Page 3 of 7
Re: Truman's folly
Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:04 pm
by Walker
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the situation.
Re: Truman's folly
Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:05 pm
by Gary Childress
I'm reasonably familiar with the situation. Are you?
Re: Truman's folly
Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:08 pm
by Walker
Enough to not ask the stupid questions you're asking.
Between nations, mercy is conditional and follows sincere requests for mercy.
Unconditional mercy is dispensed willy-nilly by saints, not nations.
Credible threats of violence are not sincere requests for mercy.
Re: Truman's folly
Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:09 pm
by Gary Childress
Knowing what I do of what is going on in the world, I guess it sort of surprises me that you feel the way you do.
Re: Truman's folly
Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:10 pm
by Gary Childress
Walker wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:08 pm
Enough to not ask the stupid questions you're asking.
Between nations, mercy is conditional and follows sincere requests for mercy.
Unconditional mercy is dispensed willy-nilly by saints, not nations.
Credible threats of violence are not sincere requests for mercy.
My questions are relevant. You haven't answered any of them, however.
Re: Truman's folly
Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:12 pm
by Walker
That's where you're wrong. Your repeated insistence on others functioning on the basis of feelings is but one indication of either stupidity or dishonesty, neither of which is particularly inspiring for civil discourse.
Re: Truman's folly
Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:17 pm
by Gary Childress
Walker wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:12 pm
Your repeated insistence on others functioning on the basis of feelings is but one indication of either stupidity or dishonesty, neither of which is particularly inspiring for civil discourse.
Can we get back to the question of whether you feel/think (or however you wish to characterize it) that no one in NK is deserving of mercy or is it just KJU?
Re: Truman's folly
Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:20 pm
by Gary Childress
BTW: Feel free to ask me any questions you wish. I'll answer.
Re: Truman's folly
Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:29 pm
by Walker
Between nations, anyone who sincerely asks for mercy and meets the conditions, is deserving.
Are you deliberately obtuse?
Re: Truman's folly
Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:33 pm
by Gary Childress
Walker wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:29 pm
Between nations, anyone who sincerely asks for mercy and meets the conditions, is deserving.
Are you deliberately obtuse?
OK. Has the US asked for mercy from NK? I don't remember such an event. If that is the case, are we therefore not deserving of mercy?
Re: Truman's folly
Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:39 pm
by Walker
Between nations, anyone who sincerely asks for mercy and meets the conditions, is deserving.
What are the conditions, Gary?
btw: you haven't answered the first question, whether or not you're deliberately obtuse.
Re: Truman's folly
Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:47 pm
by Gary Childress
Walker wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:39 pm
Between nations, anyone who sincerely asks for mercy and meets the conditions, is deserving.
What are the conditions, Gary?
btw: you haven't answered the first question, whether or not you're deliberately obtuse.
IF I am obtuse, then, no, it is not deliberate on my part.
Now will you answer my question? Is the US deserving of mercy from NK? If so can you explain to me why we are deserving? You have stated that one of the criteria for deserving mercy is to ask for it. I don't believe the US has asked NK for mercy, therefore we do not seem to meet the criteria which you are presenting as required for deserving mercy. Therefore it appears to me that we don't deserve mercy.
Re: Truman's folly
Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:06 pm
by Walker
I did answer.
I asked, what are the conditions? This is my second question to go unanswered. And after you promised and all. You had to be be reminded to answer the first, and your answer is why this ends.
You didn't answer. You're stuck on mercy for some reason. I suspect shame is involved.
The conditions are these:
For North Korea, the U.S. is to sit still and do nothing, while N. Korea lobs nukes at the US, and Asian allies.
For the U.S., N. Korea is to stfu and knock it off.
That's about it. Carry on.
Re: Truman's folly
Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:13 pm
by Gary Childress
Walker wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:06 pm
I did answer.
I asked, what are the conditions? This is my second question to go unanswered. And after you promised and all. You had to be be reminded to answer the first, and your answer is why this ends.
You didn't answer. You're stuck on mercy for some reason. I suspect shame is involved.
The conditions are these:
For North Korea, the U.S. is to sit still and do nothing, while N. Korea lobs nukes at the US, and Asian allies.
For the U.S., N. Korea is to stfu and knock it off.
That's about it. Carry on.
You said:
"Between nations, anyone who sincerely asks for mercy
and meets the conditions, is deserving."
I pointed out that we don't meet the stipulation of asking for mercy. If we don't meet the first stipulation then what does it matter whether we meet the following stipulation or not. Therefore I'm asking you if we deserve mercy. Do we deserve mercy? If we deserve mercy then is that to make an exception to your statement? Or did you perhaps mean to use "or" instead of "and"?
Re: Truman's folly
Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:16 pm
by Gary Childress
I'm all for laying down rules for deserving mercy if that's what people want to do. I'd just rather not see us get shot in the foot in the process. I mean, I'd like to think we deserve mercy. Please tell me we do.