S
Sculli
Guest
Rones said:
:crazy:Rones said:
I'm comparing casulaties, not wars. :wink:
Some of them might. Doesn't make them right nor the mass sacrificing of them right either.
Last edited:
S
Sculli
Guest
Alright, I buy that, lol.
Still, what is the point of that perspective/comparison.
Are you saying that if we stand by, then 56M or more will die?
Some would argue that it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. If they can't make peace, perhaps they do not deserve to live (goes for Israel and Palistine as well).
Still, what is the point of that perspective/comparison.
Are you saying that if we stand by, then 56M or more will die?
Some would argue that it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. If they can't make peace, perhaps they do not deserve to live (goes for Israel and Palistine as well).
Not saying that at all. I'm just pointing how the world lost 56million people and then to panic over what is an extremely low casuality rate seems out of perspective. Its like having your neighboorhood burn down and then being upset 5mins later because you spilled your drink.Sculli said:
Never in the history of mankind has warfare been waged with such minimul casulties. So much good is coming from such a small sacrifice compared to the massive sacrifices that were always needed in past conflicts (trying to not directly compare the wars).
I think it boils down to the meaning of life. If you see the reason of existance as making the world a better place, having our soldiers there is doing just that. Taking our soldiers from there will help a few live longer, but the world has become a worse place because of it. Save a few soldiers, sacrifice hundreds of thousands in a brutal civil war...that tips the balance toward making the world a worse place.
i've always said that we should just bomb the whole area into a pancake and leave it be. if jesus was real, he would reraise himself and cast barfira on the ones that he wanted to save just in time. yes, jesus was a WHM. he was also a level 66 cook.Sneakypants said:
M
Mokk
Guest
Rones said:
To who?
You want to explain to me how putting my family over a complete stranger or strangers is racism? That's a pretty huge stretch there, rones. I thought i made it pretty clear what justification i was using.
Take your morals and stuff em, fact is those folks are way over there and i could honestly give a crap less what hadji is doing this afternoon much as i'm sure they don't worry about what the random jerkoff in america does. It's not like they were suffering under the direct result of US military action which is now the case.
I can dig that you'd love to take the martyr position in this arguement with "those poor innocent people matter no more or no less blah blah blah" and that's all well and good but how can you honestly sit there and act as though my rationale, while you may not agree with it, isn't a completely logical stance?
Edit:
Rones said:
Ok now, hear me out on this: granted they were under a ruthless and cruel dictatorship but what brought the current situation in that country about?
On the whole making the entire world a better place ... i call BS. To correct: If you see the reason of existance as making iraq a better place, having our soldiers there is doing just that. Taking our soldiers from there will help them live longer, but iraq will become a worse place because of it and because we couldn't handle the commitment we made in the first place. Save a few soldiers, sacrifice hundres of thousands in a brutal civil war .. because we went in the first place and couldn't handle the commitment we made to those people .. most of which who don't and didn't want us there in the first place. A country the size of california in the middle of an area of the world known for nothing but godliness and war (ironic, no?) is a drop in the bucket compared to the idealism of making the world a better place.. wanna make the world a better place? keep the troops here, take the funding from the war and go cure aids.
Last edited:
To the world...I thought that was obvious. Most importantly to possible enemies
Because it is a self centered, selfish view commonly found in children. As you age you develop the ability for something called empathy, you seem to lack empathy. You also have not cited your philisophical basis for your logic. It is not logic just because you say so, it must have reason.Mokk said:
Because you didn't merely say killing 800 people for your father, you said 800 Iraqis. You are implying they are worth less by simply being born in another country. I don't see you saying you would kill 800 Americans for your father. No wonder people think Americans are arrogant.
M
Mokk
Guest
Rones said:
The enemies we don't fear and are tracking down regardless of world opinion at the outset? Which horse are you backing?
Rones said:
Simply because you refuse to understand my point does not make it illogical. The actions of people in a country half way around the world that do not involve myself or my country until we make it a point to do so under false pretenses does not compel me to be empathetic. My bad, i figure our troops could be better put to use on our soil instead of playing babysitter to the world. It's not that i'm not sympathetic, it's that i think the entire thing is a huge mess and everyone involved would have been better off had we either not gone or given going in a little more forethought.
Rones said:
Seeing as that's who we were talking about .... where was your point again? Had we been talking about some schmoes in jersey i still would've said the same thing, screw those guys if it means seargant joe kickass gets to see his daughter instead of dying violently in a humvee for no particular reason other than someone elses ideal zealotry of making the world a better place one 3rd world country at a time. Should i have said ugandans? Arabs? Martians? Would you have not shot me down for being too generalistic as you have time and time again? I'm implying that people i don't know matter less to me than people i do, period.
People think americans are arrogant because most of them are close minded and idealistic, they can't be bothered with validating other people's opinions wether or not they agree and manage to keep a civil tone or go do something wrecklessly ill-concieved in a historical sense. I'm sure the "without us you'd be goosestepping to work" comments from dumbasses the country over don't do much in the way of popular opinion either, but hey the world wars were our shinning moment, why not hold it over everyone's head whenever possible, right?
Last edited:
LadyKiKi said:
This would then mean that invading Iraq in the first place was all for nothing. Because there already was a "dominant" side settled in and in a good amount of control.
This means all the lives of the Americans and others would have been in vain.
The situation has to be resolved now that it has been started.
Tymon said:
Correction Civil War = Good People vs. Good People
- Joined
- May 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,752
- Age
- 51
- Location
- Chicago
- Nation Banner
- Linkshell
- Feeshing
- FFXIV
- Sneakypants
Rones said:
Largely, it seemed like you were pointing out that we saw such massive numbers of death because of the backs turned.
Perspective is one thing...Many things...Something different to everyone. When it's mentioned that we see lots of death because much of the world tried to ignore the problem, that's a more specific perspective.
- Joined
- May 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,752
- Age
- 51
- Location
- Chicago
- Nation Banner
- Linkshell
- Feeshing
- FFXIV
- Sneakypants
Blaine said:
It's not the first thing I'd look to do, but if ever the time comes, I'd be happy to push the big red button myself.
- Joined
- May 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,752
- Age
- 51
- Location
- Chicago
- Nation Banner
- Linkshell
- Feeshing
- FFXIV
- Sneakypants
Darkdante said:
It's just people vs people. There are no good or bad people.
- Joined
- May 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,752
- Age
- 51
- Location
- Chicago
- Nation Banner
- Linkshell
- Feeshing
- FFXIV
- Sneakypants
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rones
Because it is a self centered, selfish view commonly found in children. As you age you develop the ability for something called empathy, you seem to lack empathy. You also have not cited your philisophical basis for your logic. It is not logic just because you say so, it must have reason.
I think either side could be looked at as childish, depending on the spin you put on it of course.
Of course then we'd be making insults that "smart" people make because they don't want to swear or come off emotional or passionate about something.
In the end, neither of you are wrong per say. Nobody in this thread is right either. There is just a difference of opinion. Cold-hearted people that lack empathy are not childish. They see things differently than you, and you're just hard pressed to see that. Perhaps it's a little childish to play that childish card in what would seem to be an adult discussion?
Or I could just shut up and we can continue the debate without that kind of crap.
Originally Posted by Rones
Because it is a self centered, selfish view commonly found in children. As you age you develop the ability for something called empathy, you seem to lack empathy. You also have not cited your philisophical basis for your logic. It is not logic just because you say so, it must have reason.
Mokk said:
I think either side could be looked at as childish, depending on the spin you put on it of course.
Of course then we'd be making insults that "smart" people make because they don't want to swear or come off emotional or passionate about something.
In the end, neither of you are wrong per say. Nobody in this thread is right either. There is just a difference of opinion. Cold-hearted people that lack empathy are not childish. They see things differently than you, and you're just hard pressed to see that. Perhaps it's a little childish to play that childish card in what would seem to be an adult discussion?
Or I could just shut up and we can continue the debate without that kind of crap.
Darkdante said:
But as the sitation gets worst over time and for I don't see any improvements there at all ever, I take it that all the lives (not just Americans lol, there's more than that there ^^') lost would just have been in vain anyway. Just wait 10 years, and the army would still be there I bet ... :shok:
George Bush is brain dead, 'nuff said.
It was really none of George Bush's business what was going on, just like World War I only really became a World War when Americas president, back then, interfered into european affairs. Iraq should've been left alone and America had no place there, other than to take control of oil factories threatening to destroy the value of the dollar because they were considering changing to euros when selling their oil.
It was really none of George Bush's business what was going on, just like World War I only really became a World War when Americas president, back then, interfered into european affairs. Iraq should've been left alone and America had no place there, other than to take control of oil factories threatening to destroy the value of the dollar because they were considering changing to euros when selling their oil.
M
Mokk
Guest
Darkdante said:
QFT
Personally i don't think we should've gone in the first place. I'd love it if the troops were home tomorrow, is that practical? nope. I'm not so jaded as to think that my view of things are absolutely correct and everyone else is being a simpleton, which is where rones and i seem to differ, but the fact of the matter is this is a public forum and the question was posed. My point is in retrospect it would've been a better idea to think about what we were going to do and how we were going to do it so that the troops had more success with even less casualties, we didn't spend so much money on this as a country, it was over when the politicians said it would be, and everyone saved some face on both sides of the fence as childish as well as boarish comments are made on a second by second basis where this subject is concerned.
It'dve made my decade to be wrong about it all and the movers and shakers in power to have come out of this smelling like roses, but that's just not the case.
Last edited:
Take a developmental psychology course and you'll understand. I am not saying he is childish to insult him. I'm saying it because it is a trait of children. It has been showen in many psychology studies that children lack empathy before a certain age, but as they mature they develop the ability to feel empathy. If I had said he was childish for liking ice cream, then yes I would be out of line. However, calling him childish for a trait that is actually proven to be a linked trait of children is not.Sneakypants said:
Logic requires reason. You have yet to give reason. Reason on these kind of issues typically requires a form of philosophy or morality system for deciding right vs wrong, or what is the least wrong when choosing between two bad outcomes. You are choosing the life of 1 soldier/person you know over 800 people. Please supply your logic and reasoning. Just for example, under utilitarinism that would be wrong because there would be more unhappiness over the 800 deaths than the 1 death. Additionally, there is more potential happiness could be created from the 800 living than the 1 living.
M
Mokk
Guest
Rones said:
This kind of epic density is unbecoming of you and not only disheartening but unqeustionably surprising. I don't mean that as an insult, i'm honestly dumbfounded by your responses in this thread.
They are my countrymen, they are my compatriots, they are my friends and family, this is my reasoning for the last time. I can't spell it out any more clearly for you. people i know and have a psychological, physical, or spiritual tie with matter more to me thant people i share none of those things in common with. That's about as logical as one can be. The overall good does not concern me, what concerns me is what makes me feel better, that's how people generate opinions, they weigh the factors and side with what makes them feel right about what they think.
Selfish? sure, but i'm not for globalization either, shoot me.
To quote you from earlier:
Rones said:
That i have to explain myself, again, is ridiculous.
- Joined
- May 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,752
- Age
- 51
- Location
- Chicago
- Nation Banner
- Linkshell
- Feeshing
- FFXIV
- Sneakypants
Rones said:
Really though, talking of children is merely deflecting.
I've taken a handful of psychology courses, although I did not major in it.
Calling someone's opinion or reaction similar to that of a child's in mid-discussion was an element you brought to an adult discussion having nothing to do with that in any way.
I see your point about children not having empathy in early ages, however Mokk shows empathy...Maybe just not as much as you would consider an "adult" amount. Also, empathy does not equal adult or correct.
Hence, why I make a stink about that being introduced into this discussion.