|
Post by The~Inquisitor on Mar 20, 2003 14:38:57 GMT -5
I didn't notice it because you post it during the time I was typing one. Anyway I answered it basically in my reply to PaulC aswell.
|
|
|
Post by TheNeanderthal on Mar 20, 2003 14:44:30 GMT -5
Mmmm? the only time yours and Paul's posts were ever close is 7 minutes diffrence, and your post was short.
|
|
|
Post by Chickensoupcheese on Mar 20, 2003 14:48:12 GMT -5
Yes, considering that this topic is reflecting on the war, it's not doing a lot of war-reflecting. My personal view on matters is that whether an anonymous passing through the street, or a close friend you've known all your lifetime, and would grieve heavily for their death did it occur during your lifetime (or vice versa), the two people are the same to the people in power. The only way the average person will get noticed by the government is along with millions of other digits on pieces of paper. Everyone is a statistic. One single person (who isn't an integral part of the government) is a statistic.
Now onto the war part: I am quite concerned about the war. Although it may not make it over to these shores (which there is still a chance of happening in this world of technological advances which had "improved" the quality of human life), there are still the people to consider who are there fighting for their lives.
I know what you mean, Inquis: you could never care about these people personally. But as proved by your previous statements, there will be numerous family members of every single soldier fighting over there, and every single Iraqi (correct collective term?) who do care, and that has to be respected. You may argue that the politicians do not respect this, and I could not deny that. But, as aforementioned, the only place on which they'll see any notifying of losses will be on sheets of paper. Politicians are stereotypically heartless (a mon avis, care to attack my biased opinion), but average civilians I'd expect to be more concerned. It's our country in a democracy (or countries), and whether we shall be directly affected by something or not should not be considered, merely that we as a nation are in it together. We shan't get recognised for our actions, or indeed be the cause of any action, but there will be those who will, and we should be fully supportive. You say that "when a person has committed an un-just murder I wouldn't think them to be a good person." I fully agree. I see that you are willing to go down with the fact that un-just murders are done by bad people. I have a perfect example: there's this thing going on at the moment called a war. It consists of heartless politicians ordering thousands of people to murder thousands of other people, in what I would consider to be for un-just causes. Yet you do not care. Surely, simple laws of mathematics wouls state that you should be thousands of times more bothered about the war than with a single murder? We shall see.
Zeephos, your definition of retarded interests me. Under your ruling, people like Josef Stalin were "retards". You could be easily consider men like him to be evil (and if I were to use the example of a certain German Nazi, you presumably would), but these men were not retards. Even George Bush, believe it or not, would I consider to be a retard.
Anyways, I'll comment further when I'm less tired. I still feel that I am on topic, commenting on the war, but this may turn into a debate. We shall also see.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Mar 20, 2003 14:50:31 GMT -5
I don't mean to butt into your interesting little conversation, though I feel the desire to add my two cents. Inquisitor appears to have a subjectivist morality from his comments, which ultimately makes him unable to make moral statements, period. If the "winning team" is the one that determines morality, then morality has no objective basis (if Iraq was the winning team, then it would be moral for Inquisitor to be killed if Saddam decreed it). Yet, it is impossible for a subjectivist to be consistent with their own moral code, as let's assume that Saddam's side is the winning team, and decrees it moral to kill innocent civilians in Britain, and more precisely, where Inquisitor lives. From Inquisitor's own comments, one could conclude he would consider this "unjust". yet by his own code of morality he would have to consider it just. As such, his code smacks a great deal of ethical egoism in saying "It's wrong if it happens to me, since I am a "good" person". Yet without an objective standard for morality, Inquisitor can make no such claim, and therefore, by his code, perfectly moral to kill him.
|
|
|
Post by The~Inquisitor on Mar 20, 2003 14:55:59 GMT -5
If I had committed a serious crime, I would totally agree, Sleepy (Although I'd probably put up a fight about it.)
|
|
|
Post by Nivoraw on Mar 20, 2003 15:33:24 GMT -5
I am still yet undecided about the war. I think that Saddam has nuclear weapons, because he has basically said let UK and America come a get me, and those arent the words of a man without defences. He IS crazy (if you want to call it that) enough to fire weapons of mass destruction at the UK, but they probably wont reach the U.S. On the other hand MANY MANY innocent lives will be taken, Iraqis and our troops. I am yet to decide....
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Mar 20, 2003 16:14:57 GMT -5
The hypothetical situation goes under the premise that you haven't committed any crimes- the "winning team", Saddam in this example, has just decreed that it is moral to kill you and your family. By your own reasoning, you must believe that it is moral for yourself and your family to be killed just because someone says so. Yet, because you disagree with this concept, you shoot your own subjectivist moral code in the foot.
|
|
|
Post by TheNeanderthal on Mar 21, 2003 6:59:36 GMT -5
You'd up a fight about everything, Inq. Even this thread.
|
|
|
Post by The Jacket on Mar 21, 2003 17:25:42 GMT -5
I intend to sit this one out. I proved the extent of my knoweledge of our countries situation recently in a debate with Paul. But here's why I think we should go to war. You may think it flawed and wrong, but...ah well.
I believe Saddam has had his chance. He rules his country with tyranny and fear. While we have freedom of speech in America, Iraqis may be killed for sedition. This, Inquisitor, is unjust. I am for the war. I am for removing Saddam Hussein from power. I do not like that we are killing people. I think Iquisitor's apathetic view towards the deaths of those that have been and will be killed in Iraq is disgusting. This may or may not be edited, but TI, you are one self-centered, ignorant punk.
Back on topic: We are not aiming at civilians. we are taking out Iraq's ability to retaliate and use any illegal weaponry (whatever it may be) against us or those who stand for freedom. Yes, some innocents will die. I do not like this one bit. But if a good thing can come out of their deaths, it will be freedom. (As sick as that sounds, I know. I just don't know how else to put it.) I know it is no mans choice as to why, when, and how someone dies but these steps of progression have to be taken. If they are not taken, tyrannical rule will continue for many years in Iraq and more innocent people will die.
I do not believe we are doing this for oil. I think most of you say this out of ignorance as "No Blood for Oil." is rather popular and many jump right into the idea without fully understanding it. Perhaps a couple of you actually have a reason for saying this, but Bush has already said, we have no desire to have the oil or the Iraq territory, we are there for liberation and then we will leave.
I base this on what I know and what I feel is right. If I've left out something, I'm sorry, I'm just not the most learned person in politics.
One final thing. Although I fully support George Bush, I don't believe we were given the best options for President in the year 2000. Under Bush, we are in a war which I support. If we were under Gore, I know he wouldn't have opted for war. I actually think he may have evaded the issue altogether, as it seems that he was a hands-off kind of guy. (Think Calvin Coolidge only not as lazy.)
But that is my opinion. I hope you respect it as I respect everyone's but ThyInuisitor. . . The Way of the Cross leads Home.
|
|
|
Post by PaulC on Mar 21, 2003 21:08:26 GMT -5
It's rather pointless to argue about this at this stage, but I still feel war is unjustified, unmoral and foolish. While Saddam is a brutal butcher, the United States doesn't exactly have a great record when it comes to regime change. In all likelihood, the people of Iraq will suffer again in years to come, only under a different, pro-western dictator. It's easy to say we're fighting for freedom, harder to grant it to a people, especially when we go in to a war with only very vague plans for a post-Saddam government. At this point I hope for a quick conclusion with minimal casualties, on both sides and particularly for civilians - and a universal condemnation of the war itself from those nations not participating.
|
|
|
Post by The~Inquisitor on Mar 22, 2003 4:53:26 GMT -5
There is no need for direct insults, Jacket. I would have thought we could settle an argument like the responsible people that we are.
I still don't care either way about the war or not. People die through war. If we didn't go to war, people die that way. So why bother making a choice? Neither will make a sod of difference.
All this anti-war stuff people do, you think that the politicians will take any notice? ESPECIALLY from people who are too young to vote. (I realise there are people here who are old enough to vote)
Next you people will be making posts about the soldiers who died attacking Iraq I suppose...even though they knew the risk when they signed up for the army...
|
|
AgentLane
RPG Townie
Creating worlds where previously there was void
Posts: 57
|
Post by AgentLane on Mar 22, 2003 5:08:01 GMT -5
Well, I don't know about you folks, but I have friends in the armed forces, and personally, the idea of them getting shot at and risking their lives (for whatever reason you want to give it) worries me to no end. I've heard the reasons, "freedom", "oil", "reputation" and all that, and frankly, it all comes down to the fact that we're at war, people are dying, and we should be focusing on how to end this mess ASAP. Call me biased, I'm coming from a background where several of my close relatives have served in various wars dating back to WWII, and where friends I know are fighting now. These people are "good" people, the type of kind, generous, humor-filled buddies that nearly all of us have known in our lives. I don't want these people to die any more than I want innocent Iraqi people to die. Inquisitor, talking about anyone's life as if it were a number, a statistical abberation on a population growth chart...that's disturbing.
Inquisitor, the statement you made earlier about limiting population growth is rather drastic don't you think? I comes off as merely a statement to provoke a reaction rather than a firmly held belief. However, if you truly believe that killing people is a necessary means to limit population growth, then in your eyes this must be a hopeless world indeed. There's no realistic solution to effectively limiting human population growth -- save if you want to give up your humanity, become a computer, and do it by the numbers.
I hope you seriously comtemplated what you wrote before you posted. It's statements like that that can really worry people; just keep in mind that not all of us in the world are as far removed from pain as you.
|
|
|
Post by The~Inquisitor on Mar 22, 2003 5:18:58 GMT -5
How can my statements "worry" people exactly? There is no point in pretending I care about them because even if I did, it wouldn't make the slightest difference to the war or other peoples attitudes.
I'm sure there are some of you who are merely saying these things because you don't want to look bad. I'm not going to name names though and start a big argument.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Fangora (Wum) on Mar 22, 2003 6:24:52 GMT -5
I for one personally feel great remorse about this war. I feel great remorse about the innocent people that will be killed in various bombing attacks and the innocent that have been drawn into something that they had no control over whatso-ever. I feel great remorse for those innocent people that will die in an inevitable retaliation. I also feel remorse for my invetable death. I DO NOT however feel remorse for the death of the troops who have been sent to Iraq. I DO NOT feel any remorse for the death of the Iraqi troops. I DO NOT feel any remorse for the eventual deaths of the leaders responsible for this occurence. The people in this knew full well when they signed up for their army that being in an army, involves causing death and dying themselves. This people would have a certain bloodlust which would probably fuel their reason for joining. And don't try to tell me it was for, money, patriotism or companionship. Humans are evil creatures, they have a thirst for that which cannot ever be quenched. In my opinion, this world would be far better of if our 'superior' race had never existed. But that's my view. People may not agree with it but that is what makes me my own person.
Also I think you guys should lay off ThyInquisitor a bit. The way I see it, you guys are angry at this whole ordeal and are using him as a way to vent your anger since you can't make your voice heard at your current leaders. Sure I don't agree with some of his controversial opinions but maybe you should find different sources to get rid of all this excess frustration.
|
|
|
Post by The~Inquisitor on Mar 22, 2003 8:02:03 GMT -5
Thanks Wum.
|
|