Search results for query: *

To take this in parts. 1, Of course not - where, in anything I posted, was this stated or implied? 2. Are tribes anywhere? No. But when tribes become nations and form boundaries around themselves separating themselves from their enemies, the results tend to be at least somewhat more stable...

An appreciable portion (not all, but more than a little) of the fucked-up-edness of Africa and the Middle East today can be laid at the feet of the British and French, with their divide and conquer approach to colonial governance. They deliberately drew colony lines in a manner to maximize...

Not sure what you're telling me that I"m wrong about? I did not state what the author wrote or believed,- I specifically stated I've never heard of the author nor read their works. I made an observation about political philosophy authors in general, with the implication that if this author...

I'll read the books when I have a moment. However, you'll have to forgive me if I fail to automatically adopt a definition of civilization as promulgated by an author I've never heard of, in books I've never read. After all, for all I know, the author, like most political philosophers, is an...

No, That is the law, both domestic and international, today, for NATO, the US, and the EU (to the extent that the three are not overlapping). That differentiation between what individuals can do and what states can do is the basis of (among many other things) the Westphalian (sic?) conception...

Wait, you're serious? Where is the laugh harder meme? When people take money from someone through threat of force it is armed robbery. When a state does it, it is taxation. When people force someone from their home and exile them it is a lynch mob When a government does it expulsion When...

Eh, If you start a war, then lose the war, you should expect to lose territory the victor as well - that has been the norm since, well, forever. It is deliberately starting a war just to take territory from your weaker neighbor that is (at least theoretically) frowned upon.

Thinking about it, in an appreciable number of ways the UK and US are germany 2.0 and germany 3.0 respectively. ( of course, the US is /also/ netherlands 2.0, ireland 2.0, etc.) Notably, despite pretensions to the contrary, there isn't really any nation today that is anything approaching Rome...

pedantic point: Murder is defined as unlawful killing. An act being promoted, ignored, or prohibited by local legal structures is entirely unrelated to whether or not that act meets any given moral standard. IE: Whether or not killing someone is moral or immoral is unrelated to whether it is...

Feeling sorry for people is an emotional response, by definition. It does not require you to intervene to protect them from the consequences of their actions. Note, that by definition, such an intervention must subordinate their freedom and sovereignty as independent entities to your...

There is still some logical issues here: 1. Homosexuality qua homosexuality, while being immoral and decadent (in the original sense of the word), does not necessarily require or connote child abuse (the two are linked more often than the alphabet community should be comfortable with, so yes...

Maybe I'm missing something, but everything I've read about Gaza since the Israelis evacuated it in 2005 indicates that the whole place is a mistake. Either Egypt should annex the place, or Israel should just expel the inhabitants en-masse to whichever portion of the Dar-a-Islam wants them, and...

Erm. No, It doesn't even work on that level. Your tribe/group whatever is limited in scope and capability. If you truly are supposed to conquer the planet, then you need to apply that limited capability in an at least semi-intelligent manner to expand your resources, territory, and numbers...

Re: the Hamas killing homosexuals discussion: This boggles me (many things that people say and do, have that effect, in all fairness). Why would you spend the time and energy to go out of your way to kill some stranger who is neither a threat you and yours, nor an obstacle to providing for...

Strictly speaking the original Geneva convention (notably, the version the US has fully signed on for(IE; had affirmed by the Senate as a proper treaty)) required your nation to also be a signatory, and you to be a uniformed member of said nation's military to receive the full benefits of it...

No idea. Neither the man nor his personal life interest me. Trump's only of any use in how he provides a ready lever to manipulate the weak minded and emotionally erratic across the political spectrum. The man himself is just another DC windbag, albeit with a knack for self promotion...

I thought it was Hezbollah he was complimenting (not that it is an improvement, as such). A PR secretary? Really? Mr 4D chess super-genius? For what reason would need one of those? He already has a trophy wife...

Again, I refer you to the definitions of schism and schismatic. That the various 'protestant' sects have lost sight of the actual meaning of some of the involved terms does not render those terms inapplicable.

That would be why I listed both schismatics and heretics in the post referenced.

You may wish to review the RC definitions of schism, schismatic, heresy, and heretic. It very much still is the official position of the RC, on a definitional basis. The Curia, or at least portions thereof, have simply decided that ecumenicalism is a better (and more practical) means of...