The Art of War

[SpheresOfBalance]

SpheresOfBalance:

A not necessarily true assumption on your part. My words, your assumption, as if you could know how I played it.

I try never to asssume.


SpheresOfBalance:

I'm non violent yet I was in the navy. When I joined I said to myself that if I was ever asked to kill someone that I'd yell conscientious objector and take the punishment...............I have worked as an Aviation Anti-Submarine Warfare Operator (operating 5 electronic sensors), I've loaded a live nuclear weapon (that was fun).

Ponder and deliberate before you make a move, Sun Tzu's, Art of War

that is how I play it.

Then if you believed you knew, why ask? Seems like a waste of time to me, unless of course, you had an ulterior motive, something you felt you had to prove to someone. But however you look at it, considering the above, that you supposedly quoted, "simpatico," surely was a known, yet asserted, falsehood on your part. Hmmmm..., I wonder...! Funny, that I originally considered you a sweet-heart!

[SpheresOfBalance]

SpheresOfBalance:

I'm non violent yet I was in the navy. When I joined I said to myself that if I was ever asked to kill someone that I'd yell conscientious objector and take the punishment...............I have worked as an Aviation Anti-Submarine Warfare Operator (operating 5 electronic sensors), I've loaded a live nuclear weapon (that was fun).

If this is a accurate quote, it is complete hypocrisy.

Only in your wildest dreams, did you pop out of your mothers womb, attesting nothing that could be considered hypocrisy, with respect to Intellectual History! And now you see why megalomania come to my mind, with some of the absurdities that you spout, as if they are meaningful, in any way, worth considering.

Knowledge is amassed over time, with much lending to the illusion of hypocrisy, when comparing distant specific instances, along life's long journey, for every man. Again, you have a problem reconciling time. I see that hypocrisy can only be declared with certainty while viewing a very narrow window in time, this fact can sometimes elude simpletons, or the megalomaniacal.

[reasonvemotion]

Simpatico/Sympatico I thought means like minded. To voluntarily join a machine, whose sole purpose is to kill or conquer, leads me to believe "simpatico to the cause" would have to be there to do so.

Ponder and deliberate before you make a move, Sun Tzu's, Art of War

You left yourself wide open. I used your tactic to prove The Art of War.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Simpatico/Sympatico I thought means like minded. To voluntarily join a machine, whose sole purpose is to kill or conquer, leads me to believe "simpatico to the cause" would have to be there to do so.
And I quote:

You were in the "forces" were you not, Spheres? so I guess you have some sympatico with the "art" of war, considering you must have volunteered.

Look at your words above that I highlighted in red. You wrote in the 'present tense.' You would have been 'more correct' if you had used the 'past tense,' such as: "I guess you had" or better yet, past perfect: "I guess you have had," but actually even then you'd be wrong, as the words in that so called quote of mine, obviously, lends to an other than simpatico motivation.

Ponder and deliberate before you make a move, Sun Tzu's, Art of War

You left yourself wide open. I used your tactic to prove The Art of War.

One proves nothing, that's actually half baked, yet maybe only, in their own mind. Can you say confusion?

[chaz wyman]

SpheresOfBalance:

I'm non violent yet I was in the navy. When I joined I said to myself that if I was ever asked to kill someone that I'd yell conscientious objector and take the punishment...............I have worked as an Aviation Anti-Submarine Warfare Operator (operating 5 electronic sensors), I've loaded a live nuclear weapon (that was fun).

If this is a accurate quote, it is complete hypocrisy.

Only in your wildest dreams, did you pop out of your mothers womb, attesting nothing that could be considered hypocrisy, with respect to Intellectual History! And now you see why megalomania come to my mind, with some of the absurdities that you spout, as if they are meaningful, in any way, worth considering.

Knowledge is amassed over time, with much lending to the illusion of hypocrisy, when comparing distant specific instances, along life's long journey, for every man. Again, you have a problem reconciling time. I see that hypocrisy can only be declared with certainty while viewing a very narrow window in time, this fact can sometimes elude simpletons, or the megalomaniacal.

WHen I demonstrate hypocrisy i'll be glad to discuss it with you. We are all guilty of it at some time, but find it hard to recognise in ourselves. I hope I am more amenable to critique than you are.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I'm non violent yet I was in the navy. When I joined I said to myself that if I was ever asked to kill someone that I'd yell conscientious objector and take the punishment...............I have worked as an Aviation Anti-Submarine Warfare Operator (operating 5 electronic sensors), I've loaded a live nuclear weapon (that was fun).

If this is a accurate quote, it is complete hypocrisy.

Only in your wildest dreams, did you pop out of your mothers womb, attesting nothing that could be considered hypocrisy, with respect to Intellectual History! And now you see why megalomania come to my mind, with some of the absurdities that you spout, as if they are meaningful, in any way, worth considering.

Knowledge is amassed over time, with much lending to the illusion of hypocrisy, when comparing distant specific instances, along life's long journey, for every man. Again, you have a problem reconciling time. I see that hypocrisy can only be declared with certainty while viewing a very narrow window in time, this fact can sometimes elude simpletons, or the megalomaniacal.

WHen I demonstrate hypocrisy i'll be glad to discuss it with you. We are all guilty of it at some time, but find it hard to recognise in ourselves. I hope I am more amenable to critique than you are.

Obviously, my point is that one has to take time into account. Can one truly be said to be a hypocrite, if they once believed something completely the opposite of what they currently believe, or is it much more accurate to attribute it to a learning curve?

hyp·o·crite [hip-uh-krit] noun
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

Synonyms: deceiver, dissembler, pretender, pharisee.

I've never pretended to be anything other than what I am, at the very moment that I've said that I was, ever! I have never attempted to deceive anyone. Obviously, like everyone, what I have become, is a product of my experience, as I understand it to the extent that I do, at any particular time, allowing me to revise previous versions, to compensate for epiphanies and the like. I change, as should all. But I have never misrepresented myself so as to win favor.

I have actually been apart of things, not because I necessarily agreed with them, but rather that I felt at that time, that I had no other choice, the implications of my decision, not fully understood. I call it youth!
I was definitely not born with a silver spoon in my mouth.

But for curiosities sake, what exactly do you find in the quote at the very top of this message, that you believe justifies saying:

If this is a accurate quote, it is complete hypocrisy.

? As I see much room for premature conclusions based upon incomplete data.

[chaz wyman]

Obviously, my point is that one has to take time into account. .

Sorry no - what you said was; "When I joined I said to myself that if I was ever asked to kill someone that I'd yell conscientious objector and take the punishment"; which is contemporary hypocrisy. In other words you were a hypocrite for holding that position THEN, and thus time is not relevant.

Might I suggest that you hold back on the pasting of definitions, especially when they do not add to the argument. It seems patronising, and high handed. In this particular case your definition was not at odds in anyway with the understanding that I was giving the word. If what I had said was at odds with a standardly acceptable definition then I would see why you posted it.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Red:

Obviously, my point is that one has to take time into account. .

Sorry no - what you said was; "When I joined I said to myself that if I was ever asked to kill someone that I'd yell conscientious objector and take the punishment"; which is contemporary hypocrisy. In other words you were a hypocrite for holding that position THEN, and thus time is not relevant.
Contained within that quote I see no hypocrisy at all, but rather an individual that states a high moral code and sticks by it, no matter what the ramifications. There is no pretense of a higher moral, virtuous character, religious belief, principles, etc that they did not adhere too, quite the contrary. They just seem to be using the institution in the same way the institution was using them. The only difference between the two entities is that one was willing to ask the other to pay a potential price that they themselves were unwilling to pay, thus those that composed the body of the institution were the hypocrites in their 'bravery of being out of range.'

Might I suggest that you hold back on the pasting of definitions, especially when they do not add to the argument. It seems patronising, and high handed. In this particular case your definition was not at odds in anyway with the understanding that I was giving the word. If what I had said was at odds with a standardly acceptable definition then I would see why you posted it.
Wrong, the definition I provided, proved my point, but it would seem, to only those, that are in fact truly enlightened.

[chaz wyman]

[...........

Please may I refer you to the answer I made to another thread.

From time to time I try and engage in conversation with you. But you unerringly remind me why I seldom engage with you.
even when we are of the same general opinion- you can't resist being adversarial.

[Louis Manet]

Would be willing to post my reply RE topic if anyone is still interested in the issue?



Regards,


Louis Manet

[attofishpi]

Would be willing to post my reply RE topic if anyone is still interested in the issue?



Regards,


Louis Manet

Welcome to the forum Louis...please do post a reply...you may find it reinvigorates interest *; )

[SpheresOfBalance]

Yes I second the notion, Welcome!

I am the type that always welcomes any addition or method of viewing my thoughts, how else do we learn, than by considering all possibilities, which unfortunately, no one man, necessarily, is capable.

[pharaoh]

SpheresOfBalance


You haven't pinned down what type of war you have in mind. If you are conducting a war against evil(not the axiom of evil, of course!) then, one would have a better feeling, looking at juxtaposition of "art" and "war".

[chaz wyman]

SpheresOfBalance


You haven't pinned down what type of war you have in mind. If you are conducting a war against evil(not the axiom of evil, of course!) then, one would have a better feeling, looking at juxtaposition of "art" and "war".

I think you mean the 'axis' of evil?


How can you conduct a war against a noun?

[rantal]

Germany is a noun

all the best, rantal