CiRrO's philosophy and teaching ought to be embraced.

" >> Sacrifices do not always have to be something greater to something less. I will refer to one of CiRro's debates: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people. It is necessary to sacrifice one person for the sake of the larger amount of people. If society allows more people to die, then they are not really a stable society. Furthermore it is you who said this: "If you were driving a car and you were going down hill and the breaks went out and you had to chose between hitting a group of people os swerving and hitting one person. I would say yes."" First off, you misquoted me. I never said that, I quoted it and then argued against it. I would say no in your example, because, I repeat: The group of people who you would hit if you did nothing are the ones in the trafficked part of the road, whereas the one you have to swerve to hit is the one in an untrafficked part of the road or on the sidewalk, i.e. the first group ACCEPTED the risk of being hit by you given these circumstances, the second person did not. If you are that lax about quoting people, I wonder what you It is not established as morally permissible to kill one supposed "innocent" to save more innocents, because one, all the examples people have given to me have been groups who are not innocent of making choices that implicitly accept the possibility of their death in that circumstance, against individuals who are innocent of it. Furthermore, neither the one innocent person nor the many innocent people are of PRIMARY value in this situation to you. Only you are of primary value to you. By actively participating in a killing of a known innocent individual for a supposed innocent group, you ensure that any innocent who is likely to find themselves the minority in any such situation and notices you knows you have actively declared war upon their existence. They will seek to kill you. You are at risk of sacrificing your own life, the highest possible value available to you, without which you can have no other values- for a bunch of strangers? That, is a greater value for a lesser value. " >> I'm sorry, I didn't have time to be specific, good thing you asked for clarification. Cirro: "a state of opposition between persons or ideas or interests." Now, lets look at your example. CiRro of course is a big proponent of the law. I would assume that 17 FBI agents are chasing you because you have done something wrong or illegal. However, I would say this does make you stronger. Stronger in wit and body." Strength is the ability to achieve your goals. Whatever your goals may be, in almost all situations being chased by people who want to kill you is harmful to your goals, where eliminating such people would be helpful to them. The more people work against your goals, the less likely you are to achieve them. Thus, the less strong you are when you consider the whole of the strength measures available. "{Furthermore, you say that society cannot be termed as strong or weak. That is specifically why CiRrO is against attempts at making everyone strong. He believes as the point shows, that strengthening the individual first, would lead to a stronger society." Contradiction. You both accept that society cannot be termed as strong- and then outline what you will do to make it strong. " >> The idea is never to surrender. " By stating you will never win, i.e. never defeat those who are not at peace with you, you have ALREADY surrendered. ". CiRrO is trying to say that "peace" can never be truly be achieved, because peace itself is a conflict. It is a conflict opposing conflict." It's not a conflict if the conflict it opposes has already given up. A state of opposition can only exist if there is actually something left to oppose. "By finding peace, you will only spur apathy, which in time leads to aggressive hostilities. " How on earth does peace spur apathy? Peace means you can do basically whatever it iss you wanted to do back when there was a conflict over it, because those who wanted to stop you are dead or the equivalent. Apathy tends to be a defense mechanism of the DISENFRANCHISED- not those who have already won. " >> Emotional struggles do not strengthen, really? You seem like a smart guy. Emotional struggles if used correctly could lead to effective action to be victorious over conflict." Emotional struggles, by definitions, are conflicts between one's emotions, i.e., the inability to choose between them, and therefore to choose between effective actions. A SPECIFIC emotional struggle may strengthen you by preparing you for further emotional struggles, but the FACT of emotional struggles by definition weakens you. And if you think they have an "Effective use," it is no longer a struggle, because you've already made up your mind about it :D. ">> Power in and of itself. Definition: one possessing or exercising power, influence or authority" Listing synonyms is a terrible way to define things. Especially when one of those synonyms is the word itself. :D "The weak doing what they must, the Strong doing what they must. " Anyone who "must" do something is not strong. All of those you describe are weak, for they are unable to choose what they achieve. If you MUST do x, you are impotent in regards to x, i.e. it is not subject to your choice. " >> Society is the beneficiary of individuals." As I said, society is not an entity. It cannot be the beneficiary of ANYTHING, because it has no ability in and of itself to determine what a benefit is. Individuals are the beneficiaries of society, specifically the facts of trade. Not the other way around. "Pawns are always necessary. " Human pawns are not necessary if you are "strong" in and of yourself. If you have the ability to achieve your goals, you do not need to control someone else and force them to achieve them for you. " >> My opponent doesn't understand. The ROAD to gaining power is good, it makes people strong. However, when one gains power absolutely, it harbors arrogance, apathy, and unwarranted aggression." A road to anything, by definition, can only be judged in value by where it leads and how well it gets there.. If you happen to go along the road to power to "gain strength" and then make a detour just before the destination, as you seem to be advocating, you are in fact following a different road, the road to this "Strength" you speak of, which simply happens to be near the road to power. " >> lol, you take things way to much at face value." In philosophy, everything had better be reducible to something that can be taken at face value, or it has no meaning at all. "Power is not power because it has been corrupted." This is a meaningless statement. To give it the meaning you were attempting to, it would have to go like this: "What ONCE was power, is not power anymore, because it has been corrupted." Precision! Precision! And then you have to prove the corruption of course, i.e. prove that achieving a thing corrupts it, which is an absurdity all its own, if the corruption is inevitable, then the thing is inherently corrupt and always was, it just wasn't evident.