A cartoon
-
Aha, here lies the problem. I don't consider Israel 'they' I consider them 'we'. You would too, if you had any comprehension of the ideology of our enemies.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
By the same token, somebody from, for instance, Indonesia, might say "I don't consider Islam 'they' I consider them 'we'" And they might also say "You would too, if you had any comprehension of the ideology of our enemies" Strange how words can be easily manipulated.
-
From your own viewpoint you are making a moral judgement on the morality of others. Which may be an immoral judgement from somebody elses viewpoint. But from an outsiders' viewpoint, whose viewpoint is right ?
espeir wrote:
I'm stating that in war you don't squabble over whether you're more or less moral than your enemy because they will kill you as you ponder. Everybody knows that war is fraught with immoral acts. However, sometimes it's necessary in order to preserve a moral way of life.
I understand fully your comments.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
From your own viewpoint you are making a moral judgement on the morality of others. Which may be an immoral judgement from somebody elses viewpoint. But from an outsiders' viewpoint, whose viewpoint is right ?
Clap....Clap....Clap. That's the whole basis of moral relativism...That there is no right, only our personal viewpoints of it. I'm telling you that there is right and there is wrong and our biases cause us to see situations incorrectly. However, I'm also saying that if you apply moral relativism in war, then you will quickly be naturally selected out of the population.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
It just goes to show how insidious the Soapbox is: I've now spent so much time on here today that I'll probably have to work late to catch up. And, therefore, please feel free to take that honour for yourself. I have just got to do some work! (Stoopid NHibernate/HQL).
home
bookmarks You can ignore relatives but the neighbours live next door -
huh?
Bombing innocent civilians was certainly the solution when it came to getting him.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
viaduct wrote:
One can be strongly against the actions of the State of Israel without being anti-Israel, anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic.
that is pure crap. put as much energy into anti-Hizbolluh rhetoric and your opinion would have some validity.
Mike Dear NYT - the fact is, the founding fathers hung traitors. dennisd45 wrote: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced
I think you are missing the point. Israel is a country, we expect it to act according to human rights etc, and atleast try to minimize the civilian losses. we all know that Hizbolluh are terrorists and no one here expects them to try to act as good as possible. I think you, digital man , Stan & CO , fails to see this. Most of us do hate the terrorists and think they are fuckers. But since Israel is one of "us", we expect Istrael to behave a bit better. If some fuckhead punches my brother in his face, I dont expect him to go home to the fuckhead and kill his family.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
From your own viewpoint you are making a moral judgement on the morality of others. Which may be an immoral judgement from somebody elses viewpoint. But from an outsiders' viewpoint, whose viewpoint is right ?
Clap....Clap....Clap. That's the whole basis of moral relativism...That there is no right, only our personal viewpoints of it. I'm telling you that there is right and there is wrong and our biases cause us to see situations incorrectly. However, I'm also saying that if you apply moral relativism in war, then you will quickly be naturally selected out of the population.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
However, I'm also saying that if you apply moral relativism in war, then you will quickly be naturally selected out of the population
So Espeir, can I assume that, the bombing of Heifa and the bombing of Beirut, it is neither morally right nor morally wrong. The viewpoint is irrelevant.
-
Once again the cry of Anti-Semitism goes up. One can be strongly against the actions of the State of Israel without being anti-Israel, anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic. Too often the accusation of anti-semitism has been used to shout down legitimate complaints about the actions of the State of Israel. The actions of the Nazis in WW2 was anti-semitic; suggesting that rocketing a clearly-marked ambulance is wrong, is definitely not. Israel as a whole needs to learn to understand that people can complain about its actions without being anti-semitic, and not to use people's post-Holocaust fear of being labelled "anti-semitic" as a shield.
Asynes yw brassa ages kwilkynyow.
viaduct wrote:
Once again the cry of Anti-Semitism goes up. One can be strongly against the actions of the State of Israel without being anti-Israel, anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic.
Of course you can. I know some Jews who are against the actions of Israel. I'm not against Israel and I understand their reaction, but I don't like the way they react and I know this way won't lead to peace. If they drop more bombs in the way they do, there will be more terrorists. Look at Rabin, he was on a point where it was almost peace. Some more years and the whole situation could have changed. But he was killed and while all the politician who came after him react in another way, more terrorists are activated. Regards, Ingo
------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
By the same token, somebody from, for instance, Indonesia, might say "I don't consider Islam 'they' I consider them 'we'" And they might also say "You would too, if you had any comprehension of the ideology of our enemies" Strange how words can be easily manipulated.
Not manipulated at all. That's how it is. I'm a relativist too, but not a nihilist. I will fight for my subjective truth.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
espeir wrote:
Did dennisd45 really write that?
yes he did. amazing.
Mike Dear NYT - the fact is, the founding fathers hung traitors. dennisd45 wrote: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced
Anyone's world view is more nuanced than both of yours. ;P
-
Very well put. Problem is it won't matter what Israel does the anti-Semites will always find fault. Yes, they'll deny it and say they're not anti-Semitic, just anti-Israel so we won't be offended by their ignorance. Nothing will ever change so we're wasting our breath and energy to try to persaude people whose minds are closed. It might be better (for whatever reason) in the US but Europe is now and always has been rife with anti-semitism and as Europe slides inexroably towards becoming a muslim state it will only get worse. The strange thing is I think most people see it but no one will do anything about it. Now, fat_punk, that is bizarre and it's happening now.
home
bookmarks You can ignore relatives but the neighbours live next doorIt is the kind of propaganda that makes things even worse. Cut the bullshit and start thinking about the REAL cause of this. Or maybe your brain is surrounded by a bozone layer preventing logic from getting in.
-------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
Bombing innocent civilians was certainly the solution when it came to getting him.
Thank God for disproportional force.
If I'm not mistaken, the bombing of german civilians was just a retaliation on an "eye for an eye"-basis for what Hitler did to London. Did it really have that much of an impact on the outcome?
-
Bombing innocent civilians was certainly the solution when it came to getting him.
Thank God for disproportional force.
In WW2 the enemy was Hitler, defeat him and the war was won. Here the enemy is not a person or government that can be defeated the same way. Hitler could give up once he saw that he had no more resources or men. This enenemy is an idea that isreael should not exist, how the hell can you bomb that enemy away?
-
Presumably, if you cannot be moral them you must be immoral. Unless you think otherwise.
-
Bombing innocent civilians was certainly the solution when it came to getting him.
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Bombing innocent civilians was certainly the solution when it came to getting him.
That is interesting, isn't it? The "civilized world" is supposed to adhere to some sort of politically correct warfare whilst the primitive vermin can whale away indiscriminately - lobbing uncontrollable rockets into population centers (without international criticism).
Mike Dear NYT - the fact is, the founding fathers hung traitors. dennisd45 wrote: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced
-
espeir wrote:
However, I'm also saying that if you apply moral relativism in war, then you will quickly be naturally selected out of the population
So Espeir, can I assume that, the bombing of Heifa and the bombing of Beirut, it is neither morally right nor morally wrong. The viewpoint is irrelevant.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
So Espeir, can I assume that, the bombing of Heifa and the bombing of Beirut, it is neither morally right nor morally wrong.
Only if you assume incorrectly.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
The viewpoint is irrelevant.
This contradicts your first statement. The viewpoint would have to be relevant in order for the first assumption to be correct. I'm stating that it's irrelevant. There is moral truth in there which is especially difficult to discern given our own biases. That difficulty does not denote that that moral relativism is valid. But that's kind of besides the point. My point is that there are conflicting interests in the region that operate independently of moral consideration which can only be resolved through war.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
I think you are missing the point. Israel is a country, we expect it to act according to human rights etc, and atleast try to minimize the civilian losses. we all know that Hizbolluh are terrorists and no one here expects them to try to act as good as possible. I think you, digital man , Stan & CO , fails to see this. Most of us do hate the terrorists and think they are fuckers. But since Israel is one of "us", we expect Istrael to behave a bit better. If some fuckhead punches my brother in his face, I dont expect him to go home to the fuckhead and kill his family.
Roger J wrote:
fails to see this.
We don't fail to see anything. The problem is those who criticize overt offensive operations against terrorists have no alternatives. Ultimately, you guys are saying that as long as innocent civilians are in the line of fire, nothing at all can be done. Which is precisely why the terrorists hide behind the innocent civilians. The situation today is no different at all from what we confronted during WWII. If you are going to defeat the bad guys, you are going to have to go through the innocent civilians to get to them.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
It just never comes across that way and I think you are being terribly naive if you believe that anyone who critices Israel is not also anti-Semtic. In my experience (and I've had a lot) I've never met an anti-Israeli who wasn't also an anti-Semite. And why the need to be 'anti-Israel? Why not support her as she fights to defend herself from terrorism? Or are you against the tenet of self-defence in the face of an enemy hell-bent on exterminating you?
home
bookmarks You can ignore relatives but the neighbours live next doordigital man wrote:
I think you are being terribly naive if you believe that anyone who critices Israel is not also anti-Semtic.
I think you are being terribly naive if you think the opposite. I am against the actions of China in Tibet without being anti the Chinese people or their country's right to exist. Having the might to defend yourself also burdens you with the requirement to use that power responsibly when faced with those weaker than you. If you think that anyone who criticises Israel is anti-semitic, then how will anyone ever be able to say anything against what they do? Do you want Israel to have carte blanche to do whatever they like against their neighbours?
"He's got a lot on his mind, and it's not a load-bearing structure." - John Weak
-
Anyone's world view is more nuanced than both of yours. ;P
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Anyone's world view is more nuanced than both of yours.
absolutely. there's only two views, right and wrong.
Mike Dear NYT - the fact is, the founding fathers hung traitors. dennisd45 wrote: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced
-
viaduct wrote:
Once again the cry of Anti-Semitism goes up. One can be strongly against the actions of the State of Israel without being anti-Israel, anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic.
Of course you can. I know some Jews who are against the actions of Israel. I'm not against Israel and I understand their reaction, but I don't like the way they react and I know this way won't lead to peace. If they drop more bombs in the way they do, there will be more terrorists. Look at Rabin, he was on a point where it was almost peace. Some more years and the whole situation could have changed. But he was killed and while all the politician who came after him react in another way, more terrorists are activated. Regards, Ingo
------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
ihoecken wrote:
Look at Rabin, he was on a point where it was almost peace.
Arafat takes most of the blame for that - he was lying through his teeth. http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=3&x_outlet=17&x_article=175[^]
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
Very well put. Problem is it won't matter what Israel does the anti-Semites will always find fault. Yes, they'll deny it and say they're not anti-Semitic, just anti-Israel so we won't be offended by their ignorance. Nothing will ever change so we're wasting our breath and energy to try to persaude people whose minds are closed. It might be better (for whatever reason) in the US but Europe is now and always has been rife with anti-semitism and as Europe slides inexroably towards becoming a muslim state it will only get worse. The strange thing is I think most people see it but no one will do anything about it. Now, fat_punk, that is bizarre and it's happening now.
home
bookmarks You can ignore relatives but the neighbours live next doordigital man wrote:
Yes, they'll deny it and say they're not anti-Semitic, just anti-Israel so we won't be offended by their ignorance.
Did you know that "semite" actually denotes a family of peoples, including israelis and arabs? And by the way, you're wrong. But then again, you were just trolling.