So, how old am I, exactly? Currently guesses range from 2 to 12. You wanna see if you can get any closer?Parker wrote:
bub, your experiences in life are limited to your age which also goes for education and maturity. i promise that in a few years youll see how silly you are acting right now, and probably be sick with yourself when you actually get real principles that you dont just repeat back.
But so do many other things. In the end, the most mature people will not judge a theory or statement based on who is backing it, but based on what, in terms of logic, reason and evidence, is backing it.Parker wrote:
AGE limits your life experience.
When have I ever spouted Marxist rhetoric?Parker wrote:
ok and his contribution to society......like what spouting marxist rhetoric?
And yet you choose to declare mine wrong outright, without deigning to look at them.Parker wrote:
i think we have different views on things. thats what makes life interesting.
Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-12-08 19:02:12)
No, under relativism he would have done the wrong thing according to you, and you could punish him, but he would not have done anything intrinsically wrong.Elamdri wrote:
I believe killing Jews is wrong, Hitler believes it is right. Under relativism, I cannot hold Hitler accountable for his action because he is just in doing so. This cannot be true. It simply cannot. If it were true, we could never prosecute a criminal for anything, because everything would be just.
No, because I have my own set of values that I use, meaning that the fact that I agree with you doesn't mean that objectivism is true, it simply means that I ought believe to be true. Regardless, none of this matters, because whether we hold relativism, objectivism or absolutism to be true is irrelevant. Here's why:Elamdri wrote:
Objectivism however allows me to say that rather than allow Hitler to be right, I can simply say that Hitler was morally void. If you can agree with me that It is more probably that I am right, and Hitler was wrong, I have met the burden of proof insofar as to disprove your theory and prove my theory as probable.
Incorrect. You have to prove that objectivism is true, and, further, that your set of values is the one objective set of values that all should follow.Elamdri wrote:
I understand what your saying, but the only problem is that I don't have to prove that Objectivism is true, I just have to prove that Relativism is false and Objectivism is probable
Well, aside from this discussion of Bubbalo's age, I support his freedom of speech.
Granted, I completely disagree with his view on our soldiers....
Granted, I completely disagree with his view on our soldiers....
For the record, I feel largely the same about Australian soldiers. Or British, French, or Russian soldiers for that matter. It's just that no-one runs around going on about what saints they are.
Alright, one more time.
Are you saying that all soldiers are bad people?
or are you saying that the Policies that sent them there are?
Are you saying that all soldiers are bad people?
or are you saying that the Policies that sent them there are?
I feel that anyone who joins a volunteer armed force, then participates in a war, cannot back out of it by saying that they didn't decide to go.
No, under relativism, Hitler's actions are justified, because Hitler believes them to be morally permissible. I cannot punish Hitler for a act because although I find it just, his opinion has equal stock. The only way I could criticize Hitler was if Hitler was a hypocrite, but even then, if Hitler believed that hypocracy is morally permissible, then I have no way of condemning Hitler's actions. The only way I could punish him then is if there existed a universal morality that said killing Jews is wrong (It doesn't have to be absolute, just universal).Bubbalo wrote:
No, under relativism he would have done the wrong thing according to you, and you could punish him, but he would not have done anything intrinsically wrong.Elamdri wrote:
I believe killing Jews is wrong, Hitler believes it is right. Under relativism, I cannot hold Hitler accountable for his action because he is just in doing so. This cannot be true. It simply cannot. If it were true, we could never prosecute a criminal for anything, because everything would be just.
I don't have to prove objectivism to be true, I have to prove relativism false. If I can prove relativism to be false (Which I have), then objectivism is all thats left to fill the void.Bubbalo wrote:
No, because I have my own set of values that I use, meaning that the fact that I agree with you doesn't mean that objectivism is true, it simply means that I ought believe to be true. Regardless, none of this matters, because whether we hold relativism, objectivism or absolutism to be true is irrelevant. Here's why:Elamdri wrote:
Objectivism however allows me to say that rather than allow Hitler to be right, I can simply say that Hitler was morally void. If you can agree with me that It is more probably that I am right, and Hitler was wrong, I have met the burden of proof insofar as to disprove your theory and prove my theory as probable.Incorrect. You have to prove that objectivism is true, and, further, that your set of values is the one objective set of values that all should follow.Elamdri wrote:
I understand what your saying, but the only problem is that I don't have to prove that Objectivism is true, I just have to prove that Relativism is false and Objectivism is probable
You cite the objective ideals themselves are relative, but the problem is that those objective ideals must be to the benefit of society.
To give a example. I believe that it is morally wrong to kill individuals for no reason, simply for the fun of it, and I believe that this is an objective principle, that applies universally.
At the same time, you believe that is its morally acceptable to kill. individuals for no reason, simply for the fun of it, and you believe that this is an objective prinicple, that applies universally.
However, if your moral applied universally, society would collapse. I could go to work/school tomorrow and kill as many people as I wanted and no one would be justified in stopping me. Likewise, everyone else could do the same until society descended into a Hobbesian state of nature.
You have not proven relativism to be false, you have only shown that it makes laws difficult to create. Further, we still have absolutism.Elamdri wrote:
I don't have to prove objectivism to be true, I have to prove relativism false. If I can prove relativism to be false (Which I have), then objectivism is all thats left to fill the void.
But then we must ask questions like which morals outweigh which others: those, for example, who believe that the Sept 11 attacks were justified would argue firstly that they were to free the Middle East from the West, and secondly that that freedom was more valuable than the 3000 people killed.Elamdri wrote:
You cite the objective ideals themselves are relative, but the problem is that those objective ideals must be to the benefit of society.
First I'd like to point out that I don't challenge your two previous statements on the understanding that we are speaking hypothetically. Second, I would like to point out that some would argue that allowing people to kill for no reason does benefit society: it creates a survival of the fittest world.Elamdri wrote:
However, if your moral applied universally, society would collapse. I could go to work/school tomorrow and kill as many people as I wanted and no one would be justified in stopping me. Likewise, everyone else could do the same until society descended into a Hobbesian state of nature.
Bubbalo wrote:
No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that they aren't necessarily the selfless angels some make them out to be: the US army fights not for some great ideal, but rather for the benefit of the US at the expense of others.
Further, I was a jab at people who make posts about honouring US soldiers and then get upset when people post in it to offer differing viewpoints: they were the first ones to sully a thread honouring the other side.
Bubbalo wrote:
I feel that anyone who joins a volunteer armed force, then participates in a war, cannot back out of it by saying that they didn't decide to go.
So some comments to consider:Bubbalo wrote:
For the record, I feel largely the same about Australian soldiers. Or British, French, or Russian soldiers for that matter. It's just that no-one runs around going on about what saints they are.
Quote 1 - Armed conflicts are based are political in nature. The US armed forces fight for US interests, and the Austrialians fight for Austrialia...etc. The insurgents fight for insurgent interests...it's the same thing. If you do not buy the selfless angel ideal, well, that's fine. Most people don't. As far as the expense of others, well, yes, if others are blocking to their goal. This is what war is - forcing your country's interests on other countries. Which is why I asked the question - soldier or policy? A soldier merely is the means of enforcing the policy. So I find it strange someone would focus in on the soldiers at all.
Quote 2 - Agreed, its a contract. But hellooooo...random man. How does it relate to deflating hero soldier threads? I'm not sure this answered the question I asked - Are they bad people? or Is it a policy problem?
Quote 3 - Usually soldier hero stories are limited to the battlefield. So those armies are active...which is why there's limited military hero stories to report for the other nations.
So my confusion is specific - how can you condemn a soldier for fighting for their country's interests? They cease to be soldiers once they decide not to support their country's interests.
Or are you really condemning the foreign policy that sent them there?
Do SS soldiers who worked at prison camps get off scot free by saying that they were just enforcing their countries policies?
Also, I think I recognise that quote in you sig. Is it from a TV show?
Also, I think I recognise that quote in you sig. Is it from a TV show?
Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-12-08 22:19:24)
Answer something and I'll answer you.Bubbalo wrote:
Do SS soldiers who worked at prison camps get off scot free by saying that they were just enforcing their countries policies?
Also, I think I recognise that quote in you sig. Is it from a TV show?
You keep asking the same questions over and over again, and I keep trying to answer you in new ways, yet it never seems to satisfy you.
Bubbalo is it possible for you to post in a topic that dosent end in an argument? (that you started)
Pretty much because if I state what I think your saying, you'll tell me guess again. How about actually answering the question clearly?Bubbalo wrote:
You keep asking the same questions over and over again, and I keep trying to answer you in new ways, yet it never seems to satisfy you.
Here's my current response:
Your comparison of SS soldiers to current fails.
Soldiers do not lose their morals when they go into the field. A US soldier can refuse an order and endure a possible court martial, but there's no easy way to enforce this in the field without it. The SS soldiers had different morals than others.
Therefore, it does not relate to the questions....
Yes, because this forum is all about everyone agreeing 100%.Mongoose wrote:
Bubbalo is it possible for you to post in a topic that dosent end in an argument? (that you started)
But it does. Through war crimes tribunals resulting from WWII, the nations involved, led by the US, stated, unequivocally, that a soldier is fully responsible for all actions he takes. Indeed, in the cases we're discussing, it isn't even a matter of refusing an order: you can simply not sign up, as the militaries of the Western world have typically followed a pattern of military involvement for about the last half century.Pug wrote:
Pretty much because if I state what I think your saying, you'll tell me guess again. How about actually answering the question clearly?Bubbalo wrote:
You keep asking the same questions over and over again, and I keep trying to answer you in new ways, yet it never seems to satisfy you.
Here's my current response:
Your comparison of SS soldiers to current fails.
Soldiers do not lose their morals when they go into the field. A US soldier can refuse an order and endure a possible court martial, but there's no easy way to enforce this in the field without it. The SS soldiers had different morals than others.
Therefore, it does not relate to the questions....
Ahh, but the SS soldier refuses the order. Are they brought up on war crimes? No. (Assuming the Germans don't shoot him first).Bubbalo wrote:
But it does. Through war crimes tribunals resulting from WWII, the nations involved, led by the US, stated, unequivocally, that a soldier is fully responsible for all actions he takes. Indeed, in the cases we're discussing, it isn't even a matter of refusing an order: you can simply not sign up, as the militaries of the Western world have typically followed a pattern of military involvement for about the last half century.
What I'm getting from this is that by signing up and performing their duty they are responsible for their actions. This is irrelevant - they have a choice in the field, and their country's policies guide why they are there.
You believe we shouldn't be in Iraq. Because the soldiers are there, they should be condemmed?
So I ask you yet again - Is a soldier acting in their country's interest immoral?
The answer to that question depends on one's views: whether, for example, one views patriotism as moral.
All I'm saying is that the soldiers are volunteers, and therefore cannot claim that they are not responsible for their actions, nor that they don't choose what wars to fight: they have the option to choose not to fight.
All I'm saying is that the soldiers are volunteers, and therefore cannot claim that they are not responsible for their actions, nor that they don't choose what wars to fight: they have the option to choose not to fight.
If everyone in America chose the option not to fight, then they would have to fight anyway.Bubbalo wrote:
All I'm saying is that the soldiers are volunteers, and therefore cannot claim that they are not responsible for their actions, nor that they don't choose what wars to fight: they have the option to choose not to fight.
There must be a certain amount of common sense used in this type of forum. If you want to make a point, say it! If I wanted to make a point about honoring Australian soldiers on ANZAC day, I would NOT start a thread "honoring" Imperial Japanese soldiers for murdering Australian prisoners or any similar comparison. There are acceptable ways of starting a debate, which are defined by the community where it is debated. Bubbalo, hopefully, has learned this.
When I saw his thread, I realized what he was trying to say. However, I only knew this because he had told me how he tries to convey his meaning, in a very similar thread. So, Bubbalo, for your good and ours, say what you mean and loose the extreme sarcasm/attempted witty comments.
When I saw his thread, I realized what he was trying to say. However, I only knew this because he had told me how he tries to convey his meaning, in a very similar thread. So, Bubbalo, for your good and ours, say what you mean and loose the extreme sarcasm/attempted witty comments.
Last edited by RAIMIUS (2006-12-08 23:34:06)
Well that statement makes perfect sense. Clarification, please?usmarine2007 wrote:
If everyone in America chose the option not to fight, then they would have to fight anyway.Bubbalo wrote:
All I'm saying is that the soldiers are volunteers, and therefore cannot claim that they are not responsible for their actions, nor that they don't choose what wars to fight: they have the option to choose not to fight.
Thanks for the answer - sig's from Billy Madison (Sandler flick)
War = forcing your country on others. Nothing new there. Either you buy in to it or you don't. So, nothing new in the first paragraph. You have the right to state that the war sucks (it does BTW).
Posting a jab is fine too, but there's a place for it. There's other threads about it. You know it's going to be a flamefest when you pop into a hero thread - because most people see it as misdirected at the soldiers themselves. And you know it is, since it's shock value.
But not supporting the troops is not a option for me. They deserve respect for many reasons, even if it means a mistake was made when first deploying the troops. They are responsible for their conduct in the field and not the policy that sent them there. If you want to criticize the policy, do so. But not the soldiers.
Are they blameless? No, but the organization tries to be ethical. There's a significant difference between struggling to meet their objectives and being compared to a SS guard working a death camp. Or comparing Hitler's and Stalin's regime to the United States. And, from my point of view, glorifying killing thousands of civillians in 9/11 is not an option. I'm sure there's some that see it as heroic act, but I believe attacks on civilians is an attrocity beyond measure.
I'm not happy with what we're doing over in Iraq, but I haven't thought too much about the alternatives. I just hope for the best.
How does it relate to this though? I believe this is strictly policy related.Bubbalo wrote:
No. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that they aren't necessarily the selfless angels some make them out to be: the US army fights not for some great ideal, but rather for the benefit of the US at the expense of others.
Further, I was a jab at people who make posts about honouring US soldiers and then get upset when people post in it to offer differing viewpoints: they were the first ones to sully a thread honouring the other side.
War = forcing your country on others. Nothing new there. Either you buy in to it or you don't. So, nothing new in the first paragraph. You have the right to state that the war sucks (it does BTW).
Posting a jab is fine too, but there's a place for it. There's other threads about it. You know it's going to be a flamefest when you pop into a hero thread - because most people see it as misdirected at the soldiers themselves. And you know it is, since it's shock value.
But not supporting the troops is not a option for me. They deserve respect for many reasons, even if it means a mistake was made when first deploying the troops. They are responsible for their conduct in the field and not the policy that sent them there. If you want to criticize the policy, do so. But not the soldiers.
Are they blameless? No, but the organization tries to be ethical. There's a significant difference between struggling to meet their objectives and being compared to a SS guard working a death camp. Or comparing Hitler's and Stalin's regime to the United States. And, from my point of view, glorifying killing thousands of civillians in 9/11 is not an option. I'm sure there's some that see it as heroic act, but I believe attacks on civilians is an attrocity beyond measure.
I'm not happy with what we're doing over in Iraq, but I haven't thought too much about the alternatives. I just hope for the best.
Last edited by Pug (2006-12-08 23:51:00)
If people did not volunteer, then there would be a draft most likely.Bubbalo wrote:
Well that statement makes perfect sense. Clarification, please?usmarine2007 wrote:
If everyone in America chose the option not to fight, then they would have to fight anyway.Bubbalo wrote:
All I'm saying is that the soldiers are volunteers, and therefore cannot claim that they are not responsible for their actions, nor that they don't choose what wars to fight: they have the option to choose not to fight.
If I had come out and said that I expected the same people complaining about the "defiling" of threads to honour US soldiers would do the exact same thing in threads to honour their enemies, they would have denied it. By giving them the oppurtunity to act in the manner they claim is appropriate, which they failed to do, I have proved it.RAIMIUS wrote:
There must be a certain amount of common sense used in this type of forum. If you want to make a point, say it! If I wanted to make a point about honoring Australian soldiers on ANZAC day, I would NOT start a thread "honoring" Imperial Japanese soldiers for murdering Australian prisoners or any similar comparison. There are acceptable ways of starting a debate, which are defined by the community where it is debated. Bubbalo, hopefully, has learned this.
When I saw his thread, I realized what he was trying to say. However, I only knew this because he had told me how he tries to convey his meaning, in a very similar thread. So, Bubbalo, for your good and ours, say what you mean and loose the extreme sarcasm/attempted witty comments.
Further, I wouldn't attack you for starting a similar thread on ANZAC: except insofar as your point wouldn't make any sense, since I have not seen a thread of the type I am talking about relating to Australian soldiers. Further, even if I would, the example is inappropriate: ANZAC Day is our national day to honour soldiers, the day I made the post was just the anniversary of when an attack occoured: I believe the parallel for you would be Veteran's Day, or the day which is celebrated in Europe, whose name I forget..............