Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here it seems you are conflicted by the prospect of considering what history might teach us (or should), as if that's some sort of "luxury." Regardless whether from behind a computer screen or while getting water-boarded, why is it so difficult to simply draw lessons from history beyond your simple fundamentals?
You argue the "acceptance of reality" as if somehow asking my questions is somehow questioning reality.
Why all the lecture about what the U.S. government has done that allows us all the privilege to live as we do in this country. As a result of those privileges, are we not supposed to learn from history? Learn something more than "might makes right."
Are we somehow supposed to express our pride and thankfulness for being Americans by not judging right from wrong?
No fact you seem so intent on explaining is any past history that I don't also accept as you do, as reality plain and simple, but if you are suggesting that we should not judge what has been done in the past in order to better judge what might be done going forward, again I don't understand that rationale or logic at all.
In fact, I would judge that as wrong thinking, and I'd be right...
So you clearly do not read... Or do not comprehend, or have an entirely different agenda not based on the post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
Me who disagrees with the system of might being right understanding that for the whole of human history that it has functioned that way, and wants a voluntary system.
<snip>
Here's the thing, might making right is insidious, it's not about countries warring on others, it's about you determining whether or not someone should be able to do (or not) something. You are applying might to prevent what you consider injustice, but to use might to enforce your will is in itself an injustice. Two injustices do not make a justice (to paraphrase a well known saying). We're allegedly a democracy, which is inherently unjust to the minority, another example of might making right. The sole unbiased use of might should be in the prevention of the use of might (which appears to be an oxymoron), but not when you look microscopically, violence is only an acceptable choice to prevent the effects of violence, so in other words in self defense. Now how can you mistake my position from that specific statement?
See the bold.
Now how can you in anyway resolve your words with the statement made at the bottom, unless you do not read, do not comprehend, or are not responding to my post, but something other than the post?
Do you have a comprehension issue? I'm not saying that at all. I take no pride in "might making right" is a reality, indeed I think it's morally repugnant. However morals and reality are often at odds.
Comprehension issue: one of us is certainly having that problem, but I really don't think it is me, because...
First, might does not make right!
When you write that you "take no pride in 'might making right," pride or not, you are saying that might makes right, that this is "reality."
Wrong.
To give you the benefit of the doubt, I think you are simply using the wrong words to express yourself.
You are right to recognize that might has often PREVAILED over the course of history, and to a large extent still does, but what has prevailed is NOT necessarily RIGHT by any means. So, might does not make right, not as a rule anyway, not necessarily anyway.
In fact, you do seem to agree that "might" is often not right at all, and that the actions of those with might can actually be "morally repugnant."
Yes, so we can and should agree those actions are not right at all, but wrong!
By doing so, by objectively making these evaluations and judgments, we move away from repeating our mistakes and progressing toward a better world order, slowly, painfully, but at least toward progress rather than back to Dark Age thinking.
Maybe not a comprehension problem, but a writing problem...
I'm reading every word you write, and I am comprehending according to what you write, but I can't do anything about how clear you write...
I have no agenda other than to ask "what history might teach us."
Have you got any other offering besides "might makes right?"
If not, I'll leave you be and respectfully disagree if that's all you think we can learn from history.
Fair?
I'm saying the obvious answer is history teaches us that might makes right, it's a historical observation.
So tell me, is democracy an example of might making right?
The majority will proceeds against the will of the minority, isn't that might making right? The minority are forced (by might) to comply with the majority.
Would that be wrong? I personally think it is, how about you?
I'm saying the obvious answer is history teaches us that might makes right, it's a historical observation.
YOUR answer is simply all YOU have learned from history, and YOUR answer is certainly not the ONLY answer no matter how much you repeat yourself.
Furthermore, might does NOT necessarily make right by any means.
Your observation, correctly stated, is that might has often PREVAILED in history. We all know this, but you can't understand much else.
If there was a Professor History, and you insisted all you learned from his lessons was "might makes right," I think he'd ask you to leave his classroom and not come back until you had done your homework.
That's about all the further reply I can muster for you at this point today.
If you want to continue insisting as you have, maybe tomorrow, but time to call it quits for me tonight...
Sweet dreams and a mighty right good night to you!
The Germans did have the might, for too long, but now again you are confusing which side ultimately WINS as opposed to what is right or wrong.
I'm having a very hard time understanding your logic, or maybe you can explain how "might makes right" when it comes to North Korea, or Saudi Arabia, or name any country where the "might" of those in power today can hardly be deemed "right" by most modern day free-world standards.
I am reading your words exactly as you write them, understanding them accordingly, but I surely don't get how you judge right or wrong, regardless how history has unfolded. All you do is explain the obvious, how history has unfolded. That is no answer whatsoever...
Again... Might means, simply, the power to...
........... Right means to benefit from the use of that power.
The only one equating 'right' to morally correct has been your responses because, as stated earlier, many redefine a saying that has origins 1000's of years ago.
Just like the emporer has no clothes, which I see continuously on this forum.
Might makes right is who ultimately writes history or the other examples, which are just a pittance of possibilities, in reality.
Again... Might means, simply, the power to...
........... Right means to benefit from the use of that power.
The only one equating 'right' to morally correct has been your responses because, as stated earlier, many redefine a saying that has origins 1000's of years ago.
Just like the emporer has no clothes, which I see continuously on this forum.
Might makes right is who ultimately writes history or the other examples, which are just a pittance of possibilities, in reality.
Where are these definitions coming from?
right
adjective
1.
morally good, justified, or acceptable.
"I hope we're doing the right thing"
synonyms: just, fair, proper, good, upright, righteous, virtuous, moral, ethical, honorable, honest; More
2.
true or correct as a fact.
"I'm not sure I know the right answer"
synonyms: correct, accurate, exact, precise; More
I swear, you folks could make a lesson in pounding sand complicated!
Curious this reference given those who are "unfit" to understand even the most basic definition of simple English words.
"The pot calling the kettle black" is the idiom that suddenly comes to mind...
Literal definitions, yes.
Relevant to the saying? No.
Even though the other poster and I are at odds often, I don't quite it as 'us' making this overly complicated.
Actually what I see the op didn't quite get the discussion intended.
Another funny about the emperor...
When the peasants say the emp has no clothes, they are still peasants and the emperor is still, the emperor. Lol
So it looks like the might, emperor, is still, right. Lol. Until deposed and then whoever takes over is might. But that's just a silly sidebar.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
