+1.
And it's quite possible you sir, have neither.Sombo wrote:
If your not a Liberal by the time your 18 you have no heart. If your your not a conservative by the time your 40 you have no brain!
Forgive me for i mean no offense, but your example isn't really a good one either. The gentleman or lady who knocked the beer out of your hand was obviously done by accident, if i take your meaning right. So yes those reactions would seem a bit excessive, The original example is still a very good example (put in very simple terms that even the dimmest intelect could understand if not agree with).Bertster7 wrote:
That's not a great example of diproportionate use of force, how about:
In a bar someone spills your beer, do you;
A) Get them to buy you another one.
B) Punch them in the face.
C) Grind the base of the broken beer glass into their face until you feel better about it.
D) Pull the leg off your bar stool and beat them to death with it.
I'd say options C and D are certainly disproportionate use of force and option B is a little on the harsh side. Option A is a perfectly rational reasonable response (maybe combined with a bit of abuse).
This is what people mean when they talk about proportionate force and anyone can't see that some of these responses are irrational should not be a part of civilised society.
It is far more complex with Hezbollah and Israel, but the principle still holds true.
Wait, so if I spill your beer on purpose, you'll honestly consider beating me to death? Intention doesn't factor into the example.Sombo wrote:
Forgive me for i mean no offense, but your example isn't really a good one either. The gentleman or lady who knocked the beer out of your hand was obviously done by accident, if i take your meaning right. So yes those reactions would seem a bit excessive, The original example is still a very good example (put in very simple terms that even the dimmest intelect could understand if not agree with).Bertster7 wrote:
That's not a great example of diproportionate use of force, how about:
In a bar someone spills your beer, do you;
A) Get them to buy you another one.
B) Punch them in the face.
C) Grind the base of the broken beer glass into their face until you feel better about it.
D) Pull the leg off your bar stool and beat them to death with it.
I'd say options C and D are certainly disproportionate use of force and option B is a little on the harsh side. Option A is a perfectly rational reasonable response (maybe combined with a bit of abuse).
This is what people mean when they talk about proportionate force and anyone can't see that some of these responses are irrational should not be a part of civilised society.
It is far more complex with Hezbollah and Israel, but the principle still holds true.
Last edited by jonsimon (2006-08-21 19:41:06)
Judging from your reply sir, one would assume that you are overly bitter over something. I would geuss that at one point of your life you were severly beaten sensless by a republican and that would explain so much! I have given you no such cause for such a disproportionate cyber attack, and i feel that we should have a cease fire so that i may have time to use the viscous attacks against me, a peace loving freedom fighter deffending all that i hold dear with no angst or hatred for anyone, for propaganda.jonsimon wrote:
And it's quite possible you sir, have neither.Sombo wrote:
If your not a Liberal by the time your 18 you have no heart. If your your not a conservative by the time your 40 you have no brain!
Lol its hard to distinguish the sarcasm. Good show.Sombo wrote:
Judging from your reply sir, one would assume that you are overly bitter over something. I would geuss that at one point of your life you were severly beaten sensless by a republican and that would explain so much! I have given you no such cause for such a disproportionate cyber attack, and i feel that we should have a cease fire so that i may have time to use the viscous attacks against me, a peace loving freedom fighter deffending all that i hold dear with no angst or hatred for anyone, for propaganda.jonsimon wrote:
And it's quite possible you sir, have neither.Sombo wrote:
If your not a Liberal by the time your 18 you have no heart. If your your not a conservative by the time your 40 you have no brain!
I didnt say that but if we were in a bar together and someone came up to you and forcefully smacked the beer outta your hand exactly what would i witness you doing proceeding that? would it be unreasonable to assume that you would slug him into submission? Obviously the bloke who knocked your beer to the floor has other things on his mind than ruining your pretty nubuck leather shoes. If you think that the beer will be the end to altercation then you are sorley mistaken and will be sore from the beating you recieved because you lack the proper interpersonal skills to deal with a bar bully.Wait, so if I spill your beer on purpose, you'll honestly consider beating me to death? Intention doesn't factor into the example.
I wont deny that your arguments are very good, but we will have to agree to disagree.jonsimon wrote:
Lol its hard to distinguish the sarcasm. Good show.Sombo wrote:
Judging from your reply sir, one would assume that you are overly bitter over something. I would geuss that at one point of your life you were severly beaten sensless by a republican and that would explain so much! I have given you no such cause for such a disproportionate cyber attack, and i feel that we should have a cease fire so that i may have time to use the viscous attacks against me, a peace loving freedom fighter deffending all that i hold dear with no angst or hatred for anyone, for propaganda.jonsimon wrote:
And it's quite possible you sir, have neither.
Personally I'd take the gentlemanly route and try and talk it through until he swings. Always let him throw the first punch. Sure, though, I can see hitting the guy as a reasonable response to provocation, but the analogy still demonstrates that KILLING the offender is a disproportionate response, and would land you in jail.Sombo wrote:
I didnt say that but if we were in a bar together and someone came up to you and forcefully smacked the beer outta your hand exactly what would i witness you doing proceeding that? would it be unreasonable to assume that you would slug him into submission? Obviously the bloke who knocked your beer to the floor has other things on his mind than ruining your pretty nubuck leather shoes. If you think that the beer will be the end to altercation then you are sorley mistaken and will be sore from the beating you recieved because you lack the proper interpersonal skills to deal with a bar bully.Wait, so if I spill your beer on purpose, you'll honestly consider beating me to death? Intention doesn't factor into the example.
I totally agree, however slugging a gent over a pint is appropiate considering the circumstances. And Israel bombing strategic parts of Lebonon for unwarented attacks by Hezbollah is the same basic gist just on a much more elevated scale.jonsimon wrote:
Personally I'd take the gentlemanly route and try and talk it through until he swings. Always let him throw the first punch. Sure, though, I can see hitting the guy as a reasonable response to provocation, but the analogy still demonstrates that KILLING the offender is a disproportionate response, and would land you in jail.Sombo wrote:
I didnt say that but if we were in a bar together and someone came up to you and forcefully smacked the beer outta your hand exactly what would i witness you doing proceeding that? would it be unreasonable to assume that you would slug him into submission? Obviously the bloke who knocked your beer to the floor has other things on his mind than ruining your pretty nubuck leather shoes. If you think that the beer will be the end to altercation then you are sorley mistaken and will be sore from the beating you recieved because you lack the proper interpersonal skills to deal with a bar bully.Wait, so if I spill your beer on purpose, you'll honestly consider beating me to death? Intention doesn't factor into the example.
Actually, simple logic proves your base premise wrong. How? Simple:
1) I tap you
2) In retaliation, you slap me
3) In retaliation for the slap, when all I did was tap, a punch you
4) In retaliation for the punch, when all you did was slap, you get a bat and hit me
5) In retaliation for the bat, when all I did was punch, I get a knife and stab you
And so on and so forth.
Sombo: You know what's so stupid about that phrase? Some of the greatest thinkers of all time were Liberals. It was Liberals who pushed for better work conditions, which in turn led to improved productivity, stupid? I think not. It was Liberals who fought for universal suffrage. Are you calling them stupid?
In short: that phrase is used by Conservatives to make it sound like they're being fair to Liberals but in the end are better. In reality, the difference between Conservatives and Liberals is their core outlook.
1) I tap you
2) In retaliation, you slap me
3) In retaliation for the slap, when all I did was tap, a punch you
4) In retaliation for the punch, when all you did was slap, you get a bat and hit me
5) In retaliation for the bat, when all I did was punch, I get a knife and stab you
And so on and so forth.
Sombo: You know what's so stupid about that phrase? Some of the greatest thinkers of all time were Liberals. It was Liberals who pushed for better work conditions, which in turn led to improved productivity, stupid? I think not. It was Liberals who fought for universal suffrage. Are you calling them stupid?
In short: that phrase is used by Conservatives to make it sound like they're being fair to Liberals but in the end are better. In reality, the difference between Conservatives and Liberals is their core outlook.
no way.. we are talking about real people..... maybe compare it to you spilling a beer on the gent... the gent shoots up the whole bar.. and the right thing to do would be to level the whole neighborhood the gent lives in... come on.. get your head outta your asses
Yeah, I'd have to agree your analogy is completely inaccurate. More like the guy jumps out stabs you, so you put up your gun only to go to your trunk to pull out your AK-47 and shoot him and the 20 other innocent bystanders who happened to walk down the street.
Now if you did that in my state (Texas) you'd surely end up on death row.
Jusster
Now if you did that in my state (Texas) you'd surely end up on death row.
Jusster
You chose a perfect name for you obviously are dazed. you are going to extremes that would NOT be feasible. Your argument is extreme and ignorant and has no basis actually happenning. So that being said, kindly remove YOUR head from your keister!DaZeD863 wrote:
no way.. we are talking about real people..... maybe compare it to you spilling a beer on the gent... the gent shoots up the whole bar.. and the right thing to do would be to level the whole neighborhood the gent lives in... come on.. get your head outta your asses
Your whole argument is very confusing, what was your intent when you tapped me? where you trying to get me to move so you could get by? or were you looking to start a fight? Listen if the ends should justify the means then Israel had every right to bomb the living daylights outta Hezbollah and Lebanon. My whole argument is of course based on the fact that you believe in justice. What exactly do you think was the intention of Hezbollah? Maybe a late fourth of july gone horribly wrong? You know dawg on well what there intentions where, to kill people from an innocent country that did NOT provocate a violent intent.Bubbalo wrote:
Actually, simple logic proves your base premise wrong. How? Simple:
1) I tap you
2) In retaliation, you slap me
3) In retaliation for the slap, when all I did was tap, a punch you
4) In retaliation for the punch, when all you did was slap, you get a bat and hit me
5) In retaliation for the bat, when all I did was punch, I get a knife and stab you
And so on and so forth.
Sombo: You know what's so stupid about that phrase? Some of the greatest thinkers of all time were Liberals. It was Liberals who pushed for better work conditions, which in turn led to improved productivity, stupid? I think not. It was Liberals who fought for universal suffrage. Are you calling them stupid?
In short: that phrase is used by Conservatives to make it sound like they're being fair to Liberals but in the end are better. In reality, the difference between Conservatives and Liberals is their core outlook.
And about your liberals being saviors, guess again! Now keep in mind that i am all for better working conditions but since the the "better working conditions" became demands that companies could not acquiesce to they folded and went over seas where foreigners would willingly do the work for a fraction of the price. This perpetuates the human suffering and dependance on the Government for assistance as well and anger towards buisnesses for making smart decisions in the face of greedy (mostly union) Americans. Your argument doesnt hold water my freind, i know your well intentioned but you cant keep putting bandaids on a severed head.
And just outta curiosity what is universal sufferage?
Liberals today are NOT free thinkers, they claim to be but when was the last time they did any good? I'm also not saying Libs are bad i have many liberal freinds as i live in a democratic run state but all there ideas are fomulated to work in a strictly Utopian environment. One of these days when they are done playing with Unicorns and drinking from rainbow sherbert waterfalls they will see that they have been mostly wrong in their thinking.
Last edited by Sombo (2006-08-21 22:11:54)
You're all saying that Hezbollah was a little guy that spat on a big guy and now he's getting punished. You realise of course that Lebanon is not the same thing as Hezbollah? And it's not Hezbollah that's getting beat on, it's Lebanon in general?
Nor have any of you taken into consideration why Hezbollah did what it did. Obviously they feel their actions were justified, but whether anyone else does is another matter. Do you? None of this was a random bar brawl, and shouldn't really be compared to one.
This is a long running feud, Israel vs. its neighbours. There's so much more to it than any of us are reading in the headlines. If you want to understand or make a comment on it, you'll have to do a lot of research first. It's no use saying "If I generalise this situation down to a trivial example of society that I'm familiar with then I have an answer that works for me!". The problem is bigger than you have imagined.
Nor have any of you taken into consideration why Hezbollah did what it did. Obviously they feel their actions were justified, but whether anyone else does is another matter. Do you? None of this was a random bar brawl, and shouldn't really be compared to one.
This is a long running feud, Israel vs. its neighbours. There's so much more to it than any of us are reading in the headlines. If you want to understand or make a comment on it, you'll have to do a lot of research first. It's no use saying "If I generalise this situation down to a trivial example of society that I'm familiar with then I have an answer that works for me!". The problem is bigger than you have imagined.
Lebanon allowed and even suplied Hezbollah with weapons to attack Israel. Lebanon Has for years allowed Hezbollah to have a voice in their parliment. Hezbollah has built their weapons munitions bunkers under civilian structures in hopes that another country wouldnt bomb them, guess what? they were wrong in so many ways!vanmani wrote:
You're all saying that Hezbollah was a little guy that spat on a big guy and now he's getting punished. You realise of course that Lebanon is not the same thing as Hezbollah? And it's not Hezbollah that's getting beat on, it's Lebanon in general?
Why did Hezbollah do what it did? They hate the jewish people and feel, as their neibghors do, that Israel should not be there! And noone is saying that this is as simple as a brawl, BUT more trying to make sense of proportionate force.vanmani wrote:
Nor have any of you taken into consideration why Hezbollah did what it did. Obviously they feel their actions were justified, but whether anyone else does is another matter. Do you? None of this was a random bar brawl, and shouldn't really be compared to one.
No one is aying that we have an answer for whats going on in the middle east simply by generalizing it into more American terms. But i do agree with you that this has been a LONG running fued, centuries infact, it was going on before us and will be going on long after we have died. Our grand children will be posting very similar arguments in the decades to come.vanmani wrote:
This is a long running feud, Israel vs. its neighbours. There's so much more to it than any of us are reading in the headlines. If you want to understand or make a comment on it, you'll have to do a lot of research first. It's no use saying "If I generalise this situation down to a trivial example of society that I'm familiar with then I have an answer that works for me!". The problem is bigger than you have imagined.
Last edited by Sombo (2006-08-21 22:24:22)
lol nice post!
i was thinking what can be the proportional weapon to katusha with 40kg mettal balls inside?
btw here is the movie that explains everything...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shFNtH7Us6o
i was thinking what can be the proportional weapon to katusha with 40kg mettal balls inside?
btw here is the movie that explains everything...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shFNtH7Us6o
Wow! That was as informative as a 1950's "Duck and Cover"-film, and as impartial as a 1940's German political poster!Lisik wrote:
btw here is the movie that explains everything...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shFNtH7Us6o
I need around tree fiddy.
bla bla bla?DonFck wrote:
Wow! That was as informative as a 1950's "Duck and Cover"-film, and as impartial as a 1940's German political poster!Lisik wrote:
btw here is the movie that explains everything...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shFNtH7Us6o
what's universal suffrage? 40 kg metal balls?
I think this thread is on thin ice
I think this thread is on thin ice
Sorry buddy but you have a poor analogy and some misconceptions about the Lebanese situation.Dersmikner wrote:
After reading a few threads about the Arab/Israeli conflict, I thought I'd share a story with you. Man, you won't believe this.
Yesterday I was walking down the street with a knife in my boots, and a gun in my briefcase (concealed carry permit), and a hateful sonofabitch jumped out of the bushes and stabbed me with a knife.
I was going to shoot him, but then I realized that would be disproportionate use of force, so I put the gun away and stabbed him back.
Absurd. Allow me to use this example to tell all the people who have used the phrase "disproportionate use of force" in the last two weeks to kiss my ass.
Know why I've never been shot by a cop? I don't throw rocks and Molotov cocktails at them. Know why I don't get the shit beaten out of me by big, mean, roided up assholes? I don't spit on them.
It's the same theory in all aspects of violent human interaction. If a man hits you in the head with a stick are you going to refrain from bashing his skull with a baseball bat because you think it's only right to reciprocate with like force?
I don't give a good shit if Hezbollah was shooting .22s indescriminately into Israel, that calls for a leveling.
Worse is the whining about "indescriminate attacks". In addition to not giving a shit about "proportionate force", I don't call what Israel is doing "indescriminate". Rounds were fired from up North, rounds will be returned to the same locale. Indescriminate would be firing rounds all over Hell and half of Iran.
You think those shitheads in Lebanon are using laser guided missiles that are aimed at Israeli military bunkers? They have no idea if they're going to hit a tank, a hospital, a church, or a Girl Scouts meeting. Those dumbasses can't even AIM those fucking rockets they're firing. They have NO IDEA where they're going to land. I've got a better chance to hit a target with a WalMart model rocket.
The next time I hear someone say that after Hezbollah launched 200 "wherever the fuck they land is okay with us" missiles, and the Israelis fought back, that Israel should take care to limit civilian casualties, I'm going to shit. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The NEXT time Hezbollah "targets" an Israeli military objective will be the FIRST. Once a Katusha leaves the pad, it's got a general direction and not much else. No onboard guidance system, nothing. Point and shoot. Where are the objections about that from the whiners?
I'm reading these threads and some of them astound me.
1. Don't want to be an Israeli target? Fight back against Hezbollah.
2. Can't fight back against Hezbollah? Go to the government for help.
3. Government can't help? Get the hell out of a country that is run by terrorists.
So simple.
By the way, I suggest that the next time one of you walks in on your Mother/Sister/Girlfriend getting raped, instead of bashing the guy's skull in with a 2 by 4, rape him back. Yeah, that's the ticket. Just don't be too rough. Proportionate and all... proportionate.
I think it's yada yada yada..? Dunno..Lisik wrote:
bla bla bla?DonFck wrote:
Wow! That was as informative as a 1950's "Duck and Cover"-film, and as impartial as a 1940's German political poster!
Jokes aside, that propaganda video didn't really strengthen your case regarding any of the threads/posts you have made so far.
I need around tree fiddy.
Maybe you don't realise. Proportionate use of force is ONE OF THE FIVE TENETS OF A JUST WAR (Jus ad bellum if I'm not mistaken).
I don't have the right to blast the shit out of a country just because a few of its citizens captured a few of mine - which is exactly what's happened here.
This may not apply to everyday situations - for example,. your original example is idiotically poor. It would be fine to shoot him. It would NOT be fine, however, to shoot all his family and friends - that is DISPROPORTIONATE.
I don't have the right to blast the shit out of a country just because a few of its citizens captured a few of mine - which is exactly what's happened here.
This may not apply to everyday situations - for example,. your original example is idiotically poor. It would be fine to shoot him. It would NOT be fine, however, to shoot all his family and friends - that is DISPROPORTIONATE.
Last edited by Spark (2006-08-22 01:50:58)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Quit illegally occupying a foreign nation. Amazing how people don't want to kill you when you don't kill their families or steal their land to further your Zionist goals...Dersmikner wrote:
After reading a few threads about the Arab/Israeli conflict, I thought I'd share a story with you. Man, you won't believe this.
Yesterday I was walking down the street with a knife in my boots, and a gun in my briefcase (concealed carry permit), and a hateful sonofabitch jumped out of the bushes and stabbed me with a knife.
Typical Israeli, wait until they aren't looking then murder them, I'm surprised you didn't wait until they were asleep.Dersmikner wrote:
I was going to shoot him, but then I realized that would be disproportionate use of force, so I put the gun away and stabbed him back.
Know why I've never had rocks and molotav cocktails thrown at me? I don't illegally occupy a foreign nation with the sole purpose of stealing their natural resources and land. I don't keep that nation penned up in neighborhoods with checkpoints every 100 yards. I don't deny them food and medical supplies. I don't raze their crops to the ground. I don't carpet bomb refugee camps, or for that matter shell civilians who are on holiday at the beach.Dersmikner wrote:
Absurd. Allow me to use this example to tell all the people who have used the phrase "disproportionate use of force" in the last two weeks to kiss my ass.
Know why I've never been shot by a cop? I don't throw rocks and Molotov cocktails at them. Know why I don't get the shit beaten out of me by big, mean, roided up assholes? I don't spit on them.
Actually the theory is: what did I do to deserve that? Not: how dare he fight back! We are Israeli, we can do whatever the fuck we want without repercussions.Dersmikner wrote:
It's the same theory in all aspects of violent human interaction. If a man hits you in the head with a stick are you going to refrain from bashing his skull with a baseball bat because you think it's only right to reciprocate with like force?
That's right, since all they have are .22's it makes it easy to continue Israel's policy of Mass Genocide for the Annexation of All of Palestine.Dersmikner wrote:
I don't give a good shit if Hezbollah was shooting .22s indescriminately into Israel, that calls for a leveling.
Thank you for defining what Israel does on a daily basis, the world was really unaware since the Israeli propoganda machine blocks most of the truth here in the U.S.Dersmikner wrote:
Worse is the whining about "indescriminate attacks". In addition to not giving a shit about "proportionate force", I don't call what Israel is doing "indescriminate". Rounds were fired from up North, rounds will be returned to the same locale. Indescriminate would be firing rounds all over Hell and half of Iran.
LOL. Israel is SO much better because they actually INTEND to murder innocent civilians and level whole towns.Dersmikner wrote:
You think those shitheads in Lebanon are using laser guided missiles that are aimed at Israeli military bunkers? They have no idea if they're going to hit a tank, a hospital, a church, or a Girl Scouts meeting. Those dumbasses can't even AIM those fucking rockets they're firing. They have NO IDEA where they're going to land. I've got a better chance to hit a target with a WalMart model rocket.
You know why there aren't any objections? Because Israel started carpet bombing whole cities 2 days BEFORE the first rockets were fired. So the fuck what? Israel is going to get the crap beat out of them soon. Even the U.S. is steadily losing support for Israel, the next Nazi Germany in the Middle-East.Dersmikner wrote:
The next time I hear someone say that after Hezbollah launched 200 "wherever the fuck they land is okay with us" missiles, and the Israelis fought back, that Israel should take care to limit civilian casualties, I'm going to shit. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The NEXT time Hezbollah "targets" an Israeli military objective will be the FIRST. Once a Katusha leaves the pad, it's got a general direction and not much else. No onboard guidance system, nothing. Point and shoot. Where are the objections about that from the whiners?
1. Don't want your babies and mothers killed while they are sleeping in their homes? Don't live in Palestine where the Israelis will steal your land with a bulldozer.Dersmikner wrote:
I'm reading these threads and some of them astound me.
1. Don't want to be an Israeli target? Fight back against Hezbollah.
2. Can't fight back against Hezbollah? Go to the government for help.
3. Government can't help? Get the hell out of a country that is run by terrorists.
So simple.
2. Have the only military in the region? Use it to murder people daily so they can't tell the governments of the world.
3. Don't want to be a human being? Be an Israeli. That government won't let the Palestines get food at the store or go to the hospital, let alone leave the country.
Probably won't happen, there aren't any Israeli soldiers here in the U.S.Dersmikner wrote:
By the way, I suggest that the next time one of you walks in on your Mother/Sister/Girlfriend getting raped, instead of bashing the guy's skull in with a 2 by 4, rape him back. Yeah, that's the ticket. Just don't be too rough. Proportionate and all... proportionate.