Is this an ethical weapon?

[quatona]

Better to die standing than live on your knees, as they say.

This appears to be is a little besides the point, though.
In regards to the statement you are referring to "Better to kill than live on your knees" would be more accurate.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

This appears to be is a little besides the point, though.
In regards to the statement you are referring to "Better to kill than live on your knees" would be more accurate.

How disrespectful to the people who died so you could have your freedom to make your comments. Those people are fighting for their own lives and the lives of everyone in this country. Every soldier kills in self defense, if they don't kill they themselves will be killed., without them you would not be able to sit in the security you do.

 

[quatona]

How disrespectful to the people who died so you could have your freedom to make your comments.

How´s that disrespectful. I was merely pointing out that my statement that the discussion started from was not "Then apparently people value something higher than their lives" but "Then apparently people value something higher than the absence of violence".

Those people are fighting for their own lives and the lives of everyone in this country.

Which country are we talking about?

Every soldier kills in self defense, if they don't kill they themselves will be killed.

Ok, so what´s wrong with the soldiers of another country trying to kill me?

 

[seeker777]

So...?
This seems to confirm my statement: you´d dislike my lack of freedom to speak my mind more than the violence against those that presumably would prevent my freedom to speak my mind.

(On another note, I don´t think you can say (lest guanrantee) anything about how the world would be if history had been different - beyond that it would be different.)

You live a privilleged life. Good men have died and will continue to die in order to protect the freedoms you enjoy.

It is a privellege to live in a society where:

1) You have the time to spend in leisure, on the internet pontificating about not understanding violence.

2) You have the freedom to openly disagree about any subject.

3) Other people will fight and die for your freedoms, so that you may stay at home in complete safety.

Like it or not, there are wolves, sheep and sheep dogs. You are a sheep, you are proteted from the wolves by the sheep dogs.

I don't hold it against you that you are a sheep in this world.

I am however thankful that there are many sheep dogs who go to work in the world and take on the wolves.

Regardless that many of the sheep are oblivious to the dangers that surround them or the sacrifice that the sheep dogs give. The sheep dogs will always intimdiate the intimidators.

Without the sheep dogs, the wolves would prey on, stalk and slaughter the sheep.

Hate violence, avoid violence, but at least be thankful that there are men and women who will face violence and evil head on, so that you may live in peace.

 

[cantata]

You live a privilleged life. Good men have died and will continue to die in order to protect the freedoms you enjoy.

It is a privellege to live in a society where:

1) You have the time to spend in leisure, on the internet.

2) You have the freedom to openly disagree about any subject.

3) Other people will fight for your freedoms, so that you may stay at home in complete safety.

Dude, way to miss the point, again...

 

[seeker777]

The only thing I gather from his posts is that he doesn't understand or accept violence.

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Miracle Storm]

This appears to be is a little besides the point, though.
In regards to the statement you are referring to "Better to kill than live on your knees" would be more accurate.

Do you believe people should stand up for theirselves, the people they love, their country their rights, freedoms?
If these people stand, but are threatened with death in return do they not have a right to defend theirselves with equal force?
Of course we should stand rather than live on our knees, and if that means kill rather than be killed than yes.

War sucks, but sometimes a fight is needed to correct injustices.

 

[Axioma]

I never understand the people who go "Good people died to give you the right to complain, so shut up and stop complaining."

 

[seeker777]

worse weapons already in use in the untied states :
(don't read if your under 40 or over 30)

http://tinyurl.com/4yo7ja

http://tinyurl.com/rovnd

I'm dumber for having read those asinine links.

What a load of crap.

Anti-semitic garbage, conspiratorial nonsense and paranoid delusions is all that can be found.

Don't waste your time, it's time you'll never get back. If your a freakin' wingnut, then you'll probably love those links.

 

[quatona]

Do you believe people should stand up for theirselves, the people they love, their country their rights, freedoms?

Firstly, Miracle Storm, what I believe people should do is completely irrelevant for the statement I made.
But your desire to change the subject is noted and respected, so I will try to answer your question.
Whether I think people should stand up for these things depends entirely on what you mean when saying "stand up". It´s a very ambiguous, unclear term.

If these people stand, but are threatened with death in return do they not have a right to defend theirselves with equal force?

I can´t make sense of the term "right" in this context. I don´t think it´s a good idea, especially since war doesn´t turn violence against persons who have authored the threat.

Of course we should stand rather than live on our knees, and if that means kill rather than be killed than yes.

...and I just pointed out that this (killing as opposed to dieing) would be the relevant statement in response to my post, rather than "living as opposed to dieing" (which was at no point the subject of my statements).
Personally, I find that it makes a great difference whom you kill in order to keep standing.

[quot]War sucks, but sometimes a fight is needed to correct injustices.[/quote]
Be that as it may (I do not buy into this creed), it doesn´t change anything about the fact that war - no matter how "just" its goals may be - always and necessarily causes new "injustice" to other persons. No matter how much we try to emphasize the "justice" of our goals in order to distract from our victims, no matter how much effort we put in abstracting these victims by inventing terms like "collateral damage", no matter how much we try to de-individualize people by reducing them to their uniform - the facts remain: We kill and inflict harm on people who haven´t authored the thread we perceive.

 

[seeker777]

, especially since war doesn´t turn violence against persons who have authored the threat.
.

Pick up a history book. The creators of war have been slaughtered countless times.

Two recent examples where the authors ( among the most brutal) of war had violence inflicted upon them.

1) Mussolini executed without trial.

2) Hitler, although he killed himself before the Russians reached him.

 

[quatona]

You live a privilleged life.

Undisputedly.

Good men have died and will continue to die in order to protect the freedoms you enjoy.

So? I am still missing the link to my statement that you responded to.

It is a privellege to live in a society where:

1) You have the time to spend in leisure, on the internet pontificating about not understanding violence.

2) You have the freedom to openly disagree about any subject.

3) Other people will fight and die for your freedoms, so that you may stay at home in complete safety.

Like it or not, there are wolves, sheep and sheep dogs. You are a sheep, you are proteted from the wolves by the sheep dogs.

Let alone that I still don´t understand how that relates to my statement in any way, I think that´s a very simplicistic way of looking at a complex issue.

I don't hold it against you that you are a sheep in this world.

But there seems to be something that you are eager to communicate to me in opposition to what I have said, and I don´t seem to get it.

I am however thankful that there are many sheep dogs who go to work in the world and take on the wolves.

Well, that´s your prerogative, and I am sure that simplifying things down to three categories of persons is very helpful with that.

Regardless that many of the sheep are oblivious to the dangers that surround them or the sacrifice that the sheep dogs give. The sheep dogs will always intimdiate the intimidators.

Which already demonstrates that these categories don´t work in the simple way you described.

Hate violence, avoid violence, but at least be thankful that there are men and women who will face violence and evil head on, so that you may live in peace.

How would being opposed to violence be a logically consistent position for me to take when at the same time I were to appreciate that those who you describe as "facing violence head on" are using violence themselves?
It would mean that I differenciate between two sorts of violence:
violence that I suffer from and violence, and violence that I benefit from.
That surely would be a convenient position to take, but I can´t seem to summon up the cognitive dissonance that it would require from me.

 

[quatona]

Pick up a history book. The creators of war have been slaughtered countless times.

Along with countless others who have not authored the threat but were just willing or unwilling tools or even just bystanders.

Two recent examples where the authors ( among the most brutal) of war had violence inflicted upon them.

1) Mussolini executed without trial.

2) Hitler, although he killed himself before the Russians reached him.

And that somehow makes the millions of others that were killed, injured and harmed in these wars non-existent or neglectible?

 

[jcook922]

Along with countless others who have not authored the threat but were just willing or unwilling tools or even just bystanders.


And that somehow makes the millions of others that were killed, injured and harmed in these wars non-existent or neglectible?

I'm on the fence as to how to get into this thread, Seeker, though more aligned with my views, just gets aggressive and reduces things to name-calling.. Saying people who don't agree with him are sheep.

I, on the other hand, accept that people have different views, but it saddens me that people won't get behind this for the positive things that we ARE doing in the middle east. Iraq is better off, and Afghanistan is an ongoing project, but we actually are doing those people a world of good compared to the regimes they WERE under. Does it come with a price tag of blood and money? Yes it does, and alot of people think it isn't worth it.

My cousin is in the Marine Corps, he deployed to Iraq and guarded the mass graves where Saddam used to throw the corpses of people who opposed him. Hundreds of thousands of bodies, and people want to complain about the casualties of war so far.. Unfortunate things happen in war, and I'm not trying to downplay them, but it infuriates and saddens me when people try to downplay the fact that we do positive things in the middle east, and all anybody wants to do is talk about the reasons we are there and not the concrete results we obtain.

 

[seeker777]

That surely would be a convenient position to take, but I can´t seem to summon up the cognitive dissonance that it would require from me.

Lucky for you, there are men and women who will take care of the nasty business, so that you won't have to dirty your hands.

You owe your entire lifestyle, including your ability to live a pacifist life, to these men and women.

That seems to be entirely lost on you.

 

[seeker777]

Along with countless others who have not authored the threat but were just willing or unwilling tools or even just bystanders.


And that somehow makes the millions of others that were killed, injured and harmed in these wars non-existent or neglectible?

You presented an idea. I proved that your idea was wrong.

That is all.

 

[seeker777]

Seeker... just gets aggressive and reduces things to name-calling.. Iraq is better off, .

I'm calling a pacifist a sheep, that's not name calling, that's being honest. The pacifists ( sheep) should be thankful that there are soldiers and police officers ( sheep dogs) who answer the call and deal with those who wish to do the sheep harm ( the wolves).

When gunshots start sounding, everyone runs away....except for the police and soldiers. They run towards the sound of gunfire.

Without those people, our entire way of life would be lost.

This fact of life, is completely lost on many.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I'm dumber for having read those asinine links.
http://tinyurl.com/4yo7ja
http://tinyurl.com/rovnd
...
then you'll probably love those links.

yep, and 1500 or more pastors are safe and secure in the worlds protection (they think) for having sold out the faith they claim to follow.

 

[exxxys]

How is that possibly ethical? An ethical "weapon" would be holding back crowds with a weak powered hose. Annoying? Yes. Lethal and gruesome? definatly not.

 

[quatona]

You presented an idea.

And which idea was that, in your opinion?

I proved that your idea was wrong.

I don´t know that you proved anything. You told me what you are grateful for. and you appealed to me that I should be grateful for it, as well.