Oh Sh*t, Here We Go (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter Bjerknes
- Start date
People stil larguing about the word noble 
For that first part, ever heard of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? I suggest you look into it.
How do you know that would still be the case? Suicide bombers are extremists, lead by religion. Do you really think they still wouldn't do shit like that even if their place hadn't been invaded? There's countries where culture begins to change. A certain few don't like that and decide to attack the country they feel is the most influential for that change.
Hutzilopochtli is not impressed.
Action/reaction? What kind of reaction is suicide bombing? Or flying planes into buildings?
And I can't think of a government people don't speak badly of. Maybe in countries like Canada and Norway or whatever but in that case the people are the ones who need fixing.
For that first part, ever heard of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? I suggest you look into it.
How do you know that would still be the case? Suicide bombers are extremists, lead by religion. Do you really think they still wouldn't do shit like that even if their place hadn't been invaded? There's countries where culture begins to change. A certain few don't like that and decide to attack the country they feel is the most influential for that change.
Hutzilopochtli is not impressed.
Action/reaction? What kind of reaction is suicide bombing? Or flying planes into buildings?
And I can't think of a government people don't speak badly of. Maybe in countries like Canada and Norway or whatever but in that case the people are the ones who need fixing.
The former has absolutely nothing to do with self defense, and is just as bad as invading another country.
No one said that all American soldiers are blood hounds who enjoy killing, but they all know what they're signing up for which on forehand implies that they've got their conscience cleared when it comes to the potential killing of civilians.
Why would suicide bombers be motivated by religious zeal?
http://www.google.dk/url?sa=t&rct=j...hIC4Dg&usg=AFQjCNHQ2Dn8VD7fqxjChlpGhw-Uf1J2Aw
Robert Pape on "The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism", I doubt that you're going to read the whole thing but the majority of suicide bombers come outside the countries, from educated middle classes. When you don't have the funds nor manpower to conjure up an army that can compete with the US one - what alternatives do you have?
What culture? The culture bit of your post is on AC levels of vagueness.
[/quote]
Again, what other option do they have if they want to influence events? They can't join an army because no country is foolish enough to confront the US army in an open form of warfare. When you break down the argument further: why wouldn't a Palestinian from the Gaza strip blow himself up? What prospects does he have? No citizenship, so he can't leave the Gaza strip and pursuit a better life somewhere else. Absolutely no prospects by staying there, the only thing he can look forward to is a Israeli bulldozer tearing down his house once the boarder comes to his area. I'm not saying that it's right, I'm in no way a Hamas sympathizer, but Hamas do offer economic and practical help for the families of "martyrs". So you're the oldest sibling in a family of 5-9 and you can guarantee some sort of life for your family if you strap yourself up and blow up the people who are imprisoning you, why not? It's up to the Israeli occupation to do something about it, since they and their continued illegal expanding that is causing the problem.
really, based on the post I just quoted I can't say that it touches me much
Why would suicide bombers be motivated by religious zeal?
http://www.google.dk/url?sa=t&rct=j...hIC4Dg&usg=AFQjCNHQ2Dn8VD7fqxjChlpGhw-Uf1J2Aw
Robert Pape on "The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism", I doubt that you're going to read the whole thing but the majority of suicide bombers come outside the countries, from educated middle classes. When you don't have the funds nor manpower to conjure up an army that can compete with the US one - what alternatives do you have?
What culture? The culture bit of your post is on AC levels of vagueness.
[/quote]
Again, what other option do they have if they want to influence events? They can't join an army because no country is foolish enough to confront the US army in an open form of warfare. When you break down the argument further: why wouldn't a Palestinian from the Gaza strip blow himself up? What prospects does he have? No citizenship, so he can't leave the Gaza strip and pursuit a better life somewhere else. Absolutely no prospects by staying there, the only thing he can look forward to is a Israeli bulldozer tearing down his house once the boarder comes to his area. I'm not saying that it's right, I'm in no way a Hamas sympathizer, but Hamas do offer economic and practical help for the families of "martyrs". So you're the oldest sibling in a family of 5-9 and you can guarantee some sort of life for your family if you strap yourself up and blow up the people who are imprisoning you, why not? It's up to the Israeli occupation to do something about it, since they and their continued illegal expanding that is causing the problem.
really, based on the post I just quoted I can't say that it touches me much
Trololol
Arguing something that can't be proven is futile. Might as well just say anyone who owns a weapon in the world is morally defunct. By purchasing such an item you're entering in a moral contract in which someday you might just kill somebody. So obviously you believe killing to be okay.
Just cause you believe a choice to be morally defunct don't make it so. Especially when you ain't got the gumption to walk in those shoes. How can you assume what is and what isn't morally good or bad when you've never been to the crossroads? Truth is, 95% of the time you're wrong and someone else is right.
Just cause you think in circles, don't mean there's a hole in the room. Correlation and Causation ain't always cousins, sometimes they just neighbors. Man is a complex creature, you try and pigeon-hole him and a bird gets shot. Can't judge a dope fiend if you never had no cloudy piss.
In short, your ideals is wrong. Always has been, always will be. It's the way of the world. And ain't that a shame.
I'm sorry to disappoint but your post was stacked with flaws and not thorough enough to make it a worthy discussion of flaws in the "general" (?) argument. What is the general argument, what is wrong with it?
"specially when you ain't got the gumption to walk in those shoes"
and
" Can't judge a dope fiend if you never had no cloudy piss."
in particular are obvious baits, and surely that's not your real opinion on the matter.
"specially when you ain't got the gumption to walk in those shoes"
and
" Can't judge a dope fiend if you never had no cloudy piss."
in particular are obvious baits, and surely that's not your real opinion on the matter.
First off, I would like you commend your attempt to weight your point with emotional bias. Well played sir.
If we generalize everything the entire world would end up as "immoral" would it not? We know acts of violence to be contrary to normalcy, therefore we assume they are wrong. However, if we examine the "prizefighter" a man or woman who actively engages in violent behavior with possibly may result in death. We don't declare this person to be bad or immoral. This is simply because he enters into a contract to fight as does the other participant. Is that not what war is?
If we generalize everything the entire world would end up as "immoral" would it not? We know acts of violence to be contrary to normalcy, therefore we assume they are wrong. However, if we examine the "prizefighter" a man or woman who actively engages in violent behavior with possibly may result in death. We don't declare this person to be bad or immoral. This is simply because he enters into a contract to fight as does the other participant. Is that not what war is?
First off, I would like you commend your attempt to weight your point with emotional bias. Well played sir.
What? The entire population of the world does not participate in killing, so it's quite easy to draw the line between those who do (minority) and those who don't.
By that logic driving a car was wrong until it became popular enough to be right. We don't "assume" they are wrong because they are not normal, but because they cause harm. And it's not an assumption, as if this is a question we have to guess the answer to, it's a judgment we make.
No, that's not what war is.
Gordon on a massive trolling spree, what the hell is up?
1) I was just commenting on how you wrote torture and killing as if they are inclusive. As if everyone that is killed, is also tortured. However we know that not to be true.
2) Killing is not the only way to judge whether something is immoral or moral. I was speaking to the greater "general" context of morality. However, we all attribute to death in some form or another. Whether is the products we buy, or the this we protest or do not protest. Actions or inactions, etc.
3) If you have to guess an answer, then you are making an assumption. Morality is not strictly limited to one place in time or one culture. It changes as society changes. So yes, at one point in time driving a car was wrong because in infringed on those that drove buggies. When enough people drove cars, it was no longer an issue.
4) Sure it is. Granted the stakes are higher, but don't soldiers from either side sign up to do the same thing?
5) Disagreeing with you isn't trolling. If I were attacking you personally or something like that I could understand you grievance. I merely have a completely different view of morality and killing than you do. It comes from the fact that we come from two entirely different households and cultures. I believe that a person can join military and still be a good person.
Simply being unable to understand something doesn't make it offensive.
2) Killing is not the only way to judge whether something is immoral or moral. I was speaking to the greater "general" context of morality. However, we all attribute to death in some form or another. Whether is the products we buy, or the this we protest or do not protest. Actions or inactions, etc.
3) If you have to guess an answer, then you are making an assumption. Morality is not strictly limited to one place in time or one culture. It changes as society changes. So yes, at one point in time driving a car was wrong because in infringed on those that drove buggies. When enough people drove cars, it was no longer an issue.
4) Sure it is. Granted the stakes are higher, but don't soldiers from either side sign up to do the same thing?
5) Disagreeing with you isn't trolling. If I were attacking you personally or something like that I could understand you grievance. I merely have a completely different view of morality and killing than you do. It comes from the fact that we come from two entirely different households and cultures. I believe that a person can join military and still be a good person.
Simply being unable to understand something doesn't make it offensive.
