So what you're saying is that mankind hasn't changed much in the last 30,000 years or so...
Iran Placing Medium-Range Missiles in Venezuela; Can Reach the U.S.
- Thread starter DirtyDawg
- Start Date
So what you're saying is that mankind hasn't changed much in the last 30,000 years or so...
Yup! It's an ends justifies the means thang.
Which is why I said what I said in post #33.
Alllll RIGHT!
Now if any don't understand that then don't pass GO and don't collect $200.
Anytime you have a conflict between good & evil and someone sitting on the sidelines begins shouting rhetoric about fairness they're wrong.
Alllll RIGHT!
Now if any don't understand that then don't pass GO and don't collect $200.
I didn't touch on that because I thought it was the worst analogy ever and the fact that others didn't mention it just re-enforced that.
But then there was you!
The more correct analogy would be one where I have guns and I hear another guy in my neighborhood is trying to get guns to defend his home so I slash his tires to inhibit his gun-funding by keeping him from going to work, if he continues down this path of potential self-defense, I just grab my guns before he has any and break into his house and begin "liberating" him with lead.
The biggest advantage that the minion of evil have over the forces of good is that evil don't have to play by the rules while good feels obligated to lest they become evil themselves.
History has shown that that mindset lasts up to the point that good starts to lose. At that time good tosses the rules or makes up new ones necessary for them to win.
When its all over good can go back to being good as opposed to evil which will remain that way win or lose. Good then rewrites history or ignores it so it can climb back up on its high horse.
In short - pragmatism and the instinct to survive wins out over ideology almost every time. In those cases where it didn't those who stuck to their, good always triumphs over evil, guns are no longer with us.
If we all agreed as to what was good and what was evil, your comment might hold some water. Except we don't, so it's more like a spaghetti strainer.
I didn't touch on that because I thought it was the worst analogy ever and the fact that others didn't mention it just re-enforced that.
But then there was you!
The more correct analogy would be one where I have guns and I hear another guy in my neighborhood is trying to get guns to defend his home so I slash his tires to inhibit his gun-funding by keeping him from going to work, if he continues down this path of potential self-defense, I just grab my guns before he has any and break into his house and begin "liberating" him with lead.
Ahhh. Apples and oranges my friend, apples and oranges.
A comparison of acceptable behaviour of individuals re: acceptable behaviour of nations is nothing more than a red herring argument.
The rules for people and the rules for nations are not the same as you acknowledged in a prior post. A nation is well within its accepted rights to defend itself from a threatening neighbor to insure the survival of its members and is under no obligation to insure that the threat has an equal opportunity to survive. Sometimes the needs of the many take precedent over the needs of the few, or the one. (yeah, yeah, I know. Movie quote. Still it does make a lot of sense in some situations).
