Zone1 Might Makes Right

[zaangalewa]

Of course not. There would be a fight to the death in that situation. And, depending on who won the battle, THEIR might, will certainly be "right".

"Vae victis" means nothing. King Brennus threw in 390 BC his sword into the scales of un-justice. Cesar took it about 350 years later and murdered in masses Celts.

 

[westwall]

"Vae victis" means nothing. King Brennus threw in 390 BC his sword into the scales of un-justice. Cesar took it about 350 years later and murdered in masses Celts.

And yet you just confirmed it in this post.

 

[zaangalewa]

And yet you just confirmed it in this post.

What do I "confirm"? Injustice causes injustice - totally independent whether unwise cold winners or unwise cold losers do so.

A gold medal winner - the greatest personal success of his life - was a bad winner and humiliated an opponent after the game. He
was astonished when people booed him at the winner's ceremony. To win does not make a character better. It takes more than just winning to be a real Olympian.

 

[buttercup]

Of course not. There would be a fight to the death in that situation. And, depending on who won the battle, THEIR might, will certainly be "right".

You are trying to have a very narrow philosophical discussion, but the reality throughout time, is the victor writes the histories.

The fact that you put the word "right" in quotes shows that you don't actually believe that mere might / power makes someone truly right. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

I had this same conversation with Blackrook, who also misunderstood this thread. I never denied that the "victor" writes the histories. As I said many times, obviously "might makes right" exists.

The question was simply: does anyone actually believe that mere might truly makes right? That's all.

 

[buttercup]

To win does not make a character better.

Excellent point. And of course that doesn't apply only to athletes. It would be the same in many scenarios.

It reminds me of the elections here in the US. Some people put "winning" above all else, to the point where truth, common sense and everything else gets thrown out the window.

 

[westwall]

The fact that you put the word "right" in quotes shows that you don't actually believe that mere might / power makes someone truly right. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

I had this same conversation with Blackrook, who also misunderstood this thread. I never denied that the "victor" writes the histories. As I said many times, obviously "might makes right" exists.

The question was simply: does anyone actually believe that mere might truly makes right? That's all.

What I am saying is it doesn't matter. I personally do not believe that might makes right. However, my belief doesn't matter a tinkers damn in the real world.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

MAGA puts "winning" above all else, to the point where truth, common sense and everything else gets thrown out the window.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

MAGA puts "winning" above all else, to the point where truth, common sense and everything else gets thrown out the window.

We aren't the ones who cheated in 2020. We aren't the ones who tried to assassinate the opposing candidate

 

[zaangalewa]

We aren't the ones who cheated in 2020.

What's more than only wrong. Donald Trump tried to create a destructive chaos with some useful violent idiots. Afterwards he had "solved" this self-made problem with military power and had won the elections in this way - by changing the rules of the game. After he lost this election he created the myth he is (and ever will be?) president of the USA. The real question in this context is perhaps: Why was Donald Trump supported from Russian hackers in 2016 and had he been someone who grabbed the power illegally?

We aren't the ones who tried to assassinate the opposing candidate

Next conspiracy theory. The real sad thing is it that Donald Trump showed what his own words are doing with others and how self-reflective (and also uncalculable) is the subject with the name "politics".

 

[hobelim]

You're the one spewing garbage propaganda. His life proves he was a fully committed National Socialist patriot of his country and people and nothing less than a hero.

Hitler? Damn. You left out insane, methed out, antisemitic, barbaric genocidal megalomaniac.

 

[hobelim]

Why was Donald Trump supported from Russian hackers in 2016

When hackers hacked the democrats they also hacked the republicans and had leverage over every republican with hard evidence of their corruption and violation of the public trust and so they support trump hoping if he is elected he will pardon their crimes as he already did for many.

So why was Benedict Donald supported by Russia? Because he would end the war in Ukraine by letting Putin take it over just like when he did nothing after Crimea was annexed. He is a puppet, the "Manchurian candidate", of a hostile foreign openly committed enemy of the free world.

This is trump just after he spent more than two hours alone being brainwashed by Putin in 2018

Trump sides with Putin over U.S. intelligence during remarkable press conference in Helsinki

"I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today"

www.cbsnews.com

had he been someone who grabbed the power illegally?

What do you think?

 

[Dante]

Someone’s comment on a thread earlier brought to mind the idea of “might makes right.”

Here’s a definition, for anyone who isn’t sure what it means. According to Oxford English Dictionary...

might is right (also might makes right and variants) : the possession of power, rather than any moral consideration, determines the legitimacy of an action, policy, etc.​

Obviously we see “might makes right” played out all the time in this world.

But is there anyone here who actually believes that might makes right? In other words, is there anyone here who actually believes that mere physical strength and possession of power morally justifies anything that person with power does with it?

Before I say anything more, I want to hear your thoughts on it.

I’m especially curious to hear what the atheists have to say about this.

What do Zionists believe?

I ask because there is a tradition in Jewish thought that say might makes right is wrong, is evil, is...

 

[zaangalewa]

When hackers hacked the democrats they also hacked the republicans and had leverage over every republican with hard evidence of their corruption and violation of the public trust and so they support trump hoping if he is elected he will pardon their crimes as he already did for many.

So why was Benedict Donald supported by Russia? Because he would end the war in Ukraine by letting Putin take it over just like when he did nothing after Crimea was annexed. He is a puppet, the "Manchurian candidate", of a hostile foreign openly committed enemy of the free world.

This is trump just after he spent more than two hours alone being brainwashed by Putin in 2018

View attachment 1010585

Trump sides with Putin over U.S. intelligence during remarkable press conference in Helsinki

"I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today"

www.cbsnews.com

What do you think?

By the way: How stupid is someone who like to be alone for 2 hours with Vladimir Putin? ... On the other side: Who likes to be alone for two hours with Donald Trump? ...

 

[TruthNotBS]

Hitler? Damn. You left out insane, methed out, antisemitic, barbaric genocidal megalomaniac.

 

[hobelim]

View attachment 1011019

Just relax and it won't hurt so much. Trust me.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Just relax and it won't hurt so much. Trust me.

View attachment 1011023

 

[TruthNotBS]

Someone’s comment on a thread earlier brought to mind the idea of “might makes right.”

Here’s a definition, for anyone who isn’t sure what it means. According to Oxford English Dictionary...

might is right (also might makes right and variants) : the possession of power, rather than any moral consideration, determines the legitimacy of an action, policy, etc.​

Obviously we see “might makes right” played out all the time in this world.

But is there anyone here who actually believes that might makes right? In other words, is there anyone here who actually believes that mere physical strength and possession of power morally justifies anything that person with power does with it?

Before I say anything more, I want to hear your thoughts on it.

I’m especially curious to hear what the atheists have to say about this.

Theistic religions with personal deities, perfectly underscore the notion of "might makes right". These religious folks conjure up in their minds a god-being that reflects all of their hopes and dreams, creating god in their own human image, and then claim that whatever that god says in his man-made holy book or through a human priesthood, is to be considered THE LAW. Might makes right is granting this personal god-being, worshipped by religious folks, a license to do whatever he wants, because he's ALMIGHTY and the eternal one, who supposedly is in a position to judge and condemn us to hell for not converting to his religion (one religion of many).

He lives in heaven, in a mansion, and has a checking account with an infinite balance. He's absolutely secure, in every way imaginable. He doesn't have to worry about poverty, disease, death..etc, because none of those conditions can touch him. His hands are smooth and manicured.

 

[Foxfyre]

Someone’s comment on a thread earlier brought to mind the idea of “might makes right.”

Here’s a definition, for anyone who isn’t sure what it means. According to Oxford English Dictionary...

might is right (also might makes right and variants) : the possession of power, rather than any moral consideration, determines the legitimacy of an action, policy, etc.​

Obviously we see “might makes right” played out all the time in this world.

But is there anyone here who actually believes that might makes right? In other words, is there anyone here who actually believes that mere physical strength and possession of power morally justifies anything that person with power does with it?

Before I say anything more, I want to hear your thoughts on it.

I’m especially curious to hear what the atheists have to say about this.

I'm no Atheist but I have been a very long time student of honest history, media watcher, philosophic analyzer of social trends and customs, and, while I claim no special credentials or expertise, I am fairly confident in my conclusions.

Via the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, the Founders intended this country to be a great experiment in a unique new deal, i.e. a government of, for and by the people instead of a dictatorship, monarchy, theocracy or any other form of totalitarian government.

The poor would have unrestricted unalienable rights with the rich and opportunity to become less poor or even become rich.

The strong would not prey on the weak but the unalienable rights of all would be protected impartially and consistently.

"Might" would be the will of the people tempered by a representative government so that the smaller states would not be totally overrun by the will of the larger states. The will of the people in several smaller states could override oppressive intent of a larger state even as those in the larger states would rightfully have advantage of more representatives because they have more people. And all states, the smallest to the largest, are equal in the Senate with the exact same number of representatives there.

The current government looks at it that government might should have total say in what the people are allowed to say, think, express, do, what property they will be allowed to have, what products they will be allowed to have. Hopefully the majority of U.S. citizens still believe in the Founders model to prevent a government in which 'might makes right.'

 

[TruthNotBS]

I'm no Atheist but I have been a very long time student of honest history, media watcher, philosophic analyzer of social trends and customs, and, while I claim no special credentials or expertise, I am fairly confident in my conclusions.

Via the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, the Founders intended this country to be a great experiment in a unique new deal, i.e. a government of, for and by the people instead of a dictatorship, monarchy, theocracy or any other form of totalitarian government.

The poor would have unrestricted unalienable rights with the rich and opportunity to become less poor or even become rich.

The strong would not prey on the weak but the unalienable rights of all would be protected impartially and consistently.

"Might" would be the will of the people tempered by a representative government so that the smaller states would not be totally overrun by the will of the larger states. The will of the people in several smaller states could override oppressive intent of a larger state even as those in the larger states would rightfully have advantage of more representatives because they have more people. And all states, the smallest to the largest, are equal in the Senate with the exact same number of representatives there.

The current government looks at it that government might should have total say in what the people are allowed to say, think, express, do, what property they will be allowed to have, what products they will be allowed to have. Hopefully the majority of U.S. citizens still believe in the Founders model to prevent a government in which 'might makes right.'

Government can legally, and morally, prohibit certain speech and expression, and it can legitimately prevent people from owning certain things or products. I wouldn't want it any other way. Defamation, fraud, incitement, true threats, speech integral to criminal conduct, and child pornography. It's illegal to draw sexually explicit images or any artwork that depicts children, having sex. It goes without saying that such expression or "speech" should be banned or criminalized. So I don't complain about that being prohibited, and I can't see how anyone would unless they're mentally deranged.

 

[Foxfyre]

Government can legally, and morally, prohibit certain speech and expression, and it can legitimately prevent people from owning certain things or products. I wouldn't want it any other way. Defamation, fraud, incitement, true threats, speech integral to criminal conduct, and child pornography. It's illegal to draw sexually explicit images or any artwork that depicts children, having sex. It goes without saying that such expression or "speech" should be banned or criminalized. So I don't complain about that being prohibited, and I can't see how anyone would unless they're mentally deranged.

The federal government is extremely limited in what it can legitimately constitutionally control in speech, conduct, etc. of the citizens and pretty much all of that is restricted to what the states themselves cannot effectively or reasonably control. And while I do not disagree that the laws you cited are good laws, it does not change the fact that the federal government was intended to be extremely limited in ANY control over the people.

You must have missed the qualification TOTAL control.