On 2012-07-16 11:06, gdw wrote:
So what does that make WWII?

On 2012-07-16 11:07, mastermindreader wrote:
If you don't understand the point of WWII there isn't really anything left to discuss as far as I'm concerned.

On 2012-07-16 11:05, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-07-16 10:11, gdw wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-07-15 23:33, mastermindreader wrote:
. . .
Rape doesn't need retaliation. Yes, it does.
. . .

Asserting something doesn't make it true. Care to back up your statements?
Why does rape NEED violence in response after the fact?

I've never said there should be no response. I've only been saying attacking back after the fact is not necessary, and is not ethical.
Defending yourself is one thing, using force to stop an aggressor, to stop a current attack or atrocity, is completely acceptable.

The aggressor is in the wrong, stopping them is to restore order. Going after them after they are stopped is only introducing more disorder, moving away from homeostasis. It's is upsetting what has been calmed.

That's not saying that things have been balanced. The aggressor certainly still owes restitution to the victim. That is different than going out of your way to harm the aggressor back. That is nothing more than revenge.

You have stated many times that you viewed arrest and incarceration as a form of violence. It is, therefore, by your own definition, a form of retaliation.
. . .

On 2012-07-16 11:05, mastermindreader wrote:
. . .
I disagree with your statement that the rapist need only make "restitution" to the victim. He needs to be jailed and punished. Call it retribution or revenge or whatever you like. It is necessary.

On 2012-07-16 11:39, gdw wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-07-16 11:05, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-07-16 10:11, gdw wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-07-15 23:33, mastermindreader wrote:
. . .
Rape doesn't need retaliation. Yes, it does.
. . .

Asserting something doesn't make it true. Care to back up your statements?
Why does rape NEED violence in response after the fact?

I've never said there should be no response. I've only been saying attacking back after the fact is not necessary, and is not ethical.
Defending yourself is one thing, using force to stop an aggressor, to stop a current attack or atrocity, is completely acceptable.

The aggressor is in the wrong, stopping them is to restore order. Going after them after they are stopped is only introducing more disorder, moving away from homeostasis. It's is upsetting what has been calmed.

That's not saying that things have been balanced. The aggressor certainly still owes restitution to the victim. That is different than going out of your way to harm the aggressor back. That is nothing more than revenge.

You have stated many times that you viewed arrest and incarceration as a form of violence. It is, therefore, by your own definition, a form of retaliation.
. . .

What's your point? I've also said that, in the end, I don't think that those are/will be necessary. Not that we can do away with them tomorrow, but I certainly believe we can eventually move away from them completely.

Quote:

On 2012-07-16 11:05, mastermindreader wrote:
. . .
I disagree with your statement that the rapist need only make "restitution" to the victim. He needs to be jailed and punished. Call it retribution or revenge or whatever you like. It is necessary.

And how is that anything but vindictive? There's most certainly a difference between revenge and justice.

On 2012-07-16 11:39, mastermindreader wrote:
I understand that is your view. But that was not what you said.

I would also love to here how the war with Japan was a direct fallout from WWI.

On 2012-07-16 09:53, gdw wrote:
I'm not moving the goal posts, and that's not what I said. I said strong defense can be a bigger deterrent than retaliation. I was talking about one or the other, not both compared to just one.

On 2012-07-16 11:46, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-07-16 11:39, gdw wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-07-16 11:05, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-07-16 10:11, gdw wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-07-15 23:33, mastermindreader wrote:
. . .
Rape doesn't need retaliation. Yes, it does.
. . .

Asserting something doesn't make it true. Care to back up your statements?
Why does rape NEED violence in response after the fact?

I've never said there should be no response. I've only been saying attacking back after the fact is not necessary, and is not ethical.
Defending yourself is one thing, using force to stop an aggressor, to stop a current attack or atrocity, is completely acceptable.

The aggressor is in the wrong, stopping them is to restore order. Going after them after they are stopped is only introducing more disorder, moving away from homeostasis. It's is upsetting what has been calmed.

That's not saying that things have been balanced. The aggressor certainly still owes restitution to the victim. That is different than going out of your way to harm the aggressor back. That is nothing more than revenge.

You have stated many times that you viewed arrest and incarceration as a form of violence. It is, therefore, by your own definition, a form of retaliation.
. . .

What's your point? I've also said that, in the end, I don't think that those are/will be necessary. Not that we can do away with them tomorrow, but I certainly believe we can eventually move away from them completely.

Quote:

On 2012-07-16 11:05, mastermindreader wrote:
. . .
I disagree with your statement that the rapist need only make "restitution" to the victim. He needs to be jailed and punished. Call it retribution or revenge or whatever you like. It is necessary.

And how is that anything but vindictive? There's most certainly a difference between revenge and justice.

There's a difference between mercy and justice, too.

On 2012-07-16 11:59, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On 2012-07-16 09:53, gdw wrote:
I'm not moving the goal posts, and that's not what I said. I said strong defense can be a bigger deterrent than retaliation. I was talking about one or the other, not both compared to just one.

That sounds specious...any country that would retaliate is going to defend itself first; the question is whether that's *all* it should do.

On 2012-07-16 10:12, Woland wrote:

Quote:

War is destructive, not constructive.

That's quite true, Stone. But there is such a thing as "creative destruction," and there are some things that deserve to be destroyed.

On 2012-07-16 11:41, mastermindreader wrote:
What type of "restitution" do you propose that a rapist should make to his victim to square things up? Do you believe that deterrence and the protection of society are valid reasons for arrest and incarceration?

On 2012-07-16 12:13, Woland wrote:
Ulysses Grant wrote eloquently about the Mexican War in his memoirs.

On 2012-07-16 12:09, mastermindreader wrote:
Your logic regarding WWII really doesn't make sense because we can always keep going back to prior events and causes. Kind of like going back in time and killing a butterfly.

It could be argued, for example, that WWI was a direct result of the American Civil War because that is where the Germans first got an example of the efficacy of trains in supplying and transporting troops.

Never read his memoirs. What's the gist of what he had to say?

Generally the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory. Texas was originally a state belonging to the republic of Mexico. It extended from the Sabine River on the east to the Rio Grande on the west, and from the Gulf of Mexico on the south and east to the territory of the United States and New Mexico—another Mexican state at that time—on the north and west. An empire in territory, it had but a very sparse population, until settled by Americans who had received authority from Mexico to colonize. These colonists paid very little attention to the supreme government, and introduced slavery into the state almost from the start, though the constitution of Mexico did not, nor does it now, sanction that institution. Soon they set up an independent government of their own, and war existed, between Texas and Mexico, in name from that time until 1836, when active hostilities very nearly ceased upon the capture of Santa Anna, the Mexican President. Before long, however, the same people—who with permission of Mexico had colonized Texas, and afterwards set up slavery there, and then seceded as soon as they felt strong enough to do so—offered themselves and the State to the United States, and in 1845 their offer was accepted. The occupation, separation and annexation were, from the inception of the movement to its final consummation, a conspiracy to acquire territory out of which slave states might be formed for the American Union.

Even if the annexation itself could be justified, the manner in which the subsequent war was forced upon Mexico cannot. The fact is, annexationists wanted more territory than they could possibly lay any claim to, as part of the new acquisition. Texas, as an independent State, never had exercised jurisdiction over the territory between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande. Mexico had never recognized the independence of Texas, and maintained that, even if independent, the State had no claim south of the Nueces. I am aware that a treaty, made by the Texans with Santa Anna while he was under duress, ceded all the territory between the Nueces and the Rio Grande—, but he was a prisoner of war when the treaty was made, and his life was in jeopardy. He knew, too, that he deserved execution at the hands of the Texans, if they should ever capture him. The Texans, if they had taken his life, would have only followed the example set by Santa Anna himself a few years before, when he executed the entire garrison of the Alamo and the villagers of Goliad.

In taking military possession of Texas after annexation, the army of occupation, under General Taylor, was directed to occupy the disputed territory. The army did not stop at the Nueces and offer to negotiate for a settlement of the boundary question, but went beyond, apparently in order to force Mexico to initiate war. It is to the credit of the American nation, however, that after conquering Mexico, and while practically holding the country in our possession, so that we could have retained the whole of it, or made any terms we chose, we paid a round sum for the additional territory taken; more than it was worth, or was likely to be, to Mexico. To us it was an empire and of incalculable value; but it might have been obtained by other means. The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times.