Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

It's always been like this since the beginning of humanity. It's possibly the biggest reason humans are so technologically advanced compared to all other life. You have to embrace the good with the bad.

you just said there's no such thing as "good and evil"... so you're qualifying a distinction between "evil and bad"? You're just making this shyte up as you go! Humans... compared to other life? You mean like to cats/dogs/equine/etc., or to those extraterrestrial guys? :lol: Damn, I guess we can only hope those guys aren't "mightier"... or that they have some form of moral compass so as not to blowUsAway, hey!

.

Without this competition we would still be living in dirt huts. We certainly would not be discussing this on a forum over a internet. Rainbow kittens are so limited. They can't see the bigger picture.

That everything is relative.

ya, ya... in your reality, all human progression is directly attributable... and only attributable, to the military/warfare! Hey now, does your kitten wear camo?

sorry to burst your bubble but the foundation of the internet has no militaristic/war driver! Arpanet was research focused on time-sharing the processing power of distributed computers... similar initiatives were underway that had no affiliation with the Pentagon/military; more pointedly, the concept of packet-switching was presented 5 or so years prior in the UK (again no military attachment)... which ultimately proved out to be the same design path Arpanet followed.

.

Without might is right, none of this would exist. It's what pushed humans to be mighty.

in a real world of Mutual Assured Destruction... just who is mightier?

.

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

you just said there's no such thing as "good and evil"... so you're qualifying a distinction between "evil and bad"? You're just making this shyte up as you go!

I said good and bad is relative to ourselves. I didn't say it didn't exist. You really may lack the intellectual capacity to equate relativity into your thoughts.

in a real world of Mutual Assured Destruction... just who is mightier?

.

The one with the faster trigger finger, and the best defense. Nothing changes.

Posted

I said good and bad is relative to ourselves. I didn't say it didn't exist. You really may lack the intellectual capacity to equate relativity into your thoughts.

The one with the faster trigger finger, and the best defense. Nothing changes.

check your intellectual capacity! MAD presents the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender..... you really need to get out from behind your Xbox once in a while!

Posted (edited)

check your intellectual capacity! MAD presents the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender..... you really need to get out from behind your Xbox once in a while!

Relativity is probably too complex for many humans to comprehend.

I'm sorry I even brought it up. Please, go back to your simple 2 dimensional (good/evil) view of this world.

Adding relativity to that equation is to complex.

As I've never even owned a x-box, let alone even played on one, once in my entire life, You have proven to me , yet again your very limited ability to understand the world you live in.

Edited by Freddy
Posted

Adding relativity to that equation is to complex.

you're such a tease! Lay it out for us bro... in your yet unexplained version of relativism, let's read your spin on the touched upon points of morality, international laws/courts/treaties, your fantasy "might-is-right"... while you pull it all together in relation to this threads OP - you know, terrorists, savages and heroes.

.

Posted

Please, go back to your simple 2 dimensional (good/evil) view of this world.

A Good/evil view is 1 dimensional not 2 dimensional. I think the word you were looking for is binary, not 2 dimensional.

Posted (edited)

A Good/evil view is 1 dimensional not 2 dimensional. I think the word you were looking for is binary, not 2 dimensional.

Yes, indeed. Lol

Good observation.

Edited by Freddy
Posted

you're such a tease! Lay it out for us bro... in your yet unexplained version of relativism, let's read your spin on the touched upon points of morality, international laws/courts/treaties, your fantasy "might-is-right"... while you pull it all together in relation to this threads OP - you know, terrorists, savages and heroes.

.

The op asked why good and evil changes with terrorism and Natives as examples.

The answer is we don't live a binary world. Everything is relative.

Might is right is simply the foundation reality of our Nature. The strong survive, and the weak die.

Posted (edited)

There are some people that have been declared both terrorist and hero. Menachem Begin was declared a "terrorist" by Interpol and later received the Nobel Peace Prize - which is correct?

A fairly impartial summary of his actions can be found at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Begin

An interesting perspective from the Middle East can be found at:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/are-begin-and-shamir-also-considered-terrorists-1.369342

Edited by Big Guy

Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.

Posted

One of the points I was trying to make in the OP is that the "terrorist" of to-day is the hero of tomorrow and vice versa. I remember when Fidel Castro was feted in New York after taking control of Cuba. He was going to be the best thing since buttered toast for the Americans - soon to become loathed and pilloried as an enemy and terrorist.

To-day, governments throw out the term to alienate the population from the target without having to explain what is "wrong" with them. The most popular attribute attested to "terrorists" is barbaric and savage things done by them to their enemies. These same people who are outraged see no problems with the theory that "the end justifies the means" when explaining the actions of those they support.

Personally, I see no difference between cutting the heads off innocent people and dropping bombs on apartments in which innocent people are living. They are both atrocities. The former performed by ISIS for cameras and the latter by Israeli airplanes in Gaza. Which deaths are more humane? Which deaths cause less pain? At least in the former, no innocent children are killed while in the latter children are just part of the collateral damage that was acceptable to Israel to achieve an end.

We seem to judge the validity of a death by the brutality of the act instead of only the result. Dead is dead no matter the process.

Attila the Hun would line the roads to a recently captured city with enemy heads stuck on spears. The smaller towns in the area would soon surrender. The USA drops bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and soon all of Japan surrendered.

It works.

Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.

Posted

There are some people that have been declared both terrorist and hero.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Benevolent terrorism is a theoretical possibility.

Posted

How about a benevolent terrorist? A person who instils terror in some as a benevolent act to others?

Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.

Posted

The answer is we don't live a binary world. Everything is relative.

says the guy, you, pumping your "might is right, weak is wrong"..... uhhh, "reality". How many dimensions in the Freddy rogueNation world?

.

Posted

says the guy, you, pumping your "might is right, weak is wrong"..... uhhh, "reality". How many dimensions in the Freddy rogueNation world?

.

A few more then you, that is for sure.

Posted

A few more then you, that is for sure.

wow! Scintillating retort. Again, where do such trivialities like morality and international laws/courts/treaties fit in your self-declared multi-dimensional "might-is-right" FreddyWorld?

Posted

wow! Scintillating retort. Again, where do such trivialities like morality and international laws/courts/treaties fit in your self-declared multi-dimensional "might-is-right" FreddyWorld?

They are laws the weaker countries should seriously consider following if they don't want to anger the ones with greater strength.

Posted

They are laws the weaker countries should seriously consider following if they don't want to anger the ones with greater strength.

:lol: well... like I said, your "might-is-right" reality is (un)principled based on the positions/actions of rogueNations; those that choose to fore-go their moral obligations as signatories and ratifiers of international agreements/treaties (in law).

Posted (edited)

:lol: well... like I said, your "might-is-right" reality is (un)principled based on the positions/actions of rogueNations; those that choose to fore-go their moral obligations as signatories and ratifiers of international agreements/treaties (in law).

Who will bring them to justice If they are to powerful for anyone to stop them?

See how might is always right. It's a natural law. You can make all the rules you want, Without enforcement they have no meaning.

What you need Waldo is a Jedi council. With Jedi's you're imaginary world could exist.

Which leads us back to what I said at the beginning of the thread. The world is not good or bad. Good and evil doesn't exist in a literal sense as a force of nature. It's relative to ourselves.

Stop looking at this world in a, Star Wars, binary way.

Edited by Freddy
Posted

look, I get it... I get that you completely dismiss international law, agreement and treaties... as do the rogueNations that choose to selectively apply them. For a guy who blusters on about relative aspects, your "binary application" of justice/no justice seems quite self-serving; albeit you don't bother to qualify your accompanying definition/use of the term justice. That relative "justice" as you say, plays itself out in terms of rogueNations presumptively wanting to keep working within the community of nations... or not. Equally, self-dictating measures like internal government change/shift, imposed fiscal restraint on continued militarization/war, a war-weary citizenry, domestic perception of world opinion, etc..

huh! "Jedi's... Jedi council"? You said you weren't a Xbox guy... what platform do you run your Star Wars games on? :lol:

Posted (edited)

look, I get it... I get that you completely dismiss international law, agreement and treaties... as do the rogueNations that choose to selectively apply them. For a guy who blusters on about relative aspects, your "binary application" of justice/no justice seems quite self-serving; albeit you don't bother to qualify your accompanying definition/use of the term justice. That relative "justice" as you say, plays itself out in terms of rogueNations presumptively wanting to keep working within the community of nations... or not. Equally, self-dictating measures like internal government change/shift, imposed fiscal restraint on continued militarization/war, a war-weary citizenry, domestic perception of world opinion, etc..

huh! "Jedi's... Jedi council"? You said you weren't a Xbox guy... what platform do you run your Star Wars games on? :lol:

Star Wars is a movie, and i watched it in a DVD&VHS player. They also have been made into book format.

Have you never broken a law in your life Waldo? Are you a perfect law abiding citizen 24/7?

I bet you break more laws of your country in a year then any rogue country breaks international laws.

Why do you speed? Why do you not come to a full stop? Why do you burn traffic lights? Why do you j walk? Why don't you pay taxes on side jobs you do for cash? Why did you collect UI and do side work for cash? Why do you consume drugs? Why did you drink and drive? Why did you litter by throwing your cigarette butt?

Why do you expect countries to follow international laws when 99.9% of humans can't follow regular easy laws of their countries?

Why is it we need to constantly enforce laws (by might) or no one hardly follows any of them?

Edited by Freddy
Posted (edited)

buddy, your latest post: see logical fallacy - non-sequitur!

So you don't follow laws. You break them everyday.

But you expect countries to follow international laws flawlessly.

Some double standard you got there.

You do know that countries are run by humans that can't even follow simple laws that need to be constantly enforced by consequences and a policing force ? (Might)

That means we have to constantly enforce our laws with might is right, and even if we do our population hardly follows many of them.

The day I personally can follow my local laws flawlessly without a policing force constantly enforcing them with might is right, is the day I'll start expecting my country to follow international laws flawlessly.

Especially in a democratic representative government. They are a representation of our population, and as we do not follow laws, we can't expect them to represent us properly if they follow laws flawlessly.

Edited by Freddy
Posted (edited)

:lol: oh my!... using jay-walking as a justification for the actions of rogueNations! All hail the mighty jay-walker - his/her "might is right"!

If you can't cross at designated walkways, as law requires you to do, then don't expect our government representatives to follow international laws, Waldo. If it's a matter of principle like you say.

You can't pick and choose.

You're the one who says it's not a matter of might is right.

If it wasn't then everyone would follow the speed limit even without police enforcement.

The day we need zero policing, and everyone follows the law, is the day every country will follow international law.

Until that day I'm not one bit surprised each time a super power breaks international laws.

Edited by Freddy
Posted

I think the word terrorism should be limited to situations where civilian populations are intentionally targeted for the purpose of creating fear among the civilian population.

Situations where civilians are killed by accident or negligence while going after military targets is a tragedy and may be a crime depending on the level of negligence. But it is not terrorism.

For some people, "terrorism" is any Western victory, unless we're fighting with both hands tied behind our back.Even Entebbe is too much for many.

  • Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone."
  • Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds.
  • Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location?
  • The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,920
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    henryjhon123
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • LinkSoul60 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • LinkSoul60 earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • LinkSoul60 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • LinkSoul60 earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • LinkSoul60 went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...