|
On August 12 2017 12:47 JimmiC wrote:
Rolf you are arguing for the sake of arguing. There is no way you even believe what you write.
If tm had a position of power would anything get done or would he simply argue about the theoretical possibilities?
It's your definition, not mine. Mine was simple--people who lead wars are warlords. You seem to have a highly complex version that depends on type of government system and the nation states having specific types of documents before you can call them warlords or not. I don't understand the need for extra complexity.
|
|
|
On August 12 2017 12:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 12:34 JimmiC wrote:On August 12 2017 09:09 IgnE wrote:
warlords don't have constitutions for one Checks and balances are another. They also dont tend to have exit plans (though they have failed) of giving the country they hit a democratic government. There are alot of things questionable about american foreign policy. But if they were warlords canada and mexico would be states now. If checks and balances are required doesn't that make all monarchies immediately warlords? Majority of western history counts as Warlords too doesn't it? Of course, it would also mean any currently defined warlord who has peers in his system that he takes advice from would stop counting as a warlord because he'd have a check and balance. Is that your idea of a Warlord?
I think the lack of checks and balances are required for a warlord to be a warlord. That doesn't mean that everyone who doesn't have checks and balances is a warlord, just that a person who has checks and balances doesn't qualify.
I'd define a warlord as a dictator/regional dictator who came into power through military might, most of the time in times of civil war. He is basically a Lord through war. That's why I also wouldn't count Caesar and Napoleon, because they reached a prime position within the state before removing checks and balances through military power/civil war. Although Napoleon is a bit on the edge because he came into power as a result of his military prowess in a civil war.
So no, you can't dub a leader of a western nation a warlord as long as they didn't get their power through the military. They can lead aggressive wars in other regions as much as they like, doesn't make them warlords because their inner political power doesn't come from the military.
In the same way you can't dub any monarch warlord, because most of them didn't become king through civil war before having a serious claim to the throne anyways. The supporting pillars of the system (clerus and nobles) decided most kings and as long as they do, they aren't warlords.
|
the jist of your argument is: are warlords born or made?. Archeon covers the former while Thieving Magpie the later.
if you figure that out, it's done.
(definitions are guidelines, what should Trump all here is the time spent being one; status can't be denied by technicalities)
|
On August 12 2017 13:16 JimmiC wrote:I was unaware you just made up definitions, now i understand why your arguments rarely make sense. Warlord: a military commander, especially an aggressive regional commander with individual autonomy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarlordHere is more indepth, please read their is no need to create your own version that fits the narrative you like.
Cool read! According to your link great examples of warlords is Feudal Europe, 1900s Russia, and democratically elected president Charles Taylor of Liberia.
Apparently all that's needed is a system that imposes or implies its use of military might in order to dictate power. Thank God the US and Russia didn't do that for decades during the Cold War 
Really though, thanks for finding support for my thoughts on Warlords. Apparently it doesn't matter how the person got in power, exactly what his role in the state is, or even what documents or laws are present in the state--if you simply use military strength to dictate control you can be a warlord. At least according to your link.
|
On August 12 2017 14:50 xM(Z wrote:
the jist of your argument is: are warlords born or made?. Archeon covers the former while Thieving Magpie the later.
if you figure that out, it's done.
(definitions are guidelines, what should Trump all here is the time spent being one; status can't be denied by technicalities)
Much agreed. Its like Pornography--you'll know it when you see it.
|
Then what does that make erotica?
|
On August 12 2017 15:48 Shiragaku wrote:
Then what does that make erotica?
Are those things mutually exclusive?
|
Erotica is artistic, pornography is empty titillation.
States are organized, warlords are chaotic.
|
|
|
On August 12 2017 16:03 Shiragaku wrote:
Erotica is artistic, pornography is empty titillation.
States are organized, warlords are chaotic.
Whether something is artistic or empty is based on the viewer's experience, much like victims of warlords know when they are being victims of warlords and not just victims of a corrupt police state; even though both is the use of armed militia/armies to kill large numbers of citizens to encourage compliance.
Duterte is warlord because his police state actively assassinates citizens, because he himself is killing citizens. This is despite the Philippines having a constitution, checks and balances. This is despite him being elected.
The government system the warlord is in, and hownconnected and supported he is by the state does not define whether or not he is a warlord. Pointing to elections and constitutions and government bodies as of those are what define what warlords are ignores the actual truth about them.
Much like erotica versus porn; they are not mutually exclusive. Pornographic things can be artistic, and erotica can be empty. They are both and only the person experiencing them can give their understanding of it context.
|
On August 12 2017 08:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 05:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.” Do you have a different definition then?
Do you only read other people's posts selectively? I literally wrote what I would define a warlord is, on the immediate post after yours previously.
In any case, the poiint still stands. You make up definitions and then argue for it, completely ignoring how the word is used and defined in both everyday use and academically. You are the only person using such definition, therefore it can only be said that you are only interested in communicating with yourself.
On August 13 2017 00:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Duterte is warlord because his police state actively assassinates citizens, because he himself is killing citizens. This is despite the Philippines having a constitution, checks and balances. This is despite him being elected. By your own definition, Duterte is not a warlord, unless you are yet again using your own definitions for words in your own defintion..
|
On August 13 2017 04:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 08:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2017 05:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.” Do you have a different definition then? Do you only read other people's posts selectively? I literally wrote what I would define a warlord is, on the immediate post after yours previously. In any case, the poiint still stands. You make up definitions and then argue for it, completely ignoring how the word is used and defined in both everyday use and academically. You are the only person using such definition, therefore it can only be said that you are only interested in communicating with yourself. Show nested quote +On August 13 2017 00:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Duterte is warlord because his police state actively assassinates citizens, because he himself is killing citizens. This is despite the Philippines having a constitution, checks and balances. This is despite him being elected. By your own definition, Duterte is not a warlord, unless you are yet again using your own definitions for words in your own defintion..
Being that Duterte is a leader using military force to dictate his whim, he fits my exact definition of a warlord. Since he is the leader of a country with checks, balances, a constitution, and was democratically elected, as well as is very popular with his people, by your and JimmieC's definition he is not.
|
|
|
whats the rule with tipping if your picking up takeout. Or if your at like a burger place? I never know what I'm supposed to do. (United States)
|
On August 13 2017 06:46 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2017 06:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 13 2017 04:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 12 2017 08:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2017 05:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.” Do you have a different definition then? Do you only read other people's posts selectively? I literally wrote what I would define a warlord is, on the immediate post after yours previously. In any case, the poiint still stands. You make up definitions and then argue for it, completely ignoring how the word is used and defined in both everyday use and academically. You are the only person using such definition, therefore it can only be said that you are only interested in communicating with yourself. On August 13 2017 00:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Duterte is warlord because his police state actively assassinates citizens, because he himself is killing citizens. This is despite the Philippines having a constitution, checks and balances. This is despite him being elected. By your own definition, Duterte is not a warlord, unless you are yet again using your own definitions for words in your own defintion.. Being that Duterte is a leader using military force to dictate his whim, he fits my exact definition of a warlord. Since he is the leader of a country with checks, balances, a constitution, and was democratically elected, as well as is very popular with his people, by your and JimmieC's definition he is not. Not our definition, the definition. Duterte is closer then when you were trying to say obama clinton so on are. But you moving the goal posts is just how you roll. Glad you're getting nearer not further for a change.
Not your definition?
On August 12 2017 12:34 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 09:09 IgnE wrote:
warlords don't have constitutions for one Checks and balances are another. They also dont tend to have exit plans (though they have failed) of giving the country they hit a democratic government. There are alot of things questionable about american foreign policy. But if they were warlords canada and mexico would be states now.
Duterte, by your definition, is not a warlord. Democratically elected official who runs a country with checks, balances, and constitution is not a warlord to you no matter how many people he kills.
It does fit my definition--because I don't think its helpful to pretend that paperwork and due process is what disqualifies people from being warlords.
Even in your wiki-link (assuming you even read it), it talks about warlords as being in everything from civil wars trying to create nations, as being the people running the state, as being the upper class of feudal societies, as being royalty, as being present in Europe, Russia, Asia, and Africa.
The only thing your wiki doesn't talk about is how people can't be warlords because of the political system they are in.
|
On August 13 2017 12:12 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
whats the rule with tipping if your picking up takeout. Or if your at like a burger place? I never know what I'm supposed to do. (United States)
In the US I never tip unless I'm being serviced.
If they deliver food to your table/house then they get a tip. If you are doing the work of getting the food then there is no tip.
What I can't stand is people who don't tip drivers (Taxi/Lyft/Uber/etc...)
|
On August 13 2017 13:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2017 12:12 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
whats the rule with tipping if your picking up takeout. Or if your at like a burger place? I never know what I'm supposed to do. (United States) In the US I never tip unless I'm being serviced. If they deliver food to your table/house then they get a tip. If you are doing the work of getting the food then there is no tip. What I can't stand is people who don't tip drivers (Taxi/Lyft/Uber/etc...)
okay thanks. I've been tipping regardless just because I didn't want to make anyone mad
|
On August 13 2017 13:48 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2017 13:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 13 2017 12:12 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
whats the rule with tipping if your picking up takeout. Or if your at like a burger place? I never know what I'm supposed to do. (United States) In the US I never tip unless I'm being serviced. If they deliver food to your table/house then they get a tip. If you are doing the work of getting the food then there is no tip. What I can't stand is people who don't tip drivers (Taxi/Lyft/Uber/etc...) okay thanks. I've been tipping regardless just because I didn't want to make anyone mad
You're "technically" able to tip anyone you want for any reason. I've kept my focus on the type of service provided mainly because I am not rich enough to tip 100% of the people I engage with. I don't tip hotdog stands and I don't tip McDonalds--for example. I do tip bellboys, transportation, hotel cleaners, etc... Because they provide me a service I am "tipping" for.
|
On August 13 2017 04:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 08:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2017 05:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.” Do you have a different definition then? Do you only read other people's posts selectively? I literally wrote what I would define a warlord is, on the immediate post after yours previously. In any case, the poiint still stands. You make up definitions and then argue for it, completely ignoring how the word is used and defined in both everyday use and academically. You are the only person using such definition, therefore it can only be said that you are only interested in communicating with yourself. Show nested quote +On August 13 2017 00:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Duterte is warlord because his police state actively assassinates citizens, because he himself is killing citizens. This is despite the Philippines having a constitution, checks and balances. This is despite him being elected. By your own definition, Duterte is not a warlord, unless you are yet again using your own definitions for words in your own defintion..
Since reading comprehension is hard for you, let me repeat what was already brought up in the prior page.
You said:
But I would say no, being a warlord implies that military power is the sole focus of the leader with no interest or subservience to the country/natio/state. Otherwise you might as well say that Eisenhower/Hitler/Stalin was a warlord of WW2.
Which was an idea I found interesting, but whose conclusion felt weak. Hence why I asked.
What about first world leaders who use war to maintain the status quo? Bush and Iraq, Clinton and Bosnia, Bush and Iraq, Obama and Iraq, Etc... do leaders who use war to maintain the power dynamics where they are on top of the food Chain count as being a warlord?
In regards to your thesis of “ warlord implies that military power is the sole focus.” Because I found your concept intriguing, I wanted to explore it further.
Then JimmiC jumped in telling me that the answer was no. Which was confusing, because I had multiple ideas in my thread. And hence I asked a clarifying question.
On August 12 2017 05:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 03:14 JimmiC wrote:
No matter how desperately you want it no. For all the reasons above you seem to ignore. Which one is a no? That warlords use military might to enforce control or that the US has been using military might to enforce rule in the Middle East? Which do you think is not true?
Wherein I clarify if he is saying “no” to your idea that military might is the sole focus of a warlord, or if he is saying that 1st world countries in the US don't use or focus on military might.
You then intrude with a Lewis Carol poem, implying that I was twisting definitions. Not wanting to troll—I asked you point blank.
On August 12 2017 08:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 05:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.” Do you have a different definition then?
Right now, JimmiC's definition does not match your own according to his wiki-link, which describes warlords engaged in everything from running of the state (“Warlordism was a widespread, dominant political framework that ordered many of the world's societies”), has interest in economics (“an institution governing political order that uses violence or the threat of it to secure its access to "rent"-producing resources”), and inter-party politics (“Under the feudal system of Europe, nobility--whether feudal lords, knights, princes or barons--were warlords”).
The link does fit my idea of a warlord; a leader who using military means to get what they want. I even clarify and contextualize my definition further when talking to xM(Z
On August 12 2017 15:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 14:50 xM(Z wrote:
the jist of your argument is: are warlords born or made?. Archeon covers the former while Thieving Magpie the later.
if you figure that out, it's done.
(definitions are guidelines, what should Trump all here is the time spent being one; status can't be denied by technicalities) Much agreed. Its like Pornography--you'll know it when you see it.
Where it is apparent that the idea of a warlord is more vague to describe but more simple to understand. In fact, confusion only comes when you place the rules and restrictions that prevents that abstraction; such as when JimmiC let his xenophobic side show when he said:
Duterte is closer then when you were trying to say obama clinton
Where he somehow believes that presidents elected in different countries are treated differently when it comes to calling them a warlord. Sure, Duterte argues he's having a war on drugs while Obama was having a war on terrorism—but somehow he feels one is “more” warlordy than the other simply because... He doesn't actually say.
So, going back to you, being that you don't actually read this discussion and its apparent your ability to track the dialogue is poor at best and sad at worst—what exactly is your problem with me? You ignore my questions, jump in on a discussion you were not part of, and when you're asked to clarify why you jumped in you somehow argue that I am changing definitions of words despite the wiki of that word fitting my definition more than it fits yours?
Are you just trying to troll or do you just go ape-shit upon seeing my name? Calm down man, this is a video game website. You need to chill out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
