|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 21 2016 00:30 zlefin wrote:
rebs -> I wasn't talking about international law; but about the national law of all the nations on the earth.
I continue to disagree about it being disingenuous.
Ok so correct me if I am wrong, but as far as you are concerned because criminal laws treat intentions differently it is ok to be less upset or not at all upset about this incident?
Its hard to say where you sit on the issue because all you have said is "i disagree that its disingenuous because we didnt mean to kill innocent civilians."
What would your actual position be ? That its fine and we just move on ? That maybe we need to relook at things, that somebody somewhere should atleast be held responsible ? im just throwing stuff out there. I would genuinely like to know.
|
I read that this morning and I’m still in awe. Trump would push all the responsibility of the oval office off on the VP and “Make the Country Great”. How many ways can the man say “I lack even the most basic knowledge of the responsibilities of the office I am running for.”???
|
On July 21 2016 00:28 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 00:24 IgnE wrote:
1) casualties are impossible to avoid even with drones, the numerous civilian casualties in the history of the program corroborates, at least, a statisical "certainty" that more or fewer people will be killed every X number of strikes
2) any government that knowingly kills civilians is acting immorally
3) therefore the US government is acting immorally Congratulations, you have discovered that war is immoral... I thought that was common knowledge.
Killing enemy combatants is not the same as killing civilians according to just war theory, which you (and zlefin) are presumably using to justify drone strikes (at least relative to "terrorist attacks"). It's like you guys don't understand that the same exact arguments you are making to justify the drone strikes can be made by "terrorists":
we are fighting a guerilla war to escape from oppressive western influence and secure the primacy of islamic self determination, our attacks have a greater purpose, etc etc etc
|
On July 21 2016 00:44 Plansix wrote:I read that this morning and I’m still in awe. Trump would push all the responsibility of the oval office off on the VP and “Make the Country Great”. How many ways can the man say “I lack even the most basic knowledge of the responsibilities of the office I am running for.”???
People do say he would surround himself with the right advisors and such to do the actual work, remember.
And perhaps this is why Pence agreed to becoming VP despite being quite different in values and policies to Trump?
|
On July 21 2016 00:37 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 00:30 zlefin wrote:
rebs -> I wasn't talking about international law; but about the national law of all the nations on the earth.
I continue to disagree about it being disingenuous. Ok so correct me if I am wrong, but as far as you are concerned because criminal laws treat intentions differently it is ok to be less upset or not at all upset about this incident?
there are several issues related to this, and I want to try to be clear, though I may fail at that.
Criminal law considers intentions to matter, and it does so for good and sound reasons. As such I consider using it an appropriate standard for assessing the severity of an act.
There's a few kinds of upset we may be dealing with here: upset at an immoral act; general upset at a tragedy; and upset due to empathizing (the last two kind of go together of course). I'd say it justifies a lower level of the first, upset at immoral act, because it reduces the immorality of the action, possibly down to the level of a tragic accident.
There should obviously be a full and thorough investigation of how the error happened, and compensation should be given to the victims (not that that's required, but it's good policy imo)
I think you edit added some points in one of your previous posts; while I do like to edit my posts as well, it can confuse the response process as I may not notice or be aware of such, and when the conversation is moving fast it's easy for people in it to not notice such things, though other who read through the thread later will see them, and may not notice them not appearing in quoted sections. basically, I recommend not editing in extra questions in posts that have already been responded to; correcting typos/mislinks of course is fine.
re: igne
the exact same arguments I'm making would not be useable by the terrorists for the actions which make them terrorists. they may of course be applicable for certain other actions they are taking. so I simply deny your claim of equivalency, and I find it to be without basis.
|
On July 21 2016 00:44 Plansix wrote:I read that this morning and I’m still in awe. Trump would push all the responsibility of the oval office off on the VP and “Make the Country Great”. How many ways can the man say “I lack even the most basic knowledge of the responsibilities of the office I am running for.”???
Sounds more like a "you do all the work and I take the credit" deal.
|
On July 21 2016 00:27 zlefin wrote:
Igne -> I'm not entirely sure what your point is supposed to be with the chomsky quote.
I posted the Chomsky quote because he frames it correctly. The US government is immoral for viewing foreign civilians as ants to be trampled on in pursuit of their "war aims". In some respects its worse than deliberate killing of humans which at least acknowledges the humanity, and hence the "victimness", of the deceased. Even the Germanic barbarians in the Middle Ages were in that sense more moral than the US government; they were required to pay weregild to the victim's family as payment for a debt that can never truly be paid.
|
On July 21 2016 00:46 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 00:37 Rebs wrote:On July 21 2016 00:30 zlefin wrote:
rebs -> I wasn't talking about international law; but about the national law of all the nations on the earth.
I continue to disagree about it being disingenuous. Ok so correct me if I am wrong, but as far as you are concerned because criminal laws treat intentions differently it is ok to be less upset or not at all upset about this incident? re: igne the exact same arguments I'm making would not be useable by the terrorists for the actions which make them terrorists. they may of course be applicable for certain other actions they are taking. so I simply deny your claim of equivalency, and I find it to be without basis.
please construct your syllogism then so i don't misrepresent you in response
|
igne -> I disagree with your claim that the us views them as ants to be trampled in pursuit of its war aims. I ask for proof/citations that that is the US government view.
I would also note that the US often does give something equivalent to weregild payments to victims. Though I don't have highly specific data.
|
On July 21 2016 00:46 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 00:44 Plansix wrote:I read that this morning and I’m still in awe. Trump would push all the responsibility of the oval office off on the VP and “Make the Country Great”. How many ways can the man say “I lack even the most basic knowledge of the responsibilities of the office I am running for.”??? People do say he would surround himself with the right advisors and such to do the actual work, remember. And perhaps this is why Pence agreed to becoming VP despite being quite different in values and policies to Trump?
Literally the same argument people said about George W. Bush and look how that turned out. We are still recovering from that nightmare of 8 years. I really don’t want 4 year of Pence via proxy and conservative Christianity dictating policy.
|
On July 21 2016 00:46 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 00:37 Rebs wrote:On July 21 2016 00:30 zlefin wrote:
rebs -> I wasn't talking about international law; but about the national law of all the nations on the earth.
I continue to disagree about it being disingenuous. Ok so correct me if I am wrong, but as far as you are concerned because criminal laws treat intentions differently it is ok to be less upset or not at all upset about this incident? there are several issues related to this, and I want to try to be clear, though I may fail at that. Criminal law considers intentions to matter, and it does so for good and sound reasons. As such I consider using it an appropriate standard for assessing the severity of an act. There's a few kinds of upset we may be dealing with here: upset at an immoral act; general upset at a tragedy; and upset due to empathizing (the last two kind of go together of course). I'd say it justifies a lower level of the first, upset at immoral act, because it reduces the immorality of the action, possibly down to the level of a tragic accident. There should obviously be a full and thorough investigation of how the error happened, and compensation should be given to the victims (not that that's required, but it's good policy imo) I think you edit added some points in one of your previous posts; while I do like to edit my posts as well, it can confuse the response process as I may not notice or be aware of such, and when the conversation is moving fast it's easy for people in it to not notice such things, though other who read through the thread later will see them, and may not notice them not appearing in quoted sections. basically, I recommend not editing in extra questions in posts that have already been responded to; correcting typos/mislinks of course is fine. re: igne the exact same arguments I'm making would not be useable by the terrorists for the actions which make them terrorists. they may of course be applicable for certain other actions they are taking. so I simply deny your claim of equivalency, and I find it to be without basis.
Ok, my bad, thank you for the lesson on how to forum. Can you address the questions?
|
On July 21 2016 00:58 zlefin wrote:
igne -> I disagree with your claim that the us views them as ants to be trampled in pursuit of its war aims. I ask for proof/citations that that is the US government view.
I would also note that the US often does give something equivalent to weregild payments to victims. Though I don't have highly specific data.
It's called "collateral damage."
|
On July 21 2016 00:59 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 00:46 zlefin wrote:On July 21 2016 00:37 Rebs wrote:On July 21 2016 00:30 zlefin wrote:
rebs -> I wasn't talking about international law; but about the national law of all the nations on the earth.
I continue to disagree about it being disingenuous. Ok so correct me if I am wrong, but as far as you are concerned because criminal laws treat intentions differently it is ok to be less upset or not at all upset about this incident? there are several issues related to this, and I want to try to be clear, though I may fail at that. Criminal law considers intentions to matter, and it does so for good and sound reasons. As such I consider using it an appropriate standard for assessing the severity of an act. There's a few kinds of upset we may be dealing with here: upset at an immoral act; general upset at a tragedy; and upset due to empathizing (the last two kind of go together of course). I'd say it justifies a lower level of the first, upset at immoral act, because it reduces the immorality of the action, possibly down to the level of a tragic accident. There should obviously be a full and thorough investigation of how the error happened, and compensation should be given to the victims (not that that's required, but it's good policy imo) I think you edit added some points in one of your previous posts; while I do like to edit my posts as well, it can confuse the response process as I may not notice or be aware of such, and when the conversation is moving fast it's easy for people in it to not notice such things, though other who read through the thread later will see them, and may not notice them not appearing in quoted sections. basically, I recommend not editing in extra questions in posts that have already been responded to; correcting typos/mislinks of course is fine. re: igne the exact same arguments I'm making would not be useable by the terrorists for the actions which make them terrorists. they may of course be applicable for certain other actions they are taking. so I simply deny your claim of equivalency, and I find it to be without basis. Ok, my bad, thank you for the lesson. Can you address the questions?
The questions you added to a prior post? Could you repeat them? As I'm doing multiple things at once, I don't have a strong sense of which ones have been answered and which ones haven't.
|
On July 21 2016 01:00 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 00:59 Rebs wrote:On July 21 2016 00:46 zlefin wrote:On July 21 2016 00:37 Rebs wrote:On July 21 2016 00:30 zlefin wrote:
rebs -> I wasn't talking about international law; but about the national law of all the nations on the earth.
I continue to disagree about it being disingenuous. Ok so correct me if I am wrong, but as far as you are concerned because criminal laws treat intentions differently it is ok to be less upset or not at all upset about this incident? there are several issues related to this, and I want to try to be clear, though I may fail at that. Criminal law considers intentions to matter, and it does so for good and sound reasons. As such I consider using it an appropriate standard for assessing the severity of an act. There's a few kinds of upset we may be dealing with here: upset at an immoral act; general upset at a tragedy; and upset due to empathizing (the last two kind of go together of course). I'd say it justifies a lower level of the first, upset at immoral act, because it reduces the immorality of the action, possibly down to the level of a tragic accident. There should obviously be a full and thorough investigation of how the error happened, and compensation should be given to the victims (not that that's required, but it's good policy imo) I think you edit added some points in one of your previous posts; while I do like to edit my posts as well, it can confuse the response process as I may not notice or be aware of such, and when the conversation is moving fast it's easy for people in it to not notice such things, though other who read through the thread later will see them, and may not notice them not appearing in quoted sections. basically, I recommend not editing in extra questions in posts that have already been responded to; correcting typos/mislinks of course is fine. re: igne the exact same arguments I'm making would not be useable by the terrorists for the actions which make them terrorists. they may of course be applicable for certain other actions they are taking. so I simply deny your claim of equivalency, and I find it to be without basis. Ok, my bad, thank you for the lesson. Can you address the questions? The questions you added to a prior post? Could you repeat them? As I'm doing multiple things at once, I don't have a strong sense of which ones have been answered and which ones haven't.
Nevermind, I pretty much got where you stand on the issue. Ill leave it at that.
Personally, I think that being accepting of it as just war things which is kinda what it waters down to, is an untenable position based on how the past decade or so has unfolded.
|
On July 21 2016 00:58 zlefin wrote:
igne -> I disagree with your claim that the us views them as ants to be trampled in pursuit of its war aims. I ask for proof/citations that that is the US government view.
I would also note that the US often does give something equivalent to weregild payments to victims. Though I don't have highly specific data.
What are you talking about? The proof is in the drone strikes killing civilians time and again, and the government not ENDING the program in response to this statistical certainty. Like Chomsky says, they are not idiots. They know it's a certainty. They are choosing to kill innocent civilians time and again. And in doing so they are saying US citizens matter more than foreign innocents. US citizens are people and foreign citizens are ants.
|
On July 21 2016 00:58 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 00:46 zlefin wrote:On July 21 2016 00:37 Rebs wrote:On July 21 2016 00:30 zlefin wrote:
rebs -> I wasn't talking about international law; but about the national law of all the nations on the earth.
I continue to disagree about it being disingenuous. Ok so correct me if I am wrong, but as far as you are concerned because criminal laws treat intentions differently it is ok to be less upset or not at all upset about this incident? re: igne the exact same arguments I'm making would not be useable by the terrorists for the actions which make them terrorists. they may of course be applicable for certain other actions they are taking. so I simply deny your claim of equivalency, and I find it to be without basis. please construct your syllogism then so i don't misrepresent you in response
I'll see what I can do, I'm having trouble running two thoughtful arguments at once, in combination with the difficulties I have with the tl site which made me disable stuff so I can't open quote windows (and don't see some links and such).
It may take me some time to construct something proper; it'd probably end up citing parts of the geneva conventions on warfare.
Though I remain unsure what you were thinking my argument was; the issue could also be pursued that way.
Not sure how fast this will go, as I also have some food to eat, and some other stuff to do.
|
On July 21 2016 00:53 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 00:44 Plansix wrote:I read that this morning and I’m still in awe. Trump would push all the responsibility of the oval office off on the VP and “Make the Country Great”. How many ways can the man say “I lack even the most basic knowledge of the responsibilities of the office I am running for.”??? Sounds more like a "you do all the work and I take the credit" deal.
Sounds like it, which seems to line up with his business career. So, Pence for pres?
|
On July 21 2016 00:46 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 00:28 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2016 00:24 IgnE wrote:
1) casualties are impossible to avoid even with drones, the numerous civilian casualties in the history of the program corroborates, at least, a statisical "certainty" that more or fewer people will be killed every X number of strikes
2) any government that knowingly kills civilians is acting immorally
3) therefore the US government is acting immorally Congratulations, you have discovered that war is immoral... I thought that was common knowledge. Killing enemy combatants is not the same as killing civilians according to just war theory, which you (and zlefin) are presumably using to justify drone strikes (at least relative to "terrorist attacks"). It's like you guys don't understand that the same exact arguments you are making to justify the drone strikes can be made by "terrorists": we are fighting a guerilla war to escape from oppressive western influence and secure the primacy of islamic self determination, our attacks have a greater purpose, etc etc etc
Yes, one man's freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.
Both sides of a fight often use the same logical to attack the other.
The winner was righteous, the loser a heretic, infidel, terrorist, whatever. It is how the world has functioned for thousands of years and how it will function for thousands more.
I'm sorry but that is how the world works.
ps.
I wasn't trying to justify the drone strikes. I have plenty of questions about the actual impact of the program myself.
I was merely responding because imo your statement was simple common sense. War is by its very nature immoral. We do it because sometimes we have to be immoral to survive.
|
On July 21 2016 00:11 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 23:58 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 23:55 Rebs wrote:On July 20 2016 23:27 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 23:10 Rebs wrote:Just to shift the narrative abit because I'd like to see what people have to say. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/us-air-strike-in-syria-kills-up-to-85-civilians-mistaken-for-isi/Im going to throw in a bit of hyperbole for good measure.. Why doesn't every single American condemn this attack? Where was the drone pilot radicalized? Which websites did he go to? Who was his pastor? Is America truly a religion of peace? Oh right sorry, just war things. Shit happens right ? They were harbouring terrorists anyway. They are critizised for this in europe. But its still a different situation than suicide terrorism attacks. Its about intentions. They thought (or so they claim) they were attacking an enemy they are at war with. They fucked up. Thats not the same thing as somebody explicitly saying he wants to kill as many innocent civilians as possible because they are "the enemy". I think the biggest problem is that the US doesnt see those civilians as people. They are tragic casualties but its not like it was people who died so not too much of a problem. I mean come on man, the mistake and honest intentions argument is really really thin. Even if it is, you cant deny that the US is not outright saying they want to kill innocent civilians. The other side is. So if they really wanted to kill civilians it would be fine so long as they didn't "outright say" they wanted to?
The opposite of "A is better than B" is not "A is good". I say it is better that they try to not kill civilians (and I believe them until there is proof that suggests otherwise) rather than trying to kill as many civilians as possible. That is a better thing.
Does that make it good? Of course not. How can you even make such a ridiculous assumption?
|
On July 21 2016 01:20 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 00:11 IgnE wrote:On July 20 2016 23:58 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 23:55 Rebs wrote:On July 20 2016 23:27 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 23:10 Rebs wrote:Just to shift the narrative abit because I'd like to see what people have to say. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/us-air-strike-in-syria-kills-up-to-85-civilians-mistaken-for-isi/Im going to throw in a bit of hyperbole for good measure.. Why doesn't every single American condemn this attack? Where was the drone pilot radicalized? Which websites did he go to? Who was his pastor? Is America truly a religion of peace? Oh right sorry, just war things. Shit happens right ? They were harbouring terrorists anyway. They are critizised for this in europe. But its still a different situation than suicide terrorism attacks. Its about intentions. They thought (or so they claim) they were attacking an enemy they are at war with. They fucked up. Thats not the same thing as somebody explicitly saying he wants to kill as many innocent civilians as possible because they are "the enemy". I think the biggest problem is that the US doesnt see those civilians as people. They are tragic casualties but its not like it was people who died so not too much of a problem. I mean come on man, the mistake and honest intentions argument is really really thin. Even if it is, you cant deny that the US is not outright saying they want to kill innocent civilians. The other side is. So if they really wanted to kill civilians it would be fine so long as they didn't "outright say" they wanted to? The opposite of "A is better than B" is not "A is good". I say it is better that they try to not kill civilians (and I believe them until there is proof that suggests otherwise) rather than trying to kill as many civilians as possible. That is a better thing. Does that make it good? Of course not. How can you even make such a ridiculous assumption?
It wasn't an assumption. It was a question. Note the interrogative punctuation. I was trying to clarify your ambiguous statement which should be clear from the discussion preceding this post. It would be an interesting (but wrong) position to take that only what they say their intentions are (ie the outward representation) matters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
