NationStates Jolt Archive

I would like someone to rebut on why they think I'm wrong, and I'll try to prove I think I'm right.

I would like someone to rebut on why they think I'm wrong, and I'll try to prove I think I'm right.

well...

according to this (http://forums4.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023), Copycat (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13690829&postcount=1) threads are a no no and thus you are wrong.

But this is a different topic. You're supposed to argue against the latin proverb in the title.

But this is a different topic. You're supposed to argue against the latin proverb in the title.

and like I said in the other thread...

you're wrong. because you pose no viewpoints nor try to explain why you think your non-exisitant viewpoint is right.

I would like someone to rebut on why they think I'm wrong, and I'll try to prove I think I'm right.

how can one try to rebut on why they think you're wrong when you don't even say if you agree or disagree with the latin phrase.

and why would they try to argue against themselves on why they think you're wrong?

No, you are wrong because Dr. Bashir managed to take Sloan and Section 31 down a few eps later proving otherwise. *nods*

No, you are wrong because Dr. Bashir managed to take Sloan and Section 31 down a few eps later proving otherwise. *nods*
But that doesn't change the fact that might makes right.

I would like someone to rebut on why they think I'm wrong, and I'll try to prove I think I'm right.
You can't prove that you're right, because I know karate and can kick your ass.

QED.

But that doesn't change the fact that might makes right.
Gandhi.

Guys... you gotta "rebut on why [you] think [he's] wrong"

so yes, because you never stated your stance on the latin phrase and it's validity, thus my assumption of you being wrong is wrong.

No, you are wrong because Dr. Bashir managed to take Sloan and Section 31 down a few eps later proving otherwise. *nods*

Winner.

But that doesn't change the fact that might makes right.

Which is not the issue debated here. We debate "Inter arma enim silent leges".

Winner.
Yea! I finally won a thread!

Which is not the issue debated here. We debate "Inter arma enim silent leges".
Through arms the law is mute. In other words, rules don't matter if you've got a weapon.

Through arms the law is mute. In other words, rules don't matter if you've got a weapon.
Generally it means "in times of war", which means that we're talking about things like suspending civil liberties because the nation is at war. I'm not sure that "might makes right" is a particularly good translation of Cicero - both literally and with regards to his intention.

Gandhi.

Gandhi (and King, Jr.) probably would not accept the too-narrow definition of "might" being employed. Mass direct action, even if non-violent, is certainly a "weapon of the strong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha)."

Generally it means "in times of war", which means that we're talking about things like suspending civil liberties because the nation is at war. I'm not sure that "might makes right" is a particularly good translation of Cicero - both literally and with regards to his intention.
Shut up, it's an excuse to shoot someone in a sword duel.

Through arms the law is mute. In other words, rules don't matter if you've got a weapon.

You'd have to specify: which laws, which weapons, how many weapons.

Counterexample: You have a rifle. The State has an army. You can't beat the army. The State imposes law.

Which is not the issue debated here. We debate "Inter arma enim silent leges".

Which means what, and what is the OP's stance on it? How can we debate untill we know these things?

Shut up, it's an excuse to shoot someone in a sword duel.

Not according to Cicero.
Which, I guess, makes you wrong. Which means this thread is over :(

Which means what, and what is the OP's stance on it? How can we debate untill we know these things?

"In times of war, the laws are silent"
One assumes the OP agrees with the statement.

Not according to Cicero.
Which, I guess, makes you wrong. Which means this thread is over :(



"In times of war, the laws are silent"
One assumes the OP agrees with the statement.

Well if we assume that the OP agrees, then I would say that the OP is wrong.

You have a rifle. The State has an army. You can't beat the army.
That sounds like a challenge!

The OP seems to be presenting a bad obfuscation of the classic thought experiment:

If you were completely invisible and had the ability to do whatever you wanted without fear of being discovered would you still be moral?

Except in this case the power to do whatever you wanted is being imperfectly expressed as weaponry (which by the way is universal, you can kill someone with a pen, or a sock with sand in it, yet we don't so that seems to contradict the OP's... interesting interpretation) and is being hidden behind this latin quote, and no, just by saying something in latin doesn't mean you have a point

I personally argue that morality is independent of the power one possesses, that there is a purpose for humanity beyond the gratification of desires. However this is ultimately a wasted effort since this a broken topic in the first place; the OP doesn't have a real argument for his standpoint, and thereby he's putting the burden of proof on everyone else to 'disprove' an unproven conjecture. :confused:

bah

But that doesn't change the fact that might makes right.
I think you're confusing "can" and "should". Aye, if you have knuckledusters made of dirty nails and you punch me in the face, you can nick my wallet as I'm on the floor. Doesn't mean you should.

Through arms the law is mute. In other words, rules don't matter if you've got a weapon.

The preferred rendering is "In times of war, the law falls silent." It doesn't so much mean might makes right. It mean that a society, and the law, is more willing to overlook certain questionable acts by the government during a time of crisis that it might not otherwise allow.

Also, fantastic episode of DS9. One of my favorites.