wood burning stoves*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes [political?] Not the Baghdad Diaries Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of Android Security Essentials Live Lessons this week in the Android forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Bookmark "[political?] Not the Baghdad Diaries" Watch "[political?] Not the Baghdad Diaries" New topic
Author

[political?] Not the Baghdad Diaries

Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Well, in the spirit of Map's posts seeking to highligh how evil we are, I figured I'd start another thread, with my own links.
She hasn't been to Baghdad and she doesn't blog
For those of us in the Northeast (well I consider the DC-MD area the northeastern US anyway), quite the weather we're having this week, isn't it?
[ September 10, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
Ah what the hell, here's another.
Child's Voice A Resounding Reminder Of Greater Hope
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
This is interesting. Just yesterday I read an interview (Russian) with a mother who lost her son in WTC explosion. (somebody calculated that 28 "Russian" families lost their people, quotes because often they are of different ethnical origin, just speak Russian). She said she asked many people if there is a word for a mother who lost her child and some language, and did not find any language that has this word. Probably most languages have a word for a wife who lost her husband, but not for a mother (or father for that matter). There are strange holes in our lexicon.


Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Anonymous
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 22, 2008
Posts: 18944
FYI: 250 Indian folks died on 9/11
http://www.schopra.com/india_page.htm (Very interesting Link)
http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/sep/20dilip.htm
www.nextinfosys.com/MIMNEW9oa.doc
John Smith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 08, 2001
Posts: 2937
She said she asked many people if there is a word for a mother who lost her child and some language, and did not find any language that has this word. There are strange holes in our lexicon.
This is an interesting observation. It probably indicates that the loss of the mother is considered to be a greater trauma than the loss of a child. It seems to me that it should be the other way around, -- after all, the civilization goes on when parents die, but if all children die, it will be the end of life.
[ September 10, 2003: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
Well, historically, losing kids while they were still young was all too common. Modern medicine is, well, a modern thing. If they'd made a word for a mother who'd lost a child, prior to say, the last century or two, the word probably would've just meant "a typical mother".
The other difference is that a child without parents typically can't take care of him-/herself, and has a very different societal status than a child with parents. Likewise to some extent a woman who lost a husband (historically, as perceived in many societies). A man who lost is wife was also affected, but less so, which I think is why "widower" derives from "widow" and not the reverse - "widow" is a more drastic condition. Anyway, compared to all these, parents who lose their kids can still take care of themselves, and still have most of their status in society, and, well, it was the normal way of things for a long time.
I'm just guessing here, could be way off, but those are my thoughts...


"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
in the spirit of Map's posts seeking to highligh how evil we are

I missed this when I read your post, started to click on your links too soon. I am not seeking to highlight how evil you are. I do not think you are evil. But if you will continue to close your eyes, turn back and blame the messengers when shown some results of your actions, eventually you will become evil.
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I am not seeking to highlight how evil you are. I do not think you are evil. But if you will continue to close your eyes, turn back and blame the messengers when shown some results of your actions, eventually you will become evil.

While I agree that everybody needs to be responsible and to acknowledge the consequences of their actions, it is my opinion that America is not evil, and in fact is far from it. Due to the nature of our political process, we occasionally get some real turkeys in office, but they get thrown out. Remember, it was in America that the most powerful man in the world voluntarily resigned his office, at the will of the people, without a shot being fired. We make mistakes, but in general we do pretty good.
However, what we get totally pissed off about is the world complaining about how bad we are, yet you don't say a damned thing when obvious evil stares you in the face. Saddam Hussein was EVIL. Period. Up there with Hitler and Amin. He had to go, nobody else would do it, so we got rid of him. And yet we still have to listen to how the rich Iraqis don't have cheap gas anymore.
What alternative would you have preferred? The only ones I can see are Hussein staying in power, or us launch some sort of Mission Impossible suicide assassination attack. Heck, we actually TRIED asking him nicely to leave, but that didn't work. And since it was clear that the UN was populated by obstructionists, what could we do?
What would you have done? Rather than complain about the actions, how about providing some alternate solutions?
Joe
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Joe!
In 1991 Al-Amriyah shelter was bombed by mistake, about 400 women and kids died. Does that mean America is evil? Not at all. I am saying it honestly. You do not cry for them?
I am listening to mourning about 9/11 victims today, and I cannot stop thinking about uncounted thousands of Iraqis who died in 2003. Will anybody ever utter their names? Probably not. Their death isn't glorified.
And yet we still have to listen to how the rich Iraqis don't have cheap gas anymore.
If I am not mistaken, you aren't too poor either? Can I politely ask you to quit taking her words out of context, or I may not be that polite any more. You did not live under dictatorship, you did not live under embargo, you did not live under bombing, you never had your life shaken upside down, so maybe it's a good idea for you to stop insulting those who went through all this and try to listen and understand?
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I am listening to mourning about 9/11 victims today, and I cannot stop thinking about uncounted thousands of Iraqis who died in 2003. Will anybody ever utter their names? Probably not. Their death isn't glorified.
What about the million who died uder Sadaam? Why is it that you never cried about them? I guess what Joe is saying that some people only complain when it is the US doing the killing. Stalin said one death is a tragedy but a million deaths is just a statistic. Your posts seem to suggest that you believe that as well.


Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
What about the million who died uder Sadaam? Why is it that you never cried about them? I guess what Joe is saying that some people only complain when it is the US doing the killing. Stalin said one death is a tragedy but a million deaths is just a statistic. Your posts seem to suggest that you believe that as well.

This is exactly what I am saying.
Joe
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
What about the million who died uder Sadaam? Why is it that you never cried about them?
This is our damn Slavic ability to read other minds. How do you know if I did or not? One of good people of MD sent me this link (caution: pictures of Halabja victims). This one is particularly disturbing. The worst kind of death I can think about (if there is such thing) is when parents and kids die together. For some irrational reason a separate death looks less atrocious. To die hugging your loved ones -- this is apocalyptical.
I saved these two pictures (one, another) on my computer, today found them on the Internet, not sure if it was the site I initially downloaded them from, or they travel from one site to another. I saved them because they bothered me - there is something both relieving and disturbing about this kind of art.
You think I should try to find Saddam Hussein and make him empathize with his victims?
I guess what Joe is saying that some people only complain when it is the US doing the killing. Stalin said one death is a tragedy but a million deaths is just a statistic. Your posts seem to suggest that you believe that as well.
Right the opposite. There is a problem with deciphering my inner message from the outer, brothers-Slavs... You see everything on symbolic and impersonal level, and I am more interested in personal and existential experience, and I do not know which trigger to use to change your perceptions.
[ September 12, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
You see everything on symbolic and impersonal level, and I am more interested in personal and existential experience, and I do not know which trigger to use to change your perceptions.
I guess I would be more impressed if you occasionally posted about suffering that Americans didn't inflict. It seems that the only suffering you ever see is that which America causes never the suffering that America tries to relieve. For example, I don't recall you posting about Liberia.
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
What proportion will suit you?
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
You see everything on symbolic and impersonal level, and I am more interested in personal and existential experience, and I do not know which trigger to use to change your perceptions.

Actually, Map, I see EVERYTHING on a personal level. That's one of the most difficult things about being me, I guess, although I wouldn't change it for anything. It hurts to be me sometimes, but I'm very alive, every day.
When I read about the lady trapped for 27 hours under concrete in a burning hot oven of a building, I am immediately transported there. I feel it, I hear it, I smell it. And not only that, not only do I see in my mind's eye the joy of her rescue and escape, but unfortunately, I see the rest of the picture.
I also see the inutterable horror of those who didn't make it - who were trapped, buried alive, in agonizing pain, unable to move, only to slowly die of thirst, or be roasted alive, completely alone. They had kissed their children goodbye that morning, hugged their loved ones, and gone to work like any other day, only to end it trapped, unreachable, smelling fumes and smoke and burning flesh, hearing screams, and then moans, and then nothing.
This is not symbolic, Map. This is real. And those that caused this must be destroyed. And whether or not you believe Hussein had anything to do with the bombings (though it's hard to believe he didn't at least fund terrorism) there is no doubt about one thing: Hussein was Evil, with a capital 'E'. With him gone, there is less money to help fund terrorists. And if it is America's legacy to destroy Evil wherever it exists, then I wouldn't be too upset with that legacy.
Joe
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Actually, Map, I see EVERYTHING on a personal level. That's one of the most difficult things about being me, I guess, although I wouldn't change it for anything. It hurts to be me sometimes, but I'm very alive, every day.
Is this what called empathy? I read somewhere that people with hightened ability to empathize end up absorbing all the pain of this world (because this is the strongest of emotions) which often lead to depressions. You believe in God, right? Maybe this helps...
[ September 12, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
John Smith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 08, 2001
Posts: 2937
JP: This is not symbolic, Map. This is real. And those that caused this must be destroyed. And whether or not you believe Hussein had anything to do with the bombings (though it's hard to believe he didn't at least fund terrorism) there is no doubt about one thing: Hussein was Evil, with a capital 'E'. With him gone, there is less money to help fund terrorists. And if it is America's legacy to destroy Evil wherever it exists, then I wouldn't be too upset with that legacy.
I don't think there is any disagreement whether Saddam is evil or not (although there may be some arguments about the capitalization of "e"). The real question is, how much evil is morally justified to defeat evil? That is where people have very different opinions. Here are the bounds of the spectrum:
Lower Bound -- No amount of evil is acceptable. That is, if you kill just one innocent child to save the world, you are evil.
Upper bound -- Any amount of evil is acceptable. That is, if you need to save an innocent child, it is moral to kill the rest of innocent children.
Now, depending on your frame of reference, you will probably settle somewhere. For example, if your frame is the Old Testament, you would settle for 50% killed - 50% saved (i.e eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth). If it is a New Testament, you would gravitate towards the Lower Bound (i.e, love your enemy, give the other cheek, etc).
There doesn't seem to be anything universal to guide you in choosing the threashold for the maximum acceptable amount of evil. Well, except one thing, -- you cannot defeat evil with evil, -- the evil just gets more evil.
Didn't you say that love conquers all, in the thread dedicated to your son yet to be born?
[ September 12, 2003: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Is this what called empathy? I read somewhere that people with hightened ability to empathize end up absorbing all the pain of this world (because this is the strongest of emotions) which often lead to depressions. You believe in God, right? Maybe this helps...

Yeah, depression, substance abuse, you name it. We often go nuts, too. But yes, belief in God helps.
Joe
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Posts: 1376
Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
Didn't you say that love conquers all, in the thread dedicated to your son yet to be born?

Absolutely. But I never said I was perfect .
In fact, I can probably outline my own personal evil-meter:
  • If you sell drugs to an adult, I probably won't say anything.
  • If you sell drugs to a child, I will do whatever it takes to make sure you are arrested and justice is served.
  • If you sexually abuse a child, I will probably serve justice myself.
  • If it is my child, remove the word "probably".

  • I am not perfect. I do not believe that my desire that terrorists be wiped off the planet jives perfectly with my desire to do no harm. I do not believe that my support of the war on Iraq is completely in synch with my desire to help others. But this is an imperfect planet, mine is an imperfect soul, and given the alternatives, these beliefs are the ones I think are truest to my soul.
    Joe
    John Smith
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Oct 08, 2001
    Posts: 2937
    JP: I am not perfect. I do not believe that my desire that terrorists be wiped off the planet jives perfectly with my desire to do no harm. I do not believe that my support of the war on Iraq is completely in synch with my desire to help others. But this is an imperfect planet, mine is an imperfect soul, and given the alternatives, these beliefs are the ones I think are truest to my soul.
    Fair enough, Joe. I think I love you.
    Tarun Sukhani
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Aug 27, 2001
    Posts: 53
    Originally posted by Joe Pluta:

    While I agree that everybody needs to be responsible and to acknowledge the consequences of their actions, it is my opinion that America is not evil, and in fact is far from it.

    Calling a nation-state or any artifically delineated landmass evil is reductionist at best, and supremely ingenuous at worst. By doing so, you presuppose that there exists a homogeneous population in said delineation that by and large dichotomizes reality (e.g., You are either with us, or with the terrorists)...hey, wait a minute...

    Due to the nature of our political process, we occasionally get some real turkeys in office, but they get thrown out. Remember, it was in America that the most powerful man in the world voluntarily resigned his office, at the will of the people, without a shot being fired. We make mistakes, but in general we do pretty good.

    Hey, are you talking about Gorbachev, or Nixon?
    However, what we get totally pissed off about is the world complaining about how bad we are, yet you don't say a damned thing when obvious evil stares you in the face. Saddam Hussein was EVIL. Period. Up there with Hitler and Amin. He had to go, nobody else would do it, so we got rid of him. And yet we still have to listen to how the rich Iraqis don't have cheap gas anymore.

    Is EVIL worse than evil - i.e., Does capitalization of every letter of a word imply a greater degree of nefariousness? Interesting question to ponder, my friends!
    Saddam Hussein is up there with Hitler, huh? I didn't know Saddam masterminded the eradication of 12 million members of the human popluation that his regime considered human excrement, or that he published racially motivated literature, or that his master plan included the conquest of Europe and ultimately, the world...wow, thanks for that tidbit!


    What alternative would you have preferred? The only ones I can see are Hussein staying in power, or us launch some sort of Mission Impossible suicide assassination attack. Heck, we actually TRIED asking him nicely to leave, but that didn't work. And since it was clear that the UN was populated by obstructionists, what could we do?
    What would you have done? Rather than complain about the actions, how about providing some alternate solutions?
    Joe

    Imagine you are the leader of a sovereign nation (irregardless of how you got elected, enthroned, etc. - note that the UN does not make a distinction in this regard; what matters is that your nation is sovereign), and some other leader of another sovereign nation decides you ain't that good a leader, how would you feel if he asked you to get the F**K out? I suppose you wouldn't feel too great about it. Kind of like a bully on the playground, huh?
    The UN provided dozens of solutions, including letting weapons inspectors do their job, since the brouhaha in the first place was about weapons of ass destruction.
    -- Did I say ass instead of mass? Ooops, sorry about that.. :roll:
    Thomas Paul
    mister krabs
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: May 05, 2000
    Posts: 13974
    Originally posted by Tarun Sukhani:
    Imagine you are the leader of a sovereign nation (irregardless of how you got elected, enthroned, etc. - note that the UN does not make a distinction in this regard; what matters is that your nation is sovereign), and some other leader of another sovereign nation decides you ain't that good a leader, how would you feel if he asked you to get the F**K out?
    Let's phrase this correctly. Suppose you are leader of a sovreign nation and have murdered more than 1,000,000 people both in neighboring countries and your own country. Let's also suppose that you support terrorist groups that attack other sovreign nations. Would you be surprised that someone might take offense at this and kick you out?
    Joe Pluta
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Jun 23, 2003
    Posts: 1376
    Originally posted by Tarun Sukhani:
    Saddam Hussein is up there with Hitler, huh? I didn't know Saddam masterminded the eradication of 12 million members of the human popluation that his regime considered human excrement, or that he published racially motivated literature, or that his master plan included the conquest of Europe and ultimately, the world...wow, thanks for that tidbit!

    Sarcasm is usually not a good way to have a realistic discussion about politics. It can come off as condescending, and will tend to outweigh any real points you might have.
    That aside, the issue of my believing Hussein to be Evil (with a capital 'E') is based on the fact that he slaughtered people whom he was responsible to protect. You act like one million is somehow less meaningful than 12 million; it makes it sound like you have some cutoff point - under some number and slaughter is acceptable. Me, I don't have any such belief. One victim can be as Evil as one million.

    Joe
    R K Singh
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Oct 15, 2001
    Posts: 5371
    Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
    Let's phrase this correctly. Suppose you are leader of a sovreign nation and have murdered more than 1,000,000 people both in neighboring countries and your own country. Let's also suppose that you support terrorist groups that attack other sovreign nations. Would you be surprised that someone might take offense at this and kick you out?

    My God .. I am tired of asking proof .. and one is not tired of not giving any proof ..
    Nouber of people died in different US wars will be more than that ..
    Terrorism.. first decide GW-2 was "war of libralisation" or "war against terrorism".
    And third .. how do I live in my home should not bother anyone else.
    AW any one has any idea about reason for murder of Kelly ??


    "Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
    Thomas Paul
    mister krabs
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: May 05, 2000
    Posts: 13974
    Originally posted by R K Singh:
    My God .. I am tired of asking proof .. and one is not tired of not giving any proof ..
    Proof of what? The million dead? You can check with the Iranians and the Kurds to check those numbers. Support of terrorism? It is well known that Iraq supported terrorist groups like Hamaas in Palestine. They even paid off the families of suicide bombers! So what exactly are you looking for proof of?
    Thomas Paul
    mister krabs
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: May 05, 2000
    Posts: 13974
    Originally posted by R K Singh:
    Terrorism.. first decide GW-2 was "war of libralisation" or "war against terrorism".
    When Bush gave his speech after 9/11 two years ago, he said that this was not a war against Al Queda but a war against all terrorists and the states that support them. He specifically named Iraq, North Korea, and Iran. So what exactly is your problem?
    Thomas Paul
    mister krabs
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: May 05, 2000
    Posts: 13974
    Originally posted by R K Singh:
    And third .. how do I live in my home should not bother anyone else.
    If you kill people inside your house then the police will definitely have an interest, don't you think?
    R K Singh
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Oct 15, 2001
    Posts: 5371
    Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
    If you kill people inside your house then the police will definitely have an interest, don't you think?

    first time you are supporting me.
    Mapraputa Is
    Leverager of our synergies
    Sheriff

    Joined: Aug 26, 2000
    Posts: 10065
    Joe: You act like one million is somehow less meaningful than 12 million; it makes it sound like you have some cutoff point - under some number and slaughter is acceptable. Me, I don't have any such belief. One victim can be as Evil as one million.
    How interesting. This reminds me a famous quote from Dostoevsky (I already gave it somewhere in this forum, but one more time):
    "I don't want harmony. From love for humanity I don't want it. I would rather be left with the unavenged suffering. I would rather remain with my unavenged suffering and unsatisfied indignation, even if I were wrong. Besides, too high a price is asked for harmony; it's beyond our means to pay so much to enter on it. And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I am an honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible. And that I am doing. It's not God that I don't accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return him the ticket."
    "That's rebellion," murmered Alyosha, looking down.
    "Rebellion? I am sorry you call it that," said Ivan earnestly. "One can hardly live in rebellion, and I want to live. Tell me yourself, I challenge your answer. Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature -- that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance -- and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth."
    "No, I wouldn't consent," said Alyosha softly.
    The Brothers Karamazov. Part II. Book V: Pro and Contra. Chapter 4: Rebellion
    http://www.classicreader.com/read.php/sid.1/bookid.276/sec.35/
    In followed exchange Eugene and me agreed on one point:
    Eugene: My point is exactly the opposite. I believe that it is immoral to kill 100 people (or even 1 innocent child) to save 1,000,000 people.
    Map: I agree that it is immoral, but it is practical.

    So Joe, do you think it is moral or immoral to kill 1000 people to save 1,000,000? (whether it should be done is a totally different question).
    And I cannot resist to use Eugene's phrase for my sig again.
    ----------------
    "I am trying really hard to remain a free thinker under the pressure of propaganda from all sides"
    Eugene Kononov
    Tarun Sukhani
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Aug 27, 2001
    Posts: 53
    Originally posted by Joe Pluta:

    Sarcasm is usually not a good way to have a realistic discussion about politics.

    And neither is a cursory understanding of the issues at hand... The fact of the matter is that the TRUTH (since you love capitalization so much, I've injected my own words with this literary device) is probably buried in mounds of classified documents that probably won't become declassified for another 50 years or so. History supports this conjecture since all previous conflicts initiated by the US since the Spanish-American war have resulted in documents not being released for public consumption until such time as the main participants are DEAD.
    It can come off as condescending, and will tend to outweigh any real points you might have.

    Those who truly understand the issues will glean the "real" points from careful rational analysis, irregardless of sarcasm. It IS possible to extract tidbits of the truth from released documents of arms sales, inventory reports, etc.

    That aside, the issue of my believing Hussein to be Evil (with a capital 'E') is based on the fact that he slaughtered people whom he was responsible to protect.

    Really, he was responsible for protecting the Kurds? I didn't know there was some written or oral agreement between Saddam's regime and the Kurdish "delegation" that suggested any such protection. As far as I know, and read, the Kurds were a minority population that, like the Jews, were peripatetic and often settled across national borders - in this case, Kurds disseminated their numbers across Southeastern Turkey and Northwest Iraq.
    In that sense, the Kurds are like the Native American population whom the American government "swore" to protect, but somehow fell kinda short of that goal, wouldn't you think? Amazing parallels exist...

    You act like one million is somehow less meaningful than 12 million; it makes it sound like you have some cutoff point - under some number and slaughter is acceptable. Me, I don't have any such belief. One victim can be as Evil as one million.
    Joe

    Well, for the purposes of genocide (and thus international law), one million CAN be less meaningful than 12 million, at least within this particular context. While both are abhorrent, killing millions of individuals randomly is different than killing a certain group of individuals exclusively (thus qualifying as genocide).
    Hitler singled out specific groups of people to slaughter (Jews, Gypsies, etc.) that did not meet certain visual or genetic criteria (Nordic or Western European descent, etc. as outlined in Mein Kempf), whereas Saddam singled out populations based on political and religious ideology, not on how they looked. Strangely enough, the former is exactly how Europeans who settled in the Americas singled out the native population..
    Joe Pluta
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Jun 23, 2003
    Posts: 1376
    Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
    So Joe, do you think it is moral or immoral to kill 1000 people to save 1,000,000? (whether it should be done is a totally different question).

    The truly immoral person (the Evil person) is the person that makes this decision necessary. The person I have the most sympathy for is the one required to make the decision, because in that case there are no perfectly moral answers. Letting a million people die is not moral, but neither is killing 1000 innocents. Again, it's the person causing that decision to be required who is Evil.
    When I was young, I put a similar question to my religious education teachers ("If killing a man who is about to kill a million people is the only way to stop him, is it still a sin to kill him?". I was dismissed from class.
    Now, Map, you have a wonderful way of phrasing things that really ignores the reality of the situation. Had you asked "do you go to war with possible civilian casualties in order to stop a genocidal monster who is slaughtering his own people", then I would answer "Yes".
    But your spin is much more cruel, much more biased, and much less likely. The question is "you have two groups of innocent people, and you must kill one group". I think I'd rather not choose, and I hope I am never in the position of having to decide such a horrible question.
    Joe
    Joe Pluta
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Jun 23, 2003
    Posts: 1376
    Originally posted by Tarun Sukhani:
    Strangely enough, the former is exactly how Europeans who settled in the Americas singled out the native population.

    Those who wish to avoid any real discussion invariably turn to the disgusting atrocities perpetrated on the native American population by the American settlers. This is a sure sign they're simply looking to argue, not find consensus. Using past behavior to justify current Evil serves no purpose other than to argue (not discuss), and I will not take part in it.
    If you think Saddam is NOT a butcher, then I am very sorry for you. But I have nothing to say to you.
    Joe
    Thomas Paul
    mister krabs
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: May 05, 2000
    Posts: 13974
    Originally posted by Tarun Sukhani:
    Strangely enough, the former is exactly how Europeans who settled in the Americas singled out the native population..

    That is an odd way to look at history but you might want to think about this. the colonists lived peacefully with the Indians in North America until the early 1600's when the Indians rose up and almost destroyed the white population. The Indians consistently chose the wrong side in wars with the colonies and the US. The French and Indian War, the Revolution, even the War of 1812, the Indians consistently sided against the Americans. But even then, the wars with the Indians were not wars of genocide. A comment from Sitting Bull might be of interest. After he had traveled throughout the world with Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show, he said that if he had known how many white men there were, he would not have made war against them but would have made peace. Your theory of genocide against all Indians is provably false by the fact that so many Indian tribes are still around in the eastern US. If it had been a war of geneocide wouldn't they have been exterminated?
    In any case, all of this happened more than 100 years ago. I would hope that we would not excuse the actions of today because of something that occurred two centuries ago.
    I'm not sure what the purpose of your post was. Are you trying to say that Saddam was not as bad as Hitler? True but only because he was never given the power to turn into Hitler. Let's not forget the the US Air Force had been protecting the Kurds since the first Gulf War. But even if it is true that he wasn't as bad as Hitler, so what? Does that make his actions OK?
    Joe Pluta
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Jun 23, 2003
    Posts: 1376
    Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
    That is an odd way to look at history but you might want to think about this. the colonists lived peacefully with the Indians in North America until the early 1600's when the Indians rose up and almost destroyed the white population.

    Actually, I'm more upset by what we did AFTER the wars, Tom - the consistent way we broke every treaty we passed with the tribes, relegating them to land useless for much of anything, and reducing them to a society dependent upon others.
    But I believe we have made great strides in the last generation or two in enabling native Americans to regain a certain economic status while at the same time keeping their original culture. It is our constant striving to move forward (not without the occasional backwards misstep) that makes this country great.
    Joe
    R K Singh
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Oct 15, 2001
    Posts: 5371
    Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
    a genocidal monster who is slaughtering his own people"

    which year are you talking about ??
    Joe Pluta
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Jun 23, 2003
    Posts: 1376
    Originally posted by R K Singh:
    which year are you talking about

    Genocidal slaughter is Evil any year, Ravish.
    Joe
    Tarun Sukhani
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Aug 27, 2001
    Posts: 53
    Originally posted by Joe Pluta:

    But I believe we have made great strides in the last generation or two in enabling native Americans to regain a certain economic status while at the same time keeping their original culture.

    Yup, dem casinos sure did the trick!

    It is our constant striving to move forward (not without the occasional backwards misstep) that makes this country great.
    Joe

    So, are you implying that other countries are not forward-looking? What makes America great is the political structure that allows activists to make changes to said structure. It is a dynamic that constantly strives to meet the goals of all its participants. But this is achieved through constant struggle. No victory can be taken for granted.
    Now, very few countries can claim the same structure. By this definition, America is great. That's why people immigrate here.
    Jim Yingst
    Wanderer
    Sheriff

    Joined: Jan 30, 2000
    Posts: 18671
    [TS]: Is EVIL worse than evil - i.e., Does capitalization of every letter of a word imply a greater degree of nefariousness?
    Absolutely. For extra effect, repeat the E, as in "it's pure concentrated EEEVIL!". It's unclear however whether "EVIL" or "eeevil" is worse, but we must live with some ambiguities I suppose.
    Mapraputa Is
    Leverager of our synergies
    Sheriff

    Joined: Aug 26, 2000
    Posts: 10065
    Joe: Now, Map, you have a wonderful way of phrasing things that really ignores the reality of the situation.
    I am asking a general question, regardless of today's details. In that I follow Dostoevsky's step. You can blame it on my "cultural heritage".
    Had you asked "do you go to war with possible civilian casualties in order to stop a genocidal monster who is slaughtering his own people", then I would answer "Yes".
    Joe, I carefully and purposefully separated these two questions, "should it be done" and "is it moral to do", as I believe these are different things. You seems refuse to separate them?
    But your spin is much more cruel, much more biased, and much less likely. The question is "you have two groups of innocent people, and you must kill one group".
    Where did you infer "must" from? I asked if it is moral or immoral to kill 1000 people to save 1,000,000. You do not have to, you have a choice.
    John Smith
    Ranch Hand

    Joined: Oct 08, 2001
    Posts: 2937
    TP: the colonists lived peacefully with the Indians in North America until the early 1600's when the Indians rose up and almost destroyed the white population. The Indians consistently chose the wrong side in wars with the colonies and the US.
    Oh, it's the Indians' fault? They were in the wrong place at the wrong time, right?

    Your theory of genocide against all Indians is provably false by the fact that so many Indian tribes are still around in the eastern US. If it had been a war of geneocide wouldn't they have been exterminated?
    What kind of argument is that, Tom? There are millions of Jews living in Germany and in many other countries around the world, does it mean that the Holocaust never happened?
     
    permaculture playing cards
     
    subject: [political?] Not the Baghdad Diaries
     
    Similar Threads
    Mapping
    America bashing
    Questions
    Why the americans...
    [political] Baghdad Diaries