I literally never said any of these things. Just because some groups of people in times past have conquered other groups, doesn't mean that in every single instance, or even in most instances, the "strong" will always seek to conquer the "weak". I think you see some examples and assume that they apply universally. They do not. It's not a rule that every single time someone is stronger, they will conquer everyone who is weaker unless they are stopped from doing so.
You're committing basic logical fallacies that, while I believe you're serious, I find that you're not terribly intelligent. I believed things like this when I was younger, but as I grew older, I realized that the world wasn't as simple as I wanted it to be.
I literally never said any of these things.
Of course you didn't, because that's not how people who ply their trade in the margins and shadows afforded by vagueness and ambiguity operate. Those things, are, however the logical implication of your premise. Now is when you move the goal posts and say, "I never said it would never happen, just that it won't always happen."
That's when I say, "Thank you for conceding my point. Since we don't have a crystal ball to tell us when and how such a thing will happen, we have to be prepared for it if we're to have any hope of avoiding it. We have to be prepared for it to happen at any moment lest we be caught unprepared. An effective plan will plan for resisting the strongest possible adversary. 'Plan for the worst, hope for best' as the saying goes."
You're committing basic logical fallacies
Name one and walk us through it.
I don't "ply my trade in the margins and shadows afforded by vagueness". I stated, quite simply, that you cited a few examples of strong nations conquering weak ones, and then you generalized those examples to apply to every relationship of the strong and the weak. This is the "hasty generalization" fallacy, if you need the technical term.
I'm not the one with a premise. You are. Your premise is: "the strong will always conquer the weak". I stated that this was simply not true in every case. I gave you another example -- that even in leftist cities during riots that were without police support, most people were just living their lives. The rioters were less than 1% of the population. In fact, some people defended not only their own property, but that of others, Kyle Rittenhouse being the obvious example.
I think you believe that I had set a goalpost, but you're the one making the claims and setting the goalposts in the first place. You are accusing me of doing every thing that you have been doing. You are arguing not with me, but with yourself.
This conversation started with your assertion that China would attack the U.S. and that we needed to be prepared.
My argument is that the U.S. government is a far greater threat, that the "threat" of a military strike by China is simply U.S. gov't propaganda akin to the Russia propaganda at the start of the Trump Presidency, and that China's power is projected primarily through trade. It is not likely that China would attempt to attack the U.S. military, both for logistical reasons and because we are China's largest customer base. Why would they kill the golden goose? At some point, the dollar will collapse and the Chinese will have to find other markets, but in the meantime, there is no reason to try to "conquer" the U.S. It's silly to pretend that they would.
You say that we should be prepared for it. Well, if you want to waste resources preparing for a very unlikely possibility, go for it. But since time, energy and other resources are limited, we should probably allocate resources more efficiently than that. And since the U.S. government is clearly a far greater threat to our liberty than the Chinese will likely ever be, we should allocate our resources towards the goal of defending ourselves against the federal government.
Are we done now? This has consumed a great deal of time that could be better spent doing other things.
you generalized those examples to apply to every relationship of the strong and the weak.
Please direct us to my statement where I said it applies to "every" relationship.
I'm not the one with a premise.
My bad. I thought you had an argument. Apparently you feel otherwise.
This conversation started with your assertion that China would attack the U.S. and that we needed to be prepared.
I said no such thing. You inferred it by piecing together several of my statements and making an unwarranted inference.
My argument is that the U.S. government is a far greater threat
I think you mean more "imminent" threat, not greater. Otherwise you're arguing that your freedoms are threatened more by the US government than they would be if you lived under Chinese rule.
You say that we should be prepared for it. Well, if you want to waste resources preparing for a very unlikely possibility
That's like not wearing a seatbelt because crashes are unlikely, or not being armed because needing to defend yourself with deadly force is unlikely.
(post is archived)