Originally posted by Eminence
Marginally?You're dumb.
Modern Warfare is probably the best shooter I've ever played.
I refuse to believe I am dumb furthermore i repute your claim. I didn't finish wha ti was saying i got distracted.
Originally posted by mattatom
The previous editon I enjoyed marginally.
more than CoD 2 Which I loved as the campaign was something else to complete.
Originally posted by mattatom
Two was 100 times better than three IMO. Mhm I'm a Halo fan myself still playing Halo Wars, then i'll finish my current graphics design project sell it and buy either E:TW or CoD 5 considering at the moment.
Speaking of Halo, I just started playing halo 3 again last week, and when the hell did the noobs become so good. I use to be able to going into social slayer by myself and wins about 85-90% of the time now I'm only winning about half the games I played.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
This sounds like relativism. Our culture advocated slavery, wasn't it 'wrong' at the time? Our culture advocated a prohibition upon women in the workplace, wasn't it 'wrong' then?
No no, I was using this logic to refute MC's argument because his argument deals with appealing to the majority.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
That's why we have people in power.
Who are elected by...?
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
More contradictions from you. First you claim you don't believe people are inherently good. Now you are saying you believe people are generally intelligent. If we follow your logic and people are generally intelligent, then they would make good decisions. They would be good.
Except 'intelligence' and 'goodness' are two drastically different things; not to mention that intelligent thought does not necessarily lead to a 'good' decision. Stalin was intelligent. Hitler was intelligent. Saddam Hussein is intelligent. Intelligence has caused far more harm to the world when abused.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Really MC? Then why are Christmas and Easter national holidays?
Um, a method of celebrating tradition? A country does not have to be religious to celebrate religious holidays; every country, even the most liberal one, would have some sort of celebration.
By the way, here are some of Thomas Jefferson's sentiments on religion:
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. "
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. "
"They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion. "
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. "
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. "
The very reason why Europeans escaped to America was, in part, religious prosecution. It would only be logical if America would be founded as a secular state in order to prevent the same religious fascism from coming into play.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
ROFL. I'm going to need exact quotes about liberalism as you know it, same sex marriages, stem cell research, and people being inherently good.
I don't think the constitution is an endorsement of one ideology over another.
And nobody said people are inherently good, nor did any liberal ever claim there was no such thing as personal responsibility or free will; conservatives simply attempted to attack liberals with these moronic ideas in order to spread our image of being naive fools.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I am in favor of regulated abortions as a deterrent from unsafe sex. Yes. Heavily? No.
Then there is hope for you still.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Gay marriage, death penalty, guns. In fact I've shown more majority like conservative values than you've shown liberal values.
Abortion, stem cell research, gay tolerance, Obama's approval ratings... the only two genuinely conservative values supported by the public is the death penalty and gay marriage.
And the public is only in favor of not banning firearms. They're been remarkably approval of stricter laws and regulations in order to prevent guns from coming into the wrong hands.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
You're not getting it. Economists can take Obama's current plan and predict what it is going to do to the economy. You're taking a useless poll about his approval ratings when he hasn't actually done anything and people don't know his plans. I'd take an economist's word over a normal person anyday.
I don't think the economists, while I trust their opinion, can genuinely predict whether Obama's plan is going to be effective or not to the full extent. Not to mention that they hardly said it would 'Destroy America!!!1!!1!!' like you claimed.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
No, it's really not. By that logic, another democratic president would have been elected after Clinton. As usual, you are using 2 and 2 to get 15.
I said that they are moving now, not back in the past. Unless Obama screws up, which I don't think he will, then the movement towards a more liberal world is inevitable; the effects of conservatism were so nicely exemplified by George Bush's retarded policies.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I can give you the fact that we have Christmas and Easter. I can give you cases in which according to the Supreme Court, G-d made the man the ruler of the house and he was entitled to bar up his wife's room because he thought she was crazy. I don't know if you have any legal resources so I would have to just list cases. But I can do that. There are PLENTY that destroy the hilarious view of America being founded as a secular nation.
Except for the motivations for the creation of America and the Founding Father's (like Jefferson) harsh opinions about organized religion.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Would you just read the links? I gave you the courtesy of reading yours.
There are, similarly, countless links explaining how the constitution is in favor of the separation of Church and State.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Majority of society, not just ours, sure. But it's based on something like our history, where throughout that history since the dawn of intelligent civilization, there has been punishment for the crimes I've mentioned. Your appeal to the majority isn't based on anything.
And the majority of civilizations, since the beginning of time, practiced slavery, imperialism, chauvinism and male dominance, violent rituals and monarchy. Does it make it right? Hardly.
People now are more intelligent than ever. The fact that it was always done in a certain manner, or was advocated by the majority, does not make it right.
Plus, give me one time when a nation intervened with another nation's internal affairs simply due to humanism and not because their national interests were severely compromised. Despite being aware of Saddam Hussen's 'crimes against humanity', the United States generally supported Iraq instead of somehow countering this in order to control the spread of Communism, for example.
The world, at large, views mass genocide as wrong; but did they ever intervene in order to stop it simply because of the morality surrounding it?
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Except you made the assertion that conservatism is dying out, which any kind of poll you find, will disagree with you. Liberalism might not be dying out but it certainly is not the majority.
The world supports Obama. American society supports Obama. Now, I'm sure you could chalk it up due to the 'majority being mindless sheep', but hey, these statistics have to count for something, no?
Hell, even India, a nation that thrives upon capitalism and globalization, supports Obama at large.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
There was no "one man" that wrote the constitution. And as they were the founding fathers, we follow the constitution unless we deem something unconstitutional.
The Founding Fathers are human beings, not gods. Their words should never be taken as fact that objectively defines who is evil and who is wrong. While I agree with the constitution, it is not an infallible document. It must be constantly updated and adapted to the changing times.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Again, if my bible is delusional (hilarious coming from a Jew), so is your hilarious what if utopia which is based on hope and nothing else. In fact your faith and hope in mankind are the same as my faith and hope in a higher authority. It's the same thing so if I'm delusional, so are you. And these societies you speak of? You mean the ones that don't exist anymore?
1. I'm a Jew in ethnicity. I've said many, many times that I am an Atheist in faith.
2. I understand that a utopia will probably never come into pass, but constantly striving towards a better, more perfect existence is the only way to reach positive social progress and change.
3. Chinese society exists. Japanese society had a magnificent culture, until it was forced to adapt by the West's quest for colonization. Egyptian society lasted for thousands upon thousands of year; far more than any modern society has been in existence.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
No, interpretation is not. Skewed meaning what's NOT in the text. Skewed meaning taking what you CHOOSE literally. The sages of our past made universal interpretations of the Torah. You don't see anyone after them picking and choosing. The ONLY arguments you see are about law as it is applied practically. And there IS a correct interpretation of religious text. Your logic is that of a reform Jew who doesn't believe in the Torah and chooses to interpret it to benefit his own life. Unfortunately as uneducated in your religion as you are, I will tell you that there is a correct interpretation.
The Sages are ****ing human beings. They have interests, nor can they be trusted to create a universally correct interpretation; the Bible is a very ambiguous text, and thus 'interpretation' can only be seen as truly a matter of subjectivity and faith.
There is no 'correct' interpretation, because interpretations are only as human beings- flesh and blood morals- perceive.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Right, I said various reasons. But we intervened because we thought we were right. So did the rest of the world. Mass genocide is universally wrong. Again you're contradicting yourself by picking and choosing what kind of murder is right and what kind is wrong.
We never intervened simply because we think it is right. The politicians who twist the war in Iraq's purpose as being to 'liberate it' or 'help the people' are simply attempt to ease the people's conscience. The concepts of right and wrong, good and evil, are never the chief reasons for a military intervention. They're simply excuses.
Mass genocide is generally viewed as wrong by most societies, and is definitely a violation of the people it targets. However, you must understand that the view of these societies and even the people it decimates is a matter of subjectivity. Thus, instead of deeming one side evil, we must create a compromise between all points of views. Military intervention is necessary in very extreme cases outside of self-defense, and even then, it should be restrained and regulated.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Nobody said people would have to necessarily follow democracy. There's imperialism and intervention. We would still intervene and go from there. Again with your war mongering nonsense. If country A kills its citizens, we will intervene, not sit on our ass like you and preach "peace and diplomacy" or "its not our problem".
And I'M unrealistic? How do you intervene in a violent way without resulting in war with a country, alienating its people, and giving more causes for hatred of the West's perceived imperialism? It simply does not work. Military action, or at least threat of it, is necessary; but diplomacy and socioeconomic sanctions must always come first.
Here is an example: a country is engaging in a massacre of a certain group of its populace. It also depends upon funds from international forces. By exercising protectionism and sanctions, it is possible to remove the country's primary source of income, thus resulting in its potential financial collapse. If they are then told to stop the massacre, they will do so; they are not morons. See? Jumping to military action and 'justice' is far from the smartest and, ironically, just course of action.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
2+2=/=17. Read about America's isolationism. And that would make sense if the most Jews in the world didn't reside in America.
Huh? First, Germans initially asked for their own Jews to be integrated into the rest of the world. By agreeing to it and creating agreements for the acceptance of Jewish immigrants, we could have avoided the internal massacre of Germany's populace (I've already said my opinion on Poland's invasion) and 'disproved' the German's claim of doing a favor to the world at large.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
See, you liberals deal with what might be, conveniently forgetting reality and the history of mankind. The rest of us deal with reality, what is, and what's in front of us. Preaching diplomacy is like a little kid asking for candy when there isn't none. Diplomacy is NOT always the best idea because most people are NOT rational. This is why wars will always be fought.
Show me a single time in history when we did not go on that absurd conservative idea of people being dumb and irrational and actually attempted to find a common ground with our enemies? Even 'radicals' (radicalism is subjective, bla bla bla) have some interests, and they will eventually understand that a war might destroy these interests.
We have never talked to an enemy at face value. We never genuinely made a motion towards world peace instead of going upon the easy route of deeming the enemy an irrational bad guy and attacking with military might. We need to start doing tso.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Uh you mean making Germany pay reparations because they started the war? I don't know if it's wrong, but the reparations were indeed a little hefty, which caused Germany' economic collapse, the blaming of Jews and Communists, and the rise of the Nazi party. Sure we could have handled it differently. It doesn't in any way excuse what the Nazis did.
I think the Treaty of Versailles was unjust, unfair, aggressive, and imperialistic, but that's not the point now. The point is that the world, at large, was far too forgiving to Germany when the Nazis rose to power and did not initially engage in war. They were obviously acting in inhumane (according to our standards) way to some of its citizens and were brewing for war; they developed a very large military, with the world's awareness. We should have exercised some form of peaceful intervention right then.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
We don't though that's where your hypothetical situations fail. We actually prevent the taking of MORE lives by intervening. Obviously we can intervene in a better fashion but it stands to work better than diplomacy, which almost never works.
The concept of saving more lives is entirely hypothetical and cannot be verified. The end exists largely outside of our control, and thus the only thing we can control is the means. Preaching about saving more lives is silly and cannot be logically substantiated, and thus we must control our means to come to a peaceful resolution that does not blatantly favor one side over the other.
By your logic, a country that kills 50 of its own citizens must be invaded and stopped via military force. It is irrelevant if 100,000 people die on the way, because we 'probably saved more people'.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Look who's telling me to see things objectively. Rofl.
Yes, it's awfully funny.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Mass genocide is wrong period. There ARE necessary good and evils. The communist Soviet Empire was evil. The Nazis were evil. Try telling your fellow Jews they weren't, they'd laugh at you and call you mentally ill, which I think you are. The stop of mass genocide takes priority over anything else. But again by your repeated contradictions and logic, our culture advocates the death penalty so it's not wrong either. I have really lost count the number of times you've contradicted yourself and your "ideologies".
Of course you'd think I'm mentally ill, being that you're an arrogant bigot who thinks everyone who disagrees with him is either a pseudo-intellectual, psychopath, moron, delusional freak, etc, etc, but I do my best to ignore your childishness.
Nazis were evil to the Jews. They were evil to us. They, however, were not evil to themselves and their perspective of the world; thus, it cannot be seen as 'universal'. It can be seen as 'much agreed upon'. Similarly, what happened to the Jews was horrible; but even sparing Nazi lives is suitable and we should have worked towards a peaceful resolution in the initial stages of the war.
Look, I think the death penalty is wrong because of many reasons I've clarified in previous debates, but it is something that I think. It is not law. I don't have to have my opinions be absolute laws in order to believe in them, because the entire world is based upon subjective views.
And the death penalty is wrong precisely because of a lack of a 'universally good' goal; it is only our means that define our humanity and our moral superiority.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Right. I'm sure you can. I happen to listen to lectures daily of someone born a liberal democrat and was for 40 years of his life, who suddenly converted to being a conservative republican. I have yet to find anyone lecturing who went the other way.
I can't understand why anybody would do that, short of having his intelligence reduced as a result of some intricate conspiracy, but hey, good for him, eh?
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
So you say. Or the fact that this country was founded as a Christian nation and it is illegal because it IS immoral and as a result, will harm innocents and disrupt society.
Read Thomas Jefferson's quotes again.
It will not harm society because it is immoral. If anything, the reverse is true; it is immoral because it harms society. Our laws are created to protect individual pursuit of happiness and create an effectively functioning society; they were not based upon concepts of good and evil. A society that legalizes theft or murder will not survive. In order to protect the interests of the innocent and the victims, they must be prevented from being harmed.
I do believe in good and evil, by the way. I'm not the 'pure' relativist you seem to think I am. To prevent you from inevitably questioning my hypocrisy, here is what I think: murder is, according to our society, an evil act. Thus, in order to maintain our humanity, we must not degenerate to killing ourselves; this is why we are us.
By the way, murder is wrong to the offended party and to society at large; thus, it is an evil within our society and the individual who commits it, while he himself might not be 'universally' evil, is still largely evil to his existing society. Therefore, he must be punished (although not in the death penalty, which is pointlessly barbaric and a degeneration to petty animal impulses and desires).
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
And the liberal skewed logic continues. So instead of seeing what the Germans did, lets not blame them but lets blame everyone else. You're absolutely hilarious and should definitely seek help. German's interest was death to the Jews and Communists, and the taking over the world. How do you suggest you negotiate with that logic? Oh right, you're not realistic.
'Waaaah!! Anybody who disagrees with me is an unrealistic idiot!!!! Waaaaaahhhh!!! Seek some help, liberal *******!!! Waaaaaaaaaaaaahh!!! I want my childish concepts of good and evil to be true, just like they were in all the fairy tales I'm used to being fed!!!"
It is irrelevant that the Germans are to be blamed for their actions and for instigating WWII. Preaching about how the other party is personally responsible will lead to nothing; instead, we must focus on our ability to stop it.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
And again I prove that you deal with what ifs that aren't based on absolutely anything, and I live in the real world. Your hypothetical situations are meaningless so you really should stop posting them.
I don't know if you're a complete idiot or you just pretend to be, but you haven't proven anything and never will, simply because that, without an objective force (God) to create them, moral absolutes can never be proven.
You don't live in the real world. You live within a religious, conservative fantasy where your beliefs are somehow universally applied.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
We have a GREAT relationship with a lot of countries.
Countries we like and approve of. We refuse to treat our enemies as genuine human beings, because of our arrogance and conservatism.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Bullshit according to you. It takes the history of human nature and the failures of peaceful alternatives that have been explored time and time again. For the last time, wars will always happen because it becomes human nature. Your idea of peace is unrealistic. If people actually thought like you, then we wouldn't be fighting these wars.
Alright. Where have these peaceful alternatives been explored and miserably failed? Did we honestly do our best to pursue them.
Hardly. While war will always exist (most probably), we have the ability to minimize them and create a better world, as can be seen by the fact that the world today is a more peaceful place than it was in ancient times. Progress always happens. Things do not simply remain the same.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Hilarious logic. No matter how many people die, we maintain our humanity. So how many deaths will it take you to realize your idea is complete bullshit? Does the whole world have to die and 1 person stay alive to maintain his humanity and realize your view of the world? This is a borderline retarded mentality. Preservation of life and liberty is exponentially more important than "maintaining our humanity".
We must come to a balance. I think that some lives have to be lost in order to maintain our morality; our maintenance of our good and moral superiority is worth it, instead of degenerating to enforcing our ideology in the same manner as our enemies in order to create a 'hypothetical end'.
Only by transcending and moving beyond the constant cycle of violence, war, and hatred, and maintaining our moral ground and the position of being ourselves, can we genuinely break it. Simply reverting to basic animal instincts only feeds the cycle. Violence does not end violence.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Justice is not a subjective thing. If someone in this country commits capital murder, justice says kill him.
Your version of justice. 'Justice' is not some divine entity. Your opinion is not law, contrary to what you think.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
How can justice be subjective if the only alternatives to the needle is prison time? Your idea of compromises is ridiculous because most people are NOT logical, and think completely differently. While I agree we must not force certain ideals on them, there are still the universals that we will seek to protect.
People think entirely differently and are not logical according to us. However, there is always some form of common interest and common ground to explore; in order to reach an effective balance
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Same goes with the assertion that athiests happen to be smarter. Double standards. Stop lying to yourself.
Atheists are not born so. Jews are. That's the fundamental difference you seem to be incapable of grasping.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Says the one that shows a study of a small sample which is refuted by others and deemed inconclusive, and calls it the end all be all because it fits his argument. I show this moron a different kind of study, and he picks and chooses the differences and the reliability. Your argument is dead.
Type 'Atheism and IQ' on Google. You'll get countless results substantiating and expanding the study I proposed.
By the way, here's a very interesting video about the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goQajNcG39s
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
The majority of Americans believe in guns, gun control, the death penalty, ban on same sex marriages, etc. Therefore I am right, by your own contradictory logic.
Most Americans believe in heavy gun control laws, tolerance of homosexuals and differing lifestyles, abortion, stem cell research, and Barack Obama.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Who are elected by...?
Except 'intelligence' and 'goodness' are two drastically different things; not to mention that intelligent thought does not necessarily lead to a 'good' decision. Stalin was intelligent. Hitler was intelligent. Saddam Hussein is intelligent. Intelligence has caused far more harm to the world when abused.
Um, a method of celebrating tradition? A country does not have to be religious to celebrate religious holidays; every country, even the most liberal one, would have some sort of celebration.
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. "
The very reason why Europeans escaped to America was, in part, religious prosecution. It would only be logical if America would be founded as a secular state in order to prevent the same religious fascism from coming into play.
And nobody said people are inherently good, nor did any liberal ever claim there was no such thing as personal responsibility or free will; conservatives simply attempted to attack liberals with these moronic ideas in order to spread our image of being naive fools.
Abortion, stem cell research, gay tolerance, Obama's approval ratings... the only two genuinely conservative values supported by the public is the death penalty and gay marriage.
And the public is only in favor of not banning firearms. They're been remarkably approval of stricter laws and regulations in order to prevent guns from coming into the wrong hands.
I don't think the economists, while I trust their opinion, can genuinely predict whether Obama's plan is going to be effective or not to the full extent. Not to mention that they hardly said it would 'Destroy America!!!1!!1!!' like you claimed.
I said that they are moving now, not back in the past. Unless Obama screws up, which I don't think he will, then the movement towards a more liberal world is inevitable; the effects of conservatism were so nicely exemplified by George Bush's retarded policies.
[quoet]Except for the motivations for the creation of America and the Founding Father's (like Jefferson) harsh opinions about organized religion. [/quote]
The motivations for separating church and state was so that no one religion could dominate the country. Again, I have facts on my site.
There are, similarly, countless links explaining how the constitution is in favor of the separation of Church and State.
And the majority of civilizations, since the beginning of time, practiced slavery, imperialism, chauvinism and male dominance, violent rituals and monarchy. Does it make it right? Hardly.
People now are more intelligent than ever. The fact that it was always done in a certain manner, or was advocated by the majority, does not make it right.
Plus, give me one time when a nation intervened with another nation's internal affairs simply due to humanism and not because their national interests were severely compromised. Despite being aware of Saddam Hussen's 'crimes against humanity', the United States generally supported Iraq instead of somehow countering this in order to control the spread of Communism, for example.
The world, at large, views mass genocide as wrong; but did they ever intervene in order to stop it simply because of the morality surrounding it?
The world supports Obama. American society supports Obama. Now, I'm sure you could chalk it up due to the 'majority being mindless sheep', but hey, these statistics have to count for something, no?
Hell, even India, a nation that thrives upon capitalism and globalization, supports Obama at large.
The Founding Fathers are human beings, not gods. Their words should never be taken as fact that objectively defines who is evil and who is wrong. While I agree with the constitution, it is not an infallible document. It must be constantly updated and adapted to the changing times.
more than any modern society has been in existence.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
[B]The Sages are ****ing human beings. They have interests, nor can they be trusted to create a universally correct interpretation; the Bible is a very ambiguous text, and thus 'interpretation' can only be seen as truly a matter of subjectivity and faith.
There is no 'correct' interpretation, because interpretations are only as human beings- flesh and blood morals- perceive.
We never intervened simply because we think it is right. The politicians who twist the war in Iraq's purpose as being to 'liberate it' or 'help the people' are simply attempt to ease the people's conscience. The concepts of right and wrong, good and evil, are never the chief reasons for a military intervention. They're simply excuses.
Mass genocide is generally viewed as wrong by most societies, and is definitely a violation of the people it targets. However, you must understand that the view of these societies and even the people it decimates is a matter of subjectivity. Thus, instead of deeming one side evil, we must create a compromise between all points of views. Military intervention is necessary in very extreme cases outside of self-defense, and even then, it should be restrained and regulated.
And I'M unrealistic? How do you intervene in a violent way without resulting in war with a country, alienating its people, and giving more causes for hatred of the West's perceived imperialism? It simply does not work. Military action, or at least threat of it, is necessary; but diplomacy and socioeconomic sanctions must always come first.
Here is an example: a country is engaging in a massacre of a certain group of its populace. It also depends upon funds from international forces. By exercising protectionism and sanctions, it is possible to remove the country's primary source of income, thus resulting in its potential financial collapse. If they are then told to stop the massacre, they will do so; they are not morons. See? Jumping to military action and 'justice' is far from the smartest and, ironically, just course of action.
Huh? First, Germans initially asked for their own Jews to be integrated into the rest of the world. By agreeing to it and creating agreements for the acceptance of Jewish immigrants, we could have avoided the internal massacre of Germany's populace (I've already said my opinion on Poland's invasion) and 'disproved' the German's claim of doing a favor to the world at large.
Show me a single time in history when we did not go on that absurd conservative idea of people being dumb and irrational and actually attempted to find a common ground with our enemies? Even 'radicals' (radicalism is subjective, bla bla bla) have some interests, and they will eventually understand that a war might destroy these interests.
We have never talked to an enemy at face value. We never genuinely made a motion towards world peace instead of going upon the easy route of deeming the enemy an irrational bad guy and attacking with military might. We need to start doing tso.
I think the Treaty of Versailles was unjust, unfair, aggressive, and imperialistic, but that's not the point now. The point is that the world, at large, was far too forgiving to Germany when the Nazis rose to power and did not initially engage in war. They were obviously acting in inhumane (according to our standards) way to some of its citizens and were brewing for war; they developed a very large military, with the world's awareness. We should have exercised some form of peaceful intervention right then.
The concept of saving more lives is entirely hypothetical and cannot be verified. The end exists largely outside of our control, and thus the only thing we can control is the means. Preaching about saving more lives is silly and cannot be logically substantiated, and thus we must control our means to come to a peaceful resolution that does not blatantly favor one side over the other.
By your logic, a country that kills 50 of its own citizens must be invaded and stopped via military force. It is irrelevant if 100,000 people die on the way, because we 'probably saved more people'.
Of course you'd think I'm mentally ill, being that you're an arrogant bigot who thinks everyone who disagrees with him is either a pseudo-intellectual, psychopath, moron, delusional freak, etc, etc, but I do my best to ignore your childishness.
Nazis were evil to the Jews. They were evil to us. They, however, were not evil to themselves and their perspective of the world; thus, it cannot be seen as 'universal'. It can be seen as 'much agreed upon'. Similarly, what happened to the Jews was horrible; but even sparing Nazi lives is suitable and we should have worked towards a peaceful resolution in the initial stages of the war.
Look, I think the death penalty is wrong because of many reasons I've clarified in previous debates, but it is something that I think. It is not law. I don't have to have my opinions be absolute laws in order to believe in them, because the entire world is based upon subjective views.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
By the way, murder is wrong to the offended party and to society at large; thus, it is an evil within our society and the individual who commits it, while he himself might not be 'universally' evil, is still largely evil to his existing society. Therefore, he must be punished (although not in the death penalty, which is pointlessly barbaric and a degeneration to petty animal impulses and desires).
'Waaaah!! Anybody who disagrees with me is an unrealistic idiot!!!! Waaaaaahhhh!!! Seek some help, liberal *******!!! Waaaaaaaaaaaaahh!!! I want my childish concepts of good and evil to be true, just like they were in all the fairy tales I'm used to being fed!!!"
It is irrelevant that the Germans are to be blamed for their actions and for instigating WWII. Preaching about how the other party is personally responsible will lead to nothing; instead, we must focus on our ability to stop it.
I don't know if you're a complete idiot or you just pretend to be, but you haven't proven anything and never will, simply because that, without an objective force (God) to create them, moral absolutes can never be proven.
You don't live in the real world. You live within a religious, conservative fantasy where your beliefs are somehow universally applied.
Countries we like and approve of. We refuse to treat our enemies as genuine human beings, because of our arrogance and conservatism.
Alright. Where have these peaceful alternatives been explored and miserably failed? Did we honestly do our best to pursue them.
We must come to a balance. I think that some lives have to be lost in order to maintain our morality; our maintenance of our good and moral superiority is worth it, instead of degenerating to enforcing our ideology in the same manner as our enemies in order to create a 'hypothetical end'.
Your version of justice. 'Justice' is not some divine entity. Your opinion is not law, contrary to what you think.
Type 'Atheism and IQ' on Google. You'll get countless results substantiating and expanding the study I proposed.
Most Americans believe in heavy gun control laws, tolerance of homosexuals and differing lifestyles, abortion, stem cell research, and Barack Obama. [/B]
Except this wasn't your argument, nor was it mine. Your contradictions are becoming more and more obvious. I said 2nd amendment, you said gun control. I said same sex marriages, you switch to tolerance of homosexuals. You claim appealing to the majority isn't right, and you appeal to the majority. You should really quit, as you've lost a long time ago.
Yes, now it's time to better organize my argument, do you not think? You've completely lost track of my points, being that anything that isn't simplistic in nature goes beyond the scope of your tragically limited intellectual comprehension, so I suppose I'll simply narrow them down to a few key fundamentals aspects you can feast your conservative mind upon:
Reality: Ah, my favorite one. It's the conservative rhetoric of 'pessimism = realism'; in actuality, having an incredibly negative view of the world is oh so far stretched away from reality you have no idea. In REALITY (the real reality, not the product of an overactive conservative imagination), surrendering to the idea of the war being a permanently violent place that cannot and will never be changed is silly and directly contradictory to the 'history of human nature' you so adore.
Because human nature is dual. It is not the negative things conservatives often spew, nor is it the positive things some liberals spew; it is a mixture of them. Humans are violent creatures, who are naturally hateful and fearful. But humans also constantly strive for a better existence; indeed, the constant strife towards the creation of a peaceful utopia is precisely another portion of our humanity. Throughout the dawn of time, humanity has constantly attempted to create a better, and more peaceful existence: customs like violent rituals and imperialism were abolished and minimized within our society.
The concept of humans being irrational is silly, and has never been genuinely put to the test. Because we constantly go upon this moronic notion, surrendering to never, ever attempting to actually striving towards peace, we refuse the possibilities of diplomacy. We refuse to ever test whether humans are naturally dicks. We didn't negotiate with Hitler. Of course, this is all because dumb conservatives like you said they were radical nutjobs, without understanding their causes for being radical nutjobs and further delving into the idea of radicalism being an entirely subjective thing.
We do not try. We surrender to basic feelings of hatred, fear, and most of all, arrogance; we do not try to engage in diplomatic or genuinely peaceful engagements, instead strictly focusing upon militarism. Instead of treating our enemies like evil, insane people, we should confront them with humanism and attempt to find common ground chiefly through peace. If that does not work, then we move towards more aggressive things- like socioeconomic sanctions. Nazi Germany could not gain the finances for military expansion all by itself; thus, by actually performing economic sanctions upon them when they were at the process of militarization, we could have prevented them from launching an army strong enough to attempt to conquer the world. An if military action is necessary, then fine: but it must be an absolute last resort and should be acted with restraint.
And now for a little history lesson. Yes, that history you claim to be so well versed in. Before moving towards the 'Final Solution' and acts that violated the Jews' rights, Germany has asked the world, at large, if they were willing to accept Jews. After all, killing the Jews would be horribly expensive and was far from their initial desire. The world at large said: "****, no. Keep your Jews to yourselves." By doing so, the world both prevented the Jews from going to a safe haven and not a country that does not want them, and validated, in Hitler's mind, the concept of the Jews being parasites that harmed the world. Instead of disproving his ideology by giving Jews a chance to exist in a society that wants them, we chose to do what was easy from a financial and utilitarian point of perspective.
And by going upon my plan of acceptance of Jewish immigrants, economic sanctions when Nazi Germany was in a process of militarization, and subsequent intervention when they would have attacked Poland with a far weaker army, we could have avoided the entirety of World War II. But we didn't do so, partly because the policies at the time supported free trade for the purpose of financial expansion, and partly because people went by your notion of the 'enemy' being naturally unreasonable beings.
There is always a form of reason to be found. There is always common ground upon which we negotiate. Instead of simply surrendering to your bleak notions, we must actually try to do things other than war.
Interventionism: You completely misunderstood me here, or you're purposefully attempting to make me appear like I said something I didn't. I believe people who adopt a 'no interventionism' policy are morons. I personally consider myself a heavy internationalist; thus, I do not believe in the concept of 'every nation to itself'. In order to foster international cooperation and prevent injustices from being committed upon a certain group of individuals, we must adopt an interventionist policy.
That being said, however, military interventionism is far from realistic and an absolute last resort. The people on the other side of the globe see you in a very negative manner when your only capability is to blow up people you disagree with. Whether or not this is true, it continues to feed the interpretation of the West being a bunch of imperialistic warmongerers; it brews hatred and possibilities of a violent resistance coming into play. They view us as unreasonable. It's a saddening cycle; we hate them, they hate us, we think they're unreasonable, they think we're unreasonable. One side has to transcend beyond this in order to bring forth change and end the cycle of violence.
Do you honestly think a nation that is committing a genocide will continue to do so if they were threatened with extreme socio-economic sanctions? A country's economy is dependent upon the rest of the world; if the rest of the world cuts its affairs with it, the country lacks the finances to operate fully on its own. This is perfectly realistic. What is not realistic is the juvenile notion that people will continue to do what they do no matter what type of deterrent they get (unless it is military in nature, of course).
Here's the deal. At the moment, we should swallow our pride and talk to nations like Iran and North Korea, despite the fact that we, ultimately, view them as evil; this is in order to create understanding and common ground.
This is one thing you should remember, DS: I am not a pacifist. No matter how you attempt to twist it, I think pacifism is a sadly naive and impractical philosophy. Military force is occasionally justified, but the circumstances that call for it, outside of immediate self-defense, are very rare.
Morality: I know when I do something wrong, and I did not do the best job of presenting my opinions in regards to morality, being that it is a very complicated subject I do not have clear opinions on. I'll do my best to present it in a more clear way.
First of all, let's go on the hypothetical notion of one nation committing genocide upon its populace. Who is it wrong to? It is wrong to the people who are being murdered, and it is wrong according to our interpretation of inalienable human rights. However, it is not wrong to the nation that is committing the genocide. There are several points of perspectives here: by deeming the nation that is committing the genocide 'evil', we only view the moral interests of us and the directly violated party. While we should first work towards the benefits of the innocent, being that one nation rarely gains something from genocide, the best possible method of action is to maintain human life. All human life. This part of our morality, a morality that should not be bypassed when possible. Thus, the best method of action is to somehow balance the interests of the violated nation with the interests of the violating one. How do we do that? We look beyond petty notions of good, evil, and 'justice'.
I may not believe in a universal justice, being that justice and injustice is always from someone's point of perspective (and is therefore called 'subjective'😉, but I am a very, very strong believer in what is called 'societal good and evil'. Every society sets certain moral standards regarding what is good and what is wrong; this is based upon that individual society's philosophical interpretation of the world; it is not law, because there is no omnipotent, objective source clarifying what philosophy is right and what is wrong, but it is an integral part of that individual society. For example, I believe in the existence of human rights. I believe that our very nature as a conscious, thinking, rational being gives us certain rights that must never be violated; this is simply my philosophical take upon the world. Is it law? Not necessarily.
I do believe in good and evil. I believe a murder is immoral not because of its very nature, but because the way it harms a single individual (and thus is a subjective injustice upon them), and society at large: therefore it should be illegalized. Murder does not harm people because it is immoral. First, I think we should judge every situation in accordance to its merits: every action, beyond the absolutist utilitarian aspect of it, has a differing moral makeup to it.
The death penalty, for example, is wrong because it is degeneration into petty feelings of revenge and anger and actually serves no useful purpose to society: it removes the possibility of innocence and rehabilitation, which is far more effective to society as a whole. However, I understand that my sentiments upon this are relative in nature. I will not force them upon a nation that does not consent to them. If I was to pursue a career in politics, I would attempt to present my point in the best possible way: I would explain why I feel it is the best, most effective, and most moral course of action. However, if the public at large does not agree with this, then I will not implement it. Do you understand now? My views are all subjective. I think that they will create a better world and are ultimately the best ones, but that is my own subjective opinion; I will only 'force' it upon people who consent to it, being that I understand it is not universal law.
You say that rape, murder, and theft were the three absolutes that guided society since the beginning of time. First, the legal definitions of these vary: since not every killing is a 'murder', every society defined murder in a slightly different way. I do not think it is necessarily because these things were evil, but because these are necessarily to ensure a society's survival. If it would not follow these laws, the society will simply turn anarchic and destroy itself. Is it because it is immoral? No. Is it immoral because these are its ramifications? Yes, mostly. In order to protect the (subjective) concept of justice among the populace, these laws must be enforced to prevent their interests from being ignored.
As for your argument about how we intervened in cases of mass genocide? First, the fact that we had done something does not make it moral- an argument most compose of something beyond 'people did that'. Not to mention that there were always national interests before humanism. Despite the fact that Iraq was committing crimes against parts of it populace, the U.S completely ignored it because endorsing it helped control the spread of communism, especially in regards to the Soviet-friendly Iran. As you can see, the U.S's national interests in regards to its war against communism overrode their supposed humanism. When moving to 'liberate' Iraq, it is because the U.S's national interests were supposedly at stake. In fact, the fact that the world saw mass genocide as evil is irrelevant: compassion and morality were never, ever chief causes for military intervention.
Note: I think that the U.S's support of Iraq despite the way it blatantly committed injustices to part of its populace to be completely wrong. I don't think we should have intervened, but we should certainly never support a country that commits genocide upon its populace; in fact, we should, via diplomatic and economic manners, fight against it.
Hopefully you understand it. A quick summary: No 'universal' good and evil, but many, many societal and subjective concepts of good and evil that must be enforced and occasionally married to create a better society. That means good and evil do exist, but certainly not in the simplistic and utterly childish manner you're consistently attempting to suggest.
Interpretation of religious texts: Not much to be said about this, aside from the fact that your wankage of the so-called 'sages' is utterly absurd. We can never trust the 'universally correct' interpretation to perfectly fallible human being who lived thousands of years ago; they interpreted a religious document in the way their form of logic and intelligence dictated. This is simply one alternative, and the widely agreed upon one. However, trusting this to simple men, regardless of who they are, is stupid, and interpretations cannot be proven to be the 'correct' ones.
The sages are not 'greater than you or I' will ever be. Conforming to their opinion and interpretation without thinking for yourself and your options is simply wrong.
The terrorist's quest for Jihad cannot be proven to be wrong, according to Islamic interpretations. It cannot be proven to be a wrong interpretation of the text; however, it can be seen as a harmful one. There is a considerable disparity between the two.
Utopia: An integral part of humanity you so conveniently ignore, with your obsession with the negative over the positive. The constant strive for transcendence, for a greater existence, for a mythical utopia, existed since the very dawn of time. People always talked about a potential utopia. While I understand that a utopia will probably never exist, it is only the strife and the effort towards creating one has ever brought positive progress. Liberalism hates the concept of constant satisfaction with the status quo: because only by this and the desire for a utopia can we ever have even the faintest hope of attaining one.
There, hopefully you grasp it now. If you want to continue debating, fine, but please do it in a more civilized manner (I'm guilty, too). Your constant remarks, most notably the 'mental illness' one, are incredibly annoying and honestly make me want to puke, so I'd much rather have a genuine debate instead of a childish insult fare.