facts VS opinions

Don, I don't understand what your point is. That's not unusual, I typically don't get your points. Facts and opinions are indeed different, and we aren't entitled to our own facts. Like when the left wants to claim it is a fact that Bush lied about WMDs... that isn't a fact, it is an opinion. When the left claims health care reform will insure every America or will "save money" in the long term, those are not facts. When the Global Warmers claim it's a fact that man-made CO2 is changing our climate... opinion, not a fact! Increasing taxes on the wealthy will generate more revenue... opinion, not fact!

So, you are right about this, the trouble is, what do we do about all the lefties out there who want to remain in denial of the facts and who assume their opinions are the facts? We can't shoot them, it's against their Constitutional rights!
 
Threedee said:
To me, its character and moral fiber that count the most. When the Roman Republic, a bedrock of culture, civilization, and statesmanship, collapsed and became the Roman Empire, it survived for another 500 years, officially.

For all that, it didn't really matter that it survived, and may as well not have survived, since it had already chucked its principles and its national character right out of the window. It really did the world no good at all that it hung on to complete the near millenium of existence.
Click to expand...

some good some bad emperors then a run of bad emperors, but once the republic went so did rome a while later - but empires go that way...

oh well
 
DonQuixote said:
some good some bad emperors then a run of bad emperors, but once the republic went so did rome a while later - but empires go that way...

oh well
Click to expand...

Longevity is unimportant. Especially since we are dealing with humanity, which is flawed and imperfect. America could fall tomorrow, and the most important thing would not be that it was gone, but whether it truly deserved to survive a while longer, or whether it had maintained high principles of civic virtue and republican values.
 
Threedee said:
Longevity is unimportant. Especially since we are dealing with humanity, which is flawed and imperfect. America could fall tomorrow, and the most important thing would not be that it was gone, but whether it truly deserved to survive a while longer, or whether it had maintained high principles of civic virtue and republican values.
Click to expand...

so goes the senate, so goes the republic - our senate is being jammed by the reps with the filibuster rule

still, i am not entirely sure this is a bad thing except that the reps are doing it for political reasons having little to do with the needs of the republic
 
DonQuixote said:
so goes the senate, so goes the republic - our senate is being jammed by the reps with the filibuster rule

still, i am not entirely sure this is a bad thing except that the reps are doing it for political reasons having little to do with the needs of the republic
Click to expand...
And how is this different from when the democrats were in the minority?

To tie this in with the original idea of this thread, it is your opinion that their motives are melded in partisan politics, whereas, quite probably, their opinion would be that their actions are in response to the needs of the republic. After all, the prevailing view of republicans is that most of the current proposals by the democratic party would be harmful to the republic, and therefore the republic needs to be protected from the democrats.

Likewise, the democrats most likely viewed their filibustering as a minority party as necessary to the health of the republic.

And in my opinion, they are both right when it comes to blocking most of the crap the other side comes up with.
 
Threedee said:
Yeah, but clearly there was nothing fit about the Mongols, since they couldn't maintain their empire after the death of the Khans, and because they never developed any symblance of a well-nourished society. The same is true of the Huns.

The US was a fit nation before WWII. We had pretty well proven our dominance as a power in the years leading up to WWI, and during the 20s, we were the lynchpin of the global economy. No mean feat for a country that had won a minor war in 1898 to officially become a world power, and to have played as small of a role in world affairs as it could get away with.
Click to expand...
You base your view of "fittest" on human concepts. "Fittest" is whatever can stay alive while the others do not. The Mongols and Huns proved their fitness by surviving to procreate longer than their opponents. Societies are but a method humanity uses to increase the overall fitness of the species homosapiens. It is not important whether societies survive and flourish, only that the short term and long term societies that crop up help humans survive and procreate.

Raw savage power will always win over "civilization" because civilization invariably comes to the view that indiscriminate use of raw savage power is immoral. And while I agree with that basic principle of civilization, I also acknowledge that the forces of evolution don't give a damn about morality in any form.
 
Good Luck said:
And how is this different from when the democrats were in the minority?

To tie this in with the original idea of this thread, it is your opinion that their motives are melded in partisan politics, whereas, quite probably, their opinion would be that their actions are in response to the needs of the republic. After all, the prevailing view of republicans is that most of the current proposals by the democratic party would be harmful to the republic, and therefore the republic needs to be protected from the democrats.

Likewise, the democrats most likely viewed their filibustering as a minority party as necessary to the health of the republic.

And in my opinion, they are both right when it comes to blocking most of the crap the other side comes up with.
Click to expand...

check the number of filibusters under the dems and under the reps, especially since the dems took power
 
Good Luck said:
You base your view of "fittest" on human concepts. "Fittest" is whatever can stay alive while the others do not. The Mongols and Huns proved their fitness by surviving to procreate longer than their opponents. Societies are but a method humanity uses to increase the overall fitness of the species homosapiens. It is not important whether societies survive and flourish, only that the short term and long term societies that crop up help humans survive and procreate.

Raw savage power will always win over "civilization" because civilization invariably comes to the view that indiscriminate use of raw savage power is immoral. And while I agree with that basic principle of civilization, I also acknowledge that the forces of evolution don't give a damn about morality in any form.
Click to expand...

true, nature or the 'gods' do not care who/what survives

life is tenacious, but 'man' may find a way to wipe it out, as man has the most raw power, but nature will out - even if it has to start over...again

however, the u s of a does not seem to reluctant to use raw savage power...

oh well
 
You two need to watch the 2002 film, The Emperor's Club, and then come back and tell me who Shutruk Nahhunte was.
 
Last edited:
Threedee said:
You two need to watch the 2002 film, The Emperor's Club, and then come back and tell me who Shutruk Nahhunte was.
Click to expand...

i do not go to movies very often these days and watch them even less

so please inform who the person is or where i might find the movie
 
DonQuixote said:
i do not go to movies very often these days and watch them even less

so please inform who the person is or where i might find the movie
Click to expand...

Basically, he was an ancient conquerer who has long since been forgotten by history, because as the teacher of classics, Mr. Hundert explains, "great ambition and conquest without contribution is without significance."

He was more concerned with great men of history who actually left something worthwhile behind, or at least something memorable. I don't consider Caesar to have been a great man (like this character did), because he destroyed a republican government, which I consider the greatest sin an historical figure can commit.
 
Good Luck said:
You base your view of "fittest" on human concepts. "Fittest" is whatever can stay alive while the others do not. The Mongols and Huns proved their fitness by surviving to procreate longer than their opponents. Societies are but a method humanity uses to increase the overall fitness of the species homosapiens. It is not important whether societies survive and flourish, only that the short term and long term societies that crop up help humans survive and procreate.

Raw savage power will always win over "civilization" because civilization invariably comes to the view that indiscriminate use of raw savage power is immoral. And while I agree with that basic principle of civilization, I also acknowledge that the forces of evolution don't give a damn about morality in any form.
Click to expand...

I base my view off of the same principles applied by our Founding Fathers. That character is key to a healthy society, and that civic virtue is the most important characteristic to be displayed. I believe that a framework of government should revolve around Natural Rights, which are God-given, and that abandoning the principles of republican government and republican virtue will make our society not worth salvaging.
 
Threedee said:
Basically, he was an ancient conquerer who has long since been forgotten by history, because as the teacher of classics, Mr. Hundert explains, "great ambition and conquest without contribution is without significance."

He was more concerned with great men of history who actually left something worthwhile behind, or at least something memorable. I don't consider Caesar to have been a great man (like this character did), because he destroyed a republican government, which I consider the greatest sin an historical figure can commit.
Click to expand...

what do you think about sun tsu
 
Threedee said:
Haven't really read enough about him to give you an informed opinion, but I can say he contributed greatly to history by authoring The Art of War.
Click to expand...

have you read the art of war?

if not, i recommend it

it is not only valuable for war but for any place that conflicts arise...like the business world
 
DonQuixote said:
have you read the art of war?

if not, i recommend it

it is not only valuable for war but for any place that conflicts arise...like the business world
Click to expand...

Yeah, I love how the business world latched onto it. It got translated into French just in time for Napolean to read it and become inspired by it, but other great military generals claim inspiration as well, including MacArthur (and I'd be stunned if Patton had not read it, considering what a bookworm he was for military advice).
 
Threedee said:
Yeah, I love how the business world latched onto it. It got translated into French just in time for Napolean to read it and become inspired by it, but other great military generals claim inspiration as well, including MacArthur (and I'd be stunned if Patton had not read it, considering what a bookworm he was for military advice).
Click to expand...

it is required reading at the war college and our military academies
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top