For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Yet I would change 'truth' to 'understanding.'uwot wrote:In war, the first casualty is truth.HexHammer wrote:Imo this is why the successive wars has been very limited with free press.
Aeschylus. Another Greek.
Yet I understand you both!uwot wrote:We have that in common, Mr Hammer.HexHammer wrote:You don't really have any idea of what I'm talking about.
HexHammer wrote:No, truly you speak out of your ass.uwot wrote:We have that in common, Mr Hammer.HexHammer wrote:You don't really have any idea of what I'm talking about.
Here, let me translate, "I don't understand."
To lie isn't the same to limit the reporters and journalists ability to roam freely, and freely seend any information found.
I think uwot is against intelligent speech, he always talks out of his retarded ass.vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Who gets to decide who the 'enemy' is then? So you are against free speech then.uwot wrote:I think many commentators would argue that reports of Saddam Hussain's military capabilities were, at best, exaggerated, for instance. Putting restraints on what reporters can tell the enemy is only sensible.
I would have thought that one's life would be quite a lot to lose.SpheresOfBalance wrote: I live in the US, and I take uwot's point, he meant 'rarely.'
What you add is very disturbing and I wouldn't challenge it, and yes there is bleak evidence from, as Mr Hammer points out research such as the Milgram experiment. But I was seconding Lev Muishkin's view that humans are complex beings; if Dostoevsky is right and every one of us is corruptible by power, then we are a very predictable and dismal species.Wyman wrote:For a contrary point of view, here is a quote from Dostoevsky:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Who gets to decide who the 'enemy' is then?
I think people should be able to say what they like about wars or anything else and while I don't condone war generally, I think people have a right to self defence. In such circumstances I would hope the press would refrain from giving away my position, strength or morale, and if I felt their doing so increased the risk of injury or death to people I was responsible for, I would stop them.vegetariantaxidermy wrote:So you are against free speech then.
My retarded ass I reserve for talking to you, Mr Hammer. It speaks your language.HexHammer wrote:I think uwot is against intelligent speech, he always talks out of his retarded ass.
Well, while we're at it then, here is another quote I had stowed away from The Brother's Karamazov:uwot wrote:What you add is very disturbing and I wouldn't challenge it, and yes there is bleak evidence from, as Mr Hammer points out research such as the Milgram experiment. But I was seconding Lev Muishkin's view that humans are complex beings; if Dostoevsky is right and every one of us is corruptible by power, then we are a very predictable and dismal species.Wyman wrote:For a contrary point of view, here is a quote from Dostoevsky:
Not that Dostoevsky is right, but it is interesting to see different points of view. Perhaps this point of view is what comes of being seconds away from execution before being sent to Siberia to hang out with 19th century Russia's most violent criminals for ten years in Siberia, followed by a life of gambling (with accompanying poverty), personal loss and depression.In most cases people, even the most vicious, are much more naive and simple-minded than we assume them to be. And this is true of ourselves too.
Excatly how is Nietzsche brilliant? I'd say he was a compulsive writer, but in no way brilliant.Wyman wrote:It is interesting to note that Dostoevsky and Nietzsche are often compared, held similar views of humanity, both were brilliant thinkers and especially writers
Short answer is: he saw things, and subsequently described them, from an angle that was not available or apparent to others.HexHammer wrote:Excatly how is Nietzsche brilliant? I'd say he was a compulsive writer, but in no way brilliant.Wyman wrote:It is interesting to note that Dostoevsky and Nietzsche are often compared, held similar views of humanity, both were brilliant thinkers and especially writers
LOL? So you can't really defend your own view of him, but with complete nonsense.Wyman wrote:Short answer is: he saw things, and subsequently described them, from an angle that was not available or apparent to others.
Do you want to have a long discussion with me regarding Nietzsche Hex, is that what your are trying to say?HexHammer wrote:LOL? So you can't really defend your own view of him, but with complete nonsense.Wyman wrote:Short answer is: he saw things, and subsequently described them, from an angle that was not available or apparent to others.
..that's awesome!
I pray each night that just a few intelligent people would come to this forum, and bring salvation to all these stupid people!
If you can't argue if he's relevant or not, then you lack something basic.Wyman wrote:Do you want to have a long discussion with me regarding Nietzsche Hex, is that what your are trying to say?
That's exactly how it used to be in the world of the barbarians.vegetariantaxidermy wrote:True, but people need to start demanding that warmongering politicians be the first to line up for front line combat. See how many wars there would be then. No extra protection for them either. A moron like Bush would have been the first to have his head hacked off, or blown up.Lev Muishkin wrote: If being anti-war is so rare it is a wonder that we are not fighting all the time.
I agree about what you say about politicians spouting patriotism, and people like to follow like sheep.
But for the most part people just want to get on with their lives.
The Idiot Prince was not corruptible, that was the point of his characterisation. So not everyone.uwot wrote:What you add is very disturbing and I wouldn't challenge it, and yes there is bleak evidence from, as Mr Hammer points out research such as the Milgram experiment. But I was seconding Lev Muishkin's view that humans are complex beings; if Dostoevsky is right and every one of us is corruptible by power, then we are a very predictable and dismal species.Wyman wrote:For a contrary point of view, here is a quote from Dostoevsky: