tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1060561507530276380.post4987400636859635016..comments2023-11-05T17:36:25.115+05:30Comments on Going Global: The battle for rightTheWhacksteRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16163713209619543202noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1060561507530276380.post-29119730343893223982009-01-06T11:43:00.000+05:302009-01-06T11:43:00.000+05:30" But I still insist that Machiavellian meaning it..." But I still insist that Machiavellian meaning itself did not detract from the meaning of 'goodness' meaning it’s possible to interpret virtue as goodness as well as excellence. Seeing as these two things are not contradictory. Agreed? "<BR/><BR/>I'm afraid I can't agree, Whackster. Excellence has nothing to do with goodness or badness, which are moral definitions. If you want to interpret 'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1060561507530276380.post-22706043155882600562009-01-06T10:02:00.000+05:302009-01-06T10:02:00.000+05:30Hmmm ok. So let’s go beyond that argument then. Ri...Hmmm ok. So let’s go beyond that argument then. Right so to answer your question David,<BR/><BR/>"Define your understanding of the word virtue, since you say that it is a necessary trait for the modern soldier"<BR/><BR/>I agree with you that virtue is 'excellence' that’s true and believable. But I still insist that Machiavellian meaning itself did not detract from the meaning of 'goodness' TheWhacksteRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16163713209619543202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1060561507530276380.post-63088432469346189442009-01-05T16:27:00.000+05:302009-01-05T16:27:00.000+05:30Well, Whackster, the basis for your argument seems...Well, Whackster, the basis for your argument seems to have changed very little from the one we had back in July -- essentially the meaning of the word 'virtue'. Now (as then) you prefer to interpret the Machiavellian Virtue (which you, not I, brought up now as well as in July) by its modern definition of the word (ie: 'goodness'). Machiavelli's Virtue didn't mean 'goodness', but something akin toAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1060561507530276380.post-40753434626372587772009-01-05T14:45:00.000+05:302009-01-05T14:45:00.000+05:30"DB: That is true, and the fact that such atrociti..."DB: That is true, and the fact that such atrocities occur (and have always occured) is in fact because virtue (in its modern sense) does not exist in the military. Virtue would prevent atrocities, yes, but it would also prevent the ruthlessness needed by military leaders which must sacrifice lives for objectives, ignore civilian suffering, and abandon everything but victory."<BR/><BR/>I may Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01155386158563740075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1060561507530276380.post-44295673410002167372009-01-05T14:20:00.000+05:302009-01-05T14:20:00.000+05:30Look David, let’s not go back to the whole discuss...Look David, let’s not go back to the whole discussion we did have. But if anyone wants to check it out and see if your accusations had any foundations they can easily do so. For I as a matter of fact did leave a link. It’s on the ‘this’ bit (2nd para, line 2).<BR/><BR/>The last point you raised, I never responded to, only because I felt that here was an area you and me fundamentally disagreed TheWhacksteRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16163713209619543202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1060561507530276380.post-23181987422604906802009-01-05T14:09:00.000+05:302009-01-05T14:09:00.000+05:30Whackster, I'm a bit disappointed that you chose t...Whackster, I'm a bit disappointed that you chose to selectively use portions of that debate to support your line of thought. Why not reproduce the full discussion or at least link to it. Once more you oversimplify things in order to get a black vs white contrast which does not exist in reality. Here's an example:<BR/><BR/>When I said: "Good, after all, is a subjective term. But I think it's clearAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com