Stupid Morality Question

uscitizen said:
Evidence supports my statement Damo.

Especially if they are muslim children. The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim ;)
Click to expand...
The majority never "want" that, that is a unnecessarily negative judgement of motive. Much as those who say "Pro-Choicers" want to kill babies.
 
A little different, but the end result is pretty much the same. dead innocents.

and orders not to count the dead non combatants, I wonder why .....
 
IHateGovernment said:
Want and willing are a little different though.
Click to expand...
Which was a difference, both sets see it as a "necessary evil". Very few would say, "Let's kill babies today!" on either side. Nobody suggested that killing as many women and children as possible as a motive for going to war. It isn't likely that you could find more than 1 in 10s of thousands that would actually believe such a thing and they are likely to be members of sideline groups like the KKK.
 
Sit and Spin damo. dead is dead , and those who did not forsee the dead children from a war are not too bright, so I give them little consideration.
 
uscitizen said:
Sit and Spin damo. dead is dead , and those who did not forsee the dead children from a war are not too bright, so I give them little consideration.
Click to expand...
It is a difference between "necessary evil" and a wish that they "didn't have to". Like I said. It is much like those who are pro-choicers. They would talk of the "necessary evil" inherent in the action over a thrill of excitement of another child killed.

Notice the difference even with those who say, "Afghanistan was right, but not Iraq" and them not mentioning all the innocents killed there as well. What made it more morally correct and do they "want" those women/children/non-combatants killed because they think that Afghanistan was a place we should have gone?

Since they think that Afghanistan was "right" does it mean it is a liberal ideation to kill all those innocents?
 
Good point Damo. You can't say war hawks are pro-death and then get indignant when pro-lifers call the pro-choice lobby pro-death.

It's simply that death to them isn't a 100% unacceptable outcome. How much it takes to get them to accept death is an unknown grey area that doesn't clearly separate lib and con. You just have to feel it out.
 
IHateGovernment said:
This reminds me of a incident I still feel guilt over. One day when I was getting the mail out of the mailbox a yellow jacket stung me. It did not hurt terribly so but as anyone knows being stuck by one isn't too pleasant either. In anger I smashed the yellow jacket even though once I was aware of its position I could take care to avoid being stung again.

I was wrong to do this. I killed a creature that was no longer a threat.

That said if a yellow jacket was flying in my home I would have to kill it. It would be difficult to catch as it is a flying insect and it poses a danger to my wife and child as I do not want them to be stung.

Generally I will spare any insect or other arthropod I find in my home unless it is a mosquito, housefly, horsefly or yellow jacket. All of these animals are dangerous for different reasons.

As for you question MBL I think that you could have let the wasp escape especially if it was possible to put a solid door behind the wasp and then open the screen door so it would fly away.

Also it depends on the species. I know plenty about entomology so I know which species are dangerous and what aren't. Most wasps are not agressive and pose little threat regardless. Wasp specieis you must watch out for are hornets and yellow jackets both easily identifiable. Mud wasps which are common are very passive and only sting if provoked.

If you felt threatened I would say it is permissable to kill an insect if no other means of avoidance is possible. However we should not kill living things for convenience.
Click to expand...


I can't believe I read that whole thing. You're putting way too much thought into this. ;)



j/k
 
Notice the difference even with those who say, "Afghanistan was right, but not Iraq" and them not mentioning all the innocents killed there as well. What made it more morally correct and do they "want" those women/children/non-combatants killed because they think that Afghanistan was a place we should have gone?

Iraq was a bit different from Afganistan.
there are no good wars, there are sometimes necessary wars and sometimes even just wars. Iraq is none of the above.
 
uscitizen said:
Notice the difference even with those who say, "Afghanistan was right, but not Iraq" and them not mentioning all the innocents killed there as well. What made it more morally correct and do they "want" those women/children/non-combatants killed because they think that Afghanistan was a place we should have gone?

Iraq was a bit different from Afganistan.
there are no good wars, there are sometimes necessary wars and sometimes even just wars. Iraq is none of the above.
Click to expand...
Yet it is a "necessary evil"?

So you are beginning to understand the difference. One can believe it is necessary to wage war and understand that part of it will be this necessary evil. The idea that they "want" to kill all of them is ridiculous exaggeration for emotive reasons and rejects all idea that Liberals are doing exactly the same thing in a different place and that a good percentage supported even Iraq.

Suggesting that this is a "con" thing while it is happening elsewhere with full "lib" support is emotive spin.
 
So I guess I can discount all the cons raving a couple of yearas ago about "just nuke em all and let god sort em out" Or lets just trun the ME into a glassed over parking lot with nukes ?
Strange that I never heard liberals say that.
 
uscitizen said:
So I guess I can discount all the cons raving a couple of yearas ago about "just nuke em all and let god sort em out" Or lets just trun the ME into a glassed over parking lot with nukes ?
Strange that I never heard liberals say that.
Click to expand...
LOL. Right. That should be taken seriously as the central reason that we went to war. You can tell that because we've gone and nuked them all and are now talking about the morality of the genocide we have already committed.

You are getting desperate. Libs are in "support" of killing innocents in Afghanistan, right?

Joke bumperstickers notwithstanding, it is not the goal of "cons" to kill every muslim and you know it isn't. That you can see the matter of degrees with Afghanistan and Iraq shows me that you have a full grasp of this, you just don't want to admit it.

Either Libs equally want to "kill them all" as they are willing to allow for a necessary evil there, or both sides can see a "necessary evil" and neither side "wants" that to happen. You can't have it both ways.
 
Damocles said:
LOL. Right. That should be taken seriously as the central reason that we went to war. You can tell that because we've gone and nuked them all and are now talking about the morality of the genocide we have already committed.

You are getting desperate. Libs are in "support" of killing innocents in Afghanistan, right?

Joke bumperstickers notwithstanding, it is not the goal of "cons" to kill every muslim and you know it isn't. That you can see the matter of degrees with Afghanistan and Iraq shows me that you have a full grasp of this, you just don't want to admit it.

Either Libs equally want to "kill them all" or both sides can see a "necessary evil". You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Damo, if you always think it's necessary, if you fall on your back and say it's necessary for every power-drunk president who comes along, then it's just evil. And the bush conservatives want to go to war. They are aching to go into Iran and Syria. And when they come up with a reason why we "have to", anyone who goes along with it, saying it's a "necessary evil" can just do us all a favor and drop the necessary.

About Afghanistan, the killing and starvation of children there, along with other civillians was not necessary. We should have gone in and taken bin laden out, and end of story. So basically, I have come to the conclusion that there very well might never be a "necessary' war. And if there is one, I better see fleets, and ships, and submarines off my coast. But that given, I can still differentiate between those who are panting for an excuse to see scud studs and shocks and awe on their televisions, and those who come to serious conclusions based on evidence.

One is wrong, usually, the other a war-monger.
 
Damocles said:
LOL. Right. That should be taken seriously as the central reason that we went to war. You can tell that because we've gone and nuked them all and are now talking about the morality of the genocide we have already committed.

You are getting desperate. Libs are in "support" of killing innocents in Afghanistan, right?

Joke bumperstickers notwithstanding, it is not the goal of "cons" to kill every muslim and you know it isn't. That you can see the matter of degrees with Afghanistan and Iraq shows me that you have a full grasp of this, you just don't want to admit it.

Either Libs equally want to "kill them all" as they are willing to allow for a necessary evil there, or both sides can see a "necessary evil" and neither side "wants" that to happen. You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Laugh it up if you want to but that attitude is why we invaded Iraq.
 
Darla said:
Damo, if you always think it's necessary, if you fall on your back and say it's necessary for every power-drunk president who comes along, then it's just evil. And the bush conservatives want to go to war. They are aching to go into Iran and Syria. And when they come up with a reason why we "have to", anyone who goes along with it, saying it's a "necessary evil" can just do us all a favor and drop the necessary.

About Afghanistan, the killing and starvation of children there, along with other civillians was not necessary. We should have gone in and taken bin laden out, and end of story. So basically, I have come to the conclusion that there very well might never be a "necessary' war. And if there is one, I better see fleets, and ships, and submarines off my coast. But that given, I can still differentiate between those who are panting for an excuse to see scud studs and shocks and awe on their televisions, and those who come to serious conclusions based on evidence.

One is wrong, usually, the other a war-monger.
Click to expand...


Well stated Darla.
 
Darla said:
Damo, if you always think it's necessary, if you fall on your back and say it's necessary for every power-drunk president who comes along, then it's just evil. And the bush conservatives want to go to war. They are aching to go into Iran and Syria. And when they come up with a reason why we "have to", anyone who goes along with it, saying it's a "necessary evil" can just do us all a favor and drop the necessary.

About Afghanistan, the killing and starvation of children there, along with other civillians was not necessary. We should have gone in and taken bin laden out, and end of story. So basically, I have come to the conclusion that there very well might never be a "necessary' war. And if there is one, I better see fleets, and ships, and submarines off my coast. But that given, I can still differentiate between those who are panting for an excuse to see scud studs and shocks and awe on their televisions, and those who come to serious conclusions based on evidence.

One is wrong, usually, the other a war-monger.
Click to expand...
I haven't made that argument. I am explaining the difference between "want" and "willing". However, the Ds promote it in one place but say it is the "cons" wanting to kill them all in the other?

It is directly hypocritical to understand the difference in your own case but to promote a different standard in another.

We can, and have, argued the difference in reasoning in one place to the other, (should we have gone... you and I agree on that one BTW), but to say that the motivation behind Iraq was becuase "cons" wanted to kill women/children/non-combatants, then not to apply the same measure in Afghanistan only because Ds support the reason behind the war, is simply convenient hypocrisy.

Whether or not the reason to go to war was strong enough, yes. To say it is because "cons" WANT to kill children/women, et al. Rubbish.
 
uscitizen said:
Laugh it up if you want to but that attitude is why we invaded Iraq.
Click to expand...
It isn't. We invaded Iraq because many believed that they would provide to terrorists weapons that they were afraid of. It wasn't because they wanted to kill women/children/non-combatants. That again is faulty reasoning, unless you are willing to say that Ds WANT to kill those same people in Afghanistan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top