede.

I guess it's us Europeans that are the only ones tired of pointless killing.

The reason that we still maintain the ability to kill our fellow human beings is that, in extremis, it's the only way that we can guarantee somebody will respect our safety. It's all very well having an international agreement to solve all problems by negotiation, but when somebody decides to ignore that system then it is ruined - nobody can argue with the decisions made by military force. We'd all love to live in peace, and most western countries as a rule go out of their way to avoid being the aggressors in any conflict, but the fact remains that we need that last resort should it All Go Horribly Wrong.

 

[Angst]

I understand that. But here's the thing:

we need that last resort

There is a coherence between the undeveloped and the developed nation's priorities in regards to means of influencing other states; the undeveloped grab their axes much faster. (Sabres, then.)

 

[Dachs]

There is a coherence between the undeveloped and the developed nation's priorities in regards to means of influencing other states; the undeveloped grab their axes much faster. (Sabres, then.)

That just depends on a politically charged definition of the word "developed".