bikerdruid
Philosopher
evasion noted.
Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.
- Thread starter Virus
- Start date
evasion noted.
It's not evasion. It's the obvious truth. The moral blame for the deaths in Gaza is Hamas, much like the moral blame for the deaths in WWII is Germany's. In the conflict between Hamas and Israel, you take the side of the holocaust-denying genocidal terrorists. Why?
Cobalt
Tobikan Judan
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,685
Is it reasonable to deliberately use innocent civilians as human shields?
Is violence reasonable?
Is violence reasonable? Ask Churchill, FDR, or the German resistance -- all of whom used violence against the Nazis; ask any woman who defended herself from rape using pepper spray -- violently attacking the rapist.
Violence is often not only reasonable, but necessary, for instance when defending oneself against murderous folks who want to genocide you, like Hamas wants to do to the Jews.
Violence is often not only reasonable, but necessary, for instance when defending oneself against murderous folks who want to genocide you, like Hamas wants to do to the Jews.
Cobalt
Tobikan Judan
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,685
I suppose it depends on the circumstances. If someone throws a punch at me for whatever reason, I've no qualms about defending myself to the best of my ability. I also have a sense of use of force. If someone throws a punch at me, I'll defend myself, but not with a gun.
And if, for some reason, I threw a punch at someone else, I can't be appalled when they decide to throw one back.
Last edited:
Joey McGee
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 10,307
Actually war will be over once we get rid of all the idiots who punch people for no reason. Cool people like to hang out together and it's in their best interests to gang up on the stupid guy.
South Korea already has the plans in place for when they topple Jong-il's statues, they are excited.
The cool people will win.
How do you decide who are idiots and who are not?
What is a good reason to punch someone?
Joey McGee
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 10,307
We already have a function for deciding who the idiots are, it is called the international community of politicians and lawyers. They use variations on the science of morality which is not that complicated unless you are religious or an ideologue. Case in point, the best countries to live in are the least ideological and the most democratic and pragmatic (where it counts)
The people who have all the explaining to do are the people who think it's somehow hard to tell the bad guys from the good guys. It's almost like the weakest possible incarnation of the Devil's Advocate.
A good reason to punch someone is to prevent further suffering. There are a lot of ways you can work that.
Which "least ideological", "most democratic", "pragmatic" countries do you have in mind?
Would you include the the US military is your list of violent idiots? If not, why not?
Joey McGee
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 10,307
These are leading questions, no? Why don't you just save us the trouble and make your point of why many Western countries don't live up to those qualities and the US is a violent idiot?
Go to the 2005 The Economist quality of life index. Take the top 15 countries, compare them all together. Now take (probably and almost) any other group of 15 countries on that list together and they will not have as much overlap as the top 15 do together. The overlap is all at the top, why? Because they are using the same method, human brains examining facts about reality looking for ways to improve well-being. It's bloody simple. They find a way to do it.
We need to have clearer thinking, better evidence and work together. It's the people who think they already have all the answers (it has been revealed to them) that are holding us back. Them and the people who think they can "read the writing on the wall" (the crackpots who drain society worse than crackheads). So that's really the problem, arguing the history and stories that we tell each back and forth used to be how the people solved problems when we lived outside and fought with rocks and sticks. Times are different, we can stack the facts sky high and rely only basically on arguments from reason. This development has not caught up with some of our more rabid and obsessed political adversaries.
bikerdruid
Philosopher
if that is meant to answer this question,
Would you include the the US military is your list of violent idiots? If not, why not?
....then this is, at very best, a politicians answer.....
what's wrong....afraid to commit?
Joey McGee
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 10,307
if that is meant to answer this question,
Would you include the the US military is your list of violent idiots? If not, why not?
....then this is, at very best, a politicians answer.....
what's wrong....afraid to commit?
You're the one with the problem. I called it a leading question and refused to answer it what the hell kind of question is that and who cares? It doesn't matter how I answer it, the purpose of it is to get me to say something that will give JJ a chance to criticize me and get into a long diatribe. I refuse to engage in this nonsense. What is your definition range of "violent idiots"? What time period? In what capacity? See? That would be ridiculous.
I don't do long diatribes.
I asked you the question because I'm trying to understand where you're coming from by encouraging you to substantiate abstract statements such as "Actually war will be over once we get rid of all the idiots who punch people for no reason."
Who are the idiots? How are they identified?
Joey McGee
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 10,307
It means just what it says. Once we kill all of the bad guys the world will be much more relaxed. Once we kill Gaddafi, N. Korea falls apart and Iran is no longer a threat what's left, the jihadists? That's the plan, create peace on earth after we kill all of the idiots and building positive memes in their place aren't you part of this effort?
And we have legal frameworks for placing groups on terrorist lists or declaring them enemies of the state based on objective harm to human beings, it's very simple. I don't agree with every detail of international law but it's really actually pretty good stuff, having been worked on by millions of people over a few centuries, it's reached a certain level of usefulness and reliability.
Last edited:
Toontown
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 6,595
if that is meant to answer this question,
Would you include the the US military is your list of violent idiots? If not, why not?
....then this is, at very best, a politicians answer.....
what's wrong....afraid to commit?
Bikers are on my list of violent idiots. Motorcyclists have killed thousands of innocent children. For no reason other than negligence and recklessness, which makes the bikers' slaughter of innocents even more despicable.
It is not at all surprising that the communists today tend to support the Islamists.
Both ideologies are totalitarian, and thus appeal to those who, in the words of Erich Fromm, need to "escape from freedom" and have someone else (either Marx or Muhammad) determine THE TRUTH(tm) for them.
What both can't stand is the common enemy: liberal (in both the economic and social sense) democracy.
Both ideologies are totalitarian, and thus appeal to those who, in the words of Erich Fromm, need to "escape from freedom" and have someone else (either Marx or Muhammad) determine THE TRUTH(tm) for them.
What both can't stand is the common enemy: liberal (in both the economic and social sense) democracy.
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,494
That's 1 person killed for every 5 rockets Hamas launched into Israel before Operation Cast Lead. The Qassam II heavy artillery rocket is six feet long, weights 200 pounds at launch and carries a 20 pound high explosive warhead.
Yes, that is completely reasonable.
Captain.Sassy
Master Poster
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2009
- Messages
- 2,236
http://www.innercitypress.com/imfsri1chomsky072309.html
UNITED NATIONS, July 23 -- During the UN's July 23 debate on Responsibility to Protect, Inner City Press asked Noam Chomsky if he thought the concept of R to P applied to or had been implemented in Sri Lanka this year. No, Chomsky said, calling what happened an "atrocity."
He said the Western powers just didn't have enough interest, although something "could have been done." He analogized it to Rwanda, both the genocide in 1994 and the lead-up, including with "structural adjustment," in the 1970s. Video here, from 22:35.