Comments by "Tespri" (@Tespri) on "Nutpicking Fallacy" video.
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@broken_abi6973
"You keep insisting on this scenario of a nation full of ppl starving initiating a war,"
Never stated that. I stated that war can be initiated to avoid the point of nation starving. You see some people have capability to think on longer term.. Unlike you. Which is why you support far left movements.
"but history shows that wars were usually initiated by nations/city states/empires during moments of flourishing, when the odds were on their side."
Really? Alexander the Great. Odds were against him. How about every mongol war against china? Odds were always against them, and they defeat china. In fact China refusing to trade goods with mongol was once reason for Mongol to go to war with china.
"The general interests included natural resources, slaves, inflicting damage over opponent nations, new lands for noble families that supported the king, etc."
So moronic...
Why do you need natural resources? For property of you country, to ensure that military is well equipped, to production etc... If you had enough, you wouldn't go to war.
Why do you need slaves in ancient times? To have someone to do the manual work, it was in fact vital for lot of different ancient economies like Sparta for example. They didn't have time to toil their own land when they were preparing their children to war since they were born.
What is the point to inflict damage to opponent nation unless it has bigger purpose?
What is the point of new lands unless it's to farm food for population?
King can just switch landowners like they had in the past. Politics had very little to do with it.
What you with your limited and puny mind fail to comprehend. Farm land was actually rare in ancient times, and it needed lot of work force in order to cultivate it. Reason why there was so much poverty at those times is based on this fact. This is why literally all kingdoms that started to flourish, was only possible they actually started to fight wars with other nations. That way they could have surplus instead of deficit and that allowed them to build great empires and develop technology.
"argument that rich ppl don't care about increasing their wealth any further. "
When you already own whole country, what else you would do with extra wealth? There was no space station they could buy for themselves or nice car.
" In medieval and roman times, you have many cases of private interests or noble families taking the initiative to conquer new lands with the permission of the king/emperor. "
Notice the word... Permission king/emperor/senate. King would not give such permission unless it was beneficial for the nation.
"i am not even a lefty btw"
Yes you are. You're a loony.
"can you guess who is the most cited author on both fields"
Citation does not mean that someone is right. Moron.
1
-
@broken_abi6973
Such a childish answer. I will try to ignore the insults and just address the points you raised.
"First of all, notice how I was careful on using the words "generally"/"usually" in my claims to emphasize that something is likely but not certain or a rule. However, you still tried to counter-argue with the most extraordinary examples of history (e.g. mongols, alexander the great), which didnt help your case. Those examples were irrelevant to the original point, but I will address them anyway."
Generally is reference that most of the time. For example when talking about general population we are talking about the majority of the population.
"most extraordinary examples of history (e.g. mongols, alexander the great)"
These were not extraordinary examples. Both were examples of small backwater countries becoming major powers by taking down largest empires in history of the planet. There is no such thing as exception to the rules. It proved that wars are not always fought by superior country. In fact before fall of rome, Rome was constantly being sieged by multiple small factions. History is filled with example and anyone who actually reads history books instead of marxists works, would know these facts.
For example WW2 was started by country that had it's economy collapsed and suffered from major inflation.
"Never disagreed with that"
Actually you did. You might want to reread, but that doesn't matter since you now backed pedaled.
"My claim is only that it is not the most common cause."
Expect they are. Elite already have everything they want and need. They simply were smarter than you and knew that only way they can keep their country flourishing and stable is by making war. Objective fact.
"First of all, the war with Persia didnt start with Alexander the Great but prior to that."
Irrelevant. It's well established fact that Macedonia was nothing but small country before it. Even before they took down great Greece states that Persia failed to subjugate.
"This makes your counter-example kind of irrelevant, since my claim was wrt the sides that initiate conflicts."
False, since Persia and Macedonia was at peace at the time, before Alexander launched his invasion, and it still doesn't remove the fact that Macedonia was before nothing but a small country with no power or influence.
"Also, the kingdom of Macedonia was at its strongest point so far, when Alexander inherited it from his father. "
False, It was no where near comparable to Persian empire. In fact had Persian's avoided major battles or done Scorched earth tactic, Alexander's army would've been gone. They literally had no resources to fight against Persian empire and were near bankruptcy.
"Alexander was also successful in many battles in Greece and Balkans before adventuring to the East."
Successful general does not mean rich and powerful nation.
"Mongols had a long history of raids against China, before the trade blockade. "
Ummm mongols literally once conquested china and left it alone once they forced them to sign trade agreement. Let that sink in.
"Genghis Khan, similarly to Alexander, only proceeded to properly invade China when he joined many clans to create the strongest mongol army in history up to that point."
They were still military and economically weaker. They were forced to war due their situation, not by greed.
"Also, access to more farm lands was rarely the primary cause to start a war"
Literally most of the time in human history.
"only initiate a war when they are confident that they have a chance to win it."
Expect in both cases odds were against them.
"I knew you were gonna let that definition of "necessity" slip."
They were necessity at the time, but your IQ is not big enough to comprehend the economics of the ancient times.
" But notice how we moved from kings wanting to feed a starving population to kings that want to create a stronger empire."
You clearly lack braincells to comprehend my point. The option was either decline or prosper. I think I was pretty clear on that.
", so your whole point of farm land being scarce and starting a significant number of wars dies there. "
We didn't have modern farming techniques at the time. Meaning most of the land was impossible to cultivate. You're biggest moron on the planet if you think that there were plenty of land to farm.
"Also, you assume that ppl in the conquered lands magically disappear (or genocide always takes place) if you think that the majority of the products raised in the conquered land are sent back to the conquerors' hands."
Genocide was in fact common practice. And do you know what happens during war? People die, population drops down from both sides. Therefore more to eat for those who survived.
"this is what is called the survivor bias. Also, almost every kingdom was at war. Not a particularly strong argument there, regardless of whether it is true or not."
Name an ancient civilization that did prosper and rarely went to war. Also not most of the kingdoms went to war. In fact there is nice examples of what happens to empires that don't wage war on foreign soil anymore. Rome was good example, how they started to slowly decline once ever increasing the administration costs couldn't be paid by taking resources from someone else.
"I said that the king/emperor can always attempt to consolidate/increase his power by invading newer lands"
Again mr low IQ, Kings and emperors could already do literally what ever they want in their own country. There is no benefit for taking over another country for sake of greed.
"yes, but it generally means that someone is not a loony,"
On what ground? Loony authors are being citated a lot, specially in texts that refute them or address some of their ridicilous claims. Marx is good example. He is a man who never did a single day honest work. Man who didn't even read economics. He literally had no knowledge over the subject and we can see it by reading his text. But his work was known world wide regardless of him killing his child and abusing his wife. You're going to citate him a lot since his theory is relevant due to it being in popular knowledge. Mises who did good job on refuting far lefties such as yourself did citate marx as well, but that doesn't mean that he thought marx was right.
Citation is merely reference to certain point.
love destroying far lefties like yourself online :3
1
-
@broken_abi6973
Generally people die when they eat cyanide. But since you don't believe in generalization then go ahead and do it.
" in my original point referred to majority of nations and not majority of population."
Implication is still the same, therefore my point is ever stronger.
" I never suggested that Macedonia was bigger than Persia when Alexander attacked it"
Then by your own admission I won, we can now conclude the debate.
" I actually read Mises' criticism on Chomsky. I understand why you like him. You both use the same techniques in debate - either a bad faith strawmen or extremely bad interpretation skills."
None of this is actually relevant to what I had just said. You literally ignored my point. Just because someone citates someone, it doesn't mean that they do it in order to prove the citated sources as correct.
"Would the fact that classical mechanical physics is limited means that Newton was a loony? "
During his time he wasn't that citated as he is now. So... By your own measure, newton's first theory was loony one. But again how is this relevant?
"Marx was influential at his time"
Influential without doubt, but demostrable wrong about everything. Better example would probably be Freud. He is very citated person, even though modern psychology and neuroscience has proven him totally wrong.
" Yes there are many benefits to take over another country when you have already one that do not imply feeding a starving population. To boost your popularity, keep your followers"
You're king, you can just kill people who don't think well of you. There is literally no reason to boost popularity. In fact this was very common practice. Just murder everyone you don't like. Just like leftists do ;)
" Ah but that's a very different point from the king wanting to feed his own starving population"
Actually no it isn't. You will lose people even in civil war. So your option is to either make your own people fight to the death. Or rather have some of your men die in war while more of your enemies men die in there, while you gain more food for your own tribe. Simple math, oh but I forgot.. Marxists can't do math.
"Does that mean his work is not outdated? No"
Yes and it was already wrong for his time.
"We now have much more data and better models available. Economic theory evolved a lot since then."
Correct, and all of it points out that Marx was talking out of his butt.
"You purposedly interpreted it as "it is always bigger nations initiating wars"."
You would have no argument if it weren't the case. Plus that was your point before. You simply keep back pedaling.
1
-
1
-
1