French Revolution anyone?Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>it is not a matter of quantitative force, it is matter of qualitative. the weak simply do nto have it in them to act out. no matter how many actually get together. they simply do not have it in them.</STRONG>
You've contradicted yourself. You say that the definitions of right and wrong are pointless. That what matters is strong and weak. Yet, you say that strength is a matter of quality, thus saying that strength comes from whether or not you do good or bad, right or wrong.Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>ahhh, i have been waiting for that question...
it is not a matter of quantitative force, it is matter of qualitative. the weak simply do nto have it in them to act out. no matter how many actually get together. they simply do not have it in them.</STRONG>
Again, @Nael, I'm offering to show you plenty of major historical examples that will prove what you've written about the incapability of "the weak" to rest power away from, and wield it upon the head of, the strong, is inaccurate. Dozens. You want 'em, I'll provide 'em.Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>strong and weak do not mean good or bad..one way or the other. i am saying that it is the weak who assign "bad" moral roles to those things which they are incabale of in order to make themselves feel better.
</STRONG>
I'm not speaking of the "morally strong." One can be "morally strong" and have bad morals. That merely means that you firmly believe in your morals, whether they are good or bad.Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>strong and weak do not mean good or bad..one way or the other. i am saying that it is the weak who assign "bad" moral roles to those things which they are incabale of in order to make themselves feel better.
the strong may or may not stick up for someone else. you are talkign about someone whom you label "morally strong".
for the strong it is not a choice they have to make. if they help, they help...not because it is good, but because that is their nature and they will not shy away from it. the labels of good and bad assigned to them by the weak are completely irrelevant.</STRONG>
When will you get it through your thick skull that I'm not talking about morality. Something is either of good quality or bad quality. Good quality iron makes for a good sword. Bad quality iron makes for a bad sword. A quality is either good or bad, depending on whether or not it is destructive or constructive.Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>what does quality have to with good or bad? perhaps my use of the word quality confused things. i do not assume to say that quality is a moral quality. the word quality is meant to mean that is the substance of someone...not good or bad, but whatever they have in them.</STRONG>
Actually, by your definitions, they were weak. The weak became strong when they became united. The strong became weak when they were overwhelmed.Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>and citing revolts throughout history does little to counter my arguments. why do you make the assumption that i think the underdog is the weak one? i mean after all...they won...under the strength of leaders and the weakness and folly of other so called leaders.</STRONG>
But if you can redefine anyone who is a "sheep" as a "wolf" once they kill a "wolf," then you haven't proven that only wolves win--you've only engaged in a sort of semantical Three Card Monty, shifting the terms around to suit your argument.Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>what does quality have to with good or bad? perhaps my use of the word quality confused things. i do not assume to say that quality is a moral quality. the word quality is meant to mean that is the substance of someone...not good or bad, but whatever they have in them.
and citing revolts throughout history does little to counter my arguments. why do you make the assumption that i think the underdog is the weak one? i mean after all...they won...under the strength of leaders and the weakness and folly of other so called leaders.</STRONG>
LOL! No arguments, there. Only I would call her a selfish prig in addition, who tried to justify getting whatever she wanted through some strange voodoo of corporate darwinism.Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>ayn rand is a hack. but yes, her stuff is along these lines. not a fan though</STRONG>
That I understand. I specified it like that more to make sure you caught it than out of an assumption that you were purposely avoiding it.Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>@SS - sorry, i didn't mean to avoid you at all, i am tryign to answer everyone's questions, some slip by.
the definition of strogn and weak comes down to (and you'll have to allow me some room to wiggle out of this since i am just typing as i think) down to why you do things.</STRONG>
Depends on what I'm doing. If it is something that I should do because it helps others, and I can get past my lazy streak, I do it. If it is something that I really want to do, I can get past my lazy streak, and it is not wrong to do it, I do it.Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>do you do somethign because you feel like you should or do you do things just because. </STRONG>
I tend to just respond to others, though if I'm bored or in one of my curious moods, I do things to see how others will react.Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>do you do things in response to others, or are you the one that others are responding to.</STRONG>
If I didn't deny my "instincts" and "drives," I'd have killed someone about 5 or 6 years ago.Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>do you deny your instincts and your drives? </STRONG>
I try to not care what others think of me, though it still matters in some ways. Many people don't approve of the way I dress, but that doesn't bother me one bit. The only "desires" I surpress are the destructive ones, such as being promiscuous(sp?), killing people, etc.Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>do you suppress your desires for no other reason than to appease someone else?</STRONG>
I now comprehend what you are saying better than I did prior, though I still do not agree.Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>does that help any?</STRONG>
Strong and weak are relativistic terms. Compared to 4 or 5 year old, I'm strong. Compared to the heavy weight champion of the world, I'm weak.(note: Yes, I am using examples of physical strength here, but this speaks figuratively for other strengths/weaknesses as well.)Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>@fable - well, at least we agree on one thing.
i really don't think i have changed my definitions. just because the strong is defeated, does nto mean he is not strong anymore. and the strong won't be defeated by the weak, but by other strong persons. think of along the lines of classical greek battles. the loser was still held inhigh regards because he was a warrior and an equal. someone is not strogn just because they beat soemone at something. like i said earlier, if i step on an ant, i am not strong for it.
and a position of power does not make that person strong.</STRONG>
I want to build on your ant anology for a moment if I canOriginally posted by nael:
<STRONG>@fable - well, at least we agree on one thing.
i really don't think i have changed my definitions. just because the strong is defeated, does nto mean he is not strong anymore. and the strong won't be defeated by the weak, but by other strong persons. think of along the lines of classical greek battles. the loser was still held inhigh regards because he was a warrior and an equal. someone is not strogn just because they beat soemone at something. like i said earlier, if i step on an ant, i am not strong for it.
and a position of power does not make that person strong.</STRONG>
We're not, or rather I'm not(I will not speak for the others for I do not know what goes on inside their minds, nor am I sure I want to knowOriginally posted by nael:
<STRONG>@SS - i never asked anyoen to agree, but i'm glad at least part of what i said is a little bit clearer.</STRONG>
), insisting/requesting that you agree with me, either. That is not the piont of a debate. The point of a debate is, of course, to discuss and let everyone come to their own conclusions. To be honest, there are a few things I partially agree on, but that is because those specific things agree with what I'm saying.Guten nacht, nael. I look forward to debating with you again in the future.Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>to everyone - i've enjoyed chatting with everyone, this has basically been my first debate here on the SYM forum, but i gotta hit the hay. i have a meeting early in the morning.
so...guten nacht</STRONG>
First, we ain't taking your animal analogies too seriously. We're using simple arguing techniques of turning your 'opponents' own analogies against him.Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>alright one last reply for i go to bed...
@vehemence - you took my ant analogy the wrong way. see, in mine i just use it as an insignificant nothing which does not effect me, it has nothign to do with struggle and fighting.
in yoru example...the ant is strong...not because its fellow ants instinctively help, but rather it is strong due to its willingness to fight and to do what it will do despite the odds.
it's really hard for me to put my views towards the animal kingdom. ya'll take my ant and sheep analogies WAY too literally.</STRONG>
