Text 18199, 222 rader
Skriven 2005-12-08 17:36:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 18171 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
Ärende: [1/2] [1/2] Sociopaths!
===============================
 >> 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] ...

That is not what I said. I *can* define murder. I am also sure that my
definition will differ from yours.

 >> 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

Yes....

 > but there certainly is no reasonable difference of opinion WRT
 > when life begins.  It obviously begins at conception.

Obviously *human* life does not begin at conception. A fertilised human egg,
has no brain so it can not be conscious. It is life, but it is no more human
than a carot.

 > Anyone not realizing that simply hasn't thought it through.

Anyone not realising that a fertilised human egg is not a human being has not
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.

True. Not all intentional terminatio of human life is murder.

 > After all many such "terminations" are made in self-defense
 > and *that* isn't murder.

There us no element of self defence in executing a death penalty.

 > 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

Good.

 >> 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
 MVDV>> is not murder.

 > Huh?   Human life begins at *conception*!

No, it doesn't.


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

 > Of *course* not.

Then why persist in it?

 > Do *you* think such a proclamation is automatically *false*?

No, but it does not help to convince me either. Rational objective people do
not make statements like "I am objective, I am sober, I am trustworthy". They
realise that statements like that are worthless. So they remain silent and let
others judge for themselves. I never trust people who say "trust me".


 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.

And so do I. Having mused over the facts, my conclusion is: you are not
objective.

 >>> 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
 MVDV>> themselves for a cause.

 > They are murderous criminals *not* freedom fighters.  Freedom
 > fighters always oppose some oppressive regime.

They oppose the oppressive regime of the US.

 > *These* "freedom fighters" *support* such a regime!

What regime do they suppprt?

 >>> 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!

That their POV is insane is just your opinion, no more.

 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.

There was no reason to invade the main country of Japan. A bloccade would have
done it just as well.

 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.

There is no way that you can win either. It ois a lose-lose situation.

 >> 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 dishonour is yours. You conveniently "forgot" that Japan did not qualify as
a true democracy in 1945.

 >> 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.

Yes, you have.

 > You are making estimates of *future* deaths

They are not estimates. That "future" has long become the past. It is well
documented by now.

 > while I refer to the deaths based on the bombing itself, not on
 > what the resulting radioactivity might, or might not, have caused.

No "might" about it. Over 300.000 people died as a result of those bombs.

 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?

That is not what I said.,

 > I don't think so.  I've long believed we should make decisions
 > based on what we *know*,

Of course, there is no other choice.

 > take action then not look back.

One can not learn from mistakes if one never looks back. To learn from mistakes
one should look back and *admit* when a decision was a mistake in hindsight.

 > That's obviously what Harry Truman did.

And if you were honest you would admit that in hindsight the decision was
wrong.

 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
 MVDV>> standard it was an act of terrorism.

 > If that's the case, we certainly need to adjust those strange
 > "standards" ...

If you amend to standards to exclude Hiroshima and Nagasake it would also 9/11
as an act of terrorism.


Cheers, Michiel

---
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)