DoD_J4Jc3 |
Aug 13 2014, 06:36 PM
Post
#16
|
The Rag Master Group: Members Posts: 15,028 Submissions: None Joined: 1-May 06 From: Belgium Member No.: 37,529 Gamertag: [DoD]J4Jc3 |
QUOTE I don't really think we're on a similar intellectual platforms Oh we definitely aren't, we agree on that 100%. |
[DoD]Hellsravage |
Aug 13 2014, 07:30 PM
Post
#17
|
Field-Marshal Group: Staff Posts: 18,206 Submissions: None Joined: 9-October 06 Member No.: 45,923 |
Classic rights based vs utilitarianism argument :lol: |
ArmyCore |
Aug 13 2014, 10:46 PM
Post
#18
|
Field-Marshal Group: Members Posts: 8,068 Submissions: None Joined: 4-August 08 Member No.: 68,380 |
j4, there is very clearly a difference between collateral damage and the intended targeting of civilians. A civilian death is to be lamented in both respects, but it is the intention behind the action which is key. The primacy of intention is the fundamental principle of Western Law, and can be found in legal texts and systems from modern times right back to the Platonic dialogues and the Code of Hammurabi. In fact, the ability to differentiate between the intentional and unintentional is present in many higher-level animals as well including chimps and wolves, and if you are unable to do this, it is likely that you suffer from autism (which I'm fairly sure that you do). As a result, you are CLEARLY WRONG. Perhaps the most surprising element here is how terribly unsurprising the whole conflict is. That elements of the Gazan population would radicalize under Israeli oppression is laughably predictable. So too is the Israeli distrust of Palestine. The conflict was woefully predictable in its entirety. However, as an ostensibly Western liberal democracy (which Israel claims to be, but is absolutely not), the recent Israeli actions taken against Palestinian civilians crosses the line between "justifiable" (or at least rationalized) military action and murder. Furthermore, the ghettoization of Gaza by Israel is one of the saddest and most ironic tragedies of our time, made all the more terrible when viewed in light of the Jewish historical context. Thus, we should unilaterally condemn the actions of Israel, but they should not surprise us in the slightest. Furthermore, the matter is complicated by other factors. While it is clear that the actions of the IDF are morally reprehensible, we must also condemn the actions of Hamas, as there is some credence to the IDF's claims that Hamas hides behind civilian populations as a way to garner political support. They are abusing the sanctity of civilian lives as a way to preserve their own (in the same way that Pausanias hid within a temple to avoid the punishment of the Spartans). This is almost as disgusting as the IDF killing civilians outright, because it endangers the very civilian lives which they are claiming to protect, and breaks the fundamental laws of war. These are the tactics of cowards who deserve nothing but the sword. As a result, while we must express our disdain for Israeli oppression, we must be careful not to vindicate the oppressed, who simultaneously deserve both our pity and our contempt. |
[DoD]Hellsravage |
Aug 14 2014, 09:21 AM
Post
#19
|
Field-Marshal Group: Staff Posts: 18,206 Submissions: None Joined: 9-October 06 Member No.: 45,923 |
Security maintenance of both Israel and Palestine seems to be perpetuating the status quo. This would explain neither state advocating full scale war. As long as the constant back and forth of human rights atrocities, bombings and terrorism remains, neither state will be conquered. Also, I would be cautious to somehow think these states care about killing each other's innocents, no matter what they say publicly |
DoD_J4Jc3 |
Aug 14 2014, 10:19 AM
Post
#20
|
The Rag Master Group: Members Posts: 15,028 Submissions: None Joined: 1-May 06 From: Belgium Member No.: 37,529 Gamertag: [DoD]J4Jc3 |
QUOTE j4, there is very clearly a difference between collateral damage and the intended targeting of civilians There isn't. It's nothing but a way for the West to justify their own imperialism, but label all others as inhumane. You are basing your reasoning on some 'rules' and then try to reason from these rules just like Magic, but your reasoning makes no sense as the rules are inherently wrong in the first place. Then you and Magic procede with this retarded circling logic where you provide a 'good' connotation for one type of killing and a 'bad' connotation for another type of killing. Killing innocent people next to the military is obviously good because the military is also hit (good connotation), killing innocent people on the beach is obviously bad, because they aren't hurting anyone (bad connotation). But you can also give bad connotation to both, which you should do: killing innocent people next to the military is bad because they aren't hurting anyone, killing innocent people on the beach is bad because they aren't hurting anyone. Or you can give good connotation to both: killing innocent people next to the military is good, because you hit the military. Killing innocent people on the beach is good because they are supporting Hamas and will in the future try to hurt you. What you get is a circle, based on flawed reasoning from these 'rules' made to justify own killings of innocent people and condemn all other killings. Combined with a good western propaganda, you get two retards, Magic and Armycore spreading these false 'rules' and their consequences through the internet which younger people then read and tend to think they are correct because they have this 'expert tag aura'. But this doesn't make it any less retarded. QUOTE and if you are unable to do this, it is likely that you suffer from autism Also, considering I am both more intelligent as more educated than you and Magic combined, I highly advise you to stop posting these type of things, because they are just embarrassing. I am the one who should be calling you an idiot, not vice versa as being more intelligent and educated is my strenth, not yours. This post has been edited by DoD_J4Jc3: Aug 14 2014, 10:24 AM |
ArmyCore |
Aug 14 2014, 11:42 AM
Post
#21
|
Field-Marshal Group: Members Posts: 8,068 Submissions: None Joined: 4-August 08 Member No.: 68,380 |
QUOTE(DoD_J4Jc3 @ Aug 14 2014, 09:19 AM) QUOTE j4, there is very clearly a difference between collateral damage and the intended targeting of civilians There isn't. It's nothing but a way for the West to justify their own imperialism, but label all others as inhumane. You are basing your reasoning on some 'rules' and then try to reason from these rules just like Magic, but your reasoning makes no sense as the rules are inherently wrong in the first place. Yes there is, the distinction has been recognized across all of humanity, and many higher-level animal species since the beginning of recorded history. You consistently display your inability to deal with nuance and fine distinctions: you are only able to deal in absolute binaries, which is a sign of below-average intelligence, and a definitive characteristic of people with autism. Furthermore, neither Magic nor I has ever said that killing civilians is "good" no matter what the circumstances; classic straw-man. QUOTE(DoD_J4Jc3 @ Aug 14 2014, 09:19 AM) QUOTE and if you are unable to do this, it is likely that you suffer from autism Also, considering I am both more intelligent as more educated than you and Magic combined, I highly advise you to stop posting these type of things, because they are just embarrassing. I am the one who should be calling you an idiot, not vice versa as being more intelligent and educated is my strenth, not yours. Your arguments have consisted of three fallacies: straw-man (misconstruing our argument and then attacking your own reconstruction, eg. "killing civilians is good"), ad hominem ("I'm more intelligent than you"), call to authority ("I'm more educated than you"). The fact is that you've clearly lost the argument, the same way you lose every argument against me, the same way you lose every game of AoT against me. This post has been edited by ArmyCore: Aug 14 2014, 11:50 AM |
DoD_J4Jc3 |
Aug 14 2014, 12:33 PM
Post
#22
|
The Rag Master Group: Members Posts: 15,028 Submissions: None Joined: 1-May 06 From: Belgium Member No.: 37,529 Gamertag: [DoD]J4Jc3 |
QUOTE Yes there is, the distinction has been recognized across all of humanity LOL gg, stick to discussing aot plz :cwy: This post has been edited by DoD_J4Jc3: Aug 14 2014, 12:40 PM |
IamMagic |
Aug 14 2014, 03:35 PM
Post
#23
|
General Group: Members Posts: 4,386 Submissions: None Joined: 6-December 03 Member No.: 1,689 |
a person claiming to be more educated than us (normally a sign of insecurity) refuting a claim with an 'LOL.' good one throughout this entire discussion not a single valid point has been made by this guy, why are we wasting our time with this kid? the fact that numerous international bodies along with the international criminal court draws a distinction I don't see how this guy is still so caught up in his own world, turn on any major news station, maybe read a book.. the entire world can draw a distinction between a genocide and collateral damage if your father stabbed a man in self defense would courts rule him in the same light as a man who killed another for his own personal satisfaction? here's a hint, one walks free while the other is sentenced to life |
DoD_J4Jc3 |
Aug 14 2014, 05:00 PM
Post
#24
|
The Rag Master Group: Members Posts: 15,028 Submissions: None Joined: 1-May 06 From: Belgium Member No.: 37,529 Gamertag: [DoD]J4Jc3 |
QUOTE if your father stabbed a man in self defense would courts rule him in the same light as a man who killed another for his own personal satisfaction? LMAO. Comparing someone who does you harm with someone who doesn't do you harm on the one hand and killing innocent people in situation X with killing innocent people in situation Y on the other.............................................. come on :boxed: This post has been edited by DoD_J4Jc3: Aug 14 2014, 05:02 PM |
IamMagic |
Aug 14 2014, 05:38 PM
Post
#25
|
General Group: Members Posts: 4,386 Submissions: None Joined: 6-December 03 Member No.: 1,689 |
please stop making yourself look stupider than you really are, analytically look at the scenario... i'll do it for you since your obviously incapable of doing so Situation : A dumbass (the above poster) believes that murder and genocide is the same as collateral damage because it still results in innocent bystanders being killed (Collateral Damage) Scenario X : Man kills another in self defense Intent: To protect his life Indirect Damage: suffering of family, friends and other relatives of the murdered Result: The death of (the) murderer (Genocide) Scenario X : Man kills another for personal satisfaction Intent: Psychopath? Ethnic Cleansing? etc... Indirect Damage: suffering of family, friends and other relatives of the murdered along with an innocent bystander Result: The death of (an) innocent man and the killer unscathed no matter how one sees it, no matter how you argue one is worse than the other, stop trying to argue when you lack the substance or knowledge to do so. i've tried to dumb it down as much as I can so you can understand, if you're unclear of anything which you probably still are, feel free to respond in an 'LOL' or a 'LMAO' |
DoD_J4Jc3 |
Aug 14 2014, 05:47 PM
Post
#26
|
The Rag Master Group: Members Posts: 15,028 Submissions: None Joined: 1-May 06 From: Belgium Member No.: 37,529 Gamertag: [DoD]J4Jc3 |
'Suffering' aka psychological pain is not getting killed. If you in attempt to shoot the murderer also shot his whole family, you would go to jail. Please stop embarrassing yourself. You are not and will never be on my level. This post has been edited by DoD_J4Jc3: Aug 14 2014, 05:48 PM |
IamMagic |
Aug 14 2014, 05:52 PM
Post
#27
|
General Group: Members Posts: 4,386 Submissions: None Joined: 6-December 03 Member No.: 1,689 |
thanks, you just basically proved my point. what you just described is called a genocide and yes it's a criminal offense in which the consequences are jail time if you killed others indirectly through self defense it's situational and not always subject to consequences have a good day :) This post has been edited by XpT_Magic: Aug 14 2014, 05:55 PM |
DoD_J4Jc3 |
Aug 14 2014, 05:56 PM
Post
#28
|
The Rag Master Group: Members Posts: 15,028 Submissions: None Joined: 1-May 06 From: Belgium Member No.: 37,529 Gamertag: [DoD]J4Jc3 |
Yep, both things are genocide and both things are wrong. Great example Magic, great example :thumbsup: |
IamMagic |
Aug 14 2014, 06:08 PM
Post
#29
|
General Group: Members Posts: 4,386 Submissions: None Joined: 6-December 03 Member No.: 1,689 |
Scenario 1 : In an attempt to save your life and defend yourself against a murderer you killed an innocent bystander without intent Scenario 2: In an attempt to save your life you defended yourself against a murderer. you THAN killed many of his family members one is genocide, one is collateral damage. doesn't get any simpler than that, if you can't understand that than I suggest you make some serious changes to this so called education you've completed over the years |
DoD_J4Jc3 |
Aug 14 2014, 07:07 PM
Post
#30
|
The Rag Master Group: Members Posts: 15,028 Submissions: None Joined: 1-May 06 From: Belgium Member No.: 37,529 Gamertag: [DoD]J4Jc3 |
When you kill an innocent bystander in self defense, the guy who attempted to murder you will get charged for the killing of the innocent bystander if you can prove it. Otherwise, you will. Either way, someone is getting charged. You know why? Because killing innocent people is WRONG. I think you have proven my point twice on this same page. But wait let's go further, I feel the need to educate you on this subject because it's interesting. Your example again compares uncomparable things. What is the difference between your example and war? In the Israel - Palestinian conflict, you don't know who to charge for the killing of innocent people. Is it Palestinians for allegedly being the cause of bombings or is it Israel for doing the bombings? You can find arguments for both, so will you charge both or will you charge no one? So nations, typically the West, but I guess everyone chooses to charge either no one when they are doing it which they label 'collateral damage', or to incorrectly blame one party for these killings which they then call 'genocide'. This is obviously nothing but utter bullpoopie, an artificial difference made for plain convenience but it works as you are the living proof of it. I had a fair share of political science to form an opinion on this subject, you on the other hand had a fair share of propaganda. Looking forward to more examples proving my point. This post has been edited by DoD_J4Jc3: Aug 14 2014, 07:08 PM |
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 03:10 AM |
Site Designed and Coded Originally by Robo.
© MasterOfFreedom Sanctuary Networks LLC . All Rights Reserved.
© MasterOfFreedom Sanctuary Networks LLC . All Rights Reserved.