US POWs executed!

With all due respect, as long as you feel that only your views have a connection to 'real world relevance', I don't believe that legitimate dialog can occur.

 

And with all due respect back, even basic Philosophy 101 type courses address the difference between war and murder.

Here, I found a couple of links you can use to brush up on the basics:

http://www.philosophos.com/knowledge_base/archives_17/philosophy_questions_1706.html

http://www.philosophos.com/knowledge_base/archives_16/philosophy_questions_1650.html

and basic history 101 courses teach about the thousands of attempted Utopian societies which have all ended in failure.

I have no problems with addressing legitimate questions regardless of the point of view...except the 5% r's who cannot be reasoned with. Your attempt to legitimize an extreme viewpoint makes it impossible to have a rationale discussion.

In other words, until someone has come to grips with the fact that 2 + 2 = 4, you cannot convince them that 4 - 2 = 2.

 

"To me it all seems the same, its called killing. Personally, I hate it. I find it repugnant."

I think your feeling is absolutely normal, healthy, A#1. That's the way all healthy humans (in fact almost all animals) are wired.

It only becomes a problem when it paralyzes you in the face of defending yourself or others. It is one thing to abhore killing. It is entirely another to allow your personal repugnance to find you standing idly by while others are being hurt and YOU have the capacity to prevent that hurt.

I find it REALLY repugnant to get shit on my hands. Yet I have two sons that taught me, in their infancy, that "shit happens". It is fine to not want to get shit on your hands, but it isn't very effective as a life-motto. The world is not made up of absolutes. This isn't convenient for altruists, but it is a fact. Sometimes you have to get dirty to get things cleaned up.

You know what I find REPUGNANT? It is people who enjoy the fruits of the "shitty labor" of others, live in a society protected and even existing because of others who saw the need and did the "shitty deed" that needed doing, YET have the gall to say "I am CLEAN but YOU are DIRTY".... to stick their nose in the air and say "My personal code makes ME special and a higher form of life".

In reality it comes out this way ... "You must live with the knowledge of the lives you have taken, protecting our people and our way of life, for the rest of your life... but, rather than being humbled by your sacrifice, I haven't got a clue about that, or even a shred of gratitude".

Yep, that's something I find repugnant.

 

"You know what I find REPUGNANT? It is people who enjoy the fruits of the "shitty labor" of others, live in a society protected and even existing because of others who saw the need and did the "shitty deed" that needed doing, YET have the gall to say "I am CLEAN but YOU are DIRTY".... to stick their nose in the air and say "My personal code makes ME special and a higher form of life".

In reality it comes out this way ... "You must live with the knowledge of the lives you have taken, protecting our people and our way of life, for the rest of your life... but, rather than being humbled by your sacrifice, I haven't got a clue about that, or even a shred of gratitude".

Yep, that's something I find repugnant."



I don't remember anyone saying that they were "clean" and someone else is "dirty". Those are your projections on to another and not necessarily fact-based.

I, for one, never asked you or anyone else to do a 'shitty' deed for me. In fact, I did the opposite. In opposing war, I ask you to NOT do a 'shitty' deed for me. Not now. Not ever.

As long as you take what other people say as a personal attack, your objectivity will be clouded by anger.

 

RSDad,

Just because someone says something you don't care for does not mean they are angry... sorry I'm not. Disgust is much different from anger.

Concerning clouds, you may want to review your not having asked anyone to do the "shitty deed" for you. The fact is you benefit from it anyway. Take a look at all the law enforcement folks who do their best and must sometimes kill to protect - EVEN YOU.

I have seen medical notices that say "Do Not Resussitate".

Would you put up at your home and wear on your back one that said: "Law Enforcement - Do Not Respond"?

 

You're kidding right? You aren't seriously attempting to say that there is universal academic agreement on the philosophical differences between murder and war? And, worse yet, you aren't trying to support your argument through a question and answer philosophy website? I'm confident that a more thorough literature search will support the argument that disagreement exists within academia regarding the difference between murder and war.

Please don't insult me by implying that I need to 'brush up on the basics' of philosophy. You might not understand them or agree with them but my beliefs are rooted in a lengthy and on-going study of literature related to the topic and self-examination. Please don't treat me like a child.

I know you want to be accurate so I need to point out that there have not been 'thousands' of attempts at Utopian societies as you state. In fact there have been very few attempts at what could genuinely be described as Utopian. Additionally, some of those efforts continue today if by Utopian you mean pacifist or those commited to non-violence. If you feel that there have been 'thousands', please provide references because as an intelligent human, my beliefs are always subject to revision.

 

My assessment that you are angry is not based on your disagreement with me. It is based on your use of language and the overall tone of your posts. I would be willing to concede that you are disgusted and not angry, and revise my opinion to state that your objectivity is being clouded by disgust and not anger. My error.

Some religious groups do not call the police for intervention as you state. I believe that Mennonites are one. In fact, following some reading that I did recently I have been wondering about where my beliefs should lead me on this issue. Although I haven't completely resolved this situation, considering placing a sign as you suggest in the window of my house is a possibility I've considered. Placing a sign on my back would make me look like a fool and would likely cause me to be ostracized from society. I doubt that I will do that.

 

Too cute... we disagree so my view is clouded, regardless of cause. OK.

Here is the deal:

I am in a position someday where I witness some man clearly hurting and about to kill a defenseless child. I am the ONLY one that can help.

Them's the facts. No quibbling about where's the police, maybe he had a bad childhood, why was the child there, maybe he didn't mean it, maybe anything. This is just the black and white situation that altruist live for but rarely occurs in nature.

Somehow, I feel that a pacifist would just look up at the sky and tap his toe, waiting for the God he worships to "DO SOMETHING!!!"

But me, I would just put a bullet in the bastards head.

Couldn't it very well be that I was there, to deal with the situation.... because God wished it that way? I'd sure not go around telling everyone that I was then "THE ARM OF GOD", but in a theological sense... could be true, just at that moment.

But if so.... what does that make the pacifist? Bad guy kills the kid, looks around, grabs another, same thing. What part in this does the pacifist play?

I don't mean this in an ugly way, either. I think that someone that chooses pacifisim has picked a very tough row to hoe.

I can see it for one's self. I just can't see it where the "tribe" is concerned, though. We gather together and form a society primarily for mutual protection. How does the pacifist contribute to that?

 

5 %

I will not argue with 5%. I've been there done that. The root problem is it never settles anything.

Extremism has its place in the academic community. There, they can and do argue minute points all day long and there are some very interesting intellectually stimulating points that are made. So, to answer your question, in the halls of philosophical debate, no there is nothing ever universally agreed upon.

I call it mental masturbation. In the end, all they have done is stroked themselves and solved nothing, and less than .5% of the world cares what they have debated.

In the real world, versus pure philosophy, there is a definite difference between murder and war time killing. My links attempted to provide a simple, real world type discussion of the difference. You attack those links as simplistic, fair enough. I attack your wanting to get too deep as paralysis of analysis.

 

So TRUE.

 

"Too cute... we disagree so my view is clouded, regardless of cause. OK."

Nope, you've misquoted me. Your position appears clouded because of the manner in which you present it. If your position was not peppered with so many insults and such disgust, I wouldn't make the statement that your views are clouded. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I wouldn't want to presuppose that you aren't as informed as you might be regarding pacifism and nonviolence because maybe you've read a lot on the subject and have made up your mind based on what you've read. Your posts don't indicate that, however. If you would like some recommended readings that might help answer some of the questions you've raised regarding the pacifist stance, how a pacifist might react in certain hypothetical situations, etc. feel free to PM me and I'll help you out.

 

Combat: When 2 forces face off at each other with weapons.

Murder: When 1 person shoots UNARMED person in the head.
( Also known as execution )

Simple enough??

 

so what rsdud is saying is this: don't insult me with an unbelieveable amount of common sense. don't insult me with your facts and real world way of thinking? i live in fantasy land. don;t insult me and say the tooth fairy is not real.

 

When you put it that way it does make a pretty convincing argument.

 

So by this defination, the missle attack on the bus of UNARMED CIVILIANS would fall into the murder catagory.

You're right, it is pretty simple.

 

Not that simple

Except, Murder requires intent to kill.

There was no intent to kill the civilians. In fact, unprecedented and extraordinary efforts are being made to protect civilians from harm.

 

Huh?

You did say: "I would be willing to concede that you are disgusted and not angry, and revise my opinion to state that your objectivity is being clouded by disgust and not anger. My error."

That does mean that my objectivity is clouded, either way, right?

As far as insults, I wasn't aware of any. None were intended. In fact, that last post of mine was meant as rather conciliatory. I didn't realize I'd missed so badly. I don't share your outlook, and I have serious questions as far as pacifism and responsibiity to the tribe, but the questions were just questions.

 

"...unprecedented and extraordinary efforts are being made to protect civilians from harm"

Baaah-Baaaah. That might be true and it might not, it remains to be seen. Unless you can specifically point to examples of those efforts - and not just the Tommy Franks, GWB, Tony Blair soundbites - it does sound a bit sheep-like.

 

Lets see, there are no piles of dead Iraqi civilans that the Baath ghouls would just love to splash all over everyone's TVs. And all you have to do is watch read the news from the front:

"Many of those on the “civilian” side of the bridge are Iraqi soldiers who have shed their uniforms and are surprising the Marines by taking up positions in nearby buildings, including a hospital, which prevents the Marines from returning fire because they’re concerned they’ll hit people being treated there."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/890065.asp

 

Maybe it is just a misunderstanding. Your posts sound more even-tempered and objective the more we talk. Not that it matters - who the hell am I? - but I retract.

In the end we both want a bad guy gone, fewer people living in an oppressive society and our military home safe. We just disagree on how that should happen. Hang in there.