Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old 12-22-2005, 09:18 PM
XxGodJrxX XxGodJrxX is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami
Posts: 64
Default Re: Civil War arguments

If rights are not synonymous with abilities, then what ARE they? You may not use a protractor to answer this question.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 12-22-2005, 09:50 PM
The Don The Don is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 399
Default Re: Civil War arguments

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Machineguns, bomber planes, and tanks give people the right to do anything they want.

[/ QUOTE ]
The ability. Not the right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Might makes right. I thought we established that [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 12-22-2005, 10:00 PM
XxGodJrxX XxGodJrxX is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami
Posts: 64
Default Re: Civil War arguments

I knew I'd convince somebody [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 12-22-2005, 10:01 PM
The Don The Don is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 399
Default Re: Civil War arguments

[ QUOTE ]
If rights are not synonymous with abilities, then what ARE they? You may not use a protractor to answer this question.

[/ QUOTE ]

A right is something a person enjoys without the coercion of others. Self-ownership is a right. Property derived from labor or homesteading is a right. Consensual, voluntary exchange is a right. These are all natural.

"Man has the right to exert force if he is more powerful than another man."

This is what you are saying. Logically expand from there and see where you end up.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 12-22-2005, 10:08 PM
XxGodJrxX XxGodJrxX is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami
Posts: 64
Default Re: Civil War arguments

Anybody can exert force without being coerced into doing so.
So by your definition, is killing a right?

If it is not, can't any act of force be declared a right because of self-defense, national security, etc?
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 12-22-2005, 10:11 PM
The Don The Don is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 399
Default Re: Civil War arguments

[ QUOTE ]
Anybody can exert force without being coerced into doing so.
So by your definition, is killing a right?

If it is not, can't any act of force be declared a right because of self-defense, national security, etc?

[/ QUOTE ]

The acceptable use of force is in defense of one's property (life, autonomy, possesions).
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 12-22-2005, 10:22 PM
XxGodJrxX XxGodJrxX is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami
Posts: 64
Default Re: Civil War arguments

[ QUOTE ]

The acceptable use of force is in defense of one's property (life, autonomy, possesions).

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. Now, the confederacy took the Union's property by taking its territory. How is it that the Union was not defending its property?
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 12-22-2005, 11:00 PM
Peter666 Peter666 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 346
Default Re: Civil War arguments

Total war in modern times was unprecedented. To use ancient examples to justify barbarism is silly. The Civil war and its deployment of new technologies was keenly observed by European powers and adopted. WWI and WW2 are well known to have deployed this military strategy. It is the Civil War which made them "acceptable" or inevitable in society.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 12-22-2005, 11:09 PM
Peter666 Peter666 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 346
Default Re: Civil War arguments

One does not have to move to the land to figure the moral inferiority experienced in an industrial city.

The war and abortion example is very pertinent to the discussion, because you try to justify war on the South because of a moral stance on slavery.

I specifically used the example of a foreign nation which has legitimate authority in itself to declare wars, and not the doings of a lone perpetrator blowing up abortion clinics so we may fall under the principles of a just war.

Now the Catholic Church clearly teaches that abortion is murder, pure and simple. And the degree that it is occuring today is a slaughter beyond compare in history. Does a foreign nation have a right to start nuking and invading the United States to stop this evil, and which side would you be on?
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 12-22-2005, 11:15 PM
BluffTHIS! BluffTHIS! is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 375
Default Re: Civil War arguments

Peter, you are historically and militarily misinformed if you believe that other than Sherman's march through a limited area of the South, anything like total war took place in the Civil War, i.e. involving targeting the civilian population and centers of economic production (ok add in the naval blocade). There were 3 things that contributed to the bloodiness of the Civil War:

1) The Minet Ball
2) Field Fortifications
3) Stupid Generalship.

And regarding #3, this includes Lee and Grant IMO. If either or both Stonewall Jackson or Sherman had been in charge of their respective sides' military operations, then the war would have ended sooner.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.