[USS Alexander]

They are stupid that's for sure. I workt about 6 months witch a few moslim people and they are studip indeed...

[karajorma]

Hey be careful. My dad's a muslim.

Not all of them are. Just the fanatics. It's nothing to do with the religion. Christian Fundies are just as stupid.

[Janos]

WHAT YOU DARE TO CALL CHRISTIAN FUNDIES STUPID
I HAVE PROVE THEY ARE THE MOST INTELLIGENT CREATURES IN THE UNIVERSE

caps lock 0wnZ y00

[Jiggyhound]

an amusing article

[Flipside]

That takes patheticness to a new level. In fact that goes to such a level that we need to invent a new word...

What a complete pile of Blairs!

[Rictor]

Originally posted by adwight
No Mikhael, its not that, it's the people that don't even give a ****, like Rictor.

Lets run through this again:

Its ONE person. During the bombing and occupation, THOUSANDS died.

The operative words here, in case you weren't paying attention, are ONE and THOUSANDS. The latter is a greater tragedy, by far, than the former.

I downloaded the video, yeah its pretty brutal. But do you think a bomb falling on your house, thats not brutal? Do you think getting a bullet through your chest, thats not brutal?

The difference between you and me is that I don't care that he's American. He could have been Siberian for all the difference it would make. I view the death of an American to be equally as tragic as the death of anyone else, not more or less, provided they are civilian. You, it would seem, disagree.

and yet, I get made out to be the bad guy. Perhaps the whole world ought to hold American lives in higher regard than anyone else, maybe that would make you happy?

[mikhael]

Tsk. You've already forgotten. One death is a tragedy. Thousands is a statistic.

[USS Alexander]

Originally posted by karajorma
Hey be careful. My dad's a muslim.

Not all of them are. Just the fanatics. It's nothing to do with the religion. Christian Fundies are just as stupid.

I agree to that, there are good ones yes. Almost 60% or more of the criminals here in holland or of the people here causing problems are from middle east origin, thats a fact.

Every one who believes in some god that agrees with beheading and blowing up yourself and killing people is stupid no matter what the religion is, moslim, christian etc etc. I personaly don't believe in any of that but that's my personal vieuw of things.

[Rictor]

Please tell me when it was that Stalin became the example we should strive to become? I must have been away that day. And while we're at it, I would also like to know why you would think Uncle Joe's little bits of worldy wisdom form the foundation of international law?

[adwight]

It's not that he died, it's how it happened, and showing it too.  It was completely sick, ans no one, not even the worst person in the world, deserves that to happen to them and be humiliated like that.

[USS Alexander]

That's true, although this could be offending to american people(and i don't mean it that way)lot's of you think your god and the only right way is the american way, a thing that will be causing lot's of problems for the US is the arrogance of their president, he thinks he's god and controls all, there's one statement that i won't forget he once said....if your not with us your against us. a thing he shouldn't have said. He thinks he's the most powerfull man of the world, the terrorist show it to him clearly that he's NOT.

And i don't know if the footage are true but if there are, then the most humiliated thing is the sexual abused iraqi prisoners by american soldiers. i find it personaly more humilating to be ***** in the ass al the time. i would rather be beheaded then that.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Rictor
Please tell me when it was that Stalin became the example we should strive to become? I must have been away that day.

Who--besides you--suggested that I, or anyone else, did? I don't recall mentioning the Stalin as an example to strive to become. I don't remember suggesting that what I said had anything to do with becoming like Stalin. In fact, I just went and read it again, and I quite certainly did not.

And while we're at it, I would also like to know why you would think Uncle Joe's little bits of worldy wisdom form the foundation of international law?

Who--besides you--suggested that I, or anyone else, did? I don't recall mentioning the law. I don't remember suggesting that what I said had anything to do with the law. In fact, I just went and read it again, and I quite certainly did not.

I'm just checking, mind you. Is it nice in your fantasy world where people say what you think they do? Do you have to take many mind-altering drugs to go to this odd world of yours?

[Rictor]

So, if I were to quote Hitler and say something like "But you're forgetting, Jews are a plague upon the Earth which must be cleansed by us, the superior race", that wouldn't imply that I actually agreed with that is being said? No, thats just a little nugget of information which happened to pertain to the discussion and also just happens to have been posted by you. It doesn't reflect your opinion in the slightest, thats why you took the effort to bring attention to it?


I say "a thousand deaths aer worse than one". And you say "a thousand is a just statistic, one is a tragedy", implying they thousand are of lesser value that the one.

something like that, maybe. That, or you have reached hitherto untold levels of subtelty.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Rictor
So, if I were to quote Hitler and say something like "But you're forgetting, Jews are a plague upon the Earth which must be cleansed by us, the superior race", that wouldn't imply that I actually agreed with that is being said? No, thats just a little nugget of information which happened to pertain to the discussion and also just happens to have been posted by you. It doesn't reflect your opinion in the slightest, thats why you took the effort to bring attention to it?

So what you're saying is that anything anyone says must be something they believe and support.

The moon is made of green cheese and shivans live there in the swiss like holes, happily munching away on the lovely verdent loaf.

Really. I said it, therefore I must believe it. Btw, I also believe that the chicked crossed the road to get to the other side, and that the man walked into the bar. Oh yeah! I also believe that we should hijack a plane and run it into a tower because its built by someone named bin Laden. Yep. And lets not forget the ever classic: I obviously believe in using taxis as ablative combat armor. And I believe that Metal Pr0n Solid: Sons of Libido is a REAL GAME. oh yeah. Goodtimes will steal your girlfriend. I believe all these things and more. Oh yeah.

I should smoke the crack YOU smoke.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by mikhael
I should smoke the crack YOU smoke.

NO you shouldn't. One person on that **** is bad enough. If there were two the rest of us would have to team up and get rid of one for the good of our sanity.

[Rictor]

In that case, you must agree that thousands of deaths are a greater tragedy than a single one, and we're in agreement. Good, done.

And before you say that you neither agree nor disagree with the Stalin quote, this is one of those situtations where there is no middle ground. If someone is killing ducks, I either am for it or against it. If I am neutral, than my stance is essentially "for it", because my inaction is resulting in the continued killing of ducks. In any sitaution, neutrality ensures that what is happening continues to happen, which is in effect the same as supporting it. Of three choices, equally open to a person, one is against the current sitaution, and two are for it, since all three choices are equal possibilities.

But anyway, its a moot point, international law (or any modern law for that matter) is quite clear on the subject.

edit:

you can not at the same time support thousands of deaths, while condemnding one (provided all of the deceased were equally innocent), without being a hypocrite.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Rictor
In that case, you must agree that thousands of deaths are a greater tragedy than a single one, and we're in agreement. Good, done.

Actually, no, we're not in agreement.

And before you say that you neither agree nor disagree with the Stalin quote, this is one of those situtations where there is no middle ground. If someone is killing ducks, I either am for it or against it. If I am neutral, than my stance is essentially "for it", because my inaction is resulting in the continued killing of ducks. In any sitaution, neutrality ensures that what is happening continues to happen, which is in effect the same as supporting it. Of three choices, equally open to a person, one is against the current sitaution, and two are for it, since all three choices are equal possibilities.

Ah, see, here we go again. If you're not for it, you're against it, and if you're neutral, you're aligned with whatever opinion Rictor doesn't agree with.
Sorry, this is what's called "false dilemma". I refuse to reduce anything as complex as the interactions between human beings to a mere two possibilities. I can see where you're unable to encompass more than one or two possibilities, but I, and likely the rest of us, are not similarly limited.

But anyway, its a moot point, international law (or any modern law for that matter) is quite clear on the subject.

Really? what are the statutory requirements for declaring something a 'tragedy'? Could you quote me the pertinent passages and publications? Somehow, I don't think any of them say "One person is 'a tragedy'. Three people is a 'tragedie-a-trois'. Six or more is 'le petit mort'. 12 or larger is 'Get the thirteenth free'."
I suspect we're dealing with your opinion again, which is worth... well, exactly what any one man's opinion is worth.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by mikhael
Ah, see, here we go again. If you're not for it, you're against it, and if you're neutral, you're aligned with whatever opinion Rictor doesn't agree with.
Sorry, this is what's called "false dilemma". I refuse to reduce anything as complex as the interactions between human beings to a mere two possibilities. I can see where you're unable to encompass more than one or two possibilities, but I, and likely the rest of us, are not similarly limited.

A man on the street is about to shoot child. If you do nothing, you implicity support the killing of the child. Especially, if you are the one who has bought the gun and given it to the man.

Inaction support whatever is already happening. Think intertia.

___________________________

How many courts in the world will give out the same sentence for the murder of a single person and for the murder of a thousand people?

Its just that, you quite succesfully manage to sidetrack even the worthiest arguements with semantics and discussions on broad, vague issues. And I fall for it like an idiot each and every time.

And whenever it comes to a situation where you would have to say something condemnding ("yeah, sure, Iraqi lives are worth about as much as a dog's to me, possibly less"), you just claim it a complex issue and I'm perverting you statements blabla.

Either, you (and the US government) stop being a hypocrite, or stop talking in terms of human rights, freedom, demcracy, justice and start talking in terms of "we can do what we want, cause we have the guns. Don't like it? Not fair? Not just? Go **** yourself, no one gives a ****."

The sad thing is, throughout all of this, I sit here with a big dumb grin on my face and try to argue, when obviously one side has no interest in that. I'm quite sure that I could argue that child molestation is wrong, and it would fall in to the same pattern.

and as fair warning, from now one, I will assume that when you quote something, especially in a political debate, which directly contradicts something which I have said, you are in agreement with said quote. Its not unreasonable.

[mikhael]

I'm of three minds:

1) I cheer for the shooter. Children suck ass and need to die. I'm for it!

2) I do something to save the child. Children are good. I'm not for children being shot!

3) I act in rational self interest. My life is more important than any child's. I don't support shooting the child, but I don't support getting shot, either.

Check it out: I might be all, none, or any of the above at any point. Wait a minute! There's other possibilities!

4) I sell tickets! I'm not for killing children, but you know, I might profit from it.

5) I bless the child! Sure, it won't save the kid, but they'll go to Heaven, and that's what's important right?

6) I shoot the shooter! Of course, I didn't know that he had a water gun and now, by the standards of the area in which I live, I'm a murderer.

Of course, I've never been, and likely never will be in that situation, and what I would do at that moment is not something that you, or I, can predict. I like the tickets one.

[mikhael]

You still haven't pointed out where in International Law they codify "tragedy".