Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6
Results 101 to 107 of 107

Thread: Good Side and Bad Side in War?

  1. #101
    PikeStance's Avatar Imperial Splendour- PM
    Vault Staff

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Changchun, China
    Posts
    2,407

    Default Re: Good Side and Bad Side in War?

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtler View Post
    You have repeatedly debased an entire argument and the debunking of the supposedly "witty" cynicism into being only ad-hom, which by any objective measure it is not. Whether it includes any ad-hom at all can be debated subjectively ad with merits, but tha tis not what you have don in the least. Whether or not you know about my claim or anything else is irrelevant to the objective facts, for the same reason whether or not anyone knows anything is relevant to objective facts.

    Having established that, I do not feel obliged to debate civility when the other side in this conversation has deigned to show none up to this point. Especially since this is by any objective standard well outside of the parameters of this topic, which is something that is covered for on the ToS.

    Except for the fact that it was not witticism in the least (or at least in the least bit worthy), idealism has rarely been called a great way to liven up conversations, and you accuse me of committing incivility by merely refusing to tolerate one poster's incivility to both the living and the dead. I could care less about converting the unconverted versus speaking to my convictions, and the fact that you are willing to wash aside the blood and toil of millions upon millions is the greater incivility than telling someone to get their head out of a rectal cavity.
    This conversation started when I stated I do not discuss with people anything if they persist on using ad homs in their argument. I assumed two responses; obstinate one in which you continue to use ad homs or you stop using ad homs. In the case of the former, I would had simply ignored all of your post indefinitely. In the latter, I would continue. For some reason you decided to be defensive about it and debate the point. The choice is really yours. When it comes to hellheaven, I think you made your point and I have made mine. I am not sure we can continue to belabor the same points. I consider your points to be unjustified; you disagree. Again, if you want to continue, the choice is yours.




    Which is why that approach is flawed cripplingly even on its' own standards, and by any other is of at best marginal importance by itself. Being able to plot out complexities is part of what gives these models power in the first place, and one of those complexities is the ability to take bad decision making into account, amongst other things...By and large, yes. But what happens to a model when it would struggle (and more often than not fail to) give voice and reason to a large number of said littered states. It would be severely hard-pressed to explain matters such as Louis XII's frankly *dazzling* display of incompetence and often times charity in his campaign(s) in Italy, which led to precisely why Machiavelli cited him as a bad example. It is intellectual shallowness masquerading as a model promising great cosmic truths; from your own admissions here it is at best a very two dimensional model that works best only when applied in hindsight. The central truisim may be useful, but the overall system collapses because it cannot account for things other than the universe unfailingly obeying and adhering to its' single truism.

    If someone came on this forum here and claimed to be able to distill the laws of physics down to gravitational pull, we would call them pseudo-scientists and charlatans of the worst form and kind. Statescraft might not be the same exact and unvarying science (or "science") as physics but I fail to see how this does not apply here.
    You can on and on about this if you like, but the question was is there any bad or good side in a conflict. I say, no, states are neither bad or good, but inherently amoral. The fact that some numbskull in the past made a dumb dumb decision doesn't change the amoral nature of the decision.


    You seem to underestimate my ability to be unimpressed with your examples. Especially with how you have butchered and mischaracterized the origins of both the Second World War and the American Civil War.
    I am not concern with my ability to impress anyone. I cannot control on the merit in which I am judged. I am not in a habit of judging anyone. I endeavor to respond only to the substance of the post with little or no concern about the nature of the person(s) I am speaking with.


    it's all well and good to characterize the latter as not being fought at first to free the slaves, because it wasn't; but the sheer idea that one can leech all morality out of the opposition to a group of militia fanatics taking up arms and seceeding because they *lost* a legitimate election does not and can never stand the test of time, especially since it begs the question what would have happened if it were somehow solved without a single drop of blood being shed (given how you strictly conflate amorality with warfare itself, but that raises the questions of where the issue stands when it doesn't get far enough to be armed conflict).
    The South's political power was waning and it felt its socio- economic system would be destroyed- thus destroying the South. The South acted out of self- preservation- The North wanted to maintain its economic tides in which it was depended on. The minute the South seceded, war was inevitable.

    Here is the map of the Election of 1860:
    Note that even if the entire south had voted one way, Lincoln STILL wins!
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 




    Secondly, World War Two was not started purely because Germany magically attacked everybody simultaneously. It was built on the many, many, many treaties, guarantees, principles, and yes interests that the various sides had cooked up in the interbellum and before. If attacked, you fight explains the situation wonderfully for China and Poland and Ethiopia, but it does jack all to explain why the Soviets and/or the Western Allies entered the war as well. That can be partially explained through interests (such as the obvious benefit to the Soviets of not having an expansive Japanese Empire on their Eastern doorstep at this time, and the West's chronic and justified fear of Germany) but only partially.
    Ok, I will play along- how, partially, did each side acted morally or immorally?


    And you are welcome to your own opinion, as we all are. But you are not in the least entitled to your own facts or reality. Nobody is save maybe the guy upstairs. Washing away the evidence that does not conform to a hypothesis is just sloppy experimentation.
    If I had "washed" away good evidence, please do bring them back to focus. I am not filled with pride.
    Last edited by PikeStance; March 05, 2013 at 08:50 AM.

  2. #102
    napoleon boneaparte's Avatar Hastatas Posterior
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    820

    Default Re: Good Side and Bad Side in War?

    Calm down, calm down, Mr. Turtler and Mr. PikeStance, don't need to go mudslinging in here. There's a thread specially dedicated to debates somewhere in these forums. The whole point of this thread was to get people's opinions of the righteousness of some combatants' cause, not something about ToS or ad-hom (whatever that means).
    “No human race is superior; no religious faith is inferior. All collective judgments are wrong. Only racists make them” ― Elie Wiesel
    "No nationality or race is preferred over another in any way in the Eyes of the Almighty" - Mufti Ismail Menk
    “What's unnatural is homophobia. Homo sapiens is the only species in all of nature that responds with hate to homosexuality.” ― Alex Sanchez
    “Remember, remember always, that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists.” ― Franklin D. Roosevelt
    “Nationalism is an infantile thing. It is the measles of mankind.” ― Albert Einstein

  3. #103
    NobleWoman's Avatar Hastatas Posterior
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Keep Guessing
    Posts
    830

    Default Re: Good Side and Bad Side in War?

    I only meant to say that anybody supporting the Reich would have a different version of good and bad. For him the Allies would be bad.
    I am looking at this issue from a larger perspective. A general one- where each person views things from his individual viewpoint, not just a debate between pro-Reich and anti-Reich groups.

    Even when you put forward arguments "objective", I do believe that somewhere some bias operates. you have to prove the Axis to be bad guys. Its just a supposition though.

    I have an interesting example to quote here, in India the Axis (Japan) supported the Freedom Movement of the Indians. Indian troopers of the Indian National Army fought alongside the Japanese and all the liberated areas in NorthEast India were handed over to the Indians. Gandhi and other leaders however were supporting the Allies-including the British, their colonial masters. For an Indian then, whom do you think he/she would have supported when it came to the Allies and the Axis? Would it not be based on whether he idolized the Gandhi-led Congress ideology or the INA?

  4. #104
    Minas Moth's Avatar Sabre of Secession
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    1,341

    Default Re: Good Side and Bad Side in War?

    Quote Originally Posted by heil nappy View Post
    Calm down, calm down, Mr. Turtler and Mr. PikeStance, don't need to go mudslinging in here. There's a thread specially dedicated to debates somewhere in these forums. The whole point of this thread was to get people's opinions of the righteousness of some combatants' cause, not something about ToS or ad-hom (whatever that means).
    I second that...

  5. #105
    Karabekian's Avatar Aquilifer
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    314

    Default Re: Good Side and Bad Side in War?

    Quote Originally Posted by NobleWoman View Post
    I only meant to say that anybody supporting the Reich would have a different version of good and bad. For him the Allies would be bad.
    I am looking at this issue from a larger perspective. A general one- where each person views things from his individual viewpoint, not just a debate between pro-Reich and anti-Reich groups.
    Not entirely true. The top Nazi leadership knew their actions were illegal. They simply did not care or thought they could get away with it.

  6. #106
    NobleWoman's Avatar Hastatas Posterior
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Keep Guessing
    Posts
    830

    Default Re: Good Side and Bad Side in War?

    Quote Originally Posted by Karabekian View Post
    Not entirely true. The top Nazi leadership knew their actions were illegal. They simply did not care or thought they could get away with it.
    Good and bad are not to be confused with legality. True, the leadership knew what they were doing, but thier careless attitude showed they didnt care about the definitions of good and bad. for them, it was just convinience-what they do is good (for themselves at least) and those who oppose them are bad. In war, both sides commit crimes and do extra-judicial stuff- and for them, they themselves remain good and the other bad. they dont see the need to uphold morality to justify themselves as good. It is just the simpler version of 'us vs them'.

  7. #107
    Minas Moth's Avatar Sabre of Secession
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    1,341

    Default Re: Good Side and Bad Side in War?

    What does mean supporting the Reich? Some of you maybe read books by G. Knopp (Hitler's Warriors, Executioners, Helpers) where I found an interesting point he brought up. He stated that general opinion is that average Germans were supporting the Reich and knew what the Reich was doing regarding the "behind front cleansing" and "final solution". However, Knopp gives a number of researches where it is actually shown that most of the average Germans (I don't remember exact number so please correct me if wrong); some 80+% had no idea what was going on. They knew only what they were told; this often meant that they knew their Jewish friends were being taken away and relocated, but the thing is that the Reich officials never (as I remember) stated that Jews were being hauled to Aushwitz, Dachau, Treblinka etc. in some public address or so. They did invoke final solution, but how will it be carried out was never that public. It was kept well under the carpet, and as it was shown during the Nurmbereg processes these weren't "public knowledge" things. They were known by those who organized them and by those who executed such an orders, but general population (in this case German) can't be hold responsible for knowing or accused under the presumption they should had known.

    Nazi's coming to power was completely legitimate; especially if you consider that electoral misuse were known to both Nazi and Communist party. As a lawyer I have studied and taken interest in the Reich's legislature and you would be quite surprised with the fact that they did almost everything according to the law (very few cases are out of it). problem is, their laws were often immoral or against some (even at that time) acknowledged freedoms in other parts of the world, but they made all the government, constitutional and day to day operational changes based on law. there is no reason to hold the Reich government illegal. Their laws, acts etc were legitimate an legal, but they weren't right, that is granted. The amount of Reich's laws is quite compelling, as they prescribed almost anything, but it isn't as compelling and large as for example legislature of Communist states (like USSR, Yugoslavia etc).

    I think that in this case, as in every war, you can't judge the nation as the whole and held it responsible for everything that happened. People like to give individual examples, and they can be numerous, but it would be dangerous to "condemn" an entire nation for it. As long as at least some portion of the nation resist the regime (which was even case in the Reich, even more so when, usually by accident, germans realised what the government was doing with their Jewish neighbours) you can't hold responsible the entire nation. Even the Nuremberg Trials were lead against Nazi Party, Head figures of the Reich. they weren't lead against the germany or german people. while the trials were still ongoing, the process of rebuilding the germany already started; so you can see that even allies didn't hold german population responsible.
    Last edited by Minas Moth; March 06, 2013 at 02:55 AM.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •