|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Dracko
a sapphist fool
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:04 pm |
  |
|
Act like a complete and utter cunt.
_________________
      |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Dracko
a sapphist fool
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:41 pm |
|
|
| internisus wrote: |
| There is such a thing as military action for good. The UN uses it all the time. |
Oh God, my sides! My fucking sides, you son of a bitch!
You should do a stand-up of that shit, man.
Go on, tell me the UN is useful. Go on, man. I'm sure you can deliver that one better than I ever could.
| slipstream wrote: |
| I am firmly against war of any type |
Why?
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Dracko
a sapphist fool
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:39 pm |
|
|
| slipstream wrote: |
| The UN is useful. It's the only forum that every nation state of the world is a part of and is a useful place to resolve disputes and work on problems. Maybe it's the two years of Model United Nations talking. What's wrong with the UN? |
The two years of Model United Nations tell me it's bloody ineffective as all Hell, like mostly all well-meaning ochlocracies.
| slipstream wrote: |
| Armed conflicts between nation states are rarely, if ever, are waged for the benefit of the citizens |
Perhaps not, but motives aren't entirely relevant when the actions do reap heaps of rewards. You think democracy is any less subject to enforcement as any other political ideal? Rich countries thrive on the backs of poorer ones. This is natural, and I've never seen it as sinister. It's not like the exploited wouldn't leap at the chance to do the same.
| slipstream wrote: |
| in addition to the whole killing people is morally wrong |
That's entirely subjective, and arguably short-sighted and emotionally-charged.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Dracko
a sapphist fool
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:58 pm |
|
|
| slipstream wrote: |
| Dracko wrote: |
| slipstream wrote: |
| in addition to the whole killing people is morally wrong |
That's entirely subjective, and arguably short-sighted and emotionally-charged. |
Dracko, it's not arguably short-sighted. You're a sociopath. |
If I indeed am, I suppose you'd consider that a bad thing? Not much room for debate, then.
People die and people get killed. Every single life on the planet is allowed to thrive by continued acts of violence upon its environment. This is simple reality. Not to mention entirely natural. Give me a single logical reason why a human life is so sacred that it deserves to die on its own terms without the influence of others (Hint: It never does). I'm not interested in confused emotional rhetoric, because that's never solved a wretched thing.
| psiga wrote: |
| Morality being relative and all that. |
Saying it's relative is tantamount to saying no absolute morality exists.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Dracko
a sapphist fool
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:03 pm |
|
|
| Adilegian wrote: |
| However, relevant morals exist. That which is widely relevant need not be absolute. |
What exactly do you mean by "relevant"? Simple situationism?
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Dracko
a sapphist fool
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:02 pm |
|
|
Adilegian,
Your analysis is certainly very interesting, and doesn't seem to contradict situationism that much. It just seems to insert the element or potential of choice, if I'm following your line of thought correctly.
However, I'm not liable at all to look at actions from an ethical standing. To take your example, it seems like a question of necessity is involved, and allowing moral sentiment to intrude (That is to say, not intimidating the competitor) is working against the paperboy's interests.
Such an outcome is simple stalemate and limited in scope. You may bring up integrity, but I'd put it down more to fear of social reprisal. In the long run, I've rarely seen integrity profit a person in the least.
But as far as discussions of ethics go, situationism and your own relevantism hold some logical strength and allow for intellectual toying.
The Iraq conflict is not bad because of moral failings. It is bad because it's just plain disorganised and wasteful for all involved, and will likely bring about even more problems than it claimed to intend solving.
| slipstream wrote: |
| I don't think the UN needs to become more powerful, we just need more leaders that are willing to look seriously at the flaws of their nations and be willing to change. |
Now how do you suggest the UN encourage that, considering how little authority it holds? For all the talk of idealism, no ideal can survive without it being permeated. And that requires force and power.
People aren't going to take the language of the UN seriously because the language of the UN is just plain weak.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
