War

[Autumnlicious]

P.S. - do you even know what absurdism is?

What Sae subscribes to?

[reverendjeremiah]

You have no problem glibly saying, when the question of the Middle East stopping export of oil, "yeah, that'll never happen,"

I remind you that the topic for this thread is "war" (generalized)... and not middle east oil exportations and their effects on the world.

P.S. - do you even know what absurdism is?

What Sae subscribes to?

http://www.absurdism.info

this is the website I created devoted to the philosophical concept of absurdism and all of its connections to religion, philosophy, art, media, etc..

Its a quick read of basic info... like a (.info) site should be.

[Epimethean]

Indeed. The point of your argument, if we take you as an absurdist, is that it is futile, so one wonders why you are arguing that war is unnecessary, when you should realize such an argument is futile, which leads me back to the fact that, as an absurdist, you like a futile direction.

---

BTW, you did change your stance in just 2 pages from your view to mine, and I made that obviously clear...or was that just a mistake?

The mistake was in your reading.

[Violet]

Interesting how making costumes, however beautiful or ugly, is used in the same scope as scientific research, which usually involves pushing the bounds of knowledge...

Isn't that what I'm doing? Who knew that wigs could be used as epic shoulder-pads?

And I've certainly made plenty of discoveries on the many uses of safety pins, and more importantly: how to hide them. ^_^

I've been pushing the bounds of my knowledge since I got down here... and especially so in my costumation ^_^

So yes, I use it in the same scope as any other branch of science. So turns out I am a pioneer or clothing design. That's fucking amazing. And maybe one day I'll get paid for it too

---

P.S. - do you even know what absurdism is?

What Sae subscribes to?

Partially? Yes

---

Off topic: I love you, Revvie

[reverendjeremiah]

Indeed. The point of your argument, if we take you as an absurdist, is that it is futile, so one wonders why you are arguing that war is unnecessary, when you should realize such an argument is futile, which leads me back to the fact that, as an absurdist, you like a futile direction.

---

BTW, you did change your stance in just 2 pages from your view to mine, and I made that obviously clear...or was that just a mistake?

The mistake was in your reading.

#1 - Even though an absurdist considers it futile... unlike a nihilist... the absurdist keeps going instead of giving up. Temporary meaning can be found in the journey. That is why the mascot of absurdism is Sisyphus. He was cursed to push a rock up a mountain just to see it roll back down..yet he continues to do so in spite of the absurdity of it all.



#2 - if the mistake was in my reading, then I apologize.

It sure looked like you hypocricized your self on this thread from my point of view.

---

P.S. - do you even know what absurdism is?

What Sae subscribes to?

Partially? Yes

---

Off topic: I love you, Revvie
[/quote]

Thankyou sweetheart.... mmm... kisses



LOL..Im such a pansexual teaser

[Epimethean]

I know me my Sisyphus well, and I can see you doing your thing there. My stance here has been that war is necessary, that it is inevitable, and that it is productive because it is in keeping with a fundamental tenet of human nature. If, as was pointed out by another member, you are doing this strictly to play ping pong, very fine and I'll duck out there; but if you are serious in thinking that war is unnecessary, you have yet to make a compelling argument for that to be so. Set Switzerland aside, because it is a red herring here. Consider the super powers from Greece to the present: Could they have come into being without war? Could they have left behind them the legacies they did, for good as much (and often more so) as for ill had they not pressed against other nations and met with resistance, thereby leading to war? If you wish to make a case for war being unnecessary, make it with evidence that shows this from the top of the food chain down, not from some little niche which became neutral to spare its life. Deal with the Scyllae and Charybdises rather than the little birds flying between them.

[Faith No More]

To end war would require removing all that within us makes us human.

[reverendjeremiah]

I know me my Sisyphus well, and I can see you doing your thing there. My stance here has been that war is necessary, that it is inevitable, and that it is productive because it is in keeping with a fundamental tenet of human nature. If, as was pointed out by another member, you are doing this strictly to play ping pong, very fine and I'll duck out there; but if you are serious in thinking that war is unnecessary, you have yet to make a compelling argument for that to be so. Set Switzerland aside, because it is a red herring here. Consider the super powers from Greece to the present: Could they have come into being without war? Could they have left behind them the legacies they did, for good as much (and often more so) as for ill had they not pressed against other nations and met with resistance, thereby leading to war? If you wish to make a case for war being unnecessary, make it with evidence that shows this from the top of the food chain down, not from some little niche which became neutral to spare its life. Deal with the Scyllae and Charybdises rather than the little birds flying between them.

Oh no. I would in no way want a conversation to ping pong back and forth like that. A good conversation is unidirectional and therefore productive in that direction only. Absolutely. War is necessary and absolutely inevitable and good for humanity, as it produces many wonderful things for humanity to consume. You are absolutely right. My choice in using Switzerland was a poor example, and I apologize for using it. I will set it aside for now on unless you wish to discuss it later. It was definitely a red herring.

I agree. Greece could have never come into being without war. Their legacy was great, and people still write of their greatness today. I also agree that they would have been nothing if they had not pressed forth and conquered as they did. How bold of them. They had the right stuff that men make nations to last with.

I apologize for my earlier stance. For now on, I will judge my evidence compared to the great nations of the past before I post it. I will strive to ever be more in line with my posts on this thread for now on.

---

To end war would require removing all that within us makes us human.

Exactly. War is what helps define us as human beings.

[Napoléon]

You have been arguing with me all this time just to now come out and say that you agree with me?

http://atheistforums.org/thread-9097-pos...#pid196226
look at the embarrassing quotes below

POINT: All of this stuff could easily had been invented without war.

I disagree, and so does history.

finished with the embarrassing quotes

You said easily invented. I don't see where you think I have misinterpreted your post, maybe you've misinterpreted it yourself.

[Autumnlicious]

To end war would require removing all that within us makes us human.

Or maturing to the point that rational discussion is the norm, not the exception.