Trolling (split from Quick Forum Questions)

[Peterkin]

On 4/28/2022 at 4:35 PM, beecee said:

I said words to the effect that war is/was  wrong and evil,

 

On 4/28/2022 at 10:14 AM, Peterkin said:

but he upon being conscripted went anyway and obeyed the laws of the land. He ended up an American hero and won its top medals of valor.

unless it's good an heroic

So the only thing that's good and right is The Law

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

unless it's good an heroic

 Stop  trying to put words into people's mouths...It's wrong, deceitful and unjust.  War is evil and bad. The soldier in question was a conscientious objector that irrespective, obeyed the laws of the land at that time during a world war, and proved to be a hero in saving many lives of his comrades. He deserves recognition for his efforts.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

So the only thing that's good and right is The Law

If you believe a law is wrong or unjust, do something about it, within the laws of the land. Waxing philsophically and rhetorically about it, on a remote science forum, won't get you anywhere. Or would you be in the minority in your society if you did do something practical reflecting your opposition? I took part in two anti Vietnam moratorium marches in Sydney in the sixties. But I still respected those troops that were conscripted and sent away, some never to return. We show them respect on a special day we call ANZAC Day in my country...a solemn day of rememberence, reflection, and honour. 

 

Edited April 30, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

15 minutes ago, beecee said:

 Stop  trying to put words into people's mouths.

I put none in. They all came out.

[beecee]

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

I put none in. They all came out.

Not for your lack of trying on your part of course! But then again, all you have is rhetoric. You may see fit to ignore my advice about doing something practical about the laws of the society you belong to, so the consequnces are you grin and bare it, with the inevitable whinge here.

Let me repeat.... If you believe a law is wrong or unjust, do something about it, within the laws of the land. Waxing philsophically and rhetorically about it, on a remote science forum, won't get you anywhere. Or would you be in the minority in your society if you did do something practical reflecting your opposition? I took part in two anti Vietnam moratorium marches in Sydney in the sixties. But I still respected those troops that were conscripted and sent away, some never to return. We show them respect on a special day we call ANZAC Day in my country...a solemn day of rememberence, reflection, and honour. 

 

 

[Peterkin]

9 hours ago, beecee said:

But then again, all you have is rhetoric.

Not precisely accurate. You challenged the validity of John Fire Lame Deer's statement that the natives of North America had no criminals or law enforcement, and your argument against it was that they had wars, thus equating aggression with criminality. I challenged that assertion, citing the legality of war and illegality of refusal of military service in all modern westernized societies.

You then cited a pacifist-draftee-turned-killer-hero as a testament to the law of the land. Now you repudiate that by claiming to have taken a couple of walks against involvement in one particular war, then re-embrace it by respecting the people who did not stand against that war. Yet the legality of all wars and even conscription goes unquestioned, while at the same time you want me to do something practical - presumably more practical than marching, which didn't work - against any laws I consider unjust.   

And yet, the Lakota did manage without a prison system or criminal justice system, and I think it was, as the man said, because they did not set as much store by property and the accumulation of things as the Europeans did. They had wars; the Europeans had more and bigger wars, and the Europeans also had public trials and executions, prisons, indentured servitude, transportation of criminals to distant colonies - and the Indians didn't. 

Now, I have a little rhetoric.    

Edited April 30, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Not precisely accurate. You challenged the validity of John Fire Lame Deer's statement that the natives of North America had no criminals or law enforcement, and your argument against it was that they had wars, thus equating aggression with criminality. I challenged that assertion, citing the legality of war and illegality of refusal of military service in all modern westernized societies.

You can interpret it any way you like. No skin off my nose. Again, there is good and bad in any and all known societies, including American Indians. Whether you chose to call them bad people, wrong-doers, or criminals is irrelevant. And they had wars! FACT. War is evil, bad, and should be avoided. Sometimes though we have no choice against a belligerent foe. Your rhetorical challenge is noted and rejected.

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

You then cited a pacifist-draftee-turned-killer-hero as a testament to the law of the land. Now you repudiate that by claiming to have taken a couple of walks against involvement in one particular war, then re-embrace it by respecting the people who did not stand against that war. Yet the legality of all wars and even conscription goes unquestioned, while at the same time you want me to do something practical - presumably more practical than marching, which didn't work - against any laws I consider unjust.      

Again, you misinterpret as seems the go often with you. Firstly York was not a killer in the usual sense of the word and the circumstances involved. He was in a sanctioned war according to the laws of that country, and was practising self defence. Secondly, despite your feigned ignorance about my often expressed opposition to wars in general, in some we have no choice, which again you strangely ignore. Instead of your continued waxing lyrically, why not tell us all your alternative to have avoided the second world war and the actions of the greatest war criminal ever known? Thirdly I objected with actions to the Vietnam war, among thousands of others, but I did it legally. I also along with the majority of sensible folk who objected with me, had compassion and respect for those that essentially obeyed the laws of the land and went to that disastrious war, which we along with the US of course lost.

And of course the marching did work, ( far better then rhetoric alone)and we along with the US, withdrew our troops in defeat. It was an unjust war as compared to the nil choice the world had with going to war against the aggression of Hitler and Japan. But I don't expect you to really address any of those valid points, other then perhaps some sarcastic philsophical comment.

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

And yet, the Lakota did manage without a prison system or criminal justice system, and I think it was, as the man said, because they did not set as much store by property and the accumulation of things as the Europeans did. They had wars; the Europeans had more and bigger wars, and the Europeans also had public trials and executions, prisons, indentured servitude, transportation of criminals to distant colonies - and the Indians didn't. 

Now, I have a little rhetoric.    

And as always, as I say, there was also wrong doers, and bad American Indians,  despite your protests.

Edited April 30, 2022 by beecee

[Kittenpuncher]

I didn't read the last three pages

What happened here? It's been derailed so much, if I started this I'd have the hissfit choir coming to suck my brains out and dismember me. So it's only been allowed to be hypocritical as a gross weird jab at me, unless either 1. this whole exchange is all underhanded jabs at me somehow 2. You guys don't care about staying on topic any more out of the mythical goodness said to sometimes appear within the heart of a man

 

Of course, nobody needs to answer me, or something, you'd might as well continue on, like a serene babbling Brook, and yell at each other some more, lol

[zapatos]

13 minutes ago, Kittenpuncher said:

this whole exchange is all underhanded jabs at me somehow

Yep, that's it. We discussed it at our weekly meeting and decided on this course of action for obvious reasons. I'm sure you've already heard from our representatives.

[beecee]

12 minutes ago, Kittenpuncher said:

I didn't read the last three pages

Of course, nobody needs to answer me, or something, you'd might as well continue on, like a serene babbling Brook, and yell at each other some more, lol

Don't be too concerned. It's nothing more then an argument between a  Transcendental  philosopher and a realist. Nothing to concern yourself with.

Science is what we know; philosophy is what we don't know. Berty:

 

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, Kittenpuncher said:

Of course, nobody needs to answer me, or something,

Hey, that's right!

[MigL]

I suggested that about a week ago ...

 

On 4/23/2022 at 10:59 PM, MigL said:

Did somebody say "What does Lui think about this" ?

I think this thread should be split off ( @ yesterday 6:34 pm ) because it currently has little to do with the troll who prompted the OP.
I resisted posting in this thread simply to avoid feeding him.

I would certainly welcome a discussion as to why a lot of us are obstinate and hard-headed.

 

The Lakota may not have had 'criminals' or jails, simply because they had no laws.
They did however, have societal responsibilities, and failiure to meet these responsibilities meant banishment from the tribe.
Jailing them would have kept them captive but in the tribe, while banishment was almost a death penalty.

[Peterkin]

19 minutes ago, MigL said:

The Lakota may not have had 'criminals' or jails, simply because they had no laws.
They did however, have societal responsibilities, and failiure to meet these responsibilities meant banishment from the tribe.
Jailing them would have kept them captive but in the tribe, while banishment was almost a death penalty.

Citation?

Each nation had its own laws and justice. Some lenient, some harsh, and different means of enforcement - all according to their particular set of values. It was different from the European values and the European methods. Mostly, it worked, sometimes it didn't. The point however, is not that they had no infractions, wrongdoing, or retribution (all of which they had, and were prepared to deal with), but that they had no "criminals". And, yes, that is - unavoidably - a philosophical concept which determines the attitude of a society to its members, its values and the [philosophical] concept of "justice".  

Overview; not specific to the Lakota or John Fire Lame Deer's comments. 

http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter2.html

[Kittenpuncher]

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

Yep, that's it. We discussed it at our weekly meeting and decided on this course of action for obvious reasons. I'm sure you've already heard from our representatives.

Well when I woke up in that mysterious laboratory some of the straps were a little loose, weird how they build such "tools of science" and never considered that this could happen. they didn't have much to say I guess, lots of screaming, they tried to make me feel guilty and I was so offended by that

I got over it you know, "they're just doing whatever they can to survive" is what I figured

I'm sure they regretted that

[beecee]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

The Lakota may not have had 'criminals' or jails, simply because they had no laws.
They did however, have societal responsibilities, and failiure to meet these responsibilities meant banishment from the tribe.
Jailing them would have kept them captive but in the tribe, while banishment was almost a death penalty.

Well said, would be nice though to know the numbers of the misfits.

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Citation?

Common sense. No society is perfect, as hundreds of years have shown us.

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

The point however, is not that they had no infractions, wrongdoing, or retribution (all of which they had, and were prepared to deal with), but that they had no "criminals". And, yes, that is - unavoidably - a philosophical concept which determines the attitude of a society to its members, its values and the [philosophical] concept of "justice".  

Again, you are playing with words. A Rose by any other name, and all that.  The point is simply that any known society is not perfect and has misfits/criminals/wrong doers/bad people.  Please show a reference where it says anywhere that any society did not have bad members/wrong doers/misfits or criminals.

criminal: A person who has commited a crime.

misfit: a person whose behaviour or attitude sets them apart from others in an uncomfortably conspicuous way.

wrong doer: a person who behaves illegally or dishonestly; an offender.

The sorry part about all this Peterkin is that you continue playing games, when you know the validity of the point I am making. We'll even find criminals/misfits, wrong doers etc in the Vatican!!!

 

[Kittenpuncher]

Haha sorry this is not the right thread

Edited May 1, 2022 by Kittenpuncher

[Peterkin]

57 minutes ago, beecee said:

Please show a reference where it says anywhere that any society did not have bad members/wrong doers/misfits or criminals.

Why? I never claimed that any society had no members who did bad things, and things that their society considered wrong, of who did not adjust well to some aspect or demand of their society. But if their own society does not consider that a single forbidden act turns a person into something other than himself, I respect that.  

I am not 'playing' with words. I take their precision, meaning and significance very seriously. 

 

59 minutes ago, beecee said:

criminal: A person who has commited a crime.

You say so. Not everyone agrees. Why they disagree is psychological, sociological, anthropological and philosophical. 

[Kittenpuncher]

When it comes to politics, it's handy to keep one key thing in mind, it is the center and the answer to politics as a concern, and that is;

Most people don't even believe the shit that they say

And they are just trying to anger you or make you really uncomfortable and scared of their presumed ability to turn others against you through deception, or perversity/defile you

Oftentimes I simply tell the others that I refuse to involve myself in the affairs of blasphemers always a good creedo to live by and I have the moral high ground in any political discussion through that; seeing as how I refuse to participate

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Why? I never claimed that any society had no members who did bad things, and things that their society considered wrong, of who did not adjust well to some aspect or demand of their society. But if their own society does not consider that a single forbidden act turns a person into something other than himself, I respect that.  

Good. Then we agree that evil/wrong doers/criminals/misfits in any of its forms or definitions exists in all societies.

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

 I am not 'playing' with words. I take their precision, meaning and significance very seriously. 

Then you are being obtuse on many occasions. We are discussing simply the fact that misfits exist in all society. 

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

You say so. Not everyone agrees. Why they disagree is psychological, sociological, anthropological and philosophical. 

I'm really not that interested in those soft sciences, rather in the realistic  defined meaning of criminal. You know what that is, as well as I.

 

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Then we agree that evil/wrong doers/criminals/misfits in any of its forms or definitions exists in all societie

Nope.

3 hours ago, beecee said:

hen you are being obtuse on many occasions.

Yup.

3 hours ago, beecee said:

I'm really not that interested in those soft sciences

I know.

[iNow]

8 hours ago, Kittenpuncher said:

Haha sorry this is not the right thread

You should put this in your signature to save time. Applies to so very many of the posts you make. 

[Peterkin]

7 hours ago, Kittenpuncher said:

I have the moral high ground

I hope you don't get nose-bleeds.

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 hours ago, Kittenpuncher said:

Oftentimes I simply tell the others that I refuse to involve myself in the affairs of blasphemers always a good creedo to live by and I have the moral high ground in any political discussion through that; seeing as how I refuse to participate

Don't we all...

Edited May 1, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[Kittenpuncher]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

You should put this in your signature to save time. Applies to so very many of the posts you make. 

no it doesn't but you have already established yourself as a liar very thoroughly so i know that i don't have to tell you this again for you to realize

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I hope you don't get nose-bleeds.

there's not even supposed to be oxygen this far up but i don't really understand the whole "thinking im still on earth thing" anyway, leaving me in the dark has been a consistently decadent, sinful pattern for a long, long time, sometimes i think that nobody is innocent of it unless it does me no significant good to know something

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Kittenpuncher said:

you have already established yourself as a liar very thoroughly

Is that so? Hmm. Interesting. Thanks for sharing. 

[Peterkin]

I'm often surprised at how much one can learn about oneself from belligerent, semi-coherent zealots.