Britain has not fought just war since 1945, says Jeremy Corbyn, prompting anger from veterans

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I just think you're being a bit cruel to nicko, as was Sassy. What is the point of chiding him for "killing babies", or enabling other to "kill babies" after all this time? He fought in a war, and he did what he thought was right. I don't think you or Sassy are entitled to judge him or to reprimand him from the comfort of your own homes.

I'm really quite fond of nicko.  Unfortunately, he is caught up in a sirocco that is still blowing.  War is not popular these days, and so warriors are easily made villains.

I think you have to grasp the language of metaphor, and the abstractions to which they relate.  As I've said, you can't generalize from specifics.  So any one individual is as likely as not to be the one causing the problems.  But, the metaphor has a reason...and lots of babies get killed in these wars.  Someone is doing it.

Is that why you ran from mine which proved yours as to being flawed and poor to say the least

I mean if you went with where a Dad would allow two kids to fight it out, of which dads kind of do or did once do. Even then the mum would step in not wanting to see anyone hurt. Its the nurturing side of women and why your poor claim to say they do it for selfish reasons is not grounded in evolution or history. The fact is the more violent and possible harm of a situation, the more either parent or any unselfish human would step in to prevent harm to the one who is likely to get hurt by the offending aggressor. That is not being selfish in any shape or form for themselves., As we see people step into save people when they are not even the same ethnic groups or families. They do this to prevent the loss of life and where sometimes this even means those attacking can end up dead through self defense. As the need to save an innocent life outweighs that of someone who was intent to murder innocent life.

Thorin wrote:The false premise of the above is that the mother is doing this for her sake, the failing of Quill's whole argument. She will often do so to prevent harm to either side and at the extreme end by saving a life.

But she's not solving the problem, is she?  I do not mean to deny her altruism, but it's still not the right motive.  When we speak of doing something for "her sake" we don't necessarily mean she is a hedonist...she may well be trying to stop the violence, but is it the right answer?  If not, as righteous as it is, it will accomplish nothing.

To find the answer to conflict, you must look to the inside of the problem.  You must define the problem internally and find the answer internally.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:The false premise of the above is that the mother is doing this for her sake, the failing of Quill's whole argument. She will often do so to prevent harm to either side and at the extreme end by saving a life.

But she's not solving the problem, is she?  I do not mean to deny her altruism, but it's still not the right motive.  When we speak of doing something fore "her sake" we don't necessarily mean she is a hedonist...she may well be trying to stop the violence, but is it the right answer?  If not, as righteous as it is, it will accomplish nothing.

To find the answer to conflict, you must look to the inside of the problem.  You must define the problem internally and find the answer internally.

How is it not the right move?

You are claiming that the best way for a situation to resolve is between the two people involved, but that is simple not the case. We have courts to settle disputes, as you well know. Nor have you even reasoned to say why it would be. Especially with children, when they still growing mentally in learning to understand many things. Its negative emotions that create and cause problems, especially leading to hate. As the more hate filled the situation, the more likely someone is going to from one extreme get hurt to the worst extreme of being killed. So to stop children from causing unnecessary harm to each other, is preventing harm to either and a better teaching method. As you are trying to teach reason. Reason does not always work, as some are so hate filled with hate, they will do anything to harm the other to even the point of death. Then force is required to stop such an event from happening. Even to the point that it may mean having to kill those intent in the act of trying to murder, in order to save an innocent life.

This is why we have rules of engagement with the Geneva convention.

Thorin wrote:How is it not the right move?

Because it is ignoring the problem.

And courts and arbitration are simply the imposition of authority from above. It does not remove the underlying, causative dissension.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:How is it not the right move?

Because it is ignoring the problem.

Is that why I reasoned that is not ignoring the problem and in fact helping to deal with the problem?

So that is now countless posts you have failed to counter

Thanks for your input Quill, but as seen you are out of your depth on this.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Because it is ignoring the problem.

Is that why I reasoned that is not ignoring the problem and in fact helping to deal with the problem?

So that is now countless posts you have failed to counter

To deny the problem is not to address the problem.  Ipso facto, denial is ignoring the problem.  You offer arbitrary means--such as courts and arbitration--as if dictatorial methods ever changed minds.  To settle a dispute you must change someone's mind, not beat them into submission.

Thorin wrote:Thanks for your input Quill, but as seen you are out of your depth on this.

You seem more interested in being a nasty antagonist than a contributor to the discussion.  May I suggest that you are changing the subject to attack the messenger, which is routinely your way of giving up.  You might ask yourself, are you "out of your depth"?  You seem angry at losing.

I accept your not so gracious surrender.  BTW...I can recommend some good anger management classes.

Original Quill wrote:

To deny the problem is not to address the problem.  Ipso facto, denial is ignoring the problem.  You offer arbitrary means--such as courts and arbitration--as if dictatorial methods ever changed minds.  To settle a dispute you must change someone's mind, not beat them into submission.

You seem more interested in being a nasty antagonist than a contributor to the discussion.  May I suggest that you are changing the subject to attack the messenger, which is routinely your way of giving up.  You might ask yourself, are you "out of your depth"?  You seem angry at losing.

I accept your not so gracious surrender.  BTW...I can recommend some good anger management classes.

What denial? There is a problem between two children, how is stepping into stop the problem denying the problem? That is just blatantly absurd. I have offered many means that show your method does not achieve much, even more so when the opposing sides are hostile and I have history on my side to show you are inherently wrong. I offer means to resolve situations which parents stepping into stop violence and help teach what is wrong and how better to resolve disputes. You just simple make up things and even failed to see I agree with using reason, as with parents reasoning with children fighting.  What you cannot equate in your flawed methodology, is that you cannot reason with everyone and why its sometimes necessary to use force to stop the extreme where sides are under threat from aggressors of have been attacked.

So if you cannot change someones mind, of which history is littered with, then how do you resolve a problem?

I mean lets take the problem from within Islam itself between Shia and Sunni. Its been 1400 years and they are still trying to kill each other and gain supremacy of Islam. What you fail to grasp here is how the religion itself is engineered to allow for the continued violence that has occurred continuously between the two religious groups.

I mean your view to allow the Germans and Jews to resolve their differences in WW2, would have meant the extinction of European Jews, without intervention. You see at every turn continually strengthen my case and makes yours further weak. I mean how else were you going to change Hitlers mind on exterminating the Jews? After he had accomplished their extinction by your methodology to let them sort it out?

So again, You are claiming that the best way for a situation to resolve is between the two people involved, but that is simple not the case. We have courts to settle disputes, as you well know. Nor have you even reasoned to say why it would be. Especially with children, when they still growing mentally in learning to understand many things. Its negative emotions that create and cause problems, especially leading to hate. As the more hate filled the situation, the more likely someone is going to from one extreme get hurt to the worst extreme of being killed. So to stop children from causing unnecessary harm to each other, is preventing harm to either and a better teaching method. As you are trying to teach reason. Reason does not always work, as some are so hate filled with hate, they will do anything to harm the other to even the point of death. Then force is required to stop such an event from happening. Even to the point that it may mean having to kill those intent in the act of trying to murder, in order to save an innocent life.

Where did I attack you?

I simple stated you failed to address countless points, of which has been the case and the fact you simply must then be out of your depth on here.

That is simple stating a fact. That is not attacking you, but showing you lack the ability of this topic. I suggest you study more and then I might have a decent challenge from you on this. So you have mistaken my intent. I only wish to have a better discussion between us. One where you can actually challenge me here.

On that I wish you luck.