...you'll find armed conflict motivations over all of human civilizations isn't "pretty simple really"

I have said in posts to this HN story and also in posts to other HN stories about similar matters that these issues are complex. Translation: I do NOT believe these issues are "pretty simple really". I have never said that either here or elsewhere.

From what I said, it ought to have been crystal clear that my comment about armed conflict were my own views and that I had no doubt about them in my own mind. I did not say that the view as presented were some universal understanding or edict. Had it been so then I've have spelt that out with references.

"2) > That's the big problem!"

The first issue is that I did not use the words just or unjust in the above post and by saying that I can only assume that you either didn't fully read what I had written and or that you hadn't read the full thread up to this point.

Nor did I reduce the idea to a single argument (I cannot conceive how you read that into what I had written). The point I was making was (and is) abundantly clear, which is that whether a political cause or action has 'legitimacy' or not is dependent on who actually holds that view—and not that that view is fixed in the firmament as if by some divine right. Like Lorentz transformations in Relativity, one's worldview depends on when and where one is standing (i.e.: one's specific circumstance).

I then went on to give you the reader a number of important—in fact, very significant—examples from history where key protagonists had a very different worldview to their [then] ruling establishments and because they were all successful winners in conflicts with their respective establishments, then their worldview ultimately prevailed, that is, over time (and for many and varied reasons), their respective positions in today's world have been 'legitimized'.

I even went as far as to ask and question whether such 'legitimization' was justified in today's world (i.e. with the para commencing: 'If we had Dr Who's Tardis and took a modern army back to restore the monarchy...').

Frankly, I do not know how I could have been clearer given the restrictions of a HN post. Sure, I acknowledge that, with time, I could have chosen my words more carefully but then I'm no Shakespeare, nor do I have his ability to paraphrase the way he does. I even plead guilty to not having properly proofread my post with sufficient rigor—hence my failing to correct the misspelling of 'century', however I'd excuse this given the fact that I was posting from a smartphone under somewhat adverse conditions.

So how pedantic should one be in submitting a post to HN? For example, given HN's international readership, should one's pedantry extend as far as having to explain the differences in spelling between British and American English and or the way hyphenations differ between both version of the language just to ensure absolute accurate interpretation by one's readers? I would certainly think not. (If you haven't already noticed, I'm guilty of intermixing both aspects of language with considerable inconsistency and indiscretion in that post, moreover I was aware of doing so at the time).

Back to my examples: each case ought to be well known to most HN readers, therefore one automatically has to make make assumptions about what the average HN reader knows about said subject matter (after all, they are responding to a story within a specific context so one has to assume they have some knowledge about the matter).

Moreover, one must assume the average HN reader has a certain (base) level of knowledge of those events, which, on average, would not be overly deep (if one had to explain the background information and history from first principles for every case then one would get endlessly bogged down in a minutiae of details. Not only would space not permit such a post but even if it did then most readers would never bother to read it.

Let's be clear about this: when posting comment about any involved matter one has no option other than to compromise and put limits upon what one has to say, and, by necessity, that significantly limits the scope and extent of what one is able to cover.

Here, even if one were truly expert and knowledgeable with respect to said events—and I'm making no such claim in respect of myself—then to cover them in sufficient detail in order that the reader would gain a full understanding of them simply isn't possible. To do so, the reader would have to study many tomes of information related to each example at an academic level, which in volume would well exceed the size of Edward Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire many times over. Furthermore, the reader would also need to be versed in political philosophy to a reasonably sophisticated level. (I say that as one who once studied the subject as a subset of the main its discipline not to mention having studied history. Even then, I would never claim great expertise in these matters). That said, in this case such level of expertise is completely unnecessary as I am only stating the undisputed historical facts (as opposed to the myriads of disputed minutiae).

Ipso facto, such in-depth understating is not necessary to comprehend the point I was making.

Moreover, lecturing detailed points to HN readers serves little purpose (although I admit that it's sometimes hard to avoid). Doing so is likely to only alienate the average HN reader as it is an insult to his or her intelligence (HN readers being smarter than most). Also, grinding points overly fine serve little purpose, if a HN reader doesn't know a particular point then there's always Wiki to fall back upon.

That said, I always try to make my posts as explicit and unambiguous as is possible, and if you look back at my past efforts then you'll find that many of them are overly long specifically for that reason.

Even then, I accept that my attempts can fail as was recently brought home to me in a big way when on the matter of a COVID issue I replied to someone who had earlier offered a critical reply to what I had posted. Unfortunately, he was one of those increasing numbers people who are completely immune to facts. In my reply I provided him with additional evidence in support of my argument by way of undisputed facts (authoritative scientific references commonly agreed upon by experts in their relevant fields) only for him to further respond to effect that I could not have made such comments unless I possessed certain wartime and pre-war German sympathies (out of politeness I will not repeat what he said herein).

As you'd expect, HN quickly deleted his comment including my very retrained reply which also included my denial of such accusations. (In my reply I also mentioned that despite his unwarranted criticism of me, I was not going to attempt to flag his comment (and I did not) – and that it should stand as is as a testament to his view.)

As I see it, if one dares to comment online then one must come to accept such unwarranted criticism from time to time.

Why is it that so often it happens that if one comments on some topic or other then others automatically assume that one's of a certain belief and or that one belongs to some group or organization? I'd suggest that this likely shows a more narrowed thinking on behalf of those responding to the comment than it does of the comment's originator.

Often, in the grand scheme of things, the unfortunate outcome is that many people self-censor themselves to avoid being criticized or being in the spotlight.

This is very undesirable as it can shut down important debate.