Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale, Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
Re: No WMDs? [Re: JohnnyRespect]
    #1594251 -

Quote:
Silversoul7 - Would you be against spending money to remove Hitler? (Again, this is a yes or no quqestion, don't answer with an ignorant tirade, just type "yes" or "no",you coudl even cut and paste if you wanted to, or a "y" for yes or "n" for no.  Pretty simple stuff here :smile: 


Money?  I guess so.  Lives?  Only if we could save more lives than we take.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No WMDs? [Re: 1stimer]
    #1594551 -

Quote:
I agree that johnnyrespect is a bit OUT THERE. OUT THERE meaning he is a nazi. whats scary is i used to think like him when i was in highschool, which leads me to believe hes in highschool, probably from the bible belt. I started taking psychadelics and i changed which leaves me hope for johny, but very little.


thats right, good ole TV in the living room logic again. It's wrong to generalize or make fun of people... well, except southern people., or christians, or conseratives,or white people, but other than that! it's wrong!


i'm 28, actually, served in the Marines, working on my 2nd degree, after that I'll be attending med school. Nothing lower than a 3.6GPA my entier college career, and that is even when I had to spend some time abroad "marine-ing" :-) You have to love the mindset that dislikes generalizations, then uses them to categorize people YOU disagree with. Oh, i'm not from the "south" or "bible belt" at al, and I'm not a Christian. :-)


Jr


--------------------
As I felt the soft cool mud squish between my toes, I thought, Man, these are not very good shoes!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No WMDs? [Re: silversoul7]
    #1594625 -

Quote:
Quote:
Silversoul7 - Would you be against spending money to remove Hitler? (Again, this is a yes or no quqestion, don't answer with an ignorant tirade, just type "yes" or "no",you coudl even cut and paste if you wanted to, or a "y" for yes or "n" for no.  Pretty simple stuff here :smile: 


Money?  I guess so.  Lives?  Only if we could save more lives than we take. 


Ah, explaining logic to the children again, I feel like Socrates.  Using this logic, lets get some numbers first of all. What you are saying is that a military action is deemed morally just if we "save more lives than we take".  Now, since it's impossible to judge the number of saved lives (unless we can predict the future, and determine how many people WOULD have died), lets say either lives POSSIBLY saved, or lives drastically changed for the better (i.e. not EVERY jew in the nazi deathcamps would have died, most likely, and certinatly not every Jew in Europe, some of them would have escaped somehow).  Now, I can't find the specific number of American soldiers that died in the war, but I believe it's under 150, so we'll go with taht (even tho I beleive thats quite high).  Now, as for "lives saved", again, it's hard to judge.  Since many mass graves were found with "hundreds" or "thousands"of corpses in them, I believe it would be fair to say that that would have happened again, and that our actions in Iraq prevented that from happening again.  I still won't give a number tho, becausEi 'm sure you'll challenge it, or totally ignore it, or rant on some tangent about it.  Now, the only number I can say for sure are the "hundreds of thousands" of Shia muslims that marched (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2963985.stm) into karbala to celebrat some arab crap holiday.  Now, it seems to me that we take, again, using your "logic", which i'm sure will change to include other things now that I've used it to justify something that isn't communistic, we weigh the cost of the war in lives (comes to under 150 American) to the number of people that were celebrating their religious freedom for the first time in three decades (hundrds of thousands) and we come up with our solution. The war helped more people than it hurted, and it did the "greater good for the greater number of people"  Once again, my utilitarian defense of the War, used by a foe, made better by me :-)  i'm sure you'll argue this, realize how weak you will look for doing so.

Jr


--------------------
As I felt the soft cool mud squish between my toes, I thought, Man, these are not very good shoes!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No WMDs? [Re: JohnnyRespect]
    #1594634 -

I totally forgot Iraqi casualties. Since the total number of soldiers in Saddams army was only around 200,000, and I know we took a large number of them POW, and we did rather precise strikes, I'd say that nowhere near that many of them died.

Jr


--------------------
As I felt the soft cool mud squish between my toes, I thought, Man, these are not very good shoes!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No WMDs? [Re: JohnnyRespect]
    #1594755 -

Now that I look back at that post, I realize I did forget to mention the self-defense part. Hitler was a threat to us(and the whole world). Saddam was not.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Edited by silversoul7 (05/30/03 08:17 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No WMDs? [Re: silversoul7]
    #1595036 -

Hitler was only a threat in that the Triumverat (sp?) alliance Germany signed with Japan and Italy agreed that an attack by one was an attack by all. How did Germany affect mainland USA? Germany didn't, her U-boats sunk tons of ships, but she never directly affected the US mainland. Therefore, if we are using that as our justification to attack Hitler (the self-defense one, besides the other obvious ones, i.e. to stop mass murder/Holocaust) we mean to say that attacking anyplace that contains American troops or is held by Americans is considered an act of agression (which is entirely logical) and that by doing so, a nation is open to attack for self defense purposes.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/30/iran.barracks.bombing/index.html

Discusses how a US Judge found enough evidence to "prove" that Iran had directly assisted Hezbollah in the 1983 Marines barracks boming in Beiruit. Now, we have a nation that is a dictatorship (just like Nazi Germany), that has sponsored attacks on US interests (Which we have already concluded was to be considered an act of agression) and that we know, for a fact this time, has the capabilities to manufacture weapons grade radioactive materials. Why shouldn't we attack them?

Again, i'm not suggesting we should attack Iran, i'm just saying that you HAVE to set certain paramaters, rather than doing it case by case. If you compare and contrast adolf hitler and his regime with saddam hussein and his regime, you see many similiarities. Etnic cleansing (both with gas, even!), starvation, genocide, dictatorship. We have to understand ethics enough to make a moral decision as to wether or not those actions, PER SE!, dictate Us involvement. If we determine they do, we must carry that out on a level playing field. Also, if we decide these critereon, it will remove the charge of being unfair, or with ulterior motives. We can only succeed in being moral when we set specific conditions as to the use of force. If you believe it was morally correct to attack Hitler, Japan and Italy, i'd like to see your beliefs as to why attacking Iran, Iraq, or any other number of dictatorships out there (that parrallel hitlers in many ways) would be a morally wrong action.

Pz

jr


--------------------
As I felt the soft cool mud squish between my toes, I thought, Man, these are not very good shoes!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No WMDs? [Re: JohnnyRespect]
    #1595060 -

Quote:
We can only succeed in being moral when we set specific conditions as to the use of force.


You're assuming an objective morality when there is no proof that it exists.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No WMDs? [Re: silversoul7]
    #1595067 -

I think you've proven my point in the low education levels of people in here. I'd like you to name just one relavent (i.e. not Marx :smile:) philospher that believes morality is subjective.  what you are saying is that if a certain culture believes something, it's OK because the mass of people belive it?  I'd certaintly bet you weren't Jewish, living in germany during the holocaust, your view woult certaintly be different.

Jr


--------------------
As I felt the soft cool mud squish between my toes, I thought, Man, these are not very good shoes!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No WMDs? [Re: JohnnyRespect]
    #1595070 -

And you stiiil havn't answered my question about why attacking hitler was morally correct, or that you would support it, and how that differs from attacking Hussein.


--------------------
As I felt the soft cool mud squish between my toes, I thought, Man, these are not very good shoes!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No WMDs? [Re: JohnnyRespect]
    #1595407 -

In what way can you compare Hitler and Saddam?

Hitler was the head of the most powerful army the world has ever seen and invaded half of Europe. Saddam had an army that would be hard pressed to take on the Hare Krishnas and a country so devastated by sanctions that 600,000 children under 5 had died. He posed zero threat to anyone. The time to invade Iraq would have been when he invaded Iran in the early 80's and did actually pose a threat to the world. Of course in those days the US was busy giving him billions of dollars and arming him to the teeth.

Somethings wrong isn't it Johnny?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No WMDs? [Re: JohnnyRespect]
    #1595472 -

Quote:
I think you?ve proven my point in the low education levels of people in here.



Quote:
I?d like you to name just one relavent (i.e. not Marx :smile:) philospher that believes morality is subjective.


Does the name Sartre ring a bell?
Quote:
what you are saying is that if a certain culture believes something, it?s OK because the mass of people belive it?


Not at all.  I?m saying that in the big scheme of things, there is nothing positive and nothing negative.  Everything just is.  We only have morals because we have values, and to have values you have to have opinions, and to have opinions is to be human.
Quote:
I?d certaintly bet you weren?t Jewish, living in germany during the holocaust, your view woult certaintly be different.


No, I wasn?t, but I?m sure that some of the more philosophical-minded would believe in this.  They would, of course, have to think with their head and not their heart to do this.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No WMDs? [Re: Xlea321]
    #1595481 -

Quote:
In what way can you compare Hitler and Saddam?

Hitler was the head of the most powerful army the world has ever seen and invaded half of Europe. Saddam had an army that would be hard pressed to take on the Hare Krishnas and a country so devastated by sanctions that 600,000 children under 5 had died. He posed zero threat to anyone. The time to invade Iraq would have been when he invaded Iran in the early 80's and did actually pose a threat to the world. Of course in those days the US was busy giving him billions of dollars and arming him to the teeth.

Somethings wrong isn't it Johnny?


Before we annhilated Saddams army in Gulf War Pt I he possessed the greatest militay might in the Middle East. We cut through it like a hot knife through butter, however. Saddam is a dictator but instead of being elected (as hitler was), he took power by murdering his own cousin. Saddam has used poison gas on an ethnic minority in his nation, a minority he won't allow to live with other members of his nation, hitler did same. Saddam's state run media controlled every bit of information that the average Iraqi' recieved, their was no freedom of press or expression of free thought, just the voice of Saddam filling every medium. If we are talking casualties of war, the firebombing of dresden killed more than a quarter million. more german civilians and noncoms lost their lives in allied bombing and shelling than Iraqi soldiers and civilians alive. Again, why am I not surprised that your answer ignores the facts.


--------------------
As I felt the soft cool mud squish between my toes, I thought, Man, these are not very good shoes!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No WMDs? [Re: JohnnyRespect]
    #1595495 -

Before we annhilated Saddams army in Gulf War Pt I he possessed the greatest militay might in the Middle East

Except Israel. Oh and Iran had just fought him to a standstill. How big is Kuwait?

So you've given up any pretence of comparing Hitler and Saddam as Saddam was this year? Or do we have to go back 12 years before the comparison starts to kick in?

We cut through it like a hot knife through butter

That's nothing to brag about. It's like Mike Tyson sayin he cut through Mcauly Culkin like a hot knife. Of course he would. Taking out Iraq is akin to bragging about taking out the Hare Krishna's. You'll be bragging about taking on the Taliban next!! And they only had one gun that worked between 70 men. And no bullets!!  :laugh:

the firebombing of dresden killed more than a quarter million.

True enough. Not sure what this has to do with Saddam and Hitler being the same...


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No WMDs? [Re: silversoul7]
    #1595521 -


Quote:
I'd like you to name just one relavent (i.e. not Marx :smile:) philospher that believes morality is subjective.
Does the name Sartre ring a bell?




Following sartre's guidelines, each person makes up their own moral guidelines based on what they feel.  I'm sure that Jeffrey Dahmer and hitler could have, and did!, decide their actions were morally correct.  however, objectivity is imperitive in ethics.  The golden rule, can you tell me of a time when that objective credo could not be utilized?  For those unfamiliar with existentialism and want to learn more about it, check out http://members.aol.com/CazadoraKE/private/Philo/Existentialism/zKdaextheme22.html   

It seems that it is more to "choose ones way" rather than deal with other people, for example, I could decide, using my own standard of ethics, that I'd prefer to live life as a bum, instead of working on Wall Street.  However, no existnetialist would tell you that you could decide to murder and gas innocent people. That is something that IS objective, because it deals with interactions with others.  The wanton destruction of life in any case is wrong.  That isn't a subjective quality at all.  If you believe it is, use Sartre or Kierkegaard to back that up.  i'd like to see where they'd allow the waton destruction of life.

Jr


--------------------
As I felt the soft cool mud squish between my toes, I thought, Man, these are not very good shoes!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: No WMDs? [Re: JohnnyRespect]
    #1595601 -

Quote:
If you believe it is, use Sartre or Kierkegaard to back that up. i'd like to see where they'd allow the waton destruction of life.


They wouldn't allow it, but they wouldn't say that it's objectively wrong, either. Even if they would, I wouldn't. Infanticide and cannibalism is common in the animal kingdom, but that is not wrong for them, so clearly they would not be subject to the same morality that we subject ourselves to.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale, Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Dems speak on WMD's. luvdemshrooms 1,000 18 01/23/04 01:04 PM
by Azmodeus
* To those concerned with the lack of WMD's in Iraq:
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 JohnnyRespect 5,244 70 06/30/03 05:17 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Democrats: Deceit made us back war
( 1 2 all )		 daimyo 4,370 38 11/07/05 10:58 PM
by Learyfan
* Hawkish Democrat Calls for Iraq Pullout
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 cateyes 8,038 80 11/23/05 12:16 AM
by Alex213
* U.S. study: 'Unlikely' Iraq shipped WMD to Syria
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Vvellum 4,806 62 04/30/05 04:40 PM
by Psychoactive1984
* Alzheimer's Disease and the Democrats Phred 755 12 07/12/05 09:46 PM
by Adamist
* Pre-emptive war to its logical extreme
( 1 2 3 all )		 looner2 3,722 48 04/13/05 12:48 PM
by SWEDEN
* So Where Do You Guys Think Those WMD's Are?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )		 Madtowntripper 8,410 148 05/24/07 04:43 PM
by FrenchSocialist

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
1,327 topic views. 0 members, 502 guests and 12 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.035 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 17 queries.