Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Catloaf]

Really, because he's always come off as a bit of a dick to me, even when he's breaking down other people's stupid arguments.  As he feels the need to make an argument where there isn't one.  Or I might be thinking of someone else...

If someone's looking for an argument, and they're making a bad one sure, but making an argument out of a comment that was obviously written while half asleep and not looking for an argument at all that's not immensely stupid--stating something that is unarguably wrong or mislead--is just being a dick.

When I look at the world, I see the number of stupid, ignorant, corrupt, and out-right malevolent outnumber the number of people who consciously try to make the world a better place and have actually thought about how one might do so.  I thoughtlessly make a comment stating as such, and he feels the need to turn it into an argument based on the particular wording, which I stupidly exacerbate by trying to elaborate without realizing exactly what was going on, which is that I was going to be made an even bigger fool for not having thought out and thoroughly researched my personal observation.

I know pacifism doesn't actually work to solve much, but it's the only thing that logically works to hold a firm moral stance as anything else would be poked full of even more holes ala 'so this is okay, but this isn't!?' bullshit that isn't actually convincing anyone of anything other than putting me down and shoving one's own cock further down one's throat while accusing the rest of sucking eachother's cocks for not joining in to make it a full-fledged lynching.

It's fine if you're actually using it to teach someone something, but if you're just using someone as a punching bag it's being a dick.  This wasn't an argument over a point, this was 'look at how stupid this fucker is'!!

[Kashan]

I think one of the problems you're having here is you're assuming a rules based ethical system rather than a consequences based one.

[Norondor]

Paco Knows About History. He was a classics major iirc (?)

If you go ahead and say stuff about the past, he's liable to know that you're wrong.

[Misha]

If someone's looking for an argument, and they're making a bad one sure, but making an argument out of a comment that was obviously written while half asleep and not looking for an argument at all that's not immensely stupid--stating something that is unarguably wrong or mislead--is just being a dick.

Am I the only one that really hates when someone makes a stupid post on the forum and then as soon as everyone jumps on them for it comes back and says "I clearly didn't really mean that, you should've read my mind and not responded to it"?

I know pacifism doesn't actually work to solve much, but it's the only thing that logically works to hold a firm moral stance

This is just dumb. It's very easy to make logically consistent moral frameworks that are not pacifist. For example, never attack anyone unless they are attacking you. There we go. a basic moral tenet that still provides for aggressive behavior. Obviously that's simplified almost to the point of absurdity, but everything from there is just adding more complicated rules.

[Detonator]

I really think you should stop posting on this board Catloaf.

[Mongrel]

Yeah, exactly. I'm pretty dang anti-violence myself, but sometimes you have to act, and sometimes the only action available to you is a violent reaction. If we just laid down like a gaggle of limp-wristed Polandies in WWII we'd have a pretty shit deal going on right about now.

How does pacifism see the just succeed against the fanatical?

THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN HEE-YAH, Catloaf, no furthah

Poland actually fought pretty damned hard in 1939, bragh.

[Pacobird]

Purely for the sake of argument, there's a point to be made that even active resistance to aggression through violence (military defense against invasion, insurgency/revolution, etc.) is morally indistinguishable from the attack itself because it equally contributes to the resultant suffering.  For instance, whether violent resistance to American occupation of Iraq was done for the right reasons or not, it definitely resulted in way more death and destruction than if the Iraqis had just rolled over, and really, what good is liberty if the homeland you've defended has become a charnel house?

Not that I necessarily agree with that point, though I'm willing to grant its premise that Hitler was a radical outlier and can't be considered the historical standard for aggressive conquerors.  Still, even in that context I think it's really obtuse and unfair how popular culture laughs off France for surrendering to Hitler, considering they lost like 5 million people the first time around.

[Mothra]

I guess I see Iraq in a slightly different way because it wasn't like we were eradicating a culture, we weren't threatening who they were, thus resistance was less essential. They could continue living as they were without major change to their lives save for a new political structure.

Violence seemed unnecessary because there was nothing to take back but the government we were supposedly returning to them. This was different than WWII, where failing to do anything would result in the loss of national identity and history.

[Brentai]

Nothing about the Iraqis' behavior indicates that they actually believe that.

[Mothra]

Well yeah, and rightfully so after the bold-faced lies that were passed off a reason to end lives. I'm just saying that the insurgency is unnecessary and exponentially increases suffering to no valid end.

In WWII we (generally) only did what needed to be done to put an end to suffering as quickly as possible.

[Classic]

The of the reasons behind the militants in Iraq is that the majority of citizens, prior to Saddam's regime, would routinely abuse a minority group there. Part of this fighting is by that group trying to make sure we don't permit their wanton slaughter. I'm certain other insurgents don't want an "Islamic Nation" to become a pawn of "the West".

Purely for the sake of argument

The majority of people during invasions actually don't have much of a reason to fight. To the layman, it seems in most situations, the immediate loss of property or privilege eventually yields a "tolerable" new social structure. Obviously, this excludes the nobility and (probably) professional soldiers.

The actual march of Nazi Germany is baffling to me. I'm not entirely sure what, if any, factors other than Hitler&Co.'s personal ambition pushed that kind of expansion.

Then again, one of the few things I remember from history courses is how insane warmaking in Europe had been. By insane, I mean bent solely on the whims of the ruling classes.

:sadloaf:

I wouldn't take it personally. Arguing over things is how arguments get refined. Paco's struck me as being relatively good (only like, one or two posts commenting on general idiocy/immaturity). At this point the best thing to do is enjoy a history lesson.

[Mongrel]

Did somebody say Godwin? 'Cause I think I just heard somebody say Godwin!

[Büge]

it wasn't like we were eradicating a culture,

No?

[Pacobird]

Bulls in China Shops aside, it's really, really the exception rather than the rule for a conqueror to step in for the purpose of genocide.  He's usually more interested in resources; the genocide doesn't start until the locals put up a fight.

[SCD]

I really want to argue against all your points here, now that you've conveniently wandered into counterinsurgency territory (including the failure to mention the two ethnic cleanings that took place during the counterinsurgency operation brought up), but fail to see the points being discussed.

[Pacobird]

My last post?  Point was Hitler is a total historical aberration in that genocide was explicitly part of his M.O.  Most everybody else (except maaaaaaaybe Genghis Khan) saw it as at best pretty pointless.

[SCD]

I like the argument, although I feel the urge to contest.

Counterpoint - While the main agents of "regime change" or conquest do not explicitly use genocide or ethnic cleansing as their overall aim, smaller organizations or individuals take advantage of the naivity of larger conquerers in order to push their own versions of ethnic cleansing in order to change the meaning of a place to fit their own community.  Examples: 

-Shia extremist factions in Iraq using the American invasion as a cover to push out successfully Sunni and Assyrian Christians from Shia neighborhoods as well as places where the two groups were predominant between 2005 and the end of 2007
-Zionist agents/lobbyists back in the 1921 who successfully pushed the British mandate of Palestine into creating the "Mewat Land Ordinance" to modernize land ownership law from an Ottoman model to a more modern western system required to ensure that they would be able to confuse the locals long enough to purchase dead land in strategic locations to roll out their Kibbutz plan.
Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia are a bit more murky, but they were spearheaded by individuals in power within a vacuum caused by a higher power within the theater of operations in order to secure land through ethnic cleansing by either means of genocide or forced movement.

You are right in the sense that the great conquerers usually avoid that sort of thing, but the medium-small scale conquerers by western definitions can, will, and won't hesitate to use it when they can get the job done within their allocated resources, which tend to be just right when most organized resistance is already wiped away by a recent invader (or in the case of the Balkans, when the outside power leaves).

[Mongrel]

Agreed with SCD.

Also, wanted to add that genocide isn't always something that comes with a plan attached. One of the most tried-and-true methods for rulers of any stripe to consolidate power and/or press a war is to find (or create) an enemy and demonize them. There may not be any real agenda of systematic killing, but once your own population has been whipped into enough of a bloodlust, individual acts of brutality will be committed independent of any civil or military orders.

Such acts may add up if committed on a wide enough scale, giving you a kind of 'grassroots' genocide that is actually more terrifying then some Evil Master Plan.

[Mothra]

Home-Grown Hickory-Smoked Grassroots Genocide

[Mongrel]

That's not hickory.