Text 18307, 254 rader
Skriven 2005-12-10 04:53:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av MICHIEL VAN DER VLIST
Ärende: [1/2] [1/2] [1/2] Sociopa
=================================
 >>> Part 1 of 2...

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

 >> 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] ...

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

So *your* definition is the proper one?  I doubt that.
 
 >> 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

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

 MVDV> Obviously *human* life does not begin at conception. A fertilised
 MVDV> human egg, has no brain so it can not be conscious. It is life, but it
 MVDV> is no more human than a carot.
 
So you think a fertilized human egg may end up as a carrot -- or 
some other vegetable or perhaps a cat?

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

 MVDV> Anyone not realising that a fertilised human egg is not a human being
 MVDV> has not thought it through.

But if it *weren't* human it would not end up being born as a 
human baby.

 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.

 MVDV> 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.

 MVDV> There us no element of self defence in executing a death penalty.
 
That depends upon one's definition of "self-defense" ...

 > 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

 MVDV> Good.

In the U.S. in recent years, recent *months* there have been a 
lot of Death Row convicts released because modern DNA techniques 
showed they were *not* proven to have been at the scene of the 
crime as it was committed.  
 
 >> 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*!

 MVDV> No, it doesn't.

That's merely your opinion ...

 MVDV>> Frank are you really so naive as to believe that a self
 MVDV>> proclamation of objectiveness has any maening?
 
 > Of *course* not.

 MVDV> Then why persist in it?
 
Because I *am* objective.  To refuse to acknowledge that fact 
would be hypocritical!  The fact that *you* don't happen to 
believe it doesn't change the fact one iota.

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

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

But I am not *trying* to convince you.  I am merely giving you 
some information.  What use, if any, you make of it is up to you.

 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.

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

So your thinking is flawed in this case ...
 
 >>> 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.

 MVDV> They oppose the oppressive regime of the US.

Huh?  We *have* no oppressive regime.  This is a democracy.  
Political acts, in general, reflect general opinion.
 
 > *These* "freedom fighters" *support* such a regime!

 MVDV> What regime do they suppprt?
 
al Qaeda ...

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

And my opinion happens to be correct ...

 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.

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

Not so.  That has been thoroughly worked over.  If we had 
blockaded Japan the people there would have suffered terribly.  
Thousands would have starved.  We did the humane thing -- the act 
which *ended* the war and which ultimately caused Japan to be the 
democracy it is today.

 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.

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

We will win.  Why?  Because, unlike the Vietnam "war" this is 
definitely in our National Interest.
 
 >> 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.

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

I have not forgotten that at all.  I merely didn't acknowledge 
your question since you already *knew* the answer.  The people of 
Japan, however -- as are all people -- are responsible for their 
leadership.  If they object -- as *we* did in the Eighteenth 
Century -- they should revolt.

 >> 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.

 MVDV> Yes, you have.

I spoke of the deaths immediately after the bombs were dropped.  
Besides, do you consider 300,000 deaths to be significantly worse 
than 200,000??
 
 > You are making estimates of *future* deaths

 MVDV> They are not estimates. That "future" has long become the past. It is
 MVDV> well documented by now.
 
But we were discussing the bombing at the time it took place.

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

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

Eventually that many may have died ... I don't know.

 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?

 MVDV> That is not what I said.,

 >>> 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)