>There are few wars between good and evil; most are between

Not very

Very

>>473922
Meaningless quote.

File: [Mwees externally].jpg (86KB, 768x780px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 768x780px

Most wars are between people, and people are very rarely completely good or completely evil.

>>473933
I think it is a very good quote because people too often buy into propaganda.

>>473944
Sure people buy into propaganda -- but how is the OP quote any less so?

>>473948
Because propaganda is all about painting the opponent as evil. Pointing out that few people are ever evil and that your opponent is probably a bunch of good people with a different perspective then you is therefore not propaganda.

>>473959
It is propaganda in that it asserts as truth a statement without evidence.

Kind of like the examples you yourself mentioned.

>>473969
>It is propaganda in that it asserts as truth a statement without evidence.
That's not what propaganda is. Me saying my car is yellow without evidence is not propaganda.

>>473975

>information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

That's how whatever dictionary Google uses defines Propaganda.

The category for Propaganda therefore is pretty broad but the key is "promote or publisize a point of view" -- The OP does that in that the point of view being promoted is that there is good v. good as opposed to a good v. evil in most wars.

>>473959
>Because propaganda is all about painting the opponent as evil.

To be honest, it is almost entirely necessary to propagandize the opponent as evil and needing of killing, else you will have an army of troops who refuse to do their job.

>>474005
Good. War is hell and rarely if ever justifiable. If the peoples of nations were never lied to or ignorant then there would be no wars.

>>473995
You said it was any claim without evidence. That doesn't fit the definition. It is not meant to mislead. It is a warning about being misled.

>>474021
War is almost always inevitable though. If it is in the air, it will happen.

The only thing you can hope for is that the people who have money and power choose to be diplomatic, before they are militaristic.

>>474029

The definition states "particular political cause or point of view"

The point of view(non verifiable belief) being presented is that there is usually good v. good as opposed to good v. evil.

This is the reason why stating that water molecules are 2 Hydrogen & 1 Oxygen atoms is not "propaganda" -- as a verifiable claim is being made.

>>474052
You are generalizing what political means to the point of making the word propaganda meaningless. Furthermore, virtually every quote ever would fit your proposed criteria for propaganda because they don't give the evidence in the same sentence and could be twisted until they had some seemingly apparent political goal.

>>474032
War is inevitable because people believe it is inevitable. It's circular.

>>474064
No war is usually inevitable because you have exhausted every other choice.

See the politics of appeasement before World War 2. The Allies appeased Hitler's every demand, including the annexation of Austria and the invasion of Czechoslovakia to protect the German minority there.

But in the end, they had to stand their ground when he wanted to invade Poland, and he didn't back down.

So unfortunately, diplomacy only works to a point.

>>474062
No. I provided the definition, and if we restricted the criteria to 'political propaganda' the OP quote would still fit the bill as it publicizes a particular belief in order to promote a political viewpoint.

>>474081
You are dehumanizing Germany. Don't just think about the response to German actions, think about Germany itself. Germany caused the war in Europe because those in charge and a sizable portion of the German population thought war was inevitable and even healthy.

>>474091
And as I said, your generalization makes the word all but meaningless because it applies to virtually every statement ever.

And regardless, are you saying you disagree with the statement? Are you saying that you believe most wars are fought between good and evil?

>>474100
>Germany caused the war in Europe because those in charge and a sizable portion of the German population thought war was inevitable and even healthy.

This is not exactly true. They thought they had a right to unite all the German people's under one state, and it had more to do with their specific racist ideology than simply war.

But I will grant you that both World Wars came about in many ways because both sides thought that something positive came out of doing it. Especially true for World War 1 in my opinion.

>>474109
No. Perfectly everyday statements such as:

It's raining. It is 27 degrees. Today is my Birthday. I like tea.

Cannot be propaganda on their own as they do not advance a particular viewpoint.

I disagree with the OP, yes.

>>474119
Yeah, World War 2 was a direct result of World War 1 and WW1 is the perfect example of how perceptions of war made war inevitable.

>>474126
>Most wars are fought between a righteously good side and a dastardly evil side.
I find that statement so hard to justify that I don't know where to begin questioning it. Please argue the case.

>>474126
Shot in the dark, are you English?

>>474145
I didn't say that. I said I disagreed with the OP.

To be specific my disagreement arises in response to the claim that "good" and "evil" can meaningfully be used to describe reality(as opposed to behavioral preferences that are culturally enforced)

>>474155
Nah. I just like my tea.

>>474163
>To be specific my disagreement arises in response to the claim that "good" and "evil" can meaningfully be used to describe reality(as opposed to behavioral preferences that are culturally enforced)
So then you agree that most wars aren't fought between good and evil.

>>474182
Sure. But they aren't fought between good and good either. As both 'good' & 'evil' are devoid of informational content.

>>474196
Everyone who wakes up, goes to work, does their best to give their kids good lives, and tries not to hurt anyone unjustly is good. Most people see themselves as good.

Or are you one of those people who hates humans? You probably aren't but I refuse to waste posts discussing this stuff with a filthy misanthrope.

>>474214
You claim that such thing as 'good' or 'justice' exists -- you do so not on any evidence but rather due to it being drilled into throughout your life that these are useful for describing something.

Why would I hate humans? We're an interesting bunch aren't we? I guess that's why we have sit coms.

>>474236
*tips fedora*

Dude, I'm as redpilled as it gets when it comes to how absurd "good vs evil" is. But I just explained to you what a common conception of good is. Humans like just living their lives and letting other people living their lives, golden rule and all that, and they see that as good. Using that definition of good then yes, most every human is good.

>>474254
Again -- you presuppose that there is a good that exists for there to be a common conception of.

Related posts in a different thread


>>474150
>>474261

>>474265
>you presuppose that there is a good that exists for there to be a common conception of.
That makes zero sense. I think you need some sleep or more tea. Good is a value statement.

>>474265
Not him, but I think you might be autistic. Maybe that also explains the need for the namefaggotry.

>>474269
Sleep, yes.

Saying something is 'good'(as opposed to evil) is utterly meaningless as morality. is an imagined construct of the mind -- like unicorns and hippogryyfs and the holy spirit.

>>474296
Good is a value statement. It's evil that is the absurd concept.

"Most wars are between some dudes who want the other dudes stuff" - me

Go easy on me guys I'm not a professional quote maker or anything so bare with me

>>473922
can you please explain this picture

>>474303
No.

Saying that something like, say, chairity is 'good' is to claim that people "ought" to do one thing as opposed to another.

Which is hogwash.

Wars are between ideas and policies, not people. People are simply the tools needed to convey such policies (for government leaders) or to convey the physical means to fight (for soldiers and civilians).

There absolutely are ideas that are "good" and ideas that are "bad". Take WWII - on one side you have countries that want to aggressively take over others and commit genocide ("aryan" nationalism isn't a good or bad ideal in itself). On the other side you have countries that want to prevent. Unless you're an edgelord or an asshole, it's pretty clear what the "good" and the "bad" sides are. The means used to fight for either side are obviously pretty fucking bad though, but that's war (and it is 2 world wars in a row that made us realize that maybe this war stuff is fucked up).

>>473922
Isn't this quote from Yang Wenli?

>>475387
I forgot to say - what makes an idea "good" or "bad" is how much of a positive effect it has on the well-being of citizens, while keeping the state of nations out of harm's way. So deciding to conquer surrounding lands for the sake of having a bigger empire, killing non-fighters on the way (and/or not caring for the well-being of its own people), is about as "evil" as a country can be in war (although it usually is what kickstarts the war to begin with).

>>475387
Yeah but one has to be Delusional to bekieve that the allies in WW2 were a Beacon of Justice and good
Just because The Nazis were worse doesn't mean that the Holodomor didn't happen or that The British and French weren't subjecting millions of people all across the globe

>>475406
What's "good" and what's "bad" depends entirely on the historical, cultural and social context. A better quote would be that wars are between one evil and another evil. Every country that has ever engaged in warfare (which is the vast majority of them) has its hands dirty, and developped countries didn't get there by offering candies to the people around them.

However in a war, there is most of the time a side that has more dangerous, strategically offensive, politically oppressive... actions than its opponent, hence it becomes the "bad" side, although yes, from a distant point of view, all sides in a war have a tendency to be anywhere between twisted as fuck to comically evil, and ideally war shouldn't even be a thing. Then there is the whole problem of proxy wars.

>>473922
That's a bizarre butchering of Hegel's:

"True conflict is not between good and worse, but between good and better."

>>473959
No, propaganda is about increasing legitimacy of your country. If you think that as "painting opponent evil", you shouldn't post here but instead finish High School.

File: 1451235957147.png (43KB, 162x182px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 162x182px

>>473922
what if most wars are between evil and more evil
what if in most arguments both participants are wrong
what if everything is awful and will not stop being awful until it is recognized as such

>>473922
I'd argue the opposite. Most wars are between one evil and another evil.

Not that "good" and "evil" are meaningful words in the slightest. In both cases, it's whatever is most convenient for the time.