justice is not natural

[Baron Max]

Intellectual force and the threat of physical force are different fields altogether;...

"Intellectual force"??? Isn't that an oxymoron?

However, ....yes, they are different fields, but notice that ALWAYS it's the physical force behind the intellect that wins all of the battles. The intellect might provide all of the propaganda, but it's the guns which turn the tide. And what you should consider is that once that tide is turned, how often in human history has the intellectuals been able to rule after the "revolution"?

I might just as easily extend your comparison to the field of baking, in which of two rival bakers the winner may be the one with the best bread - the "bigger gun".

There are baking contests all the time ...and winners are selected by the best bread they bake!! So, yes, your comparison is quite apt.

As a point of interest, do you consider "might makes right" which you seem to believe drives justice as just a fact of life, or as desirable?

As a point of human fact. It's been that way since humans began to walk upright on the African plains. As to "desirable", that's an intellectual debate and, like most intellectual debates, there is no answer ....just continual debate.

...from other posts of yours...

Don't use other posts or other comments to make arguments about this topic. They have no place here. If you can't read what I've written and make your argument, then I'd suggest that we discontinue this discussion. Personalities should have no place in an intellectual discussion.

Surely this leads to totalitarianism, ...

Why?

...Gandhi for example never held the largest guns against the British, yet still won...

And just what did he win?? Please be careful in answering that question ...it's a loaded one and your answer should probably be well considered before you type it out and post it.

...unless you plan to also include civil resistance as yet another form of gun...

You're trying to use the term "biggest gun" literally ...does that mean that you have no other good arguments to put forth? Of course, by "biggest gun" anyone would mean "the physical" as opposed to the "intellectual". A gazillion intellectuals running over and subduing two non-intellectual guards would be considered "physical", would it not?

...the fact remains that a smaller unarmed group can be victorious over an armed group.

Yep! And the winner is the stronger ....meaning "the biggest gun"!

John, a gazillion intellectuals just thinking and debating can do nothing against a force of physical soldiers. If you think so, then we have little to discuss.

Baron Max

 

[Perfect]

GayNigger:
"John, a gazillion intellectuals just thinking and debating can do nothing against a force of physical soldiers. If you think so, then we have little to discuss."


A physical force of soldiers, rampaging around and pillaging, like a herd of vigorous mongols. Raping and desecrating - but who the fuck is the Rex?

Baron: Iz like, *arf arf*, that bigger muscle crush smaller muscle *arf*

Well, yes, true, but did you consider that the bigger muscle might, you know, posses traits not restricted to merely monotonic relationships?

What you are truly saying is that conceding does not excel over fervent stances. Still, you failed.
The physical force of soldiers is mostly, mainly controlled by intellectuals. If not, it will deteriorate when facing another physical force, a force subdued to control via the usage of logic and creativity - intellect.

You seem to me, to be the kind of a guy who sees the world as black and white. Who sees infrastructures and layers as opposites, as contrasts - always. Who can't spot subtle differences yet roams around croaking about some faddish extremism.

 

[Baron Max]

Yes, Perfect, name-calling and personal attacks is always the argument of last resort, huh? ...LOL!

What I find truly interesting about it is that the ones who use such tactics most often are the ones who advocate love and compassion of their fellow man. Isn't that a bit of a hypocritical attitude?? ...especially to reveal in writing for all to see?

Baron Max

 

[John Smith III]

oh, it's been a long time since such a lovely empty argument was put forward. You seem to be practicing the old technique of combatting a reductio ad absurdum simply by agreeing with it. I suppose that therefore you would fervently claim that the "biggest gun" approach applies to two debating mystics, rivers eroding cliffs to form waterfalls, rainforest trees outgrowing the competition and a saw cutting through wood. Once you erroneously agree with the baking analogy, you are committed to agreeing to whatever nonsense I can imagine as being a case of "The biggest gun" winning out.

"And just so you know, that same principle would apply, for example, in even an intellectual discussion ....the person with the best argument is likely to win that argument. See? He holds the biggest "gun"."

How can you complain that I take you too literally when you made the initial leap of logic yourself? In the words of robots everywhere "does not compute, does not compute..."

By victory for Ghandi I mean the total liberation of India from us, the British. Regardless of what you might believe to be secondary consequences, the fact remains that through passive resistance -i.e no gun of any kind, unless once again you are committed to accepting anything as a "gun"- they removed from power the largest empire in the world.

"You're trying to use the term "biggest gun" literally ...does that mean that you have no other good arguments to put forth? Of course, by "biggest gun" anyone would mean "the physical" as opposed to the "intellectual". A gazillion intellectuals running over and subduing two non-intellectual guards would be considered "physical", would it not?"

see your quote earlier in my post. "Does not compute etc..."

"Don't use other posts or other comments to make arguments about this topic. They have no place here. If you can't read what I've written and make your argument, then I'd suggest that we discontinue this discussion. Personalities should have no place in an intellectual discussion".

Of course, it all makes sense; your opinions are IN FACT actually your personality. How could I have been so blind! If Stalin argued with me one day in favour of laissez-faire capitalism, I should make no reference to his previous stance!.

Originally Posted by John Smith III
As a point of interest, do you consider "might makes right" which you seem to believe drives justice as just a fact of life, or as desirable? ”



"As a point of human fact. It's been that way since humans began to walk upright on the African plains. As to "desirable", that's an intellectual debate and, like most intellectual debates, there is no answer ....just continual debate".

don't evade the issue. What is your opinion? I know you have one, now have the courage of your convictions.


N.B Totalitariansim is lead to by mob rule or "communities deciding their own standards" as you would dub it, because if a dominant power such as the Nazis decide to persecute a minority such as the Jews, and people give their tacit approval, then this is what happens. Novels such as Bret Easton Ellis' "American Psycho" satarize the idea of woeful socially agreed values

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Justice is a human concept developed through and by our culture and intelligence, so one must assume that it is something artificial.

Other animals also display a sense of justice.