|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Another one that hurts | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
The U.S. nuked Hiroshima . Do we now forfeit any credibility to speak out now against doing such a thing? Quite frankly, I think being the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons does cost the US quite a bit of credibility when speaking out on nuclear disarmament. We still have to do support non proliferation, but even the fact that we posses one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world does undermine our voice in that area. Do you really believe having nuked two cities does not cost us any credibility?
The U.S. has conducted Syphilis trials in the past,violating subjects confidence and health You may have a point, but your line of argument may be undermining your attempts to make such a point. If you are going to build an argument based on questions, you should make sure you know your audience's response to those questions. Edited by NoNukes, : Two for to and two for tea. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1534 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined:
|
NoNukes writes: Do you really believe having nuked two cities does not cost us any credibility? No. A nation that speaks out against the obvious evils of such weapons should be encouraged to continue to do so. Do you feel the US should withhold all comment on the subject since we are guilty of doing it in the past? Well you answered yes to this so I'll move on. Should Germany be ignored on any issues concerning human rights since they perpetrated the holocaust?You probably answer yes to this one too. I guess your right, I should know my audience and never underestimate the power of self righteous indignant attitudes. "You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
~1.6 writes:
I don't ask Charles Manson for his opinions on murder.
Do you feel the US should withhold all comment on the subject since we are guilty of doing it in the past? ~1.6 writes:
If Germany says, "Oops. It won't happen again," they should be eyed with suspicion.
Should Germany be ignored on any issues concerning human rights since they perpetrated the holocaust?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Like all your attempts at analogy, this one also fails.
Please try again. Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
1.61803 writes: I get the feeling you think the U.S. and it's allies are deserved of ISILS brutality and are reaping what they sowed. Innocent civilians never deserve to be murdered. _______________________________________________________
1.61803 writes: A nations past sins do not mean the country forfeits the possibility of redemption. NN writes: Quite frankly, I think being the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons does cost the US quite a bit of credibility when speaking out on nuclear disarmament. I agree NN. That would be called hypocrisy.
RingO writes: I don't ask Charles Manson for his opinions on murder. I agree RingO. There's a good reason why he wouldn't be allowed on a jury.
quote: Yeah, you read that correct, the West strongly believes that murdering a half MILLION Iraqi CHILDREN is a WORTHWHILE activity. Gee, I forgot, in contrast, how many Parisians were killed by terrorists last month? 1.61803, can you do the math on this? What is the murder ratio of innocent civilians of the West and ISIL? But in this case, we don't need to only consider the atrocities of the past. Not only is the West guilty of horrific atrocities of the PAST, they are also guilty of horrific atrocities of the PRESENT.
quote: So, just what kind of ethical credibility does a nation that murders doctors in hospitals, or children via repeating drone strikes have? Be specific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined:
|
If Germany says, "Oops. It won't happen again," they should be eyed with suspicion. Actually, I'd lean the other way. Having wrestled with the aftermath of such a recently vile history, my experience of Germans is that in general they are incredibly aware of the dangers of seductively stirring, jingoistic, right wing rhetoric. They are proud to have a criminal offence of holocaust denial, for example. Other nations don't have that cautionary experience - witness the poll numbers for Trump, which just get higher, the more racist, reactionary and downright fascist he gets. I reckon that in today's Germany, they'd have locked him up by now.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1054 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
There seems to be a bit of confusion developing over the difference between a state and a person.
The US has no credibility in any comment it makes on nuclear disarmament. This has nothing at all do with World War II, however*. This is because they still have the world's largest nuclear arsenal. Those running the US governent today are not responsible for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as the overwhelming majority were not yet born, and those that were were very small children with no influence on events. Similarly, despite being British, I am not responsible for any of the British governments involvements in Iraq, on account of not having voted for that government. Most who did vote for that government share no responsibility either, but that's a slightly more complicated argument that I'll leave for now. All I really wanted to do was point out that people are only responsible for their own actions. An important thing to remember given that ignoring this is part of what enables the behaviour that prompted this thread. *bearing in mind that I'm speaking in some sort of idealised sense of what should be. In the real world, of course, people do actually hold grudges for things done long before those they begrudge were born.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Do you feel the US should withhold all comment on the subject since we are guilty of doing it in the past? No. Of course we can comment. The question is whether or not such comments carry weight.
Well you answered yes to this so I'll move on. Don't put words in my mouth. The US can comment, but nations who wish to acquire nuclear weapons can understandably give those comments very little weight. ABE: Here is what I actually said:
NoNukes writes: We still have to do support non proliferation, but even the fact that we posses one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world does undermine our voice in that area. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Sorry, but you don't get to share in the benefits of your nation's achievements and not also share in the responsibility for its misdeeds and failures.
Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes:
Again you fail to reply with any substance. Like all your attempts at analogy, this one also fails. Let's try Martin Luther then: he was a saving lunatic; should we tar all Lutherans with that brush?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
vimesey writes:
I did say "If".
... my experience of Germans is that in general they are incredibly aware of the dangers of seductively stirring, jingoistic, right wing rhetoric. They are proud to have a criminal offence of holocaust denial, for example.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1534 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
dronestar writes:
I agree.
Innocent civilians never deserve to be murdered. dronestar writes:
I thought hypocrisy would be if the US continued to manufacture and stock pile nuclear arms rather than reduce them.
I agree NN. That would be called hypocrisy. I agree RingO. There's a good reason why he wouldn't be allowed on a jury. I thought Ringo said he would not want to ask Charles Manson his opinions about murder? He said nothing about a jury.And if you want to know something about murder who better to ask than a convicted murderer. Yeah, you read that correct, the West strongly believes that murdering a half MILLION Iraqi CHILDREN is a WORTHWHILE activity. Gee, I forgot, in contrast, how many Parisians were killed by terrorists last month? 1.61803, can you do the math on this? What is the murder ratio of innocent civilians of the West and ISIL? Madeline Albright said something stupid. The Iraq sanctions was a result of trying to get Saddam out of power. It only embolden him.Many children died, and no it was not worth it. The US and the West does not think it was. I do not believe that can ever be reconciled but it is not the intentions of the West to kill innocent people. That I think is our main disagreement. Your hyperbole comparing half a million children's death to the fewer in Paris fails. I do not believe any reasonable person wants to see innocent people die. But there are some people that will do just that to bring about their cause. dronestar writes: It was a mistake. Poor intelligence, a break down in communications who knows? It does not make it alright. So, just what kind of ethical credibility does a nation that murders doctors in hospitals, or children via repeating drone strikes have?but it was not on purpose. The shit that went down in California and Paris was purposely targeting innocent civilians. There is the difference. The US and it's allies do not want to kill innocent civilians. ISIL wants to kill innocent civilians."You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
~1.6 writes:
If I wanted to know how to murder, I might go to a convicted murderer for pointers. ("How do you make sure they're not merely dead but really most sincerely dead?") And if you want to know something about murder who better to ask than a convicted murderer. But I wouldn't go to a murderer for advice on whether murder is a good idea. Similarly, I wouldn't go to the US, the only nuclear murderer in history, for advice on whether nuclear weapons are a good idea. Their opinions on the "obvious evils" don't interest me because we clearly disagree on what's obvious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1054 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Sorry, but you don't get to share in the benefits of your nation's achievements and not also share in the responsibility for its misdeeds and failures. This sounds like a nice simple truism at first, but it quickly loses it's sense when you think about it in any detail. For starters, how do we determine whether someone is sharing in the benefits of their nation's acheivements? If I find a guy on the street searching in a skip for some food that someone might have thrown away, for example, he's clearly not sharing in any benefits of his nation's prior activities. Is he, then, exempt from responsibility for the Iraq war, since he has no benefit from other things done by the British government? The argument of sharing in benefits makes no sense if it applies to him too, but if it doesn't, then at what point is the line drawn? How much wealth is someone required to possess before they are considered to be sharing in benefits? Even amongst people with wealth, if they gained it through an economic activity their government restricts, and so could have been much wealthier if their government behaved differently, are they also exempt from responsibility for their government's actions? They earned their wealth, after all, in spite of the government, not because of it. As for me, I left the UK about a decade ago, so the only benefits I get from being a UK citizen now is a passport that makes travel fairly easy. Am I now, however, partially culpable for all the past actions of the country in which I live, since I share whatever benefits have accrued from previous behaviour as the native population? What about if my government's actions lessen my quality of life. Do I still bear responsibility for what they do despite campaigning and voting against it, even though its effects on me were negative?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
1.61803 writes: Madeline Albright said something stupid. And incredibly psychopathic. And jaw-droppingly incriminating. For which she was not fired or even disciplined by the Clinton Administration. Me'h, go figure.
1.61803 writes: The Iraq sanctions was a result of trying to get Saddam out of power. Yeah, targeting innocent civilians to bring about a political result is usually called "terrorism." But only when "they" do it to "us," right?
1.61803 writes: The US and the West does not think [the murder of 500,000 children] was [worth it]. Uhhh, yes, Madeline Albright, Secretary of the State during the Clinton Administration, after careful thought, said yes, the Iraqi sanctions was worth murdering 500,000 children.
1.61803 writes: I do not believe that can ever be reconciled but it is not the intentions of the West to kill innocent people. So after 10 Iraqi children died, the West could have stopped the sanctions that murdered children. But they didn't. So after 100 Iraqi children died, the West could have stopped the sanctions that murdered children. But they didn't. So after 1000 Iraqi children died, the West could have stopped the sanctions that murdered children. But they didn't. So after 10,000 Iraqi children died, the West could have stopped the sanctions that murdered children. But they didn't. So after 100,000 Iraqi children died, the West could have stopped the sanctions that murdered children. But they didn't. The following hypothetical news broadcast sounds like your defense:
quote: Drone writes: So, just what kind of ethical credibility does a nation that murders doctors in hospitals, 1.61803 writes: It was a mistake. Poor intelligence, a break down in communications who knows? but it was not on purpose. Research/interviews have clearly shown it was not poor intelligence, nor a break down in communications. The West DID willfully bomb the hospital . . .
quote: Hospital bombing in Afghanistan was premeditated . . .
quote: Now then, let's get back to the math, . . . what is the murder-ratio of children of the West to ISIL? I prefer to do the math before we add the West's other instances of intentional child murders. Goodness, the numbers will become so big we'll need NASA's super computers to calculate . . .
quote:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024