this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024

101 points (91.1% liked)

A Comm for Historymemes

1391 readers

508 users here now

A place to share history memes!

Rules:

No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
No fascism, atrocity denial, etc.
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
Follow all Lemmy.world rules.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

PugJesus

101

IVSTVM BELLVM (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 month ago by PugJesus to c/historymemes

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] PugJesus 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Ahh, so now we’re creeping away from the claim “very Roman origin of Just War”?

Literally outlined in the paper you didn't read, yes, Roman ideas of Just War were very Italic (ie Roman in this context, putting aside questions of the differences of contemporary Italic peoples and the process of cultures forming or changing) in origin.

Lol, “How many quotes will it take from societies not veiling their self-interest and, in fact, taking great pride in their naked self-interest, would it take to change your mind? Or is that a lost cause?” This you?

Yes, it absolutely is me, in response to you denying that contemporary societies didn't act in naked self-interest much of the time. Like, are you incapable of remembering what you yourself said, or just unwilling to?

So now that we’ve confirmed that Romans weren’t unique, the argument is how much more value the Romans placed on this compared to other contemporary societies…?

Holy fucking shit, literally in my first comment

The Romans placed a relatively high value on the idea of Iustum Bellum - just war.

I see you’re not mentioning the other source that spoke about how the Han, who were contemporaries with the Romans, justified their wars.

Please point out where I said the Han didn't have a strong conception of just war.

I've spoken to some dumb fucking cunts. But you're the stupidest this month, easy.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Roman ideas of Just War were very Italic

You stated the origin of the concept of just war is Roman, not that the justifications they utilized were "italic". Moving the goal post.

in response to you denying that contemporary societies didn't act in naked self-interest much of the time.

Again, my rebuttal was that societies justify their actions within their own cultural framework. Your claim was that Rome was the only empire who were commiting to just wars.

Holy fucking shit, literally in my first comment

Ahh so this was a subjective comparison the whole time.... And you've just been dramatically pedantic with all of your claims. Great....

Please point out where I said the Han didn't have a strong conception of just war.

"How many quotes will it take from societies not veiling their self-interest and, in fact, taking great pride in their naked self-interest, would it take to change your mind?"

"Yes, it absolutely is me, in response to you denying that contemporary societies didn't act in naked self-interest much of the time"

"Here's one briefly covering the very Roman origins of the concept of Just War and the contrast with Greeks and other civilizations of antiquity,"

If you weren't trying to imply that Romans were unique in justifying their wars, then why did you have a problem with the rebuttal of "all cultures justify their wars from within their own cultural framework"? Why did you freak out when I gave examples of religious wars in ancient mesopotamia?

You're just being academically dishonest and moving the goal post out of pure pigheadedness.

I've spoken to some dumb fucking cunts. But you're the stupidest this month, easy.

Lol, so spicy..... Maybe try going outaide and touching some grass?

[–] PugJesus 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You stated the origin of the concept of just war is Roman, not that the justifications they utilized were “italic”. Moving the goal post.

Jesus fucking Christ. The mention of Italic origins was because Rome didn't spring out fully formed; the point of the comparison was to demonstrate that it was an unusual cultural affectation that was not widely shared by other major cultures of the period.

“How many quotes will it take from societies not veiling their self-interest and, in fact, taking great pride in their naked self-interest, would it take to change your mind?”

“Yes, it absolutely is me, in response to you denying that contemporary societies didn’t act in naked self-interest much of the time”

Yes, in response to you denying that societies acted in accordance with naked self-interest. You, quite literally and explicitly, denied that claim. Are you reversing your opinion now? If so, I commend your ability to admit when you've made a brazenly stupid claim.

“Here’s one briefly covering the very Roman origins of the concept of Just War and the contrast with Greeks and other civilizations of antiquity,”

The word contrast means nothing to you, I see. You may want to invest in a dictionary.

If you weren’t trying to imply that Romans were unique in justifying their wars, then why did you have a problem with the rebuttal of “all cultures justify their wars from within their own cultural framework”?

... you mean when you did the exact opposite of that, and claimed that me saying

When the Gauls and Germanics went on raids, their thinking wasn’t “Dohohoho, time to commit some CRIMES”, but rather, “This is the way the world works, I’m taking an opportunity”, the way that a merchant might eye a good deal

was incorrect?

Like, fuck, can you not hold the same position for more than two comments? Is this pathological?

Why did you freak out when I gave examples of religious wars in ancient mesopotamia?

Because you have no conception of what the justification of wars were in ancient Mesopotamia, you just saw 'idols' and thought 'religious ideal of a just war'. Anything else, apparently, would be too complex for you to grasp.

You’re just being academically dishonest and moving the goal post out of pure pigheadedness.

I'm not being 'academically dishonest', you're seeming simply incapable of recognizing that your reading comprehension is subpar, and that several of the claims you made were not only baseless but utterly bizarre in some weird attempt to cling to your original contrarian position.

Ahh so this was a subjective comparison the whole time…

So you finally got around to reading literally the very first comment in this thread? Excellent. I'm so happy for you. Maybe in the future, you should work on your enduring incapacity to exercise basic literacy.