Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Rattling battleaxes and all that.
Oh right, tanks. Rattling tanks.
Oh right, tanks. Rattling tanks.
...Okay, I'm interested in why you wrote battleaxes.Rattling battleaxes and all that.
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.Straw man? Your the one who called all people made homeless by the forced evictions "dirtbags."
dolt
We'll talk when you stop using words like these.idiotic
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.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.
You need to stop thinking this way. Assuming that anybody who disagrees with you is childish is inappropriate in a debate.Basically I think that not using warfare and suppresion to further your means is a sign of maturity
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.
Your observations were mistaken. My sentences don't seem bigoted to me. Whatever meanings you see in them, is your problem.
Your observations were mistaken. My sentences don't seem bigoted to me. Whatever meanings you see in them, is your problem.
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.
I guess it's us Europeans that are the only ones tired of pointless killing.
There's no way my statements can possibly be bigoted. I repeat: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.It is bigoted though to those of observation.
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.There's a difference between national development and personal development; I'm not saying you are childish
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.I'm saying that some political systems are more developed than others.
Wrong. You forgot something: they can't "kill me eventually" if they're already dead. With the possible exception of this guy.But yeah, if you think shooting people increases your own security, you can't blame "them" for killing you eventually.
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.
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.
Wrong. You forgot something: they can't "kill me eventually" if they're already dead. With the possible exception of this guy.
No, I mean your specific choice of words.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.
I don't. A state (and it's government) are merely groups of people.I distinguish between the maturity of a state and the maturity of an individual
Then, if a political system chooses to be violent, it is less developed, correct?Uh, what.
If non-violence is more developed and some political systems choose to be non-violent, those political systems are more developed.
Correct.Killing someone from a group of people will make the group resentful 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.which often in turn leads to their violence towards you
Wrong. I never specified a culture. The word "culture" is only in there because you put it there.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.
So you admit it.(I know, it's a strawman, but
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.(I know, it's a strawman, but if you don't wish it to be present, rephrase your rambling.)
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.
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.
we need that last resort
That just depends on a politically charged definition of the word "developed".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.)