Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

Tammuz wrote:the reason why Is the issue I'm discussing, I'm arguing against Invading IRAN, not IRAQ, becuase i completely disagree that the UK should invade a country over them taking hostages from an undefined region that may or may not in fact be there territory, JUST to save Face.

You don't necessarily have to invade Iran to cripple it. I believe in my OP I stated very clearly that as soon the sailors and marines hit home shore I would have vaporized Iran's refinery. This isn't about saving face, this about sending a clear message to your enemy that you're not going to tolerate hostage taking. If Iran didn't back down I would have started crippling their infrastructure. The beauty of an air campaign like that is it will probably give the Iranian dissidents the opportunity they need to overthrow the government.

That is well within the capability of Her Majesty's armed forces.

The list of the acts committed by our enemy I provided was to establish that they have absolutely no regard for human life and are therefore completely irrational.

i'm fairly sure i've heard at least one anti-american terrorist organisation say something very similiar

Okay, you visit known terrorist websites. Yeah.

your not fighting against a nation, your fighting against an idea, and the problem is everytime you use force you just play into the "irrational terrorists" hands, every time you detain one for for questioning, you just prove to them that their beleifs are right. Us invading iran would just be a massive confirmation of their Ideology.

Iraq is nation. Iran is a nation. People come from somewhere, not no where. Despite the fact their religion unifies them against a common enemy doesn't negate the fact terrorists can't operate without government cooperation and sponsors who, if isn't a state itself, is someone in a state.

I can prove thats existence just as well as you think you can disprove it.

Cute, but I don't care about proving it, disproving it, or changing their beliefs about the afterlife.

oh the irony that both you use your enemies appeal to absolute good as authority to wage war as criticism of there rational ability when just a few post earlier you yourself used the ver same argument to lend credence to your point of view

I never once mentioned any absolute good or evil forces. You injecting religious connotations into the terms and I'm guessing you probably assume I'm super Christian at this point (which isn't the case, I'm not a religious man and I've never been).

All I said was that I know good from evil and I can recognize them when I see them.

Again, your idea of "good" and "evil". This is not to say that your morals and ethics are utterly alien to the rest of the human species, but they are none the less still based on your personal beliefs and/or opinions.

The terms are subjective, not objective. You see them where you think you see them.

I think terrorists could easily operate without sponsors or
government cooperation.
Iraq is BARELY a nation anymore. There seems to be more fighting to break up what they had compared to fighting for what they can have.

Kjell wrote:Again, your idea of "good" and "evil". This is not to say that your morals and ethics are utterly alien to the rest of the human species, but they are none the less still based on your personal beliefs and/or opinions.

The terms are subjective, not objective. You see them where you think you see them.

I'm sorry, but this is pretty much bullshit people say to make themselves sound open minded and "enlightened" in front of other people.

Every great man history that did good things had a very clear opinion of what was right and what was wrong and amazingly, if you compare them all side by side the values are almost homogeneous across the board.

Recognizing good and evil isn't difficult. What the hell is subjective about a brother murdering his sister in cold blood because she "dishonored" the family by wearing some make up and listening to Fergie?

What the hell is subjective about people beheading innocents on national television?

What the hell is subjective about using children as tool to better fool people and allow for more people to be killed in an explosion (including the children)?

What the hell is subjective about wanting to exterminate an entire religion and race of people?

Please, subjective? Quit hiding behind bullshit terms like that. It's sick. It's absolutely sick that people can think the things I just listed are subjective.

I'm sorry, but only the pedestrians of history can't recognize something as basic and simple as right and wrong, good and evil.

lkavadas wrote:I'm sorry, but this is pretty much bullshit people say to make themselves sound open minded and "enlightened" in front of other people.

Every great man history that did good things had a very clear opinion of what was right and what was wrong and amazingly, if you compare them all side by side the values are almost homogeneous across the board.

Well, like who? I mean, if I were to compose a list of who I thought were the greatest people to ever have lived, I'm pretty sure their values would be rather close to each other. Because I would chose them according to my values.

lkavadas wrote:Recognizing good and evil isn't difficult. What the hell is subjective about a brother murdering his sister in cold blood because she "dishonored" the family by wearing some make up and listening to Fergie?

Obviously the brother's morals allowed (perhaps required) such a deed. Do mine? No.

lkavadas wrote:What the hell is subjective about people beheading innocents on national television?

Do those who murder people this way chose those they consider to be innocent? I haven't actually heard a lot about this but chances are that they don't. Is this a tactic I would employ? No.

lkavadas wrote:What the hell is subjective about using children as tool to better fool people and allow for more people to be killed in an explosion (including the children)?

To those who would do this the ends justify the means, well above and beyond what you think and even further beyond what I think. Obviously this means that neither of us two support this kind of deed. This also means that you would support actions that I, according to my morals, would have at least some difficulty accepting.

lkavadas wrote:What the hell is subjective about wanting to exterminate an entire religion and race of people?

If you fully believed that the ends justified the means and you saw a people or a faith as irredeemably evil there is not much else of a conclusion you can come to. Do I support this way of thinking? No.

lkavadas wrote:Please, subjective? Quit hiding behind bullshit terms like that. It's sick. It's absolutely sick that people can think the things I just listed are subjective.

I'm sorry, but only the pedestrians of history can't recognize something as basic and simple as right and wrong, good and evil.

Merely because "good" and "evil" are subjective as to which behaviour they apply to (not as to what they mean, as such) does not mean that I see everything as justifiable. I have my right and my wrong. People, at large, see their behaviour as justified. Not everyone can justify the same behaviour and not everyone would use the same justifications. Some people could justify behaviour that others think of as abhorrent.

My views, those by which I judge everything I encounter, are evidently not universal. They are right by my standards, naturally, but that's what everyone else thinks. You appear to see the world in black and white, while I see it in a whole lot of different shades of grey. I stick to the lightest shades I can and abhor the darkest shades, but the world is none the less grey.

Kjell wrote:A huge load of crap here.

I just want to illustrate an extremely important point to everyone following this discussion.

Kjell addressed each obviously heinous act with justification for each when such justification does not exist. This is exactly what I meant by "weak society" when I first brought it up. Kjell is so wrapped up in the how that he's completely forgotten about the what.

On top of that he has so little faith or confidence in his own basic human morality and convictions that he doesn't even have courage enough to say that someone killing an innocent child for absolutely no reason is wrong. He doesn't even have enough courage to say that genocide is wrong.

Do y'all understand what I meant about how the west is a pathetically weak society now? You could put Kjell in front of Hitler with a gun to ole Adolph's temple and if Hitler told him he planned to kill every Jew in the world Kjell would stand there and ask the man "why."

I'd pull the trigger.

I know genocide is wrong. I know using children as bait and killing them to just take out a few police officers is wrong. I know beheading some innocent journalist on live television is wrong. I know murdering my own family members is wrong.

The scary thing to me is that people agree with Kjell. How long can people honestly be so apathetic? Good lord, if you can't label genocide as wrong what the hell can you label as wrong?

Merely because "good" and "evil" are subjective as to which behaviour they apply to (not as to what they mean, as such) does not mean that I see everything as justifiable. I have my right and my wrong. People, at large, see their behaviour as justified. Not everyone can justify the same behaviour and not everyone would use the same justifications. Some people could justify behaviour that others think of as abhorrent.

As I said, you simply don't have any strong beliefs or courage in your own morality to even do something as basic as recognize good from bad, let alone act on behalf of it. Nihlism at it's finest I guess.

My point to you, sir, is that I don't give two shits about justification for anything. I don't care what their beliefs are and would you like to know why? Because it's not important. What people think is irrelevant. What people do isn't.

You have to separate motive from the action. 99% of the time motive means nothing. You strip the act down it's very basic core.

Marcus Aurelius was a master of this. If you pick up Meditations. In book 6, the first two paragraph in item #13, he really touches on something important. I'll just quote the entire thing:

Marcus Aurelius wrote:13. Like seeing roasted meat and other dishes in front of you and suddenly realizing: This is a dead fish. A dead bird. A dead pig. Or that this noble vintage is grape juice, and the purple robes are wool dyed with shellfish blood. Or making love--something rubbing against your penis, a brief seizure and a little cloudy liquid.

Perceptions like that--latching onto things piercing through them, so we see what they really are. That's what we need to do all the time--all through our lives when things lay claim to our trust--to lay them bare and see how pointless they are, to strip away from the legend that encrusts them.

This is what Kjell isn't capable of.

My views, those by which I judge everything I encounter, are evidently not universal. They are right by my standards, naturally, but that's what everyone else thinks. You appear to see the world in black and white, while I see it in a whole lot of different shades of grey. I stick to the lightest shades I can and abhor the darkest shades, but the world is none the less grey.

I don't reject gray areas at all and I've never once claimed to have. But neither do I reject absolutes, of which many exist. As I said before, you simply don't have enough confidence in your own morality and convictions to take a stance against anything. It's very sad. Like I said before, nihlism at it's finest.

Within a personal moral code, absolutes can exist. However, if you take away perspective, you have no "good" or "bad," and essentially that is what is being said by Kjell. Since perspective is relative, morals from person to person are relative and thus not absolute when considered in attempt to state what everyone thinks in terms of right and wrong behavior.

For example, say a man thinks killing children is fun, however deranged that may seem. I can say that is absolutely wrong within the bounds of my own moral code and personal perspective, but not outside that as a statement for everyone's opinion and thought on the matter, for it is not so, rather obvious in that the man himself's ok with it.

However, that won't stop me from killing him to stop such ill effects. That is the essentiallity of it--"moral relativism" is not saying one personally doesn't care one way or the other about an outcome, or cares what others think, but that one recognizes that others may think differently than he. What others think usually doesn't have any weight on the absolutes in one's own thoughts.

lkavadas wrote:I just want to illustrate an extremely important point to everyone following this discussion.

Kjell addressed each obviously heinous act with justification for each when such justification does not exist.

This is contradictory. How can you say he addressed each act with justification if such justification does not exist? If he justified it then it exists. Now, as far as I can see, he didn't even go as far as to justify these acts, anyway. He just pointed out that those committing the acts may have their own justification. You'll notice Kjell stated he didn't agree with their actions. Probably because he couldn't justfy them with his own moral code.

lkavadas wrote:Do y'all understand what I meant about how the west is a pathetically weak society now? You could put Kjell in front of Hitler with a gun to ole Adolph's temple and if Hitler told him he planned to kill every Jew in the world Kjell would stand there and ask the man "why."

I'd pull the trigger.

I know genocide is wrong.

So...would you pull the trigger every time you had a gun to the head of a Nazi? There's nothing wrong with Kjell asking, "Why?". That's how we come to understand each other's beliefs. Kjell can only make a judgement on Hitler if Kjell knows why Hitler is doing what he is doing. That doesn't mean the actions have to be justified, merely explained.

Think of it another way: if you go out and execute every Nazi or Neo-Nazi or every person committing genocide without asking them why they do what they do, how are you any better than them? If you eliminate en mass a group of genocidals without asking why, without cementing justification or reason for your own actions, how are you less evil than those you seek to punish?

lkavadas wrote:I don't care what their beliefs are and would you like to know why? Because it's not important. What people think is irrelevant. What people do isn't.

It seems you share the same narrow-minded, subjective general prejudices as those you criticise. Understanding why people do things is crucial. How can you justify pulling the trigger on Hitler if you don't have a reason why?

Leonardo wrote:You'll notice Kjell stated he didn't agree with their actions. Probably because he couldn't justfy them with his own moral code.

Precisely. That someone can justify an act to themselves does not necessarily mean that I accept the justification nor the act itself.


As far as shooting Hitler goes, well... If I knew that nothing even worse would come of it chances are that I would indeed pull the trigger. I would still feel bad because I killed another person (it's the principle of the thing, human potential is always a sad thing to see go to waste) but if it was entirely up to me I would likely have no other choice. Of course, we have some historical perspective so it's easy to sit and figure out what should have been done.

This would of course mess with history rather a lot but this is more of an excercise in morality than anything else so that's irrelevant. I would, however, be able to judge even better if I knew what the outcome would be.

Leonardo wrote:This is contradictory. How can you say he addressed each act with justification if such justification does not exist? If he justified it then it exists. Now, as far as I can see, he didn't even go as far as to justify these acts, anyway. He just pointed out that those committing the acts may have their own justification. You'll notice Kjell stated he didn't agree with their actions. Probably because he couldn't justfy them with his own moral code.

You missed the point. He provided what he thought was justification, but it's not justification. It's worthless excuses that people use so they can pretend to understand why people do things when why is irrelevant.

There's absolutely no plausible justification for genocide. Ever. People can create all sorts of make believe excuses but it doesn't change the fact of what actually took place; genocide. Nor does it make the act any less heinous, does it?

So...would you pull the trigger every time you had a gun to the head of a Nazi? There's nothing wrong with Kjell asking, "Why?". That's how we come to understand each other's beliefs. Kjell can only make a judgement on Hitler if Kjell knows why Hitler is doing what he is doing. That doesn't mean the actions have to be justified, merely explained.

It's cute that your insuinuating that I'd kill an entire political group of people based on party involvement. But the answer is no, because not every Nazi was responsible for genocide. Blame goes to architects and their subordinates who were directly involved with the execution of the plan; no one else. The rest of Nazi society can only be charged with apathy, ignorance, and naivety.

Think of it another way: if you go out and execute every Nazi or Neo-Nazi or every person committing genocide without asking them why they do what they do, how are you any better than them? If you eliminate en mass a group of genocidals without asking why, without cementing justification or reason for your own actions, how are you less evil than those you seek to punish?

Again, your pushing actions on me I never advocated or even brought up. No, I wouldn't kill the Nazis en masse because not all of them were inherently evil men. Most of the top brass weren't evil. But the people in many positions of extremely high power who orchestrated and executed the genocide? Yes, I would kill all of them. It's why the Allies conducted the Nuremberg trials after the war. To determine guilt and punish accordingly. That punishment was based on the tribunal members beliefs in absolutes. That people whom were absolutely guilty deserved punishment absolutely.

Or should they have just excused those on trial on the basis of relativity? How can we punish anyone for anything if we rely on relativity? That's called chaos.

lkavadas wrote:It seems you share the same narrow-minded, subjective general prejudices as those you criticise. Understanding why people do things is crucial. How can you justify pulling the trigger on Hitler if you don't have a reason why?

What does it matter why Hitler wanted to murder every Jew? Does why he wanted to do something make the act any less evil? No, it doesn't. I don't care if he thought God told him to do it or someone threatened his life and coerced him into it. It doesn't make the act any less excusable nor does it decrease how incredibly wrong, evil, or bad the act was.

Let's look at it from another angle. If a color blind person said green doesn't exist, does that mean green doesn't exist? No, green does exist no matter what the color blind person says. It doesn't matter why he can't see green. It doesn't change anything. You'll never be able to supply indisputable proof that green exists to this man, will you?

So one man who can't see green is proof enough to dispute the very existence of green? What if it was 100? What if the people who could see green were the minority? Does that mean social relativism would dictate green doesn't exist? But it still does, doesn't it? Despite relativity.

I'm sorry, but relativity only extends so far. There are absolutes beyond one's own relativity. You need to pull back from your own perspective. Again, as Aurelius said, you have to strip away the bullshit and pretense and look at what something actually is. Most of you simply lack the courage and character to do so.

lkavadas wrote:You missed the point. He provided what he thought was justification, but it's not justification. It's worthless excuses that people use so they can pretend to understand why people do things when why is irrelevant.

There's absolutely no plausible justification for genocide. Ever. People can create all sorts of make believe excuses but it doesn't change the fact of what actually took place; genocide. Nor does it make the act any less heinous, does it?

Saying that there is no plausible justification is just your opinion. Someone may believe that their justification is just that, justification. What right do you have to label their justifications as "worthless excuses"?

lkavadas wrote:It's cute that your insuinuating that I'd kill an entire political group of people based on party involvement. But the answer is no, because not every Nazi was responsible for genocide. Blame goes to architects and their subordinates who were directly involved with the execution of the plan; no one else. The rest of Nazi society can only be charged with apathy, ignorance, and naivety.

I wasn't insinuating anything; I was asking if you if that was the case.

lkavadas wrote:Again, your pushing actions on me I never advocated or even brought up. No, I wouldn't kill the Nazis en masse because not all of them were inherently evil men. Most of the top brass weren't evil. But the people in many positions of extremely high power who orchestrated and executed the genocide? Yes, I would kill all of them. It's why the Allies conducted the Nuremberg trials after the war. To determine guilt and punish accordingly. That punishment was based on the tribunal members beliefs in absolutes. That people whom were absolutely guilty deserved punishment absolutely.

That's fair enough, you wouldn't kill all of them. I appreciate that, but I wasn't saying you would do that, I was asking if you would, and if so, why.

lkavadas wrote:What does it matter why Hitler wanted to murder every Jew? Does why he wanted to do something make the act any less evil? No, it doesn't. I don't care if he thought God told him to do it or someone threatened his life and coerced him into it. It doesn't make the act any less excusable nor does it decrease how incredibly wrong, evil, or bad the act was.

It must matter why Hitler did what he did, surely. I mean, you say genocide is wrong. Agreed. Is it then wrong for one person to be murdered becaue of their beliefs, as opposed to a whole group?

If it is wrong, then how would murdering that one person be any different to you pulling the trigger on Hitler? Why would one person deserve to be murdered but the other wouldn't?

If it would not have been wrong, then there must be a reason why one person can be murdered but a whole group (as in genocide) can't. There must be a difference. What is that difference?

So either way, the reason behind the actions is important.

Alternatively, if the Jews were committing genocide of some other race or religion, would you have still have a problem with the Nazis committing genocide of the Jews?

You say that you would only punish the top brass, but surely if they were removed then their subordinates, who would subscribe to their ideals, would rise up and fill their shoes. In which case, one would probably have to eliminate the entire party.

The colour green works rather differently to our thoughts about morality, though. It can be scientifically defined as a wavelength of light. "Good" and "evil" are ideas just like justice and beauty. They are not things, not objects or natural phenomena. This does of course not stop them from appearing very real indeed to people. We're an imaginative lot, after all.

Violent fanatics of all kinds do justify their deeds to themselves. If they didn't, they wouldn't carry them out. They're human. They don't wake up one day and think to themselves that today would be a great day for evil. That you or I don't accept their justifications or the nature of their deeds is unrelated to them doing so.


And again, merely because I live in a grey world does not mean that I don't think there are ideals that are better than others, that there are values that are better than others or that there are viewpoints that are better than others. I have morals, ethics and principles. I do not, however, acknowledge them to be absolute or universal. None the less, they are mine and I attempt to fairly judge everything else according to them.

On the one hand, yes, morality is subjective. Not everyone believes the same things, nor should they be forced to.

On the other hand, beliefs that are counterproductive to society and to peace have no place in a peaceful society. Your rights end where someone else's rights begin, but if you disregard that, you should expect that it will be disregarded in regards to you as a result. It's eye for an eye, but some people won't listen to anything else.

Also, in the case of a country like Iran: When an official in a governing position begins to make threats against other sovereign nations, those nations are well within their rights to enact countermeasures. I'm not pro-war, but I am pro-taking the wheels out from under a crazy country's wagon.

Brakethrough wrote:On the other hand, beliefs that are counterproductive to society and to peace have no place in a peaceful society. Your rights end where someone else's rights begin, but if you disregard that, you should expect that it will be disregarded in regards to you as a result. It's eye for an eye, but some people won't listen to anything else.

what is the point of society again? surely you must define this before you can label beleifs as counterproductive.

Brakethrough wrote:Also, in the case of a country like the US: When an official in a governing position begins to make threats against other sovereign nations, those nations are well within their rights to enact countermeasures.

reversed to evoke how subjective this statment is

Tammuz wrote:

Brakethrough wrote:On the other hand, beliefs that are counterproductive to society and to peace have no place in a peaceful society. Your rights end where someone else's rights begin, but if you disregard that, you should expect that it will be disregarded in regards to you as a result. It's eye for an eye, but some people won't listen to anything else.

what is the point of society again? surely you must define this before you can label beleifs as counterproductive.

Brakethrough wrote:Also, in the case of a country like the US: When an official in a governing position begins to make threats against other sovereign nations, those nations are well within their rights to enact countermeasures.

reversed to evoke how subjective this statment is

The point of society is to cooperate, learn, advance, improve, and survive. Killing your fellow man is not cooperation, doesn't teach you very much, advances nothing but the death toll, improves nothing but the undertaker's workload, and does nothing for survival unless a "greater good" scenario is present.

As for the reversal, there's still the difference of intention. As I said, I don't support this war, but the difference of intention has been "stop people from crashing jets into our stuff, and stop the peole who let them hang around" versus "I think you're corrupt! DIE INFIDEL!", as long as we're still talking about the US vs Iran.

I'd be the first to say that George W. Bush is not a brilliant man. He may not even rightfully be president. But what he also isn't, is homicidally insane.

These are the most profound sentences
I've heard from our current leader:


"It's up to the Iraqi people and the Iraq elected folks to show America and the world they're ready to do the hard work necessary to reconcile and move forward"

President Bush


This is exactly how I envision the solution, and I've never
been one to agree wholey with the right. I think
It fits a solution, enabling A free Iraq. Can the Iraqis actually band together and stop Jihadist activity and
hostility fostered by outside forces.
I also think Bush is getting tired of the game of violence.
Just think of all the money spent on War that could have been spent on healthcare and mutantagenics.
Oh and I snagged that off of a current headline.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/mid ... 577689.stm

Sorry, I was out on an FTX for a few days. This is a pointless argument but I'd love to point out the irony that my detractors use their own absolute belief that absolutes don't exist to disprove the existence of absolutes. You've just proven me right in every respect.

You can't win this argument. By saying absolutes don't exist and everything is relative you are using an absolute. This is a paradox.

On the other hand, if you accept that they may very well exist and that they are at least a possibility than again, I win.

This is how and why absolutes exist. Like I said, no matter which position you choose you can't defeat the argument that absolutes exist without use the exact concept to contradict yourself.

I win.

lkavadas wrote:Sorry, I was out on an FTX for a few days. This is a pointless argument but I'd love to point out the irony that my detractors use their own absolute belief that absolutes don't exist to disprove the existence of absolutes. You've just proven me right in every respect.

You can't win this argument. By saying absolutes don't exist and everything is relative you are using an absolute. This is a paradox.

On the other hand, if you accept that they may very well exist and that they are at least a possibility than again, I win.

This is how and why absolutes exist. Like I said, no matter which position you choose you can't defeat the argument that absolutes exist without use the exact concept to contradict yourself.

I win.

"There are no moral absolutes" is a general statement based upon the observation of morals and their variations, of their general fluctuation from person to person and culture to culture. It is itself an observational statement on morals, or personal codes of conduct, of which it is not, and in so does not refer back to itself and does not counteract its own statement.