4 ms·

I'd say it's actually completely useless. The definitions of "weak" and "strong" are extremely malleable depending on your own subjective assessment of the per

by tbrake 1y ago

I'd say it's actually completely useless. The definitions of "weak" and "strong" are extremely malleable depending on your own subjective assessment of the person/people. It's an almost-aphorism; nearly useful, but not quite.

kybernetikos 1y ago
Not only that, but "good times" and "bad times" are equally ambiguous - good times for who? I have a feeling that the saying is used primarily by people who imagine themselves strong and think that the good times in history were when the strong were taking from the weak, whereas I think that good times in history are when the weak are protected from the worst abuses of the strong.
- mantas 1y ago
  When famine hits or you get attacked by another country, it’s not about weak being protected from the strong. It’s about one society getting into trouble.
  - kybernetikos 1y ago
    And perhaps this is the core of our disagreement - you see a country being attacked by another and you blame those hard times on the victim while I blame it on the attacker. I say it's a problem of unrestrained strength, of strength misapplied, not a problem of some people being weaker than others. And an enormous number of famines are caused by conflict, or historically by dumb central government by overly strong tyrants.
    - mantas 1y ago
      > famines are caused by conflict And conflicts are frequently caused by the victim getting weak. > historically by dumb central government That's what I pointing at. > overly strong tyrants They're not strong. Unless you want to define strong in a very narrow sense which simply dumb. > you see a country being attacked by another and you blame those hard times on the victim while I blame it on the attacker Such is nature. When a sugar lover gets diabetis, you don't blame diabetis. If a society wants to stay afloat, it has to be able to defend from outsiders.

by tbrake 1y ago

kybernetikos 1y ago

Not only that, but "good times" and "bad times" are equally ambiguous - good times for who? I have a feeling that the saying is used primarily by people who imagine themselves strong and think that the good times in history were when the strong were taking from the weak, whereas I think that good times in history are when the weak are protected from the worst abuses of the strong.

mantas 1y ago
When famine hits or you get attacked by another country, it’s not about weak being protected from the strong. It’s about one society getting into trouble.
- kybernetikos 1y ago
  And perhaps this is the core of our disagreement - you see a country being attacked by another and you blame those hard times on the victim while I blame it on the attacker. I say it's a problem of unrestrained strength, of strength misapplied, not a problem of some people being weaker than others. And an enormous number of famines are caused by conflict, or historically by dumb central government by overly strong tyrants.
  - mantas 1y ago
    > famines are caused by conflict And conflicts are frequently caused by the victim getting weak. > historically by dumb central government That's what I pointing at. > overly strong tyrants They're not strong. Unless you want to define strong in a very narrow sense which simply dumb. > you see a country being attacked by another and you blame those hard times on the victim while I blame it on the attacker Such is nature. When a sugar lover gets diabetis, you don't blame diabetis. If a society wants to stay afloat, it has to be able to defend from outsiders.