[Arkeph]

	Originally Posted by Angelos To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In theory your reasoning is valid. In reality, however, there never exists subjects with absolute loyalty. Thus the result of them existing is mere speculation.

This hardly alters the force of the argument, since you suggest that the ideal is for there to be no rebellion (i.e. absolute loyalty), regardless of what the sovereign does. My argument demonstrates that you're being inconsistent in scorning rebellion/dissent/disobedience while trying to establish that they are the forces which make the sovereign act in the best interest of society.

	Natural law is not the same as natural state. I made a mistake in translation: I meant state of nature. Sovereign is a mean to escape this and to take away the natural right of violence from an individual.

Very well, but in what situation does natural law arise with respect to the sovereign? If the sovereign has strong influential power, then I don't imagine that he's subject to natural law except in extreme circumstances when his influence fails to control the behavior of his people.

[Angelos]

	Originally Posted by Arkeph To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This hardly alters the force of the argument, since you suggest that the ideal is for there to be no rebellion (i.e. absolute loyalty), regardless of what the sovereign does. My argument demonstrates that you're being inconsistent in scorning rebellion/dissent/disobedience while trying to establish that they are the forces which make the sovereign act in the best interest of society.

I think of rebellion as something that is not justified, unless the sovereign threatens your life directly. If it succeeds, it will have become justified, but until that it is not. Nor is the ideal for subjects to accept their sovereign's every possible action. For the idea of sovereign to work, it is not possible to give right of rebellion to the people. However justified or unjustified, rebellion exist regardless, and because of that, they have to be noted by rulers. Despite its somewhat paradoxical nature, the system works in works, which is good enough for me.

	Originally Posted by Arkeph To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Very well, but in what situation does natural law arise with respect to the sovereign? If the sovereign has strong influential power, then I don't imagine that he's subject to natural law except in extreme circumstances when his influence fails to control the behavior of his people.

Everyone is subject to natural law, but the social contract limits the appliance of it, most importantly the freedom to unrestricted use of violence, which is given to the sovereign, not only the right to use it, but everyone's capacity to use it. Thus sovereign has a monopoly of violence, as is the case with every society. By definition, a sovereign is bound only by laws of nature, not by those of men.

[hubcap]

Originally Posted by Angelos To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Everyone is subject to natural law, but the social contract limits the appliance of it, most importantly the freedom to unrestricted use of violence, which is given to the sovereign, not only the right to use it, but everyone's capacity to use it. Thus sovereign has a monopoly of violence, as is the case with every society. By definition, a sovereign is bound only by laws of nature, not by those of men.

If the sovereign isn't limited by the laws of men, this is the best possible argument against a sovereign.

Our government exists with the consent of "the people". The "people" don't exist to serve a sovereign, nor do their rights come from the sovereign. Our rights are recognized by our government to be self-existing.

[Angelos]

	Originally Posted by hubcap To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If the sovereign isn't limited by the laws of men, this is the best possible argument against a sovereign. Our government exists with the consent of "the people". The "people" don't exist to serve a sovereign, nor do their rights come from the sovereign. Our rights are recognized by our government to be self-existing.

Yet your country has a sovereign, the people (in theory, though assembly is closer to reality). Read my posts. Every country has a sovereign, it is not something to be argued of.

[the7sins777]

if they can think of a reason they should torture a kid then sure light up that car batter and shock him till the truth comes out , or his heart stops whatever happens first , preferably the truth.

but as long as there is a reason and that it has the potential too help save life's(or end our enemy's life's which could safe lives later down in the time line) there is no reason to be monsters.

[Slowandeasy1]

At 15 he was a fully trained terrorist who's family were trained terrorists. He admits that he was a mercenary who would be paid $1500 US dollars for every US soldier he killed. He threw a grenade at, and killed, a US medic with the intent of making $1,500 US.

He may be considered a child in the West. But 200 years ago, few people lived beyond 30 years old and children started working at age 5. Many parts of the world are not too much better off today. In many parts of the 3rd world, children are recruited at age 7 to fight and kill and maim. Modern weapons are very light and easy to use by anyone.

Torture by our definition is extremely mild compared to what goes on in most parts of the world. Iran is hanging a woman today (rather than stoning her to death) after lashing her 99 times. For what. Adultery. That is open justice. What goes on behind the scenes in their prison system. A man received 130 lashes for drinking a beer. Different world.

[hubcap]

	Originally Posted by Angelos To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yet your country has a sovereign, the people (in theory, though assembly is closer to reality). Read my posts. Every country has a sovereign, it is not something to be argued of.

Our "sovereign" as you call it is limited by the law.........which is a huge difference from what you advocate.

[Angelos]

	Originally Posted by hubcap To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Our "sovereign" as you call it is limited by the law.........which is a huge difference from what you advocate.

I am not advocating anything. I'm simply explaining the theory of sovereign in philosophy.

Sovereign cannot be limited by law, or it is invalid. How can the absolute power be judged?

[Dodeca]

	Originally Posted by Angelos To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I am not advocating anything. I'm simply explaining the theory of sovereign in philosophy. Sovereign cannot be limited by law, or it is invalid. How can the absolute power be judged?

loss of loyalty of its citizens.

If power is all that matters then how else do you define power? If a people share not a common cause then they will no longer be united, at least not to the faction of the society that does not share the individuals personal code of life.

I disagree with how certain things are done by my society. Why do you think I made this thread. I want people to be aware of what is happening so that they might think of ways that events like this that I disagree with can be avoided.

Is it really necessary to do what is being done in Afghanistan? Is it the best way to defeat terrorism as is apparently the goal?

[Angelos]

	Originally Posted by Dodeca To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	loss of loyalty of its citizens. If power is all that matters then how else do you define power? If a people share not a common cause then they will no longer be united, at least not to the faction of the society that does not share the individuals personal code of life.

Look at power in wider perspective beyond the simplifications. Is morale not a form of power, is unity not a demonstration of it?

[hubcap]

	Originally Posted by Angelos To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I am not advocating anything. I'm simply explaining the theory of sovereign in philosophy. Sovereign cannot be limited by law, or it is invalid. How can the absolute power be judged?

I completely reject the idea of any political entity or individual having absolute power.

[Angelos]

	Originally Posted by hubcap To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I completely reject the idea of any political entity or individual having absolute power.

... Which, according to Hobbes, may lead into anarchy and decline.

[TenochAcampicht]

	Originally Posted by Angelos To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	... Which, according to Hobbes, may lead into anarchy and decline.

Right, here is my take, I'm in the mood to debate.
Still you have not disproved the claims that torture is ineffective (false confessions for example), especially in the case of false confessions. Strategically, treating a conquered people with cruelty, will spark revolts, and revotls from their allies (see Cuban Revolution, Russian Revolution, Armenian Defense of Van, Operation Nemesis, Nazi Hunters, etc.), you are failing to see the imperative logic that is required for diplomacy, which takes a large role in international realpolitik.

According to Anarchists, anarchy is desireable, just because you agree with Hobbes does not make him correct.

Also...your constant citing of the battle of Tenochtitlan, why do you seem to worship the Spanish atrocities so much, you are aware that it lead to the Cultural and Physical Genocide of the Aztecs and other Native Americans?
If you are going to defend genocide, then you will prove to me you do have lack of empathy.

Incidentally - Empathy is to put yourself in another's shoes.
Empathy is the capacity to share the sadness or happiness of another sentient being through consciousness rather than physically.

So far you have demonstrated some haughty attitudes, lack of empathy and verbosity...just saying

[Angelos]

Originally Posted by TenochAcampicht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Right, here is my take, I'm in the mood to debate. Still you have not disproved the claims that torture is ineffective (false confessions for example), especially in the case of false confessions. Strategically, treating a conquered people with cruelty, will spark revolts, and revotls from their allies (see Cuban Revolution, Russian Revolution, Armenian Defense of Van, Operation Nemesis, Nazi Hunters, etc.), you are failing to see the imperative logic that is required for diplomacy, which takes a large role in international realpolitik.

Torture is inefficient only when searching for the guilty, not when searching for information. Of course, it would be very unwise to leave the tortured alive after that, since they will carry hostility against you for the rest of their lives.

Strategic cruelty is different from long-time atrocities. If cruelty is continued for a long time, it will inevitably spark revolts and thus it is not an efficient strategy. Remember, that this is a game of emotions. One enormous act of cruelty catching the victim competely off guard breeds such terror and awe that the hatred does not have time to grow in his heart. If this is followed by generosity and mercy, the victim feels spared and grateful.

So, what I am saying is that cruelty alone has little use without mercy that follows it. However, if hatred has already grown, then there can be no compromise or real truce. Then the enemy has to be utterly crushed, beyond the capacity of claiming. retribution

	Originally Posted by TenochAcampicht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Also...your constant citing of the battle of Tenochtitlan, why do you seem to worship the Spanish atrocities so much, you are aware that it lead to the Cultural and Physical Genocide of the Aztecs and other Native Americans? If you are going to defend genocide, then you will prove to me you do have lack of empathy.

The genocide of the Native Americans was mainly a result of natural reasons, most of all the diseases Europeans brought along. Having said that, if there ever was a culture worthy of destruction it was the Aztecs. Where you see horrors, I see a conquest executed with the utmost brilliance.

[TenochAcampicht]

Oh, how so were we worthy of being executed? I would love to know how my people, of whom 1.4 Million remain, was worthy of being tortured, raped, had their culture destroyed, their achievements stolen and their language erased, got to deserve that?

What you are bordering on, is praising ethnic cleansing and Genocide...I hope you know this is racism, in fact, the highest form of it.

Torturing someone, you piss off their family, their friends and their countrymen, if news gets out, people will use that to strike a rebellion. Once again, try to see the logic...I know it's hard, but I have faith in you.

[Dodeca]

	Originally Posted by TenochAcampicht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Oh, how so were we worthy of being executed? I would love to know how my people, of whom 1.4 Million remain, was worthy of being tortured, raped, had their culture destroyed, their achievements stolen and their language erased, got to deserve that?

I think to Angelos its not matter of what they deserve. Culture is subservient to how it can benefit conquest. Maybe that is what he values and admires most in life. Seeing it as the highest ideal of human nature.

[Angelos]

	Originally Posted by TenochAcampicht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Oh, how so were we worthy of being executed? I would love to know how my people, of whom 1.4 Million remain, was worthy of being tortured, raped, had their culture destroyed, their achievements stolen and their language erased, got to deserve that?

Are you aware of Aztec history? The horrors of their sacrificices to their gods, the flower wars? There was a reason for an enormous amount of tribes oppressed by Aztecs to ally themselves with the Spaniards and vow the downfall of Aztec empire. Their religious human sacrifices are one of the most sickening occurences in human history.

I would not care about the ''justice'' part normally, but there are limits to acting like mere animals blinded by their bloodlust.

	Originally Posted by TenochAcampicht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What you are bordering on, is praising ethnic cleansing and Genocide...I hope you know this is racism, in fact, the highest form of it.

Far from it. I do not judge anyone based on their ''race'' or genetic background. Though you obviously like to use these emotional terms, they are not something to be just thrown around.

	Originally Posted by TenochAcampicht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Torturing someone, you piss off their family, their friends and their countrymen, if news gets out, people will use that to strike a rebellion. Once again, try to see the logic...I know it's hard, but I have faith in you.

Dead men tell no tales, and propaganda can achieve wonders. Regardless, I am ready to bet that few are willing to rise against a powerful and feared occupier simply because of some vague rumors.

	Originally Posted by Dodeca To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think to Angelos its not matter of what they deserve. Culture is subservient to how it can benefit conquest. Maybe that is what he values and admires most in life. Seeing it as the highest ideal of human nature.

Partly true. I value power and ability, not false definitions of justice.

[TenochAcampicht]

I know more about the Aztecs than you do I am sure being one Angelos.
For one thing, the reports of cruelty are to a large extent caricatured by the Spaniards as a result of their avarice. Are you aware of what the Spaniards did Angelos?
Did during the Inquisition? What about the Germans to the Jews? What about the Anglos to the Irish. The Turks to the Armenians.

Are you aware of other mesoamerican achievements? That we had the best astronomy, a unique culture and language, unique civlizations, which the Spaniards removed from the lands. Are you aware what they did to the Taino?

We in comparison are mild. You are justifying our Genocide. By your logic, the Spaniards, Turks, Germans, English and your people the Scandinavians need to be wiped out, due to their atrocities...

Once again your response is based on blind pride...willing to shed innocent blood for your nation....a bit like what you acuse my progenitors of.

You call us animals, yet you sanction torture against enemies, civilians and killing for imperialism. Who are you to lecture on empathy?

[Angelos]

	Originally Posted by TenochAcampicht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I know more about the Aztecs than you do I am sure being one Angelos.

Argument ad hominem.

	Originally Posted by TenochAcampicht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	For one thing, the reports of cruelty are to a large extent caricatured by the Spaniards as a result of their avarice. Are you aware of what the Spaniards did Angelos? Did during the Inquisition? What about the Germans to the Jews? What about the Anglos to the Irish. The Turks to the Armenians.

The cruelty of the Aztecs, though somewhat caricatured, is still considered by most historians to be undeniable. As for the actions of Spaniards, I am completely aware of them and the motives behind them. The Spanish Inquisition is largely a myth projected by protestant propaganda, it never executed but a few victims and often it was more lenient in its policy than the secular justice. The other examples are not relevant to this.

	Originally Posted by TenochAcampicht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Are you aware of other mesoamerican achievements? That we had the best astronomy, a unique culture and language, unique civlizations, which the Spaniards removed from the lands. Are you aware what they did to the Taino?

I am completely aware of their achievements, which happened to be mainly on the fields of mathemathics and astronomy, if you set the artistry aside, though I would argue for ''the best'' part in astronomy, which would belong to the Chinese or the Western world. Nevertheless, your societies were weak especially on the field of technology, and I am completely aware of the Spanish colonial policy. Had you complaints, you should have been stronger. What did you expect, sympathy?

	Originally Posted by TenochAcampicht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	We in comparison are mild. You are justifying our Genocide. By your logic, the Spaniards, Turks, Germans, English and your people the Scandinavians need to be wiped out, due to their atrocities...

I am not saying anyone needs to be wiped out. I am saying you had it coming.

	Originally Posted by TenochAcampicht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Once again your response is based on blind pride...willing to shed innocent blood for your nation....a bit like what you acuse my progenitors of. You call us animals, yet you sanction torture against enemies, civilians and killing for imperialism. Who are you to lecture on empathy?

I am willing to do anything to achieve the cause of my group, but needless blodshed is a completely different thing. That was your sin. As paradoxical as it may sound, I have little tolerance of killing for its own sake.

[TenochAcampicht]

Argumentum ad hominem would mean me insulting you.
I wasn't insulting you. I was merely saying as a Nahua, I fancy I know my history better than you.

The Inquisition is well documented, it's not just protestant propaganda.
You had it coming is once again a weak argument. Then Americans had it coming many times due to what WASPs did in the KKK.

The other examples you seem to very rapidly sweep under the rug. Why?
They are just as relevent, you make us out to be monsters, yet your "oh so much better than us" western civilizations are guilty of as much if not more bloodshed. Should we forget the massacres the Vikings took part it, to bolster your national ego? What about the Romans and their persecution of Christianity? Must I overlook that too?
Or the crusaders and their actions against Non-Turkish Muslims, who were merely on pilgrimage?

You sound somewhat like the wife-batterer here who says he hit his wife because "she had it coming". Amusing really.

The Spaniads claimed we sacrificed 300 000 people in a space of a few days...Tenochtitlan had 1000 street clearers about, I'd love to know how you assume they cleared all that out, and if we rubbed the blood in our hair, then we'd have gotten infection in a matter of days, because we lived on a giant area of water surrounding our island, the Spaniards claimed we left the blood on for weeks...again, racist arrogance and hoary tales

If anything, by your logic happens to any of the aforementioned, they have it coming.

We were not weak, had we not contracted smallpox, we would've repelled the Spaniards just fine, read La Noche Triste, we help up just fine against European arms. Perhaps we had neither gun nor steel. Yet our Jaguar Warriors could take out a horse and Conquistador with little effort.

The Spaniards, to enter our great city of Tenochtitlan, used deception.
I'm sure you worship this due to Machiavellianism, but it's underhanded and not at all a show of brute power and force.

The Mayan Astronomy was far ahead incidentally of the Western world, we could accurately predict cosmic occurenece within the scope of thousands of years.

Or...do you get annoyed at what I say, because this challenges your ideals of Pan-Europeanism, Imperialism, justification of genocide and scorn at other cultures.
I'd remind you, most of Western Civilization, exists due to things borrowed out of Persia, Egypt, Armenia, Assyria and Sumeria.

Say what you want about us, we created our culture, without anyone's help.

[Angelos]

	Originally Posted by TenochAcampicht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Argumentum ad hominem would mean me insulting you. I wasn't insulting you. I was merely saying as a Nahua, I fancy I know my history better than you.

Which was an inverse argumentum ad hominem, or in English, you appealed to authority, in this case, your social status.

	Originally Posted by TenochAcampicht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The Inquisition is well documented, it's not just protestant propaganda.

It would do you good to look at those documents.

Originally Posted by TenochAcampicht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The other examples you seem to very rapidly sweep under the rug. Why? They are just as relevent, you make us out to be monsters, yet your "oh so much better than us" western civilizations are guilty of as much if not more bloodshed. Should we forget the massacres the Vikings took part it, to bolster your national ego? What about the Romans and their persecution of Christianity? Must I overlook that too? Or the crusaders and their actions against Non-Turkish Muslims, who were merely on pilgrimage?

I meant that they have no relevance (and the Vikings, by the way, did not include entire Scandinavia. My kin spent that entire period fighting them). I don't care about justice or morality in politics. however, I do not accept you playing the victim card. Your cruelty was equal to ours, thus you cannot claim moral superiority.

	Originally Posted by TenochAcampicht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If anything, by your logic happens to any of the aforementioned, they have it coming.

For actions happened sometimes centuries ago? Yes, we would have it coming. What was your point?

	Originally Posted by TenochAcampicht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	We were not weak, had we not contracted smallpox, we would've repelled the Spaniards just fine, read La Noche Triste, we help up just fine against European arms. Perhaps we had neither gun nor steel. Yet our Jaguar Warriors could take out a horse and Conquistador with little effort.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Your mighty Jaguar warriors were a tribal military force without discipline, organization or other training than that of personal arms. Against them was a disciplined, professional force of veteran soldiers with top class equipment and experienced leadership. The results speak for themselves. And what is this now? ''We were more manly, we had more gusto than you!'' Oh please, spare me your childishness.

	Originally Posted by TenochAcampicht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The Spaniards, to enter our great city of Tenochtitlan, used deception. I'm sure you worship this due to Machiavellianism, but it's underhanded and not at all a show of brute power and force.

The weak whine about fairness and honor. The strong despise those who hide behind them. The Fall of Tenochtitlan was a crushing defeat for Aztecs, and no amount of crying for honor will change that.

	Originally Posted by TenochAcampicht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The Mayan Astronomy was far ahead incidentally of the Western world, we could accurately predict cosmic occurenece within the scope of thousands of years.

Sources and examples, please. As far as I know, Indian and Chinese astronomy were ahead of them during their time, Western later on.

	Originally Posted by TenochAcampicht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Or...do you get annoyed at what I say, because this challenges your ideals of Pan-Europeanism, Imperialism, justification of genocide and scorn at other cultures. I'd remind you, most of Western Civilization, exists due to things borrowed out of Persia, Egypt, Armenia, Assyria and Sumeria. Say what you want about us, we created our culture, without anyone's help.

The Western world owns a debt to ancient Middle-East. What about it? Do you expect me to scorn great civilizations around the world simply because I don't include a couple of somewhat backwards tribal societies in them? You are sadly mistaken. I admire the Chinese culture and I am fascinated by the ancient Persian culture. Currently, I hold China as the strongest culture on Earth, or one that soon will be.

Say what you want about your civilization, but your culture failed miserably against a stronger one. When placed against a powerful civilization, it was utterly and completely crushed, a proof of your weakness and their strength.

[TenochAcampicht]

I did not appeal to authority as I am appealing to my own experience, that's like saying an engineer is appealing to authority because he tells you he knows more about engineer that someone unskilled in the field.

I do not claim mine is morally superior, you claimed that we "deserved what we got" like you had a position to judge, you do not. You are no better than any of us, if you cannot see this because you are blinded by Nationalism, it's your flaw, not mine. This is a classic form of projective identification. Understand carefully, you do not hold anymore power than I do in this forum, we are equals, members of this said forum, I am not playing the victim card, however you are in position to tell me what to allow or not, you do not own me, it is irrelevent to me what you accept, it is of little consequence to me.

Now, you claim we were a "weak tribal society", oh? We had a larger empire than most other civilizations did, London, the largest city in Europe boasted less people than we did. We also had aqueducts, trade with multiple ethnic groups, controlled vast territories, had large and unique architecture, which were not huts, organized agriculture, etc. all the things that qualify an EMPIRE, a tribe is a small group of people that share a language.
It would help if you researched a word before using it Angelos, otherwise it doesn't make you seem all that intelligenet, but rather foolish and self-obsessed.

Our "weak tribal warriors" were enough to cause La Noche Triste, and enough to allow Spaniards to recruit other Indians against us. Therefore, you can insult my race all you want, it just showed ignorance of your behalf, and ultimately my point is made, yours is yet to be made. The elite trained force, was well crying as you claim I am, on La Noche Triste.

You were the one starting the "whose military is superior" thing, yet now you project it onto me, sad, but then that is what happens when you argue with someone who has little logic.

[Booko]

	Originally Posted by TenochAcampicht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What you are bordering on, is praising ethnic cleansing and Genocide...I hope you know this is racism, in fact, the highest form of it.

The way I read Angelos post it appeared to go over the border. I could be mistaken. I guess I'll have to wait and see.

I'm at a loss to think of a culture that has so few redeeming characteristics that it deserves to be wiped off the face of the earth entirely. I'm also at a loss to think of a culture that doesn't have some significant warts.

---------- Post added 11-08-2010 at 02:32 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Angelos To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think of rebellion as something that is not justified, unless the sovereign threatens your life directly.

Good luck getting your average American to go along with this, Angelos. As much as our history education sucks wind, even the least educated of us understand our nation was born out of rebellion against perceived oppression.

For the sake of clarification, could you please explain what you would consider threatening someone's life directly?

Do the oppressed have no moral right to throw off their shackles so long as they're allowed to live in some fashion?

[Angelos]

	Originally Posted by TenochAcampicht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You know, you do provide some real comedic relief. I did not appeal to authority as I am appealing to my own experience, that's like saying an engineer is appealing to authority because he tells you he knows more about engineer that someone unskilled in the field.

Precisely, you appealed to your status as a member of an ethnic group, not as a professional.

Originally Posted by TenochAcampicht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I do not claim mine is morally superior, you claimed that we "deserved what we got" like you had a position to judge, you do not. You are no better than any of us, if you cannot see this because we are blinded by Nationalism, it's your flaw, not mine. This is a classic form of projective identification. Understand carefully, you do not hold anymore power than I do in this forum, we are equals, members of this said forum, I am not playing the victim card, however you are in position to tell me what to allow or not, you do not own me, it is irrelevent to me what you accept, it is of little consequence to me.

Have I claimed to be some paragon of virtue? I do not exactly consider myself a reincarnation of the Christ.

Originally Posted by TenochAcampicht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Now, you claim we were a "weak tribal society", oh? We had a larger empire than most other civilizations did, London, the largest city in Europe boasted less people than we did. We also had aqueducts, trade with multiple ethnic groups, controlled vast territories, had large and unique architecture, which were not huts, organized agriculture, etc. all the things that qualify an EMPIRE, a tribe is a small group of people that share a language. It would help if you researched a word before using it Angelos, otherwise it doesn't make you seem all that intelligenet, but rather foolish and self-obsessed.

I did not disqualify your status as an empire. Still, your technology and organization were very undeveloped.

	Originally Posted by TenochAcampicht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Our "weak tribal warriors" were enough to cause La Noche Triste, and enough to allow Spaniards to recruit other Indians against us. Therefore, you can insult my race all you want, it just showed ignorance of your behalf, and ultimately my point is made, yours is yet to be made. The elite trained force, was well crying as you claim I am, on La Noche Triste.

I am not insulting your race. And you can hardly think of Aztec numerical superiority by tens of thousands to be a case in which Cortés should have opted to stay and fight. No matter how capable you are, the numbers can be overwhelming. After recruiting their Indian allies, the Spaniards were still considerably lacking in numbers, but managed to defeat the Aztecs nevertheless. What would that prove?

	Originally Posted by TenochAcampicht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You were the one starting the "whose military is superior" thing, yet now you project it onto me, sad, but then that is what happens when you argue with someone who has little logic.

I just find it funny to argue ''whose side was tougher'' when that is irrelevant to the results. The dead stay dead and the results are final.

---------- Post added 11-08-2010 at 09:53 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The way I read Angelos post it appeared to go over the border. I could be mistaken. I guess I'll have to wait and see. I'm at a loss to think of a culture that has so few redeeming characteristics that it deserves to be wiped off the face of the earth entirely. I'm also at a loss to think of a culture that doesn't have some significant warts.

I was advocating for the Aztecs to have no right of complaints for their fate, or at least that they should consider it extremely hypocritical to cry ''genocide'' when they have just done exactly the same to their neighbours.

	Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Good luck getting your average American to go along with this, Angelos. As much as our history education sucks wind, even the least educated of us understand our nation was born out of rebellion against perceived oppression.

Cultural differences, I guess. My country, when still a province of the Kingdom of Sweden, was known for its loyalty to the crown whereas the United States are a nation born out of rebellion. Still, philosophical debate should be as objective as possible.

	Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	For the sake of clarification, could you please explain what you would consider threatening someone's life directly?

When the sovereign or its officials are using or preparing to use physical violence against someone, in that case, both the individual and sovereign are justified in their actions. The sovereign because it is its right to use violence at will, and the individual because the instinct for survival is a ''natural law''. For clarification, I have been quoting Hobbes with the concept of sovereign.

	Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Do the oppressed have no moral right to throw off their shackles so long as they're allowed to live in some fashion?

If they succeed, they had the right. I am not especially interested in moral views regarding politics.

[TenochAcampicht]

Appealing to authority is done if I were to appeal to another person who has a higher position, using their status as a determiner of right or wrong. I have not done that, your argument is useless.

The Aztecs have never, to my knowledge, killed man, woman and child, irrelevent of anything, and with the intent to destroy a culture. This is Genocide. We have never commited Genocide. Argue as much as you want, but the term is clear as when it was claimed by Lemkin. Your people commited Sacrifice too, do I need to remind you of the bloody rituals to Odin? The goings on in Valhalla? I know your mythology quite well. Of course I wouldn't presume to tell you about it, as being a Nord, you'd know this better than I, just as I know my own people better than you know mine. This is not an appeal to authority, it's the same as saying a native Arabic speaker knows more about Arabic than someone who is learning it, hence the job example was the same.