ARCHIVE: Fool is only fooling himself

[genuineoriginal]

how can you have a constructive conversation with allsmiles who can't take correction? how can you have a constructive conversation with allsmiles who can't admit when they're wrong? how can you have a constructive conversation with allsmiles who refuses to agree to disagree? how can you have a constructive conversation with allsmiles who's paranoid and insists that those who disagree are lying to him?

You know, I was wondering the same thing :rotfl:

 

[genuineoriginal]

That would seem to support God knowing the future.

Or God being able to predict how long it would take for the wickedness to reach the critical point. He is a super genius, you know.

God is smart enough to make predictions about the future. Not all of them come to pass because of man's free will (like Ninevah repenting, and removing the judgment against them). God also has enough power to intervene in events to make them happen the way He declares, such as when He said He would bring the nation of Israel forth in a single day, which happened to be in 1948.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

To jog your memory, here was an exchange that took place on page 17 of this thread:

Yeah... I can see now why you would think that. I worded it poorly.

Here is what I meant.... once a war has been started (using wise judgement of course) THEN, to win the war, you should attack the enemy country with all the firepower you have to end the battle quickly. In today's "clinical" "friendly" wars we no longer attack the enemy nation but instead attack the enemy nations military only which can drag out a war for years and years.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

War is hell because of the things one ends up doing, whether they can be justified or not. I think the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justifiable. I also think they were murder.

You cannot commit a justified murder.

After all.... even your own definition of murder would place murder as the unjust killing of a person. Think about it.

You could commit a justified "killing" yet not a justified "murder". Murder by definition is unjust. (that's the reason we have two words "kill" and "murder")

Can you see the distinction?

Therefore, if you are engaging in a justified war you would not be murdering your enemy. Instead, you would be killing your enemy.

It's similar to the death penalty. When we justly put to death a capital criminal we are killing him, not murdering him.

 

[koban]

You cannot commit a justified murder.

No, by the definitions I gave, you cannot commit an unlawful killing without it being murder - no mention of "just" or "justified".

After all.... even your own definition of murder would place murder as the unjust killing of a person. Think about it.

Again, that should read "unlawful" not "unjust"

You could commit a justified "killing"

I'll go along with that. However, what do you call it when it's the justified killing of an innicent person? That is, what if you can justify it as serving a greater cause? Did the Romans "murder" Jesus?

yet not a justified "murder". Murder by definition is unjust. (that's the reason we have two words "kill" and "murder")

Not by the definition I gave.

Can you see the distinction?

Yes, I can. I'm having trouble with calling the justifiable killing of an innocent person (for instance, the deliberate killing of children in Hiroshima, a "justifiable" action by the fact that many many other innocent lives were spared) a "just" action. I think there's a disconnect there, but I'm having trouble defining it.

Therefore, if you are engaging in a justified war you would not be murdering your enemy. Instead, you would be killing your enemy.

I'll agree with that if you're referrring to combatants. What about non-combatants?

It's similar to the death penalty. When we justly put to death a capital criminal we are killing him, not murdering him.

Yes, because he's responsible for his actions. Bad analogy when referring to the innocent.

 

[Balder]

Here is what I meant.... once a war has been started (using wise judgement of course) THEN, to win the war, you should attack the enemy country with all the firepower you have to end the battle quickly.

I agree that if you enter a war, it is better to end it quickly and decisively if at all possible. However, I do not condone purposefully turning your massive firepower against civilians. I also think that if you have enormous firepower, while that has defensive advantages, it also has disadvantages, in that it creates the temptation to achieve political goals through sheer destructive force.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I agree that if you enter a war, it is better to end it quickly and decisively if at all possible. However, I do not condone purposefully turning your massive firepower against civilians. I also think that if you have enormous firepower, while that has defensive advantages, it also has disadvantages, in that it creates the temptation to achieve political goals through sheer destructive force.

Good points.

It's also very hard for us (in this day and age of military wizardry) to understand what ancient warfare was like.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I'll agree with that if you're referrring to combatants. What about non-combatants?

That's why warfare is different.

In warfare your enemy is the entire nation (corporately).

Only in recent years have superpowers (like the USA) began targeting "military only" in war.

I have no problem whatsoever (assuming the war is just) attacking the entire nation, even with nuclear weapons where the collateral damage could be massive. Those are the consequences an evil nation might face. I would hate that it might come to that but if and when it did come to that I would support such actions. And such actions would not be murder.

 

[koban]

That's why warfare is different.

In warfare your enemy is the entire nation (corporately).

That was not the case, generally speaking, in the American Revolutionary War, the American Civil War, the Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII or the Korean War. In most actions in those wars, the civilian populations were not deliberately targeted. Sure, there were exceptions, like Dresden and Hiroshima, but even those targets had military value. The reasons for attacking them were not to suppress the civilian populations, but to destroy their ability to support the military.

Only in Vietnam did the lines start to get blurred, and our military still directed its actions after Vietnam to military targets, in Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Serbia, Afganistan and Iraq.

Only in recent years have superpowers (like the USA) began targeting "military only" in war.

I disagree. This has been the norm for centuries.

I have no problem whatsoever (assuming the war is just) attacking the entire nation

Is the civilian population responsible for the actions of its leaders? Especially in a non-democratic system?

, even with nuclear weapons where the collateral damage could be massive. Those are the consequences an evil nation might face.

Are all citizens of an "evil nation" evil?

I would hate that it might come to that but if and when it did come to that I would support such actions. And such actions would not be murder.

Delberately targeting non-combatant populations with no strategic military value can never be "just".

 

[Granite]

That's why warfare is different.

In warfare your enemy is the entire nation (corporately).

Only in recent years have superpowers (like the USA) began targeting "military only" in war.

I have no problem whatsoever (assuming the war is just) attacking the entire nation, even with nuclear weapons where the collateral damage could be massive. Those are the consequences an evil nation might face. I would hate that it might come to that but if and when it did come to that I would support such actions. And such actions would not be murder.

This kind of thinking is backwards and too typical of a religionist's black/white, all or nothing Manichean approach to things.

What, exactly, do civilians do in terms of shaping policy? Since when do civilians "have it coming" in wartime? Put a better way: why do you think civilians should be treated as a corporate, representative enemy?

Nuking an entire nation regardless of the collateral damage is vicious, calculated murder pure and simple. And these days, such an attack is simply inexcusable, because it is avoidable.

 

[fool]

That's why warfare is different.

In warfare your enemy is the entire nation (corporately).

Only in recent years have superpowers (like the USA) began targeting "military only" in war.

I have no problem whatsoever (assuming the war is just) attacking the entire nation, even with nuclear weapons where the collateral damage could be massive. Those are the consequences an evil nation might face. I would hate that it might come to that but if and when it did come to that I would support such actions. And such actions would not be murder.

Again Knight tries to blur the line.
If a pilot drops a nuke on a city he will kill children, but that's not murder as his intent is to deprive the enemy of that city.
If a foot sodier throws a grenade into a house that's not murder, his intent is to kill any soldiers inside, even if he hasen't checked the house for children first his actions are still right.
That's not the topic, the topic is when that foot soldier, after supressing the enemy, takes his bayonet down to the nursery and sticks it in every newborn he can find.
That's murder.

 

[kmoney]

That's why warfare is different.

In warfare your enemy is the entire nation (corporately).

Only in recent years have superpowers (like the USA) began targeting "military only" in war.

I have no problem whatsoever (assuming the war is just) attacking the entire nation, even with nuclear weapons where the collateral damage could be massive. Those are the consequences an evil nation might face. I would hate that it might come to that but if and when it did come to that I would support such actions. And such actions would not be murder.

Knight, you said in a previous post that you do believe there can be murder in war, can you give an example of that?

 

[fool]

Good points.

It's also very hard for us (in this day and age of military wizardry) to understand what ancient warfare was like.

Deuteronomy 20 lays out two kinds of warfare, one kind where only the men are killed for nations outside Isreal, and the kill em all kind inside Isreal. So to say that "that's how they did it back then" is incorrect. They did have a decent form of warfare that involved negotiating for a tribute first, and if that failed smoting only combatants and capturing the "women and the little ones". This shows us that they did have the ablity to discern who's proper to stick a sword into. But for some reason inside Isreal they flip that switch off.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Again Knight tries to blur the line.
If a pilot drops a nuke on a city he will kill children, but that's not murder as his intent is to deprive the enemy of that city.
If a foot sodier throws a grenade into a house that's not murder, his intent is to kill any soldiers inside, even if he hasen't checked the house for children first his actions are still right.
That's not the topic, the topic is when that foot soldier, after supressing the enemy, takes his bayonet down to the nursery and sticks it in every newborn he can find.
That's murder.

Again fool tries to blur the line.
This is not about supressing the enemy. This is about executing an entire city for their wickedness. The city is an entire city, not just men between 20 and 50 years old.
God judges wickedness on a larger scale than governments do. He generally lets human governments take care of the punishment for individuals, but He uses War, Famine, Pestilence, Floods, Earthquakes, Tornados, Volcanoes, and many, many, more methods of punishment for Cities and Nations.

 

[fool]

Again fool tries to blur the line.

Wrong, I'm drawing the line.

This is not about supressing the enemy. This is about executing an entire city for their wickedness.

How can a baby be wicked?
The Bible says God won't punish the son for the sins of the father. So saying that the children are wicked because of what the adults did won't fly.

The city is an entire city, not just men between 20 and 50 years old.

But you're gonna smote them one at a time. So you can divide the wicked from the innocent at that point.

God judges wickedness on a larger scale than governments do. He generally lets human governments take care of the punishment for individuals, but He uses War, Famine, Pestilence, Floods, Earthquakes, Tornados, Volcanoes, and many, many, more methods of punishment for Cities and Nations.

And in this case he's using men with swords, so your weapons of mass destruction argument has no legs.

 

[koban]

Again Knight tries to blur the line.
If a pilot drops a nuke on a city he will kill children, but that's not murder as his intent is to deprive the enemy of that city.

If a pilot drops a nuke on a city knowing that he will kill children, I would submit that that is an act of murder. It may be justifiable (in that more lives are ultimately saved), but it still is murder.

If he drops that nuke expecting the city to have been evacuated by non-combatants and it happens to hit some lingerers, I would not call that murder.

If a foot sodier throws a grenade into a house that's not murder, his intent is to kill any soldiers inside, even if he hasen't checked the house for children first his actions are still right.

I'll go along with this one, as long as he has no expectations of there being innocents in the house. Would you argue the same point if the house happened to be an unevacuated day care center? :think:

That's not the topic, the topic is when that foot soldier, after supressing the enemy, takes his bayonet down to the nursery and sticks it in every newborn he can find.
That's murder.

Seems obvious to me. Of course "murder" is defined as an "unlawful" action, and if the directive to do so comes from the Supreme Lawgiver....

 

[BillyBob]

If a pilot drops a nuke on a city knowing that he will kill children, I would submit that that is an act of murder. It may be justifiable (in that more lives are ultimately saved), but it still is murder.

If he drops that nuke expecting the city to have been evacuated by non-combatants and it happens to hit some lingerers, I would not call that murder.

If a pilot drops a nuke on a city, I hope it's Tehran!

 

[genuineoriginal]

Wrong, I'm drawing the line.

How can a baby be wicked?
The Bible says God won't punish the son for the sins of the father. So saying that the children are wicked because of what the adults did won't fly.

But you're gonna smote them one at a time. So you can divide the wicked from the innocent at that point.

And in this case he's using men with swords, so your weapons of mass destruction argument has no legs.

Like I said:

God judges wickedness on a larger scale than governments do. He generally lets human governments take care of the punishment for individuals, but He uses War . . .

Using men with swords is War.

You are trying to blur the line. The Children of Israel were commanded to uphold Justice by destroying the entire city. The entire city was condemned, and had to be destroyed completely.

By trying to blur the line, you are saying that wickedness does not require complete destruction. This is not true. Wickedness always requires complete destruction.

God had to destroy all the earth because of wickedness once:

Genesis 6
5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.​

After this, He vowed never to destroy the entire earth because of man's wickedness.

Genesis 8
21And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.​

From that moment on, God has limited the destruction for wickedness. He judges individual cities and nations for their wickedness, and if it is sufficiently horrible (Sodom and Gomorrah, Jericho, Nineveh . . .) He destroys that city or nation.

God is not destroying the earth and everything on it, but you still say that He is destroying too much! God cannot even show mercy without you complaining.

 

[Balder]

Genuineoriginal, what about mercy? You yourself attest, I am sure, that all human beings are wicked -- "there is none righteous, no, not one" -- and yet you also believe that God intends to save as many people from destruction as possible. This is not consistent, if you argue that God must righteously destroy all evil without mercy.

Beyond this, you apparently think in black-and-white, corporate terms, and are willing to assign the sins of a nation to its children as well. You have no problems with genocide, apparently.

I can only say that that is a dangerous way of thinking, which has been at the root of a great deal of human violence and bloodshed.

 

[Balder]

Oh, I just saw the rest of your post. I get it. We should be thankful that there isn't even more genocide, because that's what everyone deserves.

Yeah. Happy Easter to you too.