|
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 September 20 2016 07:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 07:19 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I'm not taking a stance on Habeus Corpus, but Abraham Lincoln suspended it for two years and history considers him one of the greatest presidents of our nation to this day in spite of that fact. Just something I find mildly amusing. He isn't remembered for that and I would argue that a lot of shit that happened during the civil war shouldn't be taken as a model for future conflicts. The suspension of Habeus Corpus included.
Oh of course. I just think it is mildly amusing to put things into perspective.
"X is such a terrible thing"
"Y is such a great person in history"
Most people are unaware of or would even consider the possibility that Y could have done X. A great national hero widely admired by all in our modern society doing something we consider morally reprehensible is just one of those mildly amusing ironies of history.
|
Once you fill in the details of the Civil War, it becomes less amusing and less ironic.
|
On September 20 2016 07:19 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 07:10 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Dealing with foreign relations, sure, let the experts do that I'd prefer someone who doesn't know what the nuclear triad is and approaches everything in FP from a business deal perspective  .
I'll let your friendly attack pass, and take my time to criticize the nuclear triad.
I think it's very silly. Using bombers to drop nuclear bombs is like saying we still need bow and arrows in our army.
Nuclear deterrence to me should logically be 95%+ nuclear submarines and maybe maybe 5% ICBM, just in case someone invents some weapon that can instantly electrocute and kill everything in the ocean within seconds or something silly.
|
On September 20 2016 07:24 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 07:19 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I'm not taking a stance on Habeus Corpus, but Abraham Lincoln suspended it for two years and history considers him one of the greatest presidents of our nation to this day in spite of that fact. Just something I find mildly amusing. This is called a tangent, please avoid tangents. Lets not start implying that we should be comparing Abraham Lincoln to Drumpf, which is literally the only conceivable reason you would bring this up. Or am I mistaken ?
Uhh I disagree. Please avoid backseat modding.
If historical facts offend you then you should probably reconsider your tendency towards anti-intellectualism
|
On September 20 2016 07:16 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 07:13 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2016 07:11 farvacola wrote:On September 20 2016 07:10 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 20 2016 07:05 Mohdoo wrote:On September 20 2016 07:00 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 20 2016 06:56 Plansix wrote:
Drumpf, what a guy. Saying it's sad we are not horrible monsters like the terrorist. That we treat wounded people and give them trials. That is it sad we don't punish them like we used to. You know what he means. The good old days.
Disgusting. The man bemoans the Constitution that prohibits cruel and unusual a punishment. 61% of the US population supports the death penalty (at least in principle). Obviously it's fairly prohibitive in terms of cost. When the average American doesn't even have a 4 year degree, citing consensus as a justification for morality doesn't make much sense. Support of an idea being widespread does not make it morally justifiable. Consider the percentage of Egypt that supports various forms of barbarism that we scoff at. Sure, our country is significantly more educated, cultured and whatnot, but it is still an example of widespread support for complete horseshit. I know I don't need to bring up the typical example of slavery. On September 20 2016 07:05 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 20 2016 07:03 Dan HH wrote:On September 20 2016 07:00 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 20 2016 06:56 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/777971370567331840Drumpf, what a guy. Saying it's sad we are not horrible monsters like the terrorist. That we treat wounded people and give them trials. That is it sad we don't punish them like we used to. You know what he means. The good old days. Disgusting. The man bemoans the Constitution that prohibits cruel and unusual a punishment. 61% of the US population supports the death penalty (at least in principle). Obviously it's fairly prohibitive in terms of cost. What is wrong with you calling 60% of the population disgusting? Maybe you should start to realize a sizeable majority of the US just straight up don't agree with you, so maybe you should change your outlook on the world and that it doesn't revolve around you instead of shitting on everyone? http://www.gallup.com/poll/186218/solid-majority-continue-support-death-penalty.aspx This is literally an appeal to majority, as in the classic error of judgement. If 60% of x country support stoning adulterers, you would defend that I assume? No, but in the same sense I wont go call 25% of the US population deplorable, or call 60% of the population disgusting. That is not how you achieve unity. Seriously, I come to this thread frequently enough, and Plansix is such an awful shit poster who just tries to demonize everyone who doesn't agree with him. It's a very uninviting environment to have a conversation in. This is a discussion board, not the UN. No one is going for "unity" here. This is a place of philosophical/ethical/political discourse, not bringing people together around a common goal. Alright, I've gotten a bit worked up, because some people have had really bad arguments for the last hour or two, so I apologize if I'm being a bit rude or harsh. That said, I completely disagree with you on anything to do with 4 year degrees here. Capital punishment is a question of morality and philosophy, that is not something that anyone should have a bigger voice on than someone else for, regardless of how much more educated and how much more money they have. Dealing with foreign relations, sure, let the experts do that, dealing with deciding whether the Death Penalty is just? No. Do you know what Habeas Corpus is? And habeas corpus is relevant here because.....? because everything ? I guess we should just remove peoples rights when we feel like it. How very Repub... oh wait... Nothing Fiwi said had anything to do with it, accept the part where he posted a twitter link with Trumps statement.
And how exactly is this post responsive to anything that I said?
You liberals need to calm the fuck down. You're all going bananas. There's going to be a new ICD code for Trump-related mental disorders at this rate. Posts like the above and kwarks are just utterly ridiculous.
|
United States44170 Posts
On September 20 2016 07:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 07:21 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 07:19 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I'm not taking a stance on Habeus Corpus, but Abraham Lincoln suspended it for two years and history considers him one of the greatest presidents of our nation to this day in spite of that fact. Just something I find mildly amusing. He isn't remembered for that and I would argue that a lot of shit that happened during the civil war shouldn't be taken as a model for future conflicts. The suspension of Habeus Corpus included. Oh of course. I just think it is mildly amusing to put things into perspective. "X is such a terrible thing" "Y is such a great person in history" Most people are unaware of or would even consider the possibility that Y could have done X. A great national hero widely admired by all in our modern society doing something we consider morally reprehensible is just one of those mildly amusing ironies of history.
Not really. I think most people with a working knowledge of history are pretty aware that the vast majority of people born before, say, 1950 in the west and probably 2050 in much of the rest of the world, were pieces of shit. If judged by current standards that is. Hell, our grandchildren will probably say the same of us. That's progress.
I saw a lot of Trumpers responding to the deplorables comment by claiming that if they're deplorable then so are the founding fathers. That struck me as odd because, well, of course the founding fathers are deplorable. They were a bunch of racist, sexist, elitist landowners that no right minded individual should wish to associate themselves with. There are a great many historical figures which I greatly admire but I don't think most of them meet with my moral standards. I suspect my moral standards are most likely influenced by the time and place of my birth and that had I been born two hundred years ago in America I'd have been fine with the whole slavery thing. But this is what progress looks like. And that's probably a good thing, if you're looking back at a worse past you're moving forwards.
|
On September 20 2016 07:23 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 07:17 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 20 2016 07:11 farvacola wrote:On September 20 2016 07:10 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 20 2016 07:05 Mohdoo wrote:On September 20 2016 07:00 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 20 2016 06:56 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/777971370567331840Trump, what a guy. Saying it's sad we are not horrible monsters like the terrorist. That we treat wounded people and give them trials. That is it sad we don't punish them like we used to. You know what he means. The good old days. Disgusting. The man bemoans the Constitution that prohibits cruel and unusual a punishment. 61% of the US population supports the death penalty (at least in principle). Obviously it's fairly prohibitive in terms of cost. When the average American doesn't even have a 4 year degree, citing consensus as a justification for morality doesn't make much sense. Support of an idea being widespread does not make it morally justifiable. Consider the percentage of Egypt that supports various forms of barbarism that we scoff at. Sure, our country is significantly more educated, cultured and whatnot, but it is still an example of widespread support for complete horseshit. I know I don't need to bring up the typical example of slavery. On September 20 2016 07:05 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 20 2016 07:03 Dan HH wrote:On September 20 2016 07:00 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 20 2016 06:56 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/777971370567331840Trump, what a guy. Saying it's sad we are not horrible monsters like the terrorist. That we treat wounded people and give them trials. That is it sad we don't punish them like we used to. You know what he means. The good old days. Disgusting. The man bemoans the Constitution that prohibits cruel and unusual a punishment. 61% of the US population supports the death penalty (at least in principle). Obviously it's fairly prohibitive in terms of cost. What is wrong with you calling 60% of the population disgusting? Maybe you should start to realize a sizeable majority of the US just straight up don't agree with you, so maybe you should change your outlook on the world and that it doesn't revolve around you instead of shitting on everyone? http://www.gallup.com/poll/186218/solid-majority-continue-support-death-penalty.aspx This is literally an appeal to majority, as in the classic error of judgement. If 60% of x country support stoning adulterers, you would defend that I assume? No, but in the same sense I wont go call 25% of the US population deplorable, or call 60% of the population disgusting. That is not how you achieve unity. Seriously, I come to this thread frequently enough, and Plansix is such an awful shit poster who just tries to demonize everyone who doesn't agree with him. It's a very uninviting environment to have a conversation in. This is a discussion board, not the UN. No one is going for "unity" here. This is a place of philosophical/ethical/political discourse, not bringing people together around a common goal. Alright, I've gotten a bit worked up, because some people have had really bad arguments for the last hour or two, so I apologize if I'm being a bit rude or harsh. That said, I completely disagree with you on anything to do with 4 year degrees here. Capital punishment is a question of morality and philosophy, that is not something that anyone should have a bigger voice on than someone else for, regardless of how much more educated and how much more money they have. Dealing with foreign relations, sure, let the experts do that, dealing with deciding whether the Death Penalty is just? No. Do you know what Habeas Corpus is? Yes I do, but that is only the case because a majority of people in the country believe it, or want it to be this way. If 55% of the population wanted a Hispanic person to be executed without question for any crime, and they were adamant enough about it, then yes, it'd be done. (well I suppose it'd have to be a larger majority since you'd need to change the constitution). Point still stands, if a majority of people want something, that's how it will be, regardless of how barbaric or how much you disagree with it. Luckily we have a large percentage of the population that look beyond basic instincts, and we have pretty well defined systems in our society... We still need to all get along, and if you start making mean arguments where you don't respect people's opinions, well that's where things don't work. So that's why we have say 1% of the population who just take it too far, and they are too much to handle, because they don't attempt for any kind of middle ground, and those people are put into prison/jail. The argument I'm just trying to say is that what people believe and what they want... That's how the society is going to run with our current government system. Maybe eventually, but there are a great many things favored by the majority of people that are not the rule of the land. Easiest one to point out off the top of my head is marijuana legalization status. Or stricter background checks for guns. America is an oligopoly, not a democracy and was intentionally designed to keep the lay person as far away from making political decisions as was possible.
Yes, more specific issues, which are less a moral dilemma but rather one of practical application is handled by politicians.
That's why in my previous argument, I believe I said "believe strongly" in it, because you're right, there's that phenomenon in that certain things can get passed because a small portion of the population has really strong feelings about it, so even though let's say 80% of the population is mildly against it, they'll give in, just because people don't care enough.
I think issues that affect most people are things like Muslim immigration, where most people stand either that most of them are good people, and we should help them, it's the humane thing to do, etc... Versus the other side where people think they'll destroy our culture, social structure, "we're going to lose our country", etc. So it's a big issue for both sides, whereas even though I probably have a slight preference for people to not smoke weed, it's not going to affect me much, so okay, let them have it.
|
On September 20 2016 07:19 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 07:17 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 20 2016 07:11 farvacola wrote:On September 20 2016 07:10 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 20 2016 07:05 Mohdoo wrote:On September 20 2016 07:00 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 20 2016 06:56 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/777971370567331840Drumpf, what a guy. Saying it's sad we are not horrible monsters like the terrorist. That we treat wounded people and give them trials. That is it sad we don't punish them like we used to. You know what he means. The good old days. Disgusting. The man bemoans the Constitution that prohibits cruel and unusual a punishment. 61% of the US population supports the death penalty (at least in principle). Obviously it's fairly prohibitive in terms of cost. When the average American doesn't even have a 4 year degree, citing consensus as a justification for morality doesn't make much sense. Support of an idea being widespread does not make it morally justifiable. Consider the percentage of Egypt that supports various forms of barbarism that we scoff at. Sure, our country is significantly more educated, cultured and whatnot, but it is still an example of widespread support for complete horseshit. I know I don't need to bring up the typical example of slavery. On September 20 2016 07:05 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 20 2016 07:03 Dan HH wrote:On September 20 2016 07:00 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 20 2016 06:56 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/777971370567331840Drumpf, what a guy. Saying it's sad we are not horrible monsters like the terrorist. That we treat wounded people and give them trials. That is it sad we don't punish them like we used to. You know what he means. The good old days. Disgusting. The man bemoans the Constitution that prohibits cruel and unusual a punishment. 61% of the US population supports the death penalty (at least in principle). Obviously it's fairly prohibitive in terms of cost. What is wrong with you calling 60% of the population disgusting? Maybe you should start to realize a sizeable majority of the US just straight up don't agree with you, so maybe you should change your outlook on the world and that it doesn't revolve around you instead of shitting on everyone? http://www.gallup.com/poll/186218/solid-majority-continue-support-death-penalty.aspx This is literally an appeal to majority, as in the classic error of judgement. If 60% of x country support stoning adulterers, you would defend that I assume? No, but in the same sense I wont go call 25% of the US population deplorable, or call 60% of the population disgusting. That is not how you achieve unity. Seriously, I come to this thread frequently enough, and Plansix is such an awful shit poster who just tries to demonize everyone who doesn't agree with him. It's a very uninviting environment to have a conversation in. This is a discussion board, not the UN. No one is going for "unity" here. This is a place of philosophical/ethical/political discourse, not bringing people together around a common goal. Alright, I've gotten a bit worked up, because some people have had really bad arguments for the last hour or two, so I apologize if I'm being a bit rude or harsh. That said, I completely disagree with you on anything to do with 4 year degrees here. Capital punishment is a question of morality and philosophy, that is not something that anyone should have a bigger voice on than someone else for, regardless of how much more educated and how much more money they have. Dealing with foreign relations, sure, let the experts do that, dealing with deciding whether the Death Penalty is just? No. Do you know what Habeas Corpus is? Yes I do, but that is only the case because a majority of people in the country believe it, or want it to be this way. If 55% of the population wanted a Hispanic person to be executed without question for any crime, and they were adamant enough about it, then yes, it'd be done. (well I suppose it'd have to be a larger majority since you'd need to change the constitution). Point still stands, if a majority of people want something, that's how it will be, regardless of how barbaric or how much you disagree with it. Luckily we have a large percentage of the population that look beyond basic instincts, and we have pretty well defined systems in our society... We still need to all get along, and if you start making mean arguments where you don't respect people's opinions, well that's where things don't work. So that's why we have say 1% of the population who just take it too far, and they are too much to handle, because they don't attempt for any kind of middle ground, and those people are put into prison/jail. The argument I'm just trying to say is that what people believe and what they want... That's how the society is going to run with our current government system. Your arguments are literally that if someone convinced x amount of people to do something that is objectively wrong .. I dono say .. go to war on a lie... thats ok because the majority is ok with it ?
I don't think anything about human interaction can be seen as objectively wrong. Stuff like being racist wasn't wrong, and now it's seen as wrong, so that can't be objectively wrong?
If enough people believe certain things, it wont seem so wrong anymore, it'll just be a controversial issue.
Even something as extreme as murder, it's not objectively wrong (imo). We just happened to see throughout history that if people living in a society together were killing themselves, they wouldn't get very far - so they said, don't do this, it's bad, it's wrong, etc. That's my view of the situation, looking at absolutes is too short term when not talking about science.
edit: Hitler is a good example, a large percentage of the population thought that Jewish people and disabled people were bad. If they won the war, would all of Europe be seen as objectively wrong by themselves?
Of course I'm not defending Hitler, and I don't think living in a society like what he had imagined would be very nice, or sustainable, but it just goes to show there isn't one way it's supposed to be. Philosophers for a long time tried to find the answer of what is right, but there just isn't a conclusive answer.
|
So who is excited for the debates? One more week
|
On September 20 2016 07:41 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
So who is excited for the debates? One more week
not me; as I expect more of the same we've had to deal with for too long now.
Down with free speech, constitutional amendment to shorten election season to a single month!
|
On September 20 2016 07:45 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 07:41 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
So who is excited for the debates? One more week not me; as I expect more of the same we've had to deal with for too long now. Down with free speech, constitutional amendment to shorten election season to a single month!
I do think there should be some sort of law regarding how long the election season is.
It forces anyone running for re-election to spend time away from serving their current term in order to ensure they get a next one just to compete with someone running against them.
Limiting the election season would be something I could get behind. As of now it's become a circus anyways
|
Limiting the timeframe of election season seems like one of the only political initiatives that could get through the amendment process.
|
On September 20 2016 07:52 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 07:45 zlefin wrote:On September 20 2016 07:41 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
So who is excited for the debates? One more week not me; as I expect more of the same we've had to deal with for too long now. Down with free speech, constitutional amendment to shorten election season to a single month! I do think there should be some sort of law regarding how long the election season is. It forces anyone running for re-election to spend time away from serving their current term in order to ensure they get a next one just to compete with someone running against them. Limiting the election season would be something I could get behind. As of now it's become a circus anyways
Yeah, Hillary announcing on April 12, 2015... Just crazy, more than 18 months before election day.
I would prefer to see something like 2 months after primaries finish to have election day, and to have primaries happen over 2 months... And no campaigning allowed until say 4 months from the initial primary.
I would also like to see some more structure and requirements to each election, than just having 3 national debates. Something like a mandatory number of press events, releasing more info that is held to a certain standard, etc.
At this point it's just a media money making machine.
|
On September 20 2016 07:30 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 07:24 Rebs wrote:On September 20 2016 07:19 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I'm not taking a stance on Habeus Corpus, but Abraham Lincoln suspended it for two years and history considers him one of the greatest presidents of our nation to this day in spite of that fact. Just something I find mildly amusing. This is called a tangent, please avoid tangents. Lets not start implying that we should be comparing Abraham Lincoln to Drumpf, which is literally the only conceivable reason you would bring this up. Or am I mistaken ? Uhh I disagree. Please avoid backseat modding. If historical facts offend you then you should probably reconsider your tendency towards anti-intellectualism
I wasnt really modding, I was warning you that you were taking the discussion in a different direction. The original discussion was regarding Trumps comments and peoples rights. Abraham Lincolns follies or his perception has nothing to do with Trump is doing right now. Unless you can find me a good reason for this whataboutism I think its fair to call it out. If you still want to keep doing that feel free to do so. Naturally I cant stop you and I personally will ignore it because I have nothing further to say on the matter.
Im not sure why you would think I would be offended by something like this. Lincoln is not a former President nor do I hold in any particularly high regard.
You could call Lincoln a slaving hypocrite for all I care. It matters none to me, its just that I find it a particularly irreverent thing to bring up. Especially when qualified with the fact that you arent even taking a stance on habeus corpus which was the whole thing discussed up until then.
On September 20 2016 07:38 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 07:19 Rebs wrote:On September 20 2016 07:17 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 20 2016 07:11 farvacola wrote:On September 20 2016 07:10 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 20 2016 07:05 Mohdoo wrote:On September 20 2016 07:00 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 20 2016 06:56 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/777971370567331840Drumpf, what a guy. Saying it's sad we are not horrible monsters like the terrorist. That we treat wounded people and give them trials. That is it sad we don't punish them like we used to. You know what he means. The good old days. Disgusting. The man bemoans the Constitution that prohibits cruel and unusual a punishment. 61% of the US population supports the death penalty (at least in principle). Obviously it's fairly prohibitive in terms of cost. When the average American doesn't even have a 4 year degree, citing consensus as a justification for morality doesn't make much sense. Support of an idea being widespread does not make it morally justifiable. Consider the percentage of Egypt that supports various forms of barbarism that we scoff at. Sure, our country is significantly more educated, cultured and whatnot, but it is still an example of widespread support for complete horseshit. I know I don't need to bring up the typical example of slavery. On September 20 2016 07:05 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 20 2016 07:03 Dan HH wrote:On September 20 2016 07:00 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 20 2016 06:56 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/777971370567331840Drumpf, what a guy. Saying it's sad we are not horrible monsters like the terrorist. That we treat wounded people and give them trials. That is it sad we don't punish them like we used to. You know what he means. The good old days. Disgusting. The man bemoans the Constitution that prohibits cruel and unusual a punishment. 61% of the US population supports the death penalty (at least in principle). Obviously it's fairly prohibitive in terms of cost. What is wrong with you calling 60% of the population disgusting? Maybe you should start to realize a sizeable majority of the US just straight up don't agree with you, so maybe you should change your outlook on the world and that it doesn't revolve around you instead of shitting on everyone? http://www.gallup.com/poll/186218/solid-majority-continue-support-death-penalty.aspx This is literally an appeal to majority, as in the classic error of judgement. If 60% of x country support stoning adulterers, you would defend that I assume? No, but in the same sense I wont go call 25% of the US population deplorable, or call 60% of the population disgusting. That is not how you achieve unity. Seriously, I come to this thread frequently enough, and Plansix is such an awful shit poster who just tries to demonize everyone who doesn't agree with him. It's a very uninviting environment to have a conversation in. This is a discussion board, not the UN. No one is going for "unity" here. This is a place of philosophical/ethical/political discourse, not bringing people together around a common goal. Alright, I've gotten a bit worked up, because some people have had really bad arguments for the last hour or two, so I apologize if I'm being a bit rude or harsh. That said, I completely disagree with you on anything to do with 4 year degrees here. Capital punishment is a question of morality and philosophy, that is not something that anyone should have a bigger voice on than someone else for, regardless of how much more educated and how much more money they have. Dealing with foreign relations, sure, let the experts do that, dealing with deciding whether the Death Penalty is just? No. Do you know what Habeas Corpus is? Yes I do, but that is only the case because a majority of people in the country believe it, or want it to be this way. If 55% of the population wanted a Hispanic person to be executed without question for any crime, and they were adamant enough about it, then yes, it'd be done. (well I suppose it'd have to be a larger majority since you'd need to change the constitution). Point still stands, if a majority of people want something, that's how it will be, regardless of how barbaric or how much you disagree with it. Luckily we have a large percentage of the population that look beyond basic instincts, and we have pretty well defined systems in our society... We still need to all get along, and if you start making mean arguments where you don't respect people's opinions, well that's where things don't work. So that's why we have say 1% of the population who just take it too far, and they are too much to handle, because they don't attempt for any kind of middle ground, and those people are put into prison/jail. The argument I'm just trying to say is that what people believe and what they want... That's how the society is going to run with our current government system. Your arguments are literally that if someone convinced x amount of people to do something that is objectively wrong .. I dono say .. go to war on a lie... thats ok because the majority is ok with it ? I don't think anything about human interaction can be seen as objectively wrong. Stuff like being racist wasn't wrong, and now it's seen as wrong, so that can't be objectively wrong? If enough people believe certain things, it wont seem so wrong anymore, it'll just be a controversial issue. Even something as extreme as murder, it's not objectively wrong (imo). We just happened to see throughout history that if people living in a society together were killing themselves, they wouldn't get very far - so they said, don't do this, it's bad, it's wrong, etc. That's my view of the situation, looking at absolutes is too short term when not talking about science. edit: Hitler is a good example, a large percentage of the population thought that Jewish people and disabled people were bad. If they won the war, would all of Europe be seen as objectively wrong by themselves? Of course I'm not defending Hitler, and I don't think living in a society like what he had imagined would be very nice, or sustainable, but it just goes to show there isn't one way it's supposed to be. Philosophers for a long time tried to find the answer of what is right, but there just isn't a conclusive answer.
Im sorry but you can pussyfoot around the ambiguity of philosophy and morality all you want, I dont think anyone cares or is buying it. Some things are wrong and some things arent. Taking away someones rights is wrong regardless of how many people agree with it. Murdering someone is wrong no matter how many people agree with it. Some things are pretty black and white regardless of the rationale or the history behind them.
Judging by the fact that you have nothing better than Hitler as an example. Hitler winning or losing has nothing to do with it. Hitler persecuting jews would have been wrong whether he won the war or not. How history panned out and who got to right it is again irrelevant.
I would prefer to address something based in reality. If we start getting into the pseudo psychology you are peddling its pointless to really discuss anything at all. Because "what if ?"
|
Actually I tried to paint is as clearly as possible.
I presented my argument, and you go against everything I say for two reasons:
1) Nobody cares or agrees with me (which I disagree with anyway)
2) You used Hitler as an example
I'm making it clear that I disagree with you, and if you're choosing to be ignorant, then so be it. I don't entertain discussion with you, and hence I'll be avoiding replying to your posts from now on. I agree with GGTemplar with the notion that you choose to go the anti-intellectualism route, and it's difficult to formulate an argument on any basis against you, because you'll dispute it on arbitrary claims.
It's not pseudo-psychology, I made a simple statement that right/wrong is relative, and gave two recent well-known examples in WW2 and racism (which in many ways is an ongoing issue), and you claim that I'm discussing in some alternative reality.
Either way, it's not an important discussion. I'll just say that I've had this conversation before with people, and particularly my Israeli friends are very against the treatment we give to captured terrorists. It's far from an issue that's seen as indisputable or having an objective answer, and very grounded in contemporary society.
|
I'm an admin on a site that Stonetear used to post on. He just had a bit of a breakdown and went on a posting-spree about cancer and how Microsoft is at fault for his link to Clinton.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WJ3li1t.png)
http://www.wcreplays.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147001&p=3131390&viewfull=1#post3131390
Rather unique username and he registered in 2005. Hard to imagine it isn't him, but maybe I'm wrong. We deleted all his other posts (dude is a maniac), but I undeleted this for people to see if anyone cares.
|
On September 20 2016 07:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 07:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 20 2016 07:21 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 07:19 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I'm not taking a stance on Habeus Corpus, but Abraham Lincoln suspended it for two years and history considers him one of the greatest presidents of our nation to this day in spite of that fact. Just something I find mildly amusing. He isn't remembered for that and I would argue that a lot of shit that happened during the civil war shouldn't be taken as a model for future conflicts. The suspension of Habeus Corpus included. Oh of course. I just think it is mildly amusing to put things into perspective. "X is such a terrible thing" "Y is such a great person in history" Most people are unaware of or would even consider the possibility that Y could have done X. A great national hero widely admired by all in our modern society doing something we consider morally reprehensible is just one of those mildly amusing ironies of history. Not really. I think most people with a working knowledge of history are pretty aware that the vast majority of people born before, say, 1950 in the west and probably 2050 in much of the rest of the world, were pieces of shit. If judged by current standards that is. Hell, our grandchildren will probably say the same of us. That's progress.
"Everyone who preceded me is a shitty person, everyone who comes from the rest of the world is shitty, but my culture and I have reached that tipping point where we have become good people."
That's pretty much what this statement is.
|
On September 20 2016 08:31 Mohdoo wrote:I'm an admin on a site that Stonetear used to post on. He just had a bit of a breakdown and went on a posting-spree about cancer and how Microsoft is at fault for his link to Clinton. http://www.wcreplays.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147001&p=3131390&viewfull=1#post3131390Rather unique username and he registered in 2005. Hard to imagine it isn't him, but maybe I'm wrong. We deleted all his other posts (dude is a maniac), but I undeleted this for people to see if anyone cares.
I was wondering when someone was going to bring him up. What a Grade A dipshit.
|
On September 20 2016 08:31 Mohdoo wrote:I'm an admin on a site that Stonetear used to post on. He just had a bit of a breakdown and went on a posting-spree about cancer and how Microsoft is at fault for his link to Clinton. http://www.wcreplays.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147001&p=3131390&viewfull=1#post3131390Rather unique username and he registered in 2005. Hard to imagine it isn't him, but maybe I'm wrong. We deleted all his other posts (dude is a maniac), but I undeleted this for people to see if anyone cares.
Can someone bring me up to date with this?
Is he Hillary's IT guy who tried to alter Hillary's emails to get rid of some shitty/controversial stuff, and he was found posting on reddit asking how to do it, and people connected the two people together?
On September 20 2016 08:32 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 07:33 KwarK wrote:On September 20 2016 07:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On September 20 2016 07:21 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 07:19 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I'm not taking a stance on Habeus Corpus, but Abraham Lincoln suspended it for two years and history considers him one of the greatest presidents of our nation to this day in spite of that fact. Just something I find mildly amusing. He isn't remembered for that and I would argue that a lot of shit that happened during the civil war shouldn't be taken as a model for future conflicts. The suspension of Habeus Corpus included. Oh of course. I just think it is mildly amusing to put things into perspective. "X is such a terrible thing" "Y is such a great person in history" Most people are unaware of or would even consider the possibility that Y could have done X. A great national hero widely admired by all in our modern society doing something we consider morally reprehensible is just one of those mildly amusing ironies of history. Not really. I think most people with a working knowledge of history are pretty aware that the vast majority of people born before, say, 1950 in the west and probably 2050 in much of the rest of the world, were pieces of shit. If judged by current standards that is. Hell, our grandchildren will probably say the same of us. That's progress. "Everyone who preceded me is a shitty person, everyone who comes from the rest of the world is shitty, but my culture and I have reached that tipping point where we have become good people." That's pretty much what this statement is.
Yep, pretty much.
Instead of calling everyone in history an awful human being, I think it's more appropriate to just say different environment, different beliefs and values. There's no golden standard to compare to that we're trying to reach, so different is a better word to use than worse imo. If you're going to judge someone's character, the best way to do it is probably to take the people who this person communicates with, and impacts the lives of - living at the same time as them... And get your assessment from there.
|
On September 20 2016 08:31 Mohdoo wrote:I'm an admin on a site that Stonetear used to post on. He just had a bit of a breakdown and went on a posting-spree about cancer and how Microsoft is at fault for his link to Clinton. http://www.wcreplays.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147001&p=3131390&viewfull=1#post3131390Rather unique username and he registered in 2005. Hard to imagine it isn't him, but maybe I'm wrong. We deleted all his other posts (dude is a maniac), but I undeleted this for people to see if anyone cares.
Eh, it's two common words, could easily be someone else. Especially if you google it with a space a lot of stuff comes up, gaming related in particular.
Unless you have reason to believe otherwise based on his posting before this news.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
