|
| Thread: Muslims are not terrorists |  This thread is pages long: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 20 27 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted April 09, 2008 12:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If dropping the bomb killed 100,000 Japanese and saved one American life, then it was worth it.
Let me tell you something: what if the americans were the ones who started the war? Are we gonna point fingers at the one who started this like 6-year old children do? Unless this was supposed to be sarcastic, I would find this phrase extremely racist. 
@mvassilev:
Quote:
There is no good and evil. These distinctions are made by conflicting interests and by traditions.
Ok, let's suppose there are two species, A and B. Both are 'viruses' but in different contexts.
A takes on hosts and feeds on them, so that only more A can live (sort of like some humans on the large scale). Sometimes, A even hosts on others of it's kind as well.
B on the other hand lives peaceful and lets others live too, not over-estimating or over-emphasizing it's own kind.
This is a very simplistic example of two different species. I do not find any 'ambiguity' in the above statement, so then (very basic) good or evil are defined 
Quote:
Because we are we. If viruses had a conciousness, I'd fully expect them to think that they are better than us.
Ok, let's take an example. If they didn't do that, I guess you would be pretty much like "WTF?!?". You'll then start thinking they are irrational, but why? just because they are different than you? just because they would not be as selfish as humans in this example? I'd fully say that they would be better in such a context. Because they were given the same chance as humans, but they acted differently, more 'good' (in this example). That is what makes them better. not the fact that they are viruses or we are humans.
Quote:
There's no such thing as evil. Murder is often harmful to society. Thus, it must be made harmful to the individual who commits it. Hence, the concept that "murder is evil".
Ever heard of morals? It's not just the 'everything for society' crap.
Tell me something, if person A would be given the chance to murder without being "harmful" to the society (or let's say insignificant), and this person A would NOT murder because he does not want to (even though he can), what kind of attribute would you assign to this person? I would call him good.
So you see? Good and evil are not really that relative, they can be pretty much absolute. What matters though, is not that "person A is better than B, because I say so", it's because if given equal chances, they perform different things -- one murders, the other doesn't. That's what makes each person different (and hence some 'better' than others). That's why if the enemy tortures you, doing so to them yourself would not make you any better at all.
(and please don't start with mind-related or logic-related replies like "irrational", "naive" and stuff like that, because these are even more relative than good or evil, and even more subjective, I could say the same).
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted April 09, 2008 01:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
ALL of the Americans were innocent. Japan attacked the US, so every single American life lost was Japans fault. If dropping the bomb killed 100,000 Japanese and saved one American life, then it was worth it.
Penalty applied.
Wow binabik...I really thought I know you a bit. This was pretty much unexpected, but nevertheless a hugh break against the CoC. Not sure what u had in your mind while posting this. Hope it was a "one and only" step into the wrong direction.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 09, 2008 01:43 PM |
|
|
paradoxically, the nuclear bomb prevented the carnage of the civilians that would follow the US invasion on Japan. I don't remember how many casualties in Japanese civilians were expected, but the numbers were like 10 times higher then the amount of people who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not to mention thousands of American soldiers killed in process.
So while the nuclear bomb killed thousands, it saved the lives of thousands at the same time. Weird, but it's the twisted truth.
Binabik's statement surprised me aswell.. extreme case of a flat, one-dimensional thinking "they are evil and we are good, so let's slaughter them to the last man, woman and child".. Are you from the States? Then you should know what that kind of thinking results in (Wounded Knee, anybody? How many defenseless women and children were murdered there "for general Custer", anyway?  )
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 09, 2008 01:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
paradoxically, the nuclear bomb prevented the carnage of the civilians that would follow the US invasion on Japan. I don't remember how many casualties in Japanese civilians were expected, but the numbers were like 10 times higher then the amount of people who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not to mention thousands of American soldiers killed in process.
So while the nuclear bomb killed thousands, it saved the lives of thousands at the same time. Weird, but it's the twisted truth.
I believe the bombs were used more as a tool to inspire terror
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 09, 2008 01:50 PM |
|
|
|
Well, yes. Perhaps they would achieve the same result (the Japan capitulation) by dropping it somewhere else. Who knows. It was the terror that forced them to capitulate. The psychological effect of the big mushroom is undeniable.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted April 09, 2008 01:56 PM |
|
|
Dropping two on civilian cities in quick succession...
However.
This is not the thread to discuss this...
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 09, 2008 02:02 PM |
|
|
Well, yes.
By the way, how about something related to the whole "muslim terrorists" problem.
The anti-ballistic defense US decided to build in Poland and Czech Republic.
What is it good for except from pissing Russia? The defensive system would consist of 10 (!) missiles. Yes, only ten. Even if we assume the "terrorist" have ballistic nuclear missles now (lol), what is the problem to launch 10 ballistic missiles first (without the nuclear warhead) to make the so called "shield" waste its ammo and after that, use the missile with the nuclear warhead? I believe 10 ballistic missiles without nuclear warheads aren't something impossible to get for such a rich country like Iran.. which, supposedly, is to attack the States (!?)
If they (the States) assume Iran can afford the technology to produce nuclear warheads, can't they assume Iran can afford a bunch of standard "warheadless" long range missiles as well?
I'm missing the logic behind all of this.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 09, 2008 02:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A takes on hosts and feeds on them, so that only more A can live (sort of like some humans on the large scale). Sometimes, A even hosts on others of it's kind as well.
B on the other hand lives peaceful and lets others live too, not over-estimating or over-emphasizing it's own kind.
This is a very simplistic example of two different species. I do not find any 'ambiguity' in the above statement, so then (very basic) good or evil are defined
In our society, B is seen as good and A is seen as evil. But that's because our society sees (or, at least, claims to see) peace as good. It often violates that ideal, and that too is a part of it. But I don't see any values of "good" and "evil" here. I just see one that harms others and one that doesn't.
Quote:
If they didn't do that, I guess you would be pretty much like "WTF?!?".
No. I'd just call them stupid.
Quote:
Tell me something, if person A would be given the chance to murder without being "harmful" to the society (or let's say insignificant), and this person A would NOT murder because he does not want to (even though he can), what kind of attribute would you assign to this person?
Morals are more complicated than that. Maybe, in general, person A was taught from an early age not to murder. In general, this helps society. If there are possible exceptions, they are rare, and society is often better off teaching people to ignore them and not murdering in the first place. (Of course, it's more complicated than that.)
Quote:
What matters though, is not that "person A is better than B, because I say so", it's because if given equal chances, they perform different things -- one murders, the other doesn't.
No. Person A sees not murdering as maximising his or her utility. Person B sees murder as maximising his or her utility. Maybe they're brought up differently. Maybe person B knows he or she won't get caught, and doesn't have any inhibition against murder.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 09, 2008 02:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In our society, B is seen as good and A is seen as evil. But that's because our society sees (or, at least, claims to see) peace as good. It often violates that ideal, and that too is a part of it. But I don't see any values of "good" and "evil" here. I just see one that harms others and one that doesn't.
Note also that you claim the society "sees" (or claims to see) peace as good -- while you think good and evil don't exist.
Hmm... what makes you think your point is better?
Quote:
No. I'd just call them stupid.
Ok fine then -- but "stupidity" is also subjective and relative (as much as good and evil, in your opinion, are).
Quote:
Morals are more complicated than that.
Am I supposed to write an entire book here
Quote:
Maybe, in general, person A was taught from an early age not to murder.
But who taught the very first person in the world this?
Quote:
No. Person A sees not murdering as maximising his or her utility.
If that's what you call it, but in "objective" terms how does Person A sees "not murdering" in my example maximize his or her utility? (again, he or she can't be caught, and also would be getting richer let's say from murdering!)
Quote:
Maybe they're brought up differently. Maybe person B knows he or she won't get caught, and doesn't have any inhibition against murder.
Being "brought" up is not the factor in my example -- they can have their own decisions.
But you just can't accept the fact that not all people are selfish and seek only their interests. We're not all viruses though. I can assure you though that not all people seek to "maximize" their utility. You may call them stupid (and they call you evil), but that's also just your opinion (and I thought you didn't like 'subjective' terms like good or evil, while stupidity is far more subjective).
|
|
Homam
Known Hero
Sailor of the open seas
|
|
posted April 09, 2008 02:58 PM |
|
|
About the "shield" USA want to place in Poland and Chech Republic i had heard that it's a "shield" to Iran, North Korea and Russia not any terrorists.
Well Putin doesn't want a single USA missile in his neighborhood and Europeans did support Russia instead of their nato ally USA.
I believe that with the current situation no "shield" could exist in eastern europe.France and Germany strongly said no to Bush's plan about the shield and the joining of NATO of the Former Soviet republics, Ukraine and Georgia.
They support Russia because now Europe has a lot more advantages from a good relationship with Russia rather than USA.Russia gives energy to europe and Russia is our neighborhood.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted April 09, 2008 06:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Binabik's statement surprised me aswell.. extreme case of a flat, one-dimensional thinking "they are evil and we are good, so let's slaughter them to the last man, woman and child"..
I was surprised too, seriously Binabik? what planet are you from, Planet KKK, Planet Patriot, Planet all-american heroes? what?
Quote:
Are you from the States?
Really doomforge, I thought the answer to that would be clearly "yes", since it was only in the past year has he been saying how the bush admin has screwed up america.
Quote:
Then you should know what that kind of thinking results in (Wounded Knee, anybody? How many defenseless women and children were murdered there "for general Custer", anyway? )
yeah, he does, just as long at it doesn't happen to him he doesn't mind using it.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 09, 2008 10:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Note also that you claim the society "sees" (or claims to see) peace as good -- while you think good and evil don't exist.
OK, it was bad word choice on my part. What I meant was, is that society sees people not murdering as a more positive thing to it as a whole.
Quote:
But who taught the very first person in the world this?
You don't see wolves just randomly trying to kill each other at whim. You don't see monkeys doing it either. So, to a cetrain extent, it's innate.
Quote:
If that's what you call it, but in "objective" terms how does Person A sees "not murdering" in my example maximize his or her utility?
Because they might have a moral hangover if they did. Society teaches people not to murder (in most cases). They are conditioned not to (usually).
Quote:
I can assure you though that not all people seek to "maximize" their utility.
What you seem to be confusing here is utility and basic material happienss.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Ecoris
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 09, 2008 10:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
extreme case of a flat, one-dimensional thinking "they are evil and we are good, so let's slaughter them to the last man, woman and child".. Are you from the States? Then you should know what that kind of thinking results in (Wounded Knee, anybody? How many defenseless women and children were murdered there "for general Custer", anyway? )
I would find this very offensive if someone wrote this to me.
I would also expect a more precise reason than "hugh break against the CoC" for getting a penalty.
But I would most of all like to hear what Binabik really meant, but it seems people can't behave when someone posts a controversial opinion (which he has the right to have).
____________
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted April 09, 2008 10:14 PM |
|
|
My two cents:
About generliztions:
Why do we say israely that,palastine that? jewish here..We are all humane end of story.
Inneccents in war:
No such thing.
A solider who is not relucnted to take arms to kill another humane being justifed the reason might be ,IS NOT innecent.
100,000 japanise worth lifes of a 100,000 americans,wait,do you see what we do? We value huamne life?!
Life has no value! It's the only senctified thing i know and belive in.
Every day goes i lust for peace in here,Do you think i want war? pay back and stuff yeah everyone wants to blaim everyone,when will we say I am to balim,it is MY fault? when? When all confess in that thats when we know we have achived world peace.and untill then,we are all to die.
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 09, 2008 10:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A solider who is not relucnted to take arms to kill another humane being justifed the reason might be ,IS NOT innecent.
But you have to consider that they've had the nonsensical dogma of patriotism drilled into them.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted April 09, 2008 10:38 PM |
|
|
Does that make a diffrence or makes them innocent?
If i tell you to murder you neighboor becouse [insert random propaganda here] and you will , will that make you innocent?Will that be okay?
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
Homam
Known Hero
Sailor of the open seas
|
|
posted April 09, 2008 10:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
My two cents:
About generliztions:
Why do we say israely that,palastine that? jewish here..We are all humane end of story.
Inneccents in war:
No such thing.
A solider who is not relucnted to take arms to kill another humane being justifed the reason might be ,IS NOT innecent.
100,000 japanise worth lifes of a 100,000 americans,wait,do you see what we do? We value huamne life?!
Life has no value! It's the only senctified thing i know and belive in.
Every day goes i lust for peace in here,Do you think i want war? pay back and stuff yeah everyone wants to blaim everyone,when will we say I am to balim,it is MY fault? when? When all confess in that thats when we know we have achived world peace.and untill then,we are all to die.
Yeah in your theoritical thinking you've right.But you want peace very much in your place and i'm pretty sure you do.But do u want peace more than your house for example?Do u think your government could make peace with palestine and give some lands back?Or do u want peace and keep the lands for your nation?
You think terrorists as bloody murderers but think.Terrorists were "human" that they had no choice.You kill them they kill you.Violence brings more violence.An eye for an eye isn't refered only to Jews
"עין תחת עין "
Or you consider your government as insane that kills palestinians everyday not only terrorists but innocents.
It's the reality and never would be peace in this world.Never existed peace.Why the things have to change now.They won't and we can't do much.
And about generalizations.Generalizations are right and have a point. Generalization makes the difference world wide.Let the individual for psychologists.Who cares if you are a "good" or a "bad" person.What israelites do right now won't change.Is it a generalization that i used the word "israelites"?Did i offend you?What was the right word to use?Israel's government or israel's army?The same for all the nations. We don't like generalizations in "bad" things but we want generalizations in good things right?I'm not talking about you specifically now, it's a "general" question 
We all are different individually but we all are same in general.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 10, 2008 12:54 AM |
|
|
Quote:
If i tell you to murder you neighboor becouse [insert random propaganda here] and you will , will that make you innocent?
No. But they alone can't be blamed for it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
roy-algriffin
Supreme Hero
Chocolate ice cream zealot
|
|
posted April 10, 2008 01:57 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And about generalizations.Generalizations are right and have a point. Generalization makes the difference world wide.Let the individual for psychologists.Who cares if you are a "good" or a "bad" person.What israelites do right now won't change.Is it a generalization that i used the word "israelites"?Did i offend you?What was the right word to use?Israel's government or israel's army?The same for all the nations. We don't like generalizations in "bad" things but we want generalizations in good things right?I'm not talking about you specifically now, it's a "general" question
I think you dont understand the scope of generalizations. Its not something that IS or exists because of itself. If your Isreali Your Isreali thats not a generalization, Just as saying being evil isnt a generalization, generalizations tend to be more of a A = B thing, Almost always , generalizations are why there is any conflict at all in the world. If that didnt exist then wed be a lot closer to being peaceful, Not there. But closer.
Generalizations are if i say that you are blonde haired, you are stupid. Would you call that a "right" generalization with a "point"? because its one of the worst prejiduces of modern times. It leads to a lot of people being offended. Are some blondes stupid? undoubtebdly. But are all? almost definatly not. But if you think that it doesnt affect things you are very wrong.
____________
"Am i a demon? No im a priest of the light! THE BLOODY RED LIGHT"
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 10, 2008 11:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I would find this very offensive if someone wrote this to me.
What's so offensive in my response, the fact that Binabik's opinion was one-dimensional? What do you expect from me to say, when someone says 100,000 Japanese men should die if it saved one American?
Or is it offensive that I brought the subject of Wounded Knee? Well, trust me, the Americans don't like the subject, but does it mean we should evade it? It was the same thinking : that all Indians are BAD and the US military should kill them ALL in order to prevent ANYTHING that they could eventually do.. including women and children.. what's so offensive in it? ~~ That I stated the fact? And since when facts are offensive?
Quote:
But I would most of all like to hear what Binabik really meant, but it seems people can't behave when someone posts a controversial opinion (which he has the right to have).
I think that what he meant was crystal clear.
Quote:
ALL of the Americans were innocent. Japan attacked the US, so every single American life lost was Japans fault. If dropping the bomb killed 100,000 Japanese and saved one American life, then it was worth it.
Is there something ambiguous in his sentence? I can't find a thing.
We can't behave? Quite lol. Of course we behave, do you see anyone flaming him? We're just saying it is wrong. Unless you find nothing bad in his opinion, that is, but that's not very nice of you, man..
|
| |
|
|
