Re: OT: How many of your own family would you let be killed, if the only response you had was disproportionate?
- From: johnny_t <nobodyis@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 14:07:03 -0800
It is an ancient point. It is the point that leads to the horror of war. It is eventually subsumed by the horror of the reality of war, and is forgotten. Until nobody is alive to remember.
Then the cycle begins anew.
No, there is no point to anything but total use of your force. Except that we are all human beings. Not just us and them.
It is where the phrase, might does not make right.
It comes to the legitimacy of government.
But in lighter seriousness, it has never been an eye for an eye. Or one each. There righteousness of the just, should be dressed in the justice of the righteous. Without the clear and believable sense of justice then the people will not be convinced. Kinda like Iraq and Afghanistan. It is disproportionate when it is no longer "just".
Lute wrote:
Thanks for the clarification..
My point is this:
By what mathematics do you calculate a disproportionate response?
A government is obliged to protect its own people. Every ONE of
them. Can a government legitimately say, yes, we are going to allow
you to kill ONE of our people?
And if you kill ONE of ours, then how many of YOURS can we kill?
None? Just one? How about two? Or 200? Or 20,000? Give me a fair
number.
No, this is not about mathematics. Those numbers mean nothing.
It is about a government keeping its responsibility, about letting
killers know that they cannot calculate a favorable price for killing
your people. The price to be paid for killing one of our people must
be so high that you will surely find it not worthwhile.
As to innocent civilian casualties, that is a horror. So if your
neighbor wraps himself with his children, and then comes to kill YOUR
children, then what do you do? Do you say, oh, I cannot defend my
children, because he is hoping that I will kill HIS children, and then
I will look bad?
If a terrorist says to me, I want to hide my weapons in your house, so
that if the infidel bombs my weapons, then he must bomb your house,
and then I can blame him for killing your family. So let me hide my
weapons in your house, or hide a missile launcher under the trees in
your back yard, in a school or hospital, in your neighborhood.
What do you say to him?
=*=*=
On Dec 30, 4:24 pm, johnny_t <nobod...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:Lute wrote:On Dec 30, 3:25 pm, johnny_t <nobod...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:You are talking about the argument of whether or not disproportionateWell, the only problem with your question, is that you are positing thatIt's as if the neighbors want to kill only one of your family--- to
this is not disproportionate at all, but rather of survival.
see how willing you are to accept that--- and then tomorrow, to kill
another.... it's the metagame, not the immediate game, that matters
most.
So, seriously, your question is moot. You don't believe, and yourThe grammar there is, excuse me for being blunt, unintelligible.
believe the premise is different.
Please make it more clear what you are saying.
It is not worth discussing from your premise.Discussions start from a premise, with which if you disagree, you can
demonstrate the flaw.
military response is reasonable. Or at what level it is reasonable.
Your "case" is a survival case, hidden in a case of the boiling frog
problem (which is just another form of the slippery slope).
Which means, that your original question, the title, is not asked. The
question that you really want to ask, is not asked. The question you
have asked, is, what do you do if your survival is at risk. Which is
interesting, but alas there is the eternal rub.
Is the survival actually at risk. Demonstrably not. But that is what
they are saying. Of course, they are political rabble rousers. But
they really are shooting rockets. And missing everyone, and this is a
very small band of whack jobs.
But but... But what you are killing families in response. You are
killing hundreds, and your survival, by this band, is not in question in
the least. Just because they disagree with you, you are answering an
itch with a cannon.
You see you simply cannot solve the middle east problems here in this
newsgroup with silly questions, and straw men. These people have been
doing it ALOT longer than you or I and if anything is to be learned, it
is "spot the logic flaw." Where you pay close attention to the
premises and conclusions. Both sides do it. What appears to be all of
the time.
Adding new logic flaws, and tiny minutiae to the argument here in RGB,
simply does not provide the appropriate amount of reverence to those
that have been making these arguments for so long.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
- References:
- OT: How many of your own family would you let be killed, if the only response you had was disproportionate?
- From: Lute
- Re: OT: How many of your own family would you let be killed, if the only response you had was disproportionate?
- From: johnny_t
- Re: OT: How many of your own family would you let be killed, if the only response you had was disproportionate?
- From: Lute
- Re: OT: How many of your own family would you let be killed, if the only response you had was disproportionate?
- From: johnny_t
- Re: OT: How many of your own family would you let be killed, if the only response you had was disproportionate?
- From: Lute
- OT: How many of your own family would you let be killed, if the only response you had was disproportionate?
- Prev by Date: Re: songs that make you want to drink and sing along
- Next by Date: Re: songs that make you want to drink and sing along
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: How many of your own family would you let be killed, if the only response you had was disproportionate?
- Next by thread: Re: OT: How many of your own family would you let be killed, if the only response you had was disproportionate?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
