The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2026 11:31 pm this war started with the peanut farmer...

-Imp

That's sort of just a lie really isn't it?

Lewis, Rick. "Sticks and Stones." Philosophy Now, February/March 2018, Issue 124.
Shaikh, Abdullah. "Cicero and the Ideals of Virtue." Philosophy Now, February/March 2026, Issue 172.

puto wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2026 10:43 am Lewis, Rick. "Sticks and Stones." Philosophy Now, February/March 2018, Issue 124.
Shaikh, Abdullah. "Cicero and the Ideals of Virtue." Philosophy Now, February/March 2026, Issue 172.

So what are your thoughts on "realists"? Should a president be able to get us involved with "conflicts" at his own whim and discretion (assuming a president happens to have any discretion)? Or should Congress, which a bit more directly represents the will of the American people, make those decisions?

Are you a "realist" or were you simply quoting what "realists" believe when you said that "realists" draw a distinction between war and "conflict"?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2026 10:15 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2026 11:31 pm this war started with the peanut farmer...

-Imp

That's sort of just a lie really isn't it?

so much a lie, it has it has its own wiki page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2026 2:35 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2026 10:15 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2026 11:31 pm this war started with the peanut farmer...

-Imp

That's sort of just a lie really isn't it?

so much a lie, it has it has its own wiki page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

-Imp

That's just stupid.

“Life is tough, it's tougher if you are stupid,” John Wayne.

Liberalism ought to in political philosophy which is moral, realism which is skeptical. Liberalism is not realism which is skeptical. Liberalism is an ought in political philosophy which is moral. What type of ethics do you follow?

What could that possibly mean???

puto wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2026 10:17 am Liberalism ought to in political philosophy which is moral, realism which is skeptical. Liberalism is not realism which is skeptical. Liberalism is an ought in political philosophy which is moral. What type of ethics do you follow?

I follow common sense ethical intuition, as most ordinary people do when we're not misled by propaganda.

puto wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2026 10:17 am Liberalism ought to in political philosophy which is moral, realism which is skeptical. Liberalism is not realism which is skeptical. Liberalism is an ought in political philosophy which is moral. What type of ethics do you follow?

Moral realism means is the position that there are objective moral truths. It is not inherently skeptical and generally is the opposite of skeptical meta.ethical positions.
Realism (the ontological one) is not a skeptical position.
Realpolitik which those who identify with often call themselves realists is in the abstract skeptical of universal morals and things like human rights or at least asserts we need not consider these. But in practice this means that moral claims by others are dismissed skeptically but not their own or allies' claims. In international relations and political theory, this kind of Realism often emphasizes power and national interest over morality. While it is sometimes seen as "amoral," it is technically a normative position: it argues that leaders should prioritize security and survival over abstract ethical ideals. Note: their own leaders and whoever they are rooting for. They are happy to aim moral and justice claims at other groups or justify realpolitik actions and treatment based on the immoral behavior of the enemies.

For example:

Wars is self-defensive if waged to avert an injustice still about to take place; it is offensive if the injustice has already occurred and what is sought is redress

Arguing, term usage and trying to be logical, when the people you are arguing no neither of them. Knowing, how to argue is a plus. Arguing, terms and being logical is also a plus.

arguing is moot if you have a big stick

-Imp

that was good.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2026 12:27 am arguing is moot if you have a big stick

-Imp

It's easy to get big sticks or other blunt force trauma creators, so arguing ought to be fully mute.

Islamic conduct of War: Intertribal warfare, forbidding of fighting during certain times of the year, a code of honor. The morality of the Quran. Just war peace is the end of war, and govern the conduct of war. Nardin, Terry, "Comparative Ethics," The Ethics of War and Peace, Princeton University Press, 1996, Print, p. 259