RIP Frank Ifield

I honestly thought he had died years ago.

Then there's the question of the OP, would this have been justified.

If the UK would have repelled the attack and the war would have ended as it did, obviously yes, Britons would see it justified. And the debate about the justification would be quite similar to the debate about terror bombings.

If the UK would have lost and UK would have been occupied, it would be seen as another huge error that the totally reckless Churchill did, who in his arrogant attempt to defend the country even when the army had been destroyed in France. The "what if" would have been if the reasonable "Lord Halifax" would have been chosen prime minister and a peace would have been done with Germany. — ssu

You are probably right that the winners are nearly always seen as being on the moral high ground.

The "what if" would have been if the reasonable "Lord Halifax" would have been chosen prime minister and a peace would have been done with Germany. — ssu

The final years in office. Chamberlain resigned as Prime Minister in May 1940 following the debacle of the Norwegian campaign. Halifax was seen as a leading candidate to replace him but he realised that Churchill would make a superior war leader and, pleading ill-health, withdrew from the race.

Maybe you would be interested in reading this.
https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-foreign-secretaries/edward-wood

Halifax was nicknamed ‘the Holy Fox’, reflecting his passion for hunting and his Christian moral outlook.

Halifax realised earlier than Chamberlain, but later than others, that Britain would have to stand firm against Nazi demands for territorial aggrandisement. But it came too late to avoid him being cast in 1940 as one of the ‘Guilty Men’ (in the publication of the same name), held responsible for the war by appeasing fascism.

In a government, on a battlefield, or a corporation, or a courtroom or a church, actual persons make actual decisions. If these persons are bound by one set of ethics when they shop, another when they enlist for the army, a third when they apply for a job, a fourth when they go to Friday, Saturday or Sunday service, a fifth when they run for public office, a sixth when they take the bar exam, a seventh when reach the status of CEO, general or senator or judge -- how can they ever make an ethical decision? — Vera Mont

Personal and professional ethics are quite different. Each role a person plays within a group, the person adopts the ethics of that group. If your are a mother, teacher, shopper, taxi driver for the kids your role dictates the ethical rules you follow.
For example, as a shopper you expect prices not to rise too much and curse the supermarkets when they do, but as a seller you try to get the best possible price for the second hand lawn mower you are selling.
And this brings us to where a lot of people get confused, your moral compass is the same in each of the roles you play. Your bitching at the super market is caused by the same thing as you wanting a bit more for the lawn mower, looking after yourself and your family.

I see this as playing with words. There is a reason why "war" is different than a fight between individuals. It's "conflict" and "violent", but it's not the same thing. — schopenhauer1

As I said, from my point of view the only difference is the size.

No, because an individual fighting doesn't worry about things that are only seen in war.. collateral damage, for example is uniquely only seen in war. — schopenhauer1

Could you explain that to the landlord of the pub where I was dragged into a fight and he tried to get me to pay for all of the collateral damage to chairs and tables. Maybe he will return the money he took.

Drafts are something that only happens in war. — schopenhauer1

Again the principles are the same but the size is different. If I had called my mates to come and help the collateral damage would have been greater.

Moving massive amounts of people on behalf of the state in tactical and strategic settings to gain some objective only happens in war. They are things that happen at the level of "state". There is a hierarchy one must follow. — schopenhauer1

Does any of this have any bearing on the war being ethical or moral?

I mean not really. There are things that happen in war that would not be seen as appropriate at an individual level. As an individual you cannot drop a bomb on a target or order others to do that for you in any legitimate way. But you can in a certain hierarchical setting on behalf of the state, as a state actor. Interesting how that confers by way of institutionalism, but that is how it seems to be. — schopenhauer1

So people do not sent fire to house to kill their ex's? The Oklahoma bombing never happened? The school shooters do not exist? And you can order killings quite easily it appears on the internet. There have been several cases recently of people hiring other to kill, kidnap or injure others.

The only thing that governments have in their favor is nicely put in the old phrase "Anything an individual can do, we can do better and bigger.

I won't even continue, what a load of crap. These barbarians who think Romans would feel anything but disdain for them go as far as saying all the absurd nonsense you see in this thread. That I have to argue with so much dishonesty and bullshit is well past limits now. — Lionino

So you do not believe what is before your eyes, instead preferring to maintain your ignorance to reality.
How many ancient Romans do or did you actually know? Because unless you can speak from first hand knowledge of the subject all I can say is that you are spouting undeniably ridiculous garbage. show us some proof that the Romans were as good and noble as you say they were or shut up.

These people have no ancient history of their own, their history is a fentanyl addict who died of overdose during COVID curfews, cross-dressing parades, and insane orange politicians. In their insanity they will defend every sort of violation of common sense, "hur dur the weather is part of culture", "hur dur recipes are part of culture", "hur dur we wuz romans n shiet u knowamsayan?", "hur dur hay rabdos sou kai hay baktaria sou. autai me parakelesan". Just barbaric, barbaric all the way through. They don't even know how to use periods. — Lionino

Tut TUT. did you never learn that personal attacks against members of a debating group are the ultimate sign of a badly defeated arrogant ignoramus. Especially when they take up jobs with the grammar police.

Those are the same people who defend that men can become women and that 2+2=5. So if such basic concepts bewilder them so much, to ask them a proper understanding of history is like charging a cat with doing the taxes of a company.

Sparing them with the slighest bit of culture and civilisation is throwing pearls at hogs. They were barbarians 2000 years ago and they are barbarians today and will be barbarians forever — uncapable of art and uncapable of philosophy (how can one do philosophy in a language that struggles with concepts as basic as "nation" and "woman"?). — Lionino

As I said earlier you really should do more careful reading, I think that if you look you will find my opinion on men being women is clearly stated on a thread somewhere around the forum.

Oh, one last thing before I tell you to fuck off. Your free grammar lesson:

uncapable of art and uncapable of philosophy

It is INCAPABLE, not uncapable (No, I am not going to put a period here just so that I can annoy you one last time)

Now fuck off.

Spare me your rhetorical diarrhea. — Lionino

This is a page meant for kiddies to learn from, maybe it will help clear your learning constipation.
https://kids.britannica.com/kids/article/culture/399913

But I guess that Britannica could be wrong.

Nowhere there does it say Harry Potter is part of Hungary's culture. Again, spare me. — Lionino

Karate, Kung fu, tacos, apple pie, sushi, Soul food,the waltz, are some of many adopted parts of the American way of life. Does that make them any less part of American culture

Elements of one's culture are determined by the weather, the weather itself is not part of one's culture. — Lionino

I never said it was, maybe you should try reading carefully. What I said was that many customs are based on the weather, especially in farming. Is that not part of the culture then.
Or do you go skiing in the summer and swimming in the winter? The weather plays a big part in the culture of a people.

That is why I would split government or political ethics as a different domain than individual ethics. It is now dealing with abstract entities of state actors, which are liable to things such as "wars", "tariffs", "treaties", and the like, all things that are not done at an individual level. — schopenhauer1

Here I disagree.
War is another name for conflict and there are many kinds of those, have you never seen people fighting over something like their place in a line? Tariffs is another word for charging, I do that to my boss every month for my services to him. Treaties is just another way of saying agreement, I have an agreement with my neighbor not to call the police again if he keeps the volume of his music down to a reasonable level. All of these are done daily at the individual level.

The only thing that change between state and individual ethics is the size, fist fight 2 or more people - war hundreds.
But what makes something ethical will always be the same, the ethics system that is used in the place were the action is to be judged. In some places you get a telling off, in others you might go to jail for street fighting, in others places you might get whipped.
It has nothing to do with the actual actions, but where they happened and the ethical system they use.

And this is made obvious by both sides claiming to be morally and ethically in the right.

You were talking about a different form of ethics that applies to states. For transparency's sake, I don't think such a form of ethics exists, because the state is an abstraction and personifying the state has no basis in reality. It's just a handy tool we use for communicating broad ideas. — Tzeentch

Do you think that all ethics are the same? Is something that is ethical to a newspaper reporter ethical also to a lawyer? Is the ethical point of view of a major food company the same as that of the shopper? There are plenty of different types of ethics.

As for states being abstract, what do you think ethics and morality are? Going by this rule, neither have a place in reality either.

That is an opinion. I have dealt with medical personnel who believe Medicaid is charity. The last time I went to the Social Security office the person I had to turn to for information considered Supplemental Security Income to be charity. And these people announce that in such a demeaning manner I want to crawl away and go hide in a hole. — Athena

Other people's opinions, such as the employees you mention, have no value. Just because of their ignorant and arrogant demeanor affects your personal self confidence doe not mean it has any value in this discussion either. It might make a topic for another thread, "The inherent airs of superiority of public employees" maybe.

So if a nation were bombing your country would still disapprove of the US providing weapons for defense? — Athena

If all military spending world wild there would be no on bombing my country would there, so yes I am still in favor of eliminating such spending

What can be done to end the threat of war and the expense of war? — Athena

Maybe if people stopped voting for the idiots that approve the spending. People still believe that if they do not vote the other party will win, if no one at all votes because there are no adequate candidates then no one will win and they will have to re-think the political systems.
Eliminating the manufacturing of arms worldwide would help. But to be able to do that all of the people that want to fight, for pathetic reasons such as religion, would have to be re-educated.

Maybe that means more is spent on caring for other humans than is spent on military defense. — Athena

Health and welfare is not charity, it is a state's obligation to its people that pay taxes and healthcare from their wages.

Would we like to reduce that military spending by denying military support to our allies? — Athena

Military spending is different from military aid to other countries, but I would like to see the elimination of both. And they are not my allies either, I am not an American.

Would that be cost effective? — Athena

Eliminating both would be.

So you think all foreign aid is the same as charity, or at least that is how I interpret you post.
It is mostly tax payers money given to allies to keep them as allies, obviously given only in times of need.

Not so much when it is over $5,000 in car repairs for a car that in the Bluebook is worth $500. :lol: — Athena

Yep, you definitely need to learn how the economy works. The parts for older cars are more expansive and the work is usually more intensive because today's cars have all throw away parts that take minutes to replace. Get a second quote on it.

That was disrespectful. Time for me to move on. — Athena

That is always the best way to avoid answering the questions. :wink:

It would help to understand what are the rules for increasing wealth? What if charities learned the rules for increasing wealth and by using those rules they became wealthy and could do more? — Athena

charities are by law in most countries non-profit, that means that they cannot make more money than they spend on giving away that money and expenses involved in doing so. But most churches are not bound by these laws, why are a lot of them so rich despite most of them having internal rules about humbleness.

I seriously think government needs to take control of something like say the internet or AI and get its revenue that way instead of taxing people. — Athena

Are you a reincarnated Marxist?

The problem is not knowing how to increase wealth, but not knowing how to increase wealth. — Athena

Say that again without repeating yourself.

The problem is, not knowing how to increase wealth, but not knowing how to increase wealth.
The problem is not, knowing how to increase wealth, but not knowing how to increase wealth.

Which did you mean?

Our taxing system from the past and inappropriate for a high-tech society. — Athena

How so, you earn money you pay taxes. What is the problem with that now that we live in a high tech world?

We are demanding more for everyone because we are accustomed to abundance. — Athena

Silly generalization, I for one am not accustomed to abundance. I have what I need and I am try to save enough so that I can retire in the next few years. There is no abundance in the lives of the majority.

Please, stop talking to me about rich people being greedy, and talk to me about economics and social organization. — Athena

There are free course online that could help cure your ignorance, we are not here to do that.

The big lie/myth is we need to be saved and we are not moral until we are saved. The truth is God was not a loving God until people's bellies were full. Around the world people of all faiths are very caring. The poor peasants are very willing to share a meal and be gracious host to the stranger. At least the geologist I have spoken with say that is so. Hawaiians didn't need Christianity to have beautiful spirits and a good culture. Many cultures put a high value on giving. — Athena

Holy crapola, that is one bunch of rolled up blah blah blah.
First of all you need to be moral before you can be saved and go to heaven, at least that is what it says in the bible.
Second, god does not give a shit if people have full bellies or not. He gave mankind free will so it is their problem not his.
Third, please tell the terrorist groups that they are supposed to be caring so that they will stop using kids as bombs.
Lots of Hawaiians are christians, but a lot still follow the old beliefs. part of which is being nice.

How could you possibly know most billionaires are not generous? The answer to that question requires how you got that information. — Athena

There is a thing called the internet, it can be used to find information. Let me repeat an example of what has already been stated.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/phoebeliu/2023/10/03/the-forbes-philanthropy-score-2023-how-charitable-are-the-richest-americans/?sh=39ab7cf9eccc

But how generous are the super-rich, really? Not very, according to Forbes’ research. The members of the 2023 Forbes 400 list have collectively given more than $250 billion to charity, by our count—less than 6% of their combined net worth. — Forbes

How can you know more about "them" than you know about me? — Athena

Maybe because we are not interested in finding out anything about you. Give us a clue to where you live or your name and I am sure we could come up with something though.

Oh really? and how is that organized? — Athena

I will write this slowly to make it easier for you to understand.
If everyone was a moral person they would help everyone else, at least according to your idea of morality.
If everyone helped everyone else then no one would be needy.
If there were no needy people then charities would have no place in societies.

In the middle ages some Christian groups were strongly in favor of communism. — Athena

Seriously, if you do not want me to die laughing at that please provide some proof.
Actually you are probably just confused by the way the word communism is used in today's context as compared to how the early christians used it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

Christian communism was based on the concept of koinonia, which means common or shared life, which was not an economic doctrine but an expression of agape love.[5] It was the voluntary sharing of goods amongst the community.[6] Acts 4:35 records that in the early Christian Church in Jerusalem "[n]o one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but shared everything in common." The pattern helped the early Christians to survive after the siege of Jerusalem and was taken seriously for several centuries.[7] While it later disappeared from church history, it remained within monasticism[8] and was an important supporting factor in the rise of feudalism. This ideal returned in the 19th century with monasticism revival and the rise of religious movements wanting to revive the early Christian egalitarianism. Because they were accused of atheism due its association with Marxism, they preferred communalism to describe their Christian communism.[9]

Perhaps you are a reincarnated anabaptist?

Anabaptism (from Neo-Latin anabaptista,[1] from the Greek ἀναβαπτισμός: ἀνά- 're-' and βαπτισμός 'baptism',[1] German: Täufer, earlier also Wiedertäufer)[a] is a Christian movement which traces its origins to the Radical Reformation in the 16th century. Anabaptists believe that baptism is valid only when candidates freely confess their faith in Christ and request to be baptized. Commonly referred to as believer's baptism, it is opposed to baptism of infants, who are not able to make a conscious decision to be baptized. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptism

In the late 1520s Bernard Rothmann became the leader for religious reform in the city of Münster.....

The pamphlets at first denounced Catholicism from a radical Lutheran perspective, but soon started to proclaim that the Bible called for the absolute equality of man in all matters, including the distribution of wealth. The pamphlets, which were distributed throughout northern Germany, called upon the poor of the region to join the citizens of Münster to share the wealth of the town and benefit spiritually from being the elect of Heaven. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Rothmann


From what I have read the attempt to have complete equality became anarchy with people leaving their doors unlocked and people having sex with anyone whenever they pleased. The objection is there isn't even family order and I do not believe the complete lack of social order would be viable. I also do not believe a leader is equal to a follower, a peasant is equal to a scientist. Complete equality is not viable. — Athena

I have absolutely no idea how that has anything to do with the discussion, May you would be kind enough to explain it to me. Did I by mistake mention or insinuate that people were equal in that post.

Perhaps you are not paying attention or have no idea what that even means. I am not even a christian.

Yes, I am trolling, not the people who have no clue about history and anthropology who still feel comfortable to hurl nonsense at other people's cultures. — Lionino

When did this happen and who did it, I must have missed that bit.

I do. Culture isn't a recipe. — Lionino

But recipes are a part of culture. :roll:

So much sophistry. Go say that a Hungarian person, they will laugh at you. I don't even think you believe in what you are saying. "Harry Potter is part of Hungarian culture" is so absurd. — Lionino

But it is for at least these people
https://www.facebook.com/groups/harrypotterhungary/
https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g274887-d19126341-r934699361-The_MAGIC_Budapest-Budapest_Central_Hungary.html
https://grimmauld12.wixsite.com/alohomora/about

Maybe they disagree with your idea of culture as well.

That is wrong. The weather informs you as to what you may do (bring an umbrella), the weather is not part of one's culture (no it is not, drop the sophistry). The meaning of culture is clear, and it may be verified in a dictionary. — Lionino

You screwed up again, A lot of culture is based on things like the weather in the place you live, the terrain you live in, the vegetation in that area. People didn't eat what is not grown in the area they live in long ago, so their recipes are based on what was available. And as I have already pointed out to you recipes are part of culture.

If you don't know that, you don't know the very basics of Greek. Once again: people who have no clue about history and anthropology who still feel comfortable to hurl nonsense at other people's cultures. — Lionino

Once again "When did this happen and who did it, I must have missed that bit".

If I tell you how to handle the letter, you will not use this newfound knowledge to properly deal with the language, you will use it to improve your sophistry. — Lionino

Ahh, so now you are scared of sophistry. :rofl:

That is correct. A degenerate is one who does not live up to certain moral standards in their society. Romans and Greek generally had strong notions of honour, so it is not correct to say that did not care about abiding to their moral standards. A strong notion of honour is not something that I see in many countries that like to claim Rome and Greece — because they clearly don't care about their own moral standards. — Lionino

I think that you misunderstood, what I was trying to say is that they did not have the heads so far up their asses like lots of people today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotic_art_in_Pompeii_and_Herculaneum

Romans might have been honorable in their today, but the question here is exactly what counted as honorable in their times?

Speaking of historical difamation, the "vomitorium". Ah, so wonderful, when people fabricated this fantasy that Romans had the custom of eating, then puking again to be able to eat more in feasts. This confusion stems from a kind of historical narcisism, where we take the word "vomitorium", which is indeed connected with "vomit", and transpose modern meanings to it. It turns out, the "vomitorium" that Roman writers spoke of had nothing to do with eating, it was just a kind of hallway in theaters: — Lionino

Seriously, did people actually believe that myth? Just goes to show how far spread ignorance is.

This is 100% word salad, I think you are the one who is trolling here. Refer to the dictionary for the meaning of 'culture'. — Lionino

Take your own advice.

Greece was an inextricable part of Latin/Roman culture, from its inception to the fall of the West, yet Latins saying "Aristotle and Zeus and Perikles are my culture" would be awfully weird, Augustine, Jupiter, and Scipio are their culture instead. — Lionino

What is your point?
Beer drinking is a major part of European culture, but originated in Mesopotamia about 3500 - 3100 BCE.
Just because something came from another place does not mean it cannot be part of ones culture.

Don't mind us my people we just wrote the Bible. — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, slay him. :rofl:

The article I linked previously already says that many experts think the story was taken from Abrahamics. If experts think so, it can't be "very doubtful", in fact it is very likely given the great coincidences. Furthermore, even if you are right about Efe, your argument doesn't prove your case: — Lionino

Maybe it is not convenient to believe that an ancient group of pagans actually had something worth while before the "civilized" people arrived, That sounds familiar, Indians, Africans, American Indians, Aboriginals were all just savages remember that had little to offer the "civilized" people.

This statement really doesn't go along with your claim that they have unmixed DNA (most likely not true)... Besides, where did you get this information that they had contact with Egyptians? — Lionino

I know several Asians, Africans and even Americans, but we have not mixed our DNA. Maybe the little guys and gals thought the Egyptians were too ugly.

But here is a study for you to browse at your leisure and a quote from it.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4163

Here we present a high-resolution study of the genomic diversity of and relationships between both Western and Eastern RHG and neighbouring AGR populations, with the aim of dissecting the intensity and tempo of the admixture processes and demographic events that have characterized the past history of these human groups. We find that extensive admixture between the RHG and AGR groups has occurred only recently, within the past ~1,000 years, indicating that the early expansions of Bantu-speaking people did not trigger immediate, extensive genetic exchange between two communities. Furthermore, our results support the hypothesis that the ancestors of these two populations already differed in their demographic success before the emergence of a farming-based lifestyle in Central Africa.

Are you suggestion that Egyptians knew the Hebrew myths because they contacted pygmies? :rofl: — Lionino

Are you suggesting the Pygmies knew about the Genesis story because of the christians arriving in their lands a thousand years after the birth of christ?

5 thousand years ago is modern times? I think you should give it a rest. — Lionino

Let me highlight what you said so that we do not get confused.

Moreover, most Pygmies now speak — Lionino

Let us speak of these things. Or let us speak instead of the proof (proof, not scant and conditional and specific evidence) that Greeks and Romans were generally sexual degenerates. I don't see proof of that anywhere. Even then, anyone who makes such a claim is making the historical confusion of generalising a period of over 1000 years to appease their personal bias and politics. — Lionino

I think that the problem here is that in modern times, under the christian umbrella, people tend to see so many parts of sexuality as degenerate. The ancient civilizations had a much broader, more relaxed view on such things as shown in much of the writing and art of those times. There are plenty of what would now be called deviations spoken of and show in their art.
Does that mean maybe that for them it was not deviant behavior?

I don't see how that is relevant, as the time frame is intermediary between the two events of interest. — Lionino

Well then I think you missed the point, try again.

Long before we started making anthropological investigations of those people. Thus, the results of those investigations may have been caused by contact with outsiders. Not to speak of the Arab slave trade in Africa: — Lionino

So the Pygmies reinvented there whole oral history from thousands of years ago just because they heard something knew, very doubtful.

And they had contact with the Egyptians long before that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_(Greek_mythology)

One story in Ovid describes the origin of the age-old battle, speaking of a Pygmy Queen named Gerana who offended the goddess Hera with her boasts of superior beauty, and was transformed into a crane.

In art the scene was popular with little Pygmies armed with spears and slings, riding on the backs of goats, battling the flying cranes. The 2nd-century BC tomb near Panticapaeum, Crimea "shows the battle of human pygmies with a flock of herons". — Wiki

So if the Pygmies had contact with the Egyptians way back in

Again the question, "When did the Genesis version of creation get written down?"

Could it be that the story was already know in Egypt even before someone wrote it down?

I doubt it.

Moreover, most Pygmies now speak Niger-Kordofanian (e.g., Bantu) or Nilo-Saharan languages, possibly acquired from neighboring farmers, especially since the expansion of Bantu-speaking agriculturalists beginning ∼5 kya (Blench 2006).

And ideas get spread by ways other than demic diffusion. An unmixed DNA doesn't say much about one's culture. — Lionino

Oh dear, so now we are discussing modern times, I am getting confused by your time jumping. Please keep the topic to the time period under discussion to keep it relevant.

I agree. We as a species spend much more on weapons than we do on charities. — Truth Seeker

If the world was a moral place place there would be no charities, they would not be needed.

An interesting article I found today.

The case against Israel has just collapsed

Sat, 18 May 2024 at 1:30 pm GMT-6·3-min read
People gather in Parliament Square ahead of a pro-Palestine march
People gather in Parliament Square ahead of a pro-Palestine march

By rights, this should be the moment that the humanitarian case against Israel’s campaign in Gaza goes into terminal collapse. From now on, there can be no equivocation. Those who persist in opposing the war based on the number of civilian casualties are either ignorant or arguing in bad faith. Or both.

Earlier this month, the United Nations halved its assessment of the numbers of women and children killed in Gaza. Then: 9,500 women and 14,500 children dead. Now: 4,959 women and 7,797 children. In a further seven months’ time, perhaps another few thousand will be resurrected.

A moment’s thought reveals that it is impossible to quickly produce reliable figures. People might be missing but, in the chaos of war, how do the authorities know they haven’t fled, gone into hiding, or died of natural causes? Casualties may be buried under collapsed buildings, vapourised, burnt, or so disfigured that it would take complex forensic analysis to identify them. That is why it took months for Israeli investigators to arrive at a final figure for the victims of October 7, with some remaining unaccounted for.

With war raging, this kind of detailed work is impossible. Yet for months, the UN has trusted figures produced by the same savages who butchered poor Shani Louk and drank chilled water from an Israeli fridge while watching a dying young boy comforting his little brother who was missing an eye. At long last, it has taken a first step towards sanity. But it continues to rely on figures from Hamas as a touch-point.

Do those sanctimonious UN officials not realise how ridiculous they look? Have they forgotten how war works? Two decades after our invasion of Iraq, death tolls remain intensely disputed, ranging enormously from 100,000 to 600,000. Yet we’re expected to believe that Hamas, as it squats underground with its Jewish sex slaves, has the professionalism to provide statistics within hours, reliable to the single digit.

Statisticians have debunked the data. Yet the narrative remains unchanged, even by President Biden. Clearly, the sheer volume of the footage of suffering civilians – all projected by Hamas, which censors pictures of dead or wounded combatants – has caused us to lose our minds. When we fought in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq, nobody debated civilian casualties. Yet when it comes to Israel, it’s all anybody talks about. We are being played.

This is why Gazan civilians are barred from the safety of the tunnels, even though the whole population would fit inside them. This is why they do not have a single air raid shelter. Hamas’s leaders have been doing their best to get their people killed on camera, then fabricated the figures. They have been doing so to brainwash the international media, political leaders, celebrities and the protesters on our streets, to believe the lie of Israeli “genocide”. They want Jerusalem to be pressured to stop the war, leaving them to plot the next act of savagery.

Every humane heart must bleed for Gaza. Even a single innocent death is appalling. But unless you are a pacifist, the tragedy of the individual civilian in a warzone – no matter how heartrending – is not what sways the argument. What should do so is the bigger picture. It is the principle of a just war, which always involves civilian casualties. Israel did not choose this conflict any more than Britain chose to fight Nazi Germany. Such is the curse of the world that democracies are sometimes faced with an ugly enemy and the only way to respond is with force. Churchill knew this. So does Israel. Do we?

Those of sound judgment must insist that the emperor has no clothes. The Jewish state is estimated to be killing proportionately fewer civilians than any other democracy in the history of warfare. To argue otherwise is simply wrong. Now let’s talk about destroying jihadism. — Jake Wallis Simons

This isn't often explicitly discussed, but there is a fundamental difference between an individual acting out of self-defense, and a state (an abstract idea) "acting" out of self-defense.

In my opinion, what constitutes genuine self-defense from a moral angle, is when the individual in question has no alternatives. — Tzeentch

Debunking the idea of a "war of self-defense" from a more practical angle: morality must be analyzed on the appropriate level - that of the moral agent, which is to say the level of the individual. — Tzeentch

morality:

• Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
• Motivation based on ideas of right and wrong
• A personal or social set of standards for good or bad behavior and character, or the quality of being right and honest

I think it is about time to update your definition of morality. While I am not really sure about it most people are instructed in morality through social contact, making common morality a social construct. While a lot of people make some adjustment to the ingrained morality they learned from childhood, most of the bad guys just throw it out of the window or go in the opposite direction all together.

An individual can choose to flee from war. A state can't, nor will a state suggest that its people try avoiding the violence by fleeing.

A country on that is on the verge of being invaded may claim it is acting in defense of its citizens (self-defense by proxy), but in fact those citizens have an option open to them: flee.

Therefore it is not an act of self-defense, and practically speaking wars of self-defense do not exist. — Tzeentch

Oh dear, how come you missed so many news article about people fleeing across borders to escape the war raging in their country or the mass evacuations of people from areas in danger of being overrun by enemies?

I mean that even if there is no warring troops coming into town, most governments, local or national, issue evacuation orders to get the people out of danger from flooding and hurricanes. Is this not an example of a government acting in self defense to protect the people.

Just because the enemy is wind and water does not take away the governments moral obligation to protect people, from there it is not a big leap to protect them from other forms of enemies.

If they were so generous from the beginning they wouldn't get to be billionaires in the first place. — Truth Seeker

Ain't that the truth man.

Good grief that was unexpected! Here it is in English. — Athena

It helps to view the video before linking to it, titles can be misleading

It might not be that they do not want to share, it is just too damned expensive to move the stuff and no on wants to pay. :sad: — Sir2u

Yep, that is what I said. It is too expensive to send it there and most of the places where they excess food have no way to ship it.

Come on, people around the world are very involved with saving those suffering from famine and war. — Athena

Yes, lots of little charities work to help, but what do they have to work with?

https://www.dlg.org/en/agriculture/topics/dlg-agrifuture-magazine/knowledge-skills/grain-reserves-in-the-hands-of-just-a-few-countries

If these countries would release the reserves they have a lot of suffering could be eliminated.

https://earth.org/countries-that-waste-the-most-food/

If these countries would do something about the amount of food they waste, that might have help to eliminate some suffering.

:up: Shit has happened around here, and will continue to do so

I was just thinking of history books. Extreme examples could be: the Holocaust was unjust offense, the imprisonment of Jeffrey Dahmer was just defense. — jorndoe

The Holocaust was probable a good example.
I had to look up the other one though, and yes it is an example of just defense. It also points out the obligation of a state to act in the protection of its people.
Which sort of answers the question on whether or not a government is justified in acting in a larger situation to protect its people against much larger threats.

I live next door to El Salvador, I seriously hope this guy does not get caught with shit on his hands.
A lot of politicians could learn something from him. Even with human rights groups screaming foul he appears to be getting the job done. The only problem is that a bunch of the bastards he missed are now causing problems here.

Those who have, do not want to share with those who do not have. So sad — Truth Seeker

It might not be that they do not want to share, it is just too damned expensive to move the stuff and no on wants to pay. :sad:

well, it's trivial to find examples of unjust offense and just defense. — jorndoe

And it is also difficult to do.

Anyway, I was trying to convey differentiating offense and defense, as opposed to war without further nuance. — jorndoe

I understand.

We don't have an implementable solution to the problems of suffering, inequality, injustice, and death. — Truth Seeker

Actually a lot of suffering and death could be avoided, except that no one really wants to foot the bill for it. There are mas reserves of vital grains and other food stocks around the world, but it costs a lot of money that the tax payers would bitch about to take it where it is needed.

Is there such a thing as a just offense, and such a thing as a just defense?
Heck, while at it anyway, what about an unjust offense, and an unjust defense? — jorndoe

Is there an example of any of these you could give us? Just to be sure we understand properly.

Human rights movements and prisons say unjust offense and just defense, seems like a no-brainer, with the offense/defense nuance. — jorndoe

What do defense lawyers say?

Fun video of the day. How a war should be fought.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/27982809/india-and-china-medieval-style-border-clash/

What's it to do with books? You've presented a point of view and advocated for it quite vigorously. I see no reason to move the conversion into unrelated contexts. — Vera Mont

Ever heard the saying "Don't judge a book by its cover"?

By all means, avoid fanaticism! — Vera Mont

Yep I am a fanatic when it comes to things like that.

Depends on the judges. — Vera Mont

Only school and college debates have judges, out here in the real world it is not like that.

I thought the subject was history, not paleontology. My mistake. — Vera Mont

Yes it is. Technically.
prehistory is the time before writing was invent, but humans kept oral history long before that happened.
History is the the earliest known written history was only about 4500 or so years ago.

So how is the 30,000 year span that you have called historical if most of it is in prehistory?
Or is there another term that you would you like to use for the 25,500 years before the invention of writing.

And the funny thing is that paleontology has given us so much information about the ancient civilizations that happen in the period called history.

I can only judge by what I've seen demonstrated. — Vera Mont

So you justification for saying that a book is bad is the few words on the cover.

My convictions based on what I have learned are consistent, yes. — Vera Mont

I try not to get too set in my way of think, it tends to make one biased. Fanatical even.

In this, we also differ. — Vera Mont

Your lose, if you cannot argue both sides of a debate you will end up losing it. Or just becoming grouchy.

Something on the order of 30,000 years. Beyond that, the solid evidence is so fragmented that most of it is conjecture. — Vera Mont

So you do not believe that dinosaurs existed or the homo sapiens were around over 300,000 years ago?
Talk about narrow perspective.

Doesn't one? — Vera Mont

Not really easy is it when you spend your whole life believing that learning about the mistakes in history can help prevent them from happening again, only to be told that the images that are used to show what history was like are now racists relics of an awful past that needs to be swept away and never mentioned again.
Not easy either when they teach you that a kid that is born with a penis is a boy just to learn 60 years later that it can be a girl as well, but if you make a mistake while talking to that person or even ask about it is is homophobic, anti trans or whatever label they put on it today.
And I don't spend any time on tic-tacky, farcebook or twatter to try and figure out the differences.

I suppose it helps not to give a shit. — Vera Mont

Now your getting the right idea. You might get to be a philosopher someday. :wink:

Thus, to these folks, if it takes your army taking on massive casualties to get the bad guys in the attempt to minimize the enemies casualties, this is still the correct thing to do. — schopenhauer1

So to stop these people killing a few thousand over the next few years I am supposed to lose maybe that many today by playing by the rules. :rofl:
Your right, that is not going to make any sense at all.

I vote to make it illegal for anyone in the world to make, obtain or use any weapon, except small caliber handguns and rifles, under 25 caliber. That would include, missiles and bombs of any kind, warships and submarines, aircraft with guns or bombs, chemical weapons and anything else that goes bang, boom or splat.

And all swords have to have a 80cmm (32 inch) long by 10cm (4 inch) wide blade, be at least 2cm (3/4 inch) thick and have a padlock on the sheath. Pikes, spears, lances, war-hammers and other nasty things should also be banned.

In that case, how do we solve the problems of suffering, inequality, injustice, and death? — Truth Seeker

No big deal, just find a way so that everyone has the same as everyone else when it comes to resources, opportunities to work and develop, health care, security and a few other things.
Not going to happen until they actually build a device that can transform anything that is useless into something else that is useful. Can you imagine what the world would be like if you could put your garbage into the device and get a loaf of bread out or put a broken piece of an army tank in and get some medicine back. That would get rid of a lot of guns.

Hey, wait a minute. Don't they have one of those devices on the Enterprise?

I love your post. I strongly disagree with you about the importance of Scholasticism, but everything else is moving in the right direction. Something that is not well known is HOW we think is as important as WHAT we think and Scholasticism taught people to think critically. — Athena

Thank you.
Could you tell me what language the video you posted uses, I am pretty sure that it is Hindi. And if there is an English version of it.

What is important here is before Schalisticism people were not critical thinkers AND — Athena

And your wrong. Plato and Socrates were wayyy ahead of those people. And the actual term "critical thinking" in education circles is credited to John Dewey in the early 1900's.

Through Scholasticism, people learned HOW to think. — Athena

Do you really think that no one came up with any good ideas about anything until the Dark Ages?

For the modestly rich knight class, yes, they had the most to lose. — Athena

Nope, they had a lot less that the dukes, counts or barons to which they were vassals.

Changes in the technology of war put them out of business so they depended on their land for an income — Athena

Knight never owned land, just as their lords, baron or duke, did not own land. The land was owned by the king and he gave it or took as he saw fit. If someone failed to uphold their oath of loyalty to him, he would just take away the duchy or county. And lots of them had no idea how to run the land the were granted, because they were always away fighting the job fell to the peasants to do it themselves.

and it was rumored the Catholics shouldn't even own land. Certainly not the lying Church. — Athena

The churches actually had plenty of land that had been granted by the kings. Churches were very important in the Middle Ages. because of the churches blessings upon the warlord kings they became more powerful and gave great gifts to the church. There were abbeys and monasteries all over the place, and they even granted some of the land to others after an oath of loyalty had been given. Some abbeys even had their own armies and fought for the kings.

This was an opportunity for them to get more land and return to the higher standard of living they wanted. — Athena

Some stayed in Europe after the wars with the French ended and became rich. But not all knights had a high standard of living to begin with. Some of them came from peasant families and were awarded the title because of some special service to their lord.

These educated people used their education for a war that would increase their wealth and no one would benefit more from the change in social order than the peasants. — Athena

Which educated people are you referring to here? Because most knights were not very educated at all.

I invite you to comment here as well: — schopenhauer1

So I am not saying these are proof that there is now justification, but that these considerations along with merely "We are all people" when in a conflict of an enemy that wants to see you harmed or destroyed, is something to consider. — schopenhauer1

I think I can get behind that way of thinking.
The "We are all people" concept does need to be accepted by both parties in a conflict if it is to be acted upon. If only one side plays by those rules, they will be the ones to suffer because the other party will use it to their own advantage.

I don't think your POV will ever get any wider or your historical perspective any longer. — Vera Mont

Ah, now you have hurt my feelings. :cry:

You have no idea how wide my point of view is, I at least could argue without bias from either point of view. You seem to only have one.

Just because I decided to argue from this side today does not mean I could not oppose it tomorrow, because I really don't give a shit about any of it.

And just how long is your historical perspective, if that is not an impertinent question? One never knows today what is counted as racist, feminist, homophobic and so on.