WE NEED YOUR HELP!
Please donate to keep ReaderRant online to serve political discussion and its members. (Blue Ridge Photography pays the bills for RR).
I am thinking that the hypothesis presented to us that wars are primarily motivated by economics has the logical flaw of having been, in fact, a conclusion. Which could explain why it performed so erratically in logical analysis.
A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. As such, it is a conclusion. I believe the logical flaw lies in your comment.
Quote
I am still at a loss to see the underlying economic motivation in the two war examples to which I provided links. One was the Hatfields and McCoys - that one seems to be motivated by hatred.
As I mentioned before, even hatred does not spring out of "nothing". There is usually some reason for it.
Quote
The second hasn't actually evolved into a war yet, but I thought that if we made some significant progress here, we might use what we discover to deter that war from ever starting. That issue is the threat of Kim Jong-un re: attacking the U.S. What form does the economic motivator take that provokes North Korea's saber rattling?
Oh, perhaps, economic sanctions imposed on North Korea. And why would the U.S. impose those sanctions? Well, perhaps because the end of North Korea's regime would solidify American economic allies in the region.
Quote
I do enjoy discussing topics, but sometimes it is like pulling snail's teeth to get folks to materially participate! Quibbling seems to be more popular with some.
Indeed, you should check your own comments. You may just find a clue therein.
"The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them." Lenny Bruce
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month." Dostoevsky
