Text 18171, 254 rader
Skriven 2005-12-08 05:03:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av MICHIEL VAN DER VLIST
Ärende: [1/2] [1/2] Sociopaths!
===============================
 >>> Part 1 of 2...

-=> Quoting Michiel Van Der Vlist to Frank Scheidt <=-

 >> But, viewed *objectively* the terrorist is an evil person
 >> doing evil deeds ...

 MVDV>> 100% objectivity exist only in mathematics. And even there only up to
 MVDV>> a point. When it comes to "good" and "evil" there is no objectivity.
 
 > If you truly *believe* there is no objective *evil*, I really
 > feel sorry for you ... [sigh] ...

 MVDV> It is not a matter of belief. I am not in the believing bussiness, I
 MVDV> deal with facts. Verifiable facts. I know of no verifiable method to
 MVDV> objectively determine if something is evil or not.

You must live in a very strange world.  You say you object to 
murder yet you admit you can't even *define* it ... [sigh] ...
 
 >> I presume you object to murder

 MVDV>> Of course I do. I strongly object to murder!
 >
 > Good!
 
 >> ... maybe I'm mistaken in that belief ...

 MVDV>> Possibly because you and I seem to have different opinions when
 MVDV>> it come to judge if a specific case qualifies as murder or not.
 
 > How can different opinions exist WRT murder?

 MVDV> By having different opinions about what is "human life", by having
 MVDV> different opinion about "justification". Etc, etc.

Certainly there can be differences of opinion WRT the 
nature of the "justification" aspect of killing but there 
certainly is no reasonable difference of opinion WRT when life 
begins.  It obviously begins at conception.  Anyone not realizing 
that simply hasn't thought it through.  

 MVDV> For example I say that executing the death penalty is murder. It is
 MVDV> the intentional termination of human life. In my book that is murder.

Intentional termination of human life isn't necessarily murder.  
After all many such "terminations" are made in self-defense and 
*that* isn't murder.

BTW, I oppose the death penalty for two reasons:  (1) If the 
executed person is later found not guilty of the crime there's no 
way he can be brought back ... and ... (2) In the U.S. it takes 
*forever* (figure of speech) to kill a convicted criminal.  
Twenty years between conviction and execution is not uncommon.  
It's just *too* expensive to kill him.  Lock him up forever and 
the State saves money.  If he's later found not guilty, open the 
cell-door and set him free.
 
 > OK, I know what you mean, the abortuaries where "murder" is a
 > forbidden word.

 MVDV> A featus is not a human being. Therefor ending it's existance is not
 MVDV> murder. 

Huh?   Human life begins at *conception*!

 >>> A freedom fighter, OTOH, is fighting an *enemy* to achieve
 >>> freedom for his people.

 MVDV>>> That is how it looks in the eyes of his people.
 
 >> See above, re "objectively"

 MVDV>> See avbove, objectivity is a fiction.
 
 > With *you*, perhaps, but not with me.  *I* am an objective
 > observer of life.

 MVDV> No, you are not. Yo are only seeing it from *your* side.

But I look at it objectively, considering all the facts at my 
disposal.  If I get new facts opposing my original opinion I 
change it -- *again* considering *all* the known facts.

 MVDV> Frank are you really so naive as to believe that a se;f proclamation
 MVDV> of objectiveness has any maening?

Of *course* not.  Do *you* think such a proclamation is 
automatically *false*?

 MVDV> If someone tells you "I am sober", would you believe him on his word?

As before, I'd take all the facts into account, *then* make my 
decision.
 
 >> For example I can *easily* see the terrorists are evil incarnate ...

 MVDV>> So can I.
 
 > Good!

 MVDV> But I can *also* see them as freedom fighters, sacrificing themselves
 MVDV> for a cause.

They are murderous criminals *not* freedom fighters.  Freedom 
fighters always oppose some oppressive regime.  *These* "freedom 
fighters" *support* such a regime!
 
 >>> There's no way one could look upon the murderers who killed
 >>> three thousand innocent people that way!

 MVDV>>> Of course there is a way. Just look at it from their point of view.
 >
 >> But that's an *insane* point-of-view.

 MVDV>> In your eyes it is. In their's it probably is not.
 
 > But viewed *objectively* their opinion WRT this matter is worthless!

 MVDV> No more worthless than your opinion wrt this matter.

Hardly!

 MVDV>> Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an evil and insane
 MVDV>> deed. Those who did it fit your definition of *terrorist*.
 
 > Not so!  It was an attempt to save over a million lives -- and
 > it *worked*!

 MVDV> That assumes a lot. Fact is we do not know how much life it saved. But
 MVDV> we do know how much it cost....

True, however the estimates made at the time with all the 
information available at that time indicated that if we were 
forced to invade Honshu it would *easily* result in more than a 
million deaths -- on *both* sides.
 
 >> Insane men cannot teach anyone a "lesson"

 MVDV>> It is the other way around. Insane man can not be taught a lesson.
 MVDV>> That is why the lesson of 9/11 did not take.
 
 > I think after thousands of terrorists have been killed in
 > Afghanistan and Iraq they're *starting* to learn the lesson

 MVDV> It does not look that way. There are more active terrorists now than
 MVDV> before the invasion of Iraq.

That doesn't mean they aren't learning the lesson.  Their's are 
acts of desperation as there's no way they can win.
 
 >>> So you are admitting the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
 >>> *were* guilty!

 MVDV>>> You are getting too predictable Frank, I knew you were going to say
 MVDV>>> that. Now read again: "in a true democracy" I wrote. Was Japan a true
 MVDV>>> democracy in 1945? Don't think so.
 >
 >> Now you ask me a question then answer it without letting me
 >> respond ... [sigh] ...

 MVDV>> How so? I just gave *my* answer to the question. Nothing stops you
 MVDV>> from putting *your* answer next to it.
 
 > OK ...

 MVDV>> Except of course if you have no answer....
 
 > Of course I have an answer.  It's my opinion that Japan was a
 > monarchy.

 MVDV> That's not an answer to my question. The question was "was Japan a
 MVDV> true democracy in 1945?"

OK ... you know as well as *I* do, the answer to *that* question.  
Hence it's not an honest question.
 
 >> The rail marshalling yards were the target ...

 MVDV>> Could easely have been taken in a conventional raid. No need to kill
 MVDV>> 300.000 people just to hit those targets.
 
 > Actually, as I recall, only something on the order of 200,000
 > enemy were killed.

 MVDV> We have been through this before and you have been proven wrong.
 MVDV> 300.000 is a conservative estimate.

I have *not* been proven wrong.  You are making estimates of 
*future* deaths while I refer to the deaths based on the bombing 
itself, not on what the resulting radioactivity might, or might 
not, have caused.

 MVDV>>> It perfectly fits your definition of "terrorist".
 >
 >> No way!

 MVDV>> You refuse to see it, but there is no way around it. The
 MVDV>> objective of the bombs was to kill a *LOT* of people in
 MVDV>> order to terrorise Japan into surrender. Any military
 MVDV>> targets in the area were just an excuse.
 
 > How can you say that?  Were you in the inner loop of those who
 > made the decision to bomb?  I don't think so.

 MVDV> I have 60+ years of hindsight. I know a LOT more than anyone in the
 MVDV> inner circles then. The information is generally available.

So you think such hindsight could somehow have been applied to 
the decision-makers of 1945?  I don't think so.  I've long 
believed we should make decisions based on what we *know*, take 
action then not look back. That's obviously what Harry Truman 
did.

 MVDV>> Killing a lot of people to terrorise is the mark of the terrorist.
 
 > True ... so?

 MVDV> That is what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaka. By today's standard
 MVDV> it was an act of terrorism.

If that's the case, we certainly need to adjust those strange 
"standards" ...
 
 >> I have *long* proposed a 100% hands-off policy WRT the
 >> Israel/Palestine conflict.  Let them fight it out and let
 >> the best men win (grammatically the "better men")  So that was
 >> no excuse for the murderers.

 MVDV>> I didn't say it was an excuse. I said the attitude of
 MVDV>> unconditional support for Israel is one of the things
 MVDV>> in the chain of events that led up to 9/11.
 
 > The terrorists had no way of knowing how many of the 3,000
 > victims supported Israel.

 MVDV> Does not matter. Unconditional support for Israel *was* one of the
 MVDV> things in the chain of events.

The "thinking" of maniacs!  Don't you think we have the *right* 
to support *any* foreign gummint we wish?

 >>> Merely "believing" something doesn't make it *true*!

 MVDV>>> You guys should have thought of that before attacking Irak on the
 MVDV>>> pretext that there were WMD's.
 >
 >> There was no "pretext".  Intelligence sources of *five*

 >>> Continued to next message...

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)