Libya

[MarMan]

Don't get me wrong, I would like to see Gadaffi removed but you're trying to portray the situation as black and white when it's actually a sort of murky grey.

Time to clean up the murk!!

[Shaggy Hiker]

Its 90% of the educated population of the civilized WORLD. Most people (this is where I got the 90% from, it is just an estimate. In actuallity the number may be higher) think purposefully killing unarmed people and children is bad and I agree.

That's a really interesting statement when you stop to think about it. I'm not even quite sure what I find so interesting about it. At first, I was struck by the fact that you listed children as separate from people. Quite a natural thing to do in any conversation on the topic, but what does it mean? I would suggest that it does not mean that children are not people, but rather that killing children is an especially horrific act such that it is listed distinctly from the act of killing people, though the only possible reason for doing that would be to make the act of killing people appear even worse.

That would make sense, too, because purposefully killing unarmed people is not opposed by 90% of the US. You have to strongly modify that statement before you could get opposition up to 90%. The unarmed people can't be prisoners convicted of particularly heinous crimes, as support for the death penalty is significantly above 90%. The unarmed people can't be killed as a matter of mistaken identity, as well over 10% of the US population accepts such an action as long as it happens to somebody else. And the unarmed people can't be people who might otherwise take up arms against us.

Even the bible doesn't condemn killing. The prohibition against murder in the ten commandments pertains to only a specific subset of the world (observant jews, in that case), while killing anyone who is not in that subset is actively encouraged.

So even when it comes to something like as apparently clear as killing unarmed civilians, the situation is only clear if you ignore all the examples that contradict it.

EDIT: I guess the point I am making is about communication. I tend to agree with the statement, because I think that in every culture there is a prohibition against murder in some context. However, despite agreeing with the general sentiment, the statement itself is patently and demonstrably false. It would have to be highly modified to make it true, yet it communicates something. I just can't say quite what.

[honeybee]

Incorrect. It is two separate societies that YOU are talking about.

...

I don't think you will understand, but I will try to explain.

...

Killing is not necessary, nor should it be tolerated.

...

1. So many died. Why did no one help?
2. Good thing they had help otherwise more would've died.

...

The US and Libya are two distinct cultures and societies. So why wouldn't you think of them as such? We are not talking of the planet Earth here. We are talking about the conflict in Libya (fuelled actively by the US and the NATO) and whether it's appropriate of the US / NATO to intervene and to what extent.

Killing is bad, but killing other rulers is good? The US believes in a certain set of ideologies for which you think killing Gaddafi and his troops is justified. Osama bin Laden believes in a certain set of ideologies for which he thinks killing several thousand people by crashing planes on towers is justified. How do you differentiate?

Is it justified for the US to intervene in the matters of another sovereign nation? Would you like if the Chinese Premier dictated how Obama should reshape the healthcare?

.

[MarMan]

I would suggest that it does not mean that children are not people, but rather that killing children is an especially horrific act such that it is listed distinctly from the act of killing people, though the only possible reason for doing that would be to make the act of killing people appear even worse.

A dead child is someone who hasn't experienced life much. A pet peeve of mine, which I particularly hate people who are so selfish to harm a child, I have no objection to seeing them brutually killed, even though that is not a correct response. I can't understand how anyone can speak up against an adult murdering a child. But that's just me.

The unarmed people can't be prisoners convicted of particularly heinous crimes, as support for the death penalty is significantly above 90%.

You can tack on all kinds of adjectives to modify the meaning of the statement. Society often generalizes in their statements otherwise each sentence would be so wordy the point would get lost. If you feel you must, then you did not understand it in the first place. Or you just wish to type. Either case is beyond the time I wish to spend to defend some people who need some help. And it doesn't matter anyway, apart from typing, no one who is posting is going to do anything to help or hurt them anyway.

The US and Libya are two distinct cultures and societies. So why wouldn't you think of them as such? We are not talking of the planet Earth here. We are talking about the conflict in Libya (fuelled actively by the US and the NATO) and whether it's appropriate of the US / NATO to intervene and to what extent..

Again Honeybee, you miss the obvious, and I even told you, but I think you selectively (consciously or unconsciously) pay attention to only parts of my post.

I am putting effort into improving the WORLD. I am working on values spread across the EARTH. You do not seem to understand this. Tha's OK, I will try to explain once more, but some people just can't grasp the subject of the world. Everyone needs to eat for example. People also shouldn't kill each other unnecessarily. Those are GLOBAL traits that transcend politics AND culture.

The issue I am speaking of is well above and beyond the different cultures of Libya and anyone else. Until you see that, you will continuously misinterpret my statements.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I am putting effort into improving the WORLD. I am working on values spread across the EARTH. You do not seem to understand this. Tha's OK, I will try to explain once more, but some people just can't grasp the subject of the world. Everyone needs to eat for example. People also shouldn't kill each other unnecessarily. Those are GLOBAL traits that transcend politics AND culture.

The issue I am speaking of is well above and beyond the different cultures of Libya and anyone else. Until you see that, you will continuously misinterpret my statements.

Speak more clearly and you will be understood better. You are writing at a high level of abstraction about ideals that, while quite nice, are not perfectly reflected in any society.

Consider this statement:

People also shouldn't kill each other unnecessarily.

While we are all aware that there are people who kill others unnecessarily, we are also all aware that most people who kill other people intentionally (and often those who kill others accidentally), justify their actions as necessary. For instance, somebody who kills in self defense will feel their actions are justified, but their actions still aren't necessary, except from their point of view.

The problem has always been that people add in weasel words like 'unnecessarily'. Words that can be interpreted in different ways if the sentiment is otherwise inconvenient to them. Because of this, the law, and even morality itself, keeps on changing.

We can strive to a lofty ideal, and we should. But we should also remember that the ideal remains out of reach for almost everybody.

[szlamany]

To be female and an adulterer in some cultures is a "necessary kill".

I know that doesn't fit my view - but I guess others think it's needed.

How do you create a formula for WORLD VIEW from this?

WORLD VIEW = 90% don't kill / 10% do kill?

[MarMan]

We can strive to a lofty ideal, and we should. But we should also remember that the ideal remains out of reach for almost everybody.

It is only out of reach for those who gave up reaching.

[MarMan]

To be female and an adulterer in some cultures is a "necessary kill".

I know that doesn't fit my view - but I guess others think it's needed.

How do you create a formula for WORLD VIEW from this?

WORLD VIEW = 90% don't kill / 10% do kill?

What kind of formula do you want?

[honeybee]

Again Honeybee, you miss the obvious, and I even told you, but I think you selectively (consciously or unconsciously) pay attention to only parts of my post.

Well, to be brutally honest, I would have expected YOU to pay some attention to MY posts, too. But never mind.

Which part of my post do you have a problem with? Do you think the US and Libya both share the same culture? Or do you want to portray the Libyan conflict as something between planet Earth and planet Libya?

It's good you are putting efforts into improving the WORLD. I shall wait for the realization to dawn on you that the world is made up of several different and distinct cultures where values often clash with each others. So your effort of spreading common values will, most likely, end up being looked upon as you enforcing your viewpoint on others. Which might as well be the truth.

.

[MarMan]

Well, to be brutally honest, I would have expected YOU to pay some attention to MY posts, too. But never mind.

Which part of my post do you have a problem with? Do you think the US and Libya both share the same culture? Or do you want to portray the Libyan conflict as something between planet Earth and planet Libya?

It's good you are putting efforts into improving the WORLD. I shall wait for the realization to dawn on you that the world is made up of several different and distinct cultures where values often clash with each others. So your effort of spreading common values will, most likely, end up being looked upon as you enforcing your viewpoint on others. Which might as well be the truth.

.

Again Honeybee, you miss the point. I am on a different level then where culture comes into play. I will give you a greatly simplified list to try to get the point across.

Uncivilized
People need to eat.
People need to drink (unless they obtain their water from their food).
People need to work together to create works that one person alone could not do.
People need to procreate to extend the species.
Civilized
People need to stand in line to wait their turn.
People need to obey the laws.
People can't kill other people for money, fun or power.


Show me a culture that does not obey the uncivilized rules and I'll show you a culture that does not live on this planet.
Show me a culture that does not obey the civilized rules and I'll show you someplace that needs some improvement for the betterment of the population. But they may not want to be better, and that's fine. The people of Libya WANT to be better, not oppressed.

AGAIN Honeybee, I am discussing something that is way beyond culture. If you can not think along those lines then it is pointless to discuss because you are talking apples and I am talking oranges. There are things that transcend culture. I don't know how to get the point across to you, it is getting old, really.

[FunkyDexter]

People can't kill other people for money, fun or power.

So where does a soldier fit into that? Or, indeed, the assassin you wantto send in to kill Gadaffi? What I think you're really saying is people shouldn't kill people unless it's justified.... but what does justified mean.

I think you're basically saying that killing Gadaffi is justified because he's killed people... but arguably, Gadaffi did so "for the greater good". He has been attempting to maintain order in an increasingly anarchic society. And he has a right to because:-

People need to obey the laws.

Now, I don't agree with that view point and neither, I suspect, do many (probably any) of the people you're arguing with. I'm reasonably sure that the world would be a better place if Gadaffi were removed from power. And I fully understand what you're saying that there are some acts (murder, rape, pedophilia, the list goes on) which are universally regarded as "evil". They transcend societies and localised value systems and go to the very core of what it means to be human (or humane).

But the problem is that you are arguing that one of those acts (murder) be carried out against Gadaffi because you believe it would be "for the greater good". You should be very, VERY careful before using that justification, though, because it's the same one that's been used by every single tyrant in history.

As I said before, I generally agree with your view point. I think if Gadaffi were removed from power it would be a good thing. Including, on balance, if he were assassinated. But then I'm not from Tripoli where, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, Gadaffi has a high degree of support. My problem is not that you're arguing Gadaffi should go (I believe he should), it's that you're portraying it as an entirely black and white issue. It isn't. And glib dismisslas that we should remove the grey are meaningless.

[MarMan]

So where does a soldier fit into that?

Thats a good point. Not for power. Hopefully not for fun, although even if they are enjoying it that is not the motivation unless they are the general. For money? Well if they get paid you can argue that. But a soldier's job is to follow orders. And we must hope the orders are comming from a good source.

I think you're basically saying that killing Gadaffi is justified because he's killed people...

Close. Not because he's killed people, no sense of crying over spilled milk. Because he's killing people and won't stop. If someone runs a red light can you shoot them? No. You shoot them when they start killing people and don't stop. If I ran down Main street and started killing everyone I saw breaking a law, I would get killed if I did not give up when I was ordered to.

Look what Hitler did because people were dragging their feet. I probably would've made the same mistake. That's OK as long as we learn from our mistakes. I don't necessarily want to see him dead or removed from power (even though that may be the only way to resolve this without a lot of death), I just want innocent people to stop getting killed.

Yes, I know there are peace-mongers out there that would rather see thousands of people die then get involved with their plight. But the funny thing is you can tell which governments are corrupt, those are the ones that side with other corrupt governments.

[zaza]

I know I want no deaths, but you can't always get what you want. So I have to settle for one death of a bad man (which I would prefer to live if they would just stop killing people) as opposed to deaths of innocent people which include women and children.

A more difficult question is: Would you settle for the death of one innocent man or 10 bad men?

[zaza]

Thats a good point. Not for power. Hopefully not for fun, although even if they are enjoying it that is not the motivation unless they are the general. For money? Well if they get paid you can argue that. But a soldier's job is to follow orders. And we must hope the orders are comming from a good source.




Close. Not because he's killed people, no sense of crying over spilled milk. Because he's killing people and won't stop. If someone runs a red light can you shoot them? No. You shoot them when they start killing people and don't stop. If I ran down Main street and started killing everyone I saw breaking a law, I would get killed if I did not give up when I was ordered to.

Look what Hitler did because people were dragging their feet. I probably would've made the same mistake. That's OK as long as we learn from our mistakes. I don't necessarily want to see him dead or removed from power (even though that may be the only way to resolve this without a lot of death), I just want innocent people to stop getting killed.

Yes, I know there are peace-mongers out there that would rather see thousands of people die then get involved with their plight. But the funny thing is you can tell which governments are corrupt, those are the ones that side with other corrupt governments.

I neglected to notice with the previous post that I wasn't at the end of the topic, hence a bit of a derailment, so I'll try to return to track.


Suppose, following the successful assassination of Gadaffi and given our policy of not trying to impose our rule over other countries, we allow free and fair elections and a group comes to power who immediately declare homosexuality, disablement and non-adherence to Sharia Islam to be a crime against the law of the land and immediately start executing people. All of these happen to belong to a particular religious branch of Islam, or a particular Libyan tribal group.

Are we partly responsible, by replacing a despotic but strong leader, who kept the different factions in the country at least from slaughtering each other? Have we precipitated more death? And do we then sit it out, or intervene again?

Suppose it isn't following free and fair elections, but a descent into civil war?

[abhijit]

I neglected to notice with the previous post that I wasn't at the end of the topic, hence a bit of a derailment, so I'll try to return to track.


Suppose, following the successful assassination of Gadaffi and given our policy of not trying to impose our rule over other countries, we allow free and fair elections and a group comes to power who immediately declare homosexuality, disablement and non-adherence to Sharia Islam to be a crime against the law of the land and immediately start executing people. All of these happen to belong to a particular religious branch of Islam, or a particular Libyan tribal group.

Are we partly responsible, by replacing a despotic but strong leader, who kept the different factions in the country at least from slaughtering each other? Have we precipitated more death? And do we then sit it out, or intervene again?

Suppose it isn't following free and fair elections, but a descent into civil war?

The obvious answer is to keep killing leaders till you find one who shares your point of view.

[honeybee]

The obvious answer is to keep killing leaders till you find one who shares your point of view.

That's one trick which is bound to work.

@MarMan, if people can't kill others for money, fun or power, you will find that most of the 'civilized' nations of today don't fit your definition of civilized. And you will find some tribes deep in African jungles are the most civilized in the world.

I think what you are trying to convey is the people of Libya have been living an uncivilized life, and that the US and the NATO will help them in a transition to a civilized world. Since I don't believe the US or any of the NATO nations will ever fall within your definitions of what is civilized (read above para), I don't see any point in your argument of civilized vs uncivilized.

.

[FunkyDexter]

Look what Hitler did

You really can't compare Gadaffi to Hitler. They're not even in same league and doing so usually reveals your argument as weak and unbalanced.

It's also worth mentioning that none of the allies went to war with Germany because he was percieved as evil. We went to war because he was percieved as a threat. His treatment of jews in the occupied never entered anyone's thinking.

[abhijit]

You really can't compare Gadaffi to Hitler. They're not even in same league and doing so usually reveals your argument as weak and unbalanced.

It's also worth mentioning that none of the allies went to war with Germany because he was percieved as evil. We went to war because he was percieved as a threat. His treatment of jews in the occupied never entered anyone's thinking.

Also a lot of prominent people at the time considered Hitler to be a savior of sorts.

[MarMan]

A more difficult question is: Would you settle for the death of one innocent man or 10 bad men?

10 bad ones, definitely.

Suppose, following the successful assassination of Gadaffi and given our policy of not trying to impose our rule over other countries, we allow free and fair elections and a group comes to power who immediately declare homosexuality, disablement and non-adherence to Sharia Islam to be a crime against the law of the land and immediately start executing people.

That is the chance you take. Not everything turns out nice and good. But when you have one person killing people for their own benefit, that is wrong, period. If a group of people decide to be evil, then that is their choice, be it good or bad. Then I suggest the homos and disabled get the flock out of dodge.

@MarMan, if people can't kill others for money, fun or power, you will find that most of the 'civilized' nations of today don't fit your definition of civilized. And you will find some tribes deep in African jungles are the most civilized in the world.

I don't know where you live Honeybee, but if that's your belief, you must have some strange living conditions. Every country I've been to puts people in jail (at the minimum) for killing for money, fun or power. Any I never gave you my definition of civilized, so how can you comment on it? I find the more you post the less sense you make. Are you sure you are not getting emotional over this issue and mot making wise statements?

You really can't compare Gadaffi to Hitler. They're not even in same league and doing so usually reveals your argument as weak and unbalanced.

Perhaps you could tell me what caused you to think this? I am trying to improve my communication. I was intending to compare the actions of Hitler with the actions of Gadafi. NEVER the people themselves. For example, we found out what Hitler had done to people. In hindsight, we could've done something sooner. No way to know it at the time. But we can LEARN from the past, and when some wacked out leader starts killing people (like Milosevic) we now know it is better to do something sooner than later. Less people die.

[zaza]

10 bad ones, definitely.

What about 100? Or 1 million? Is there a limit, or is the general idea that one should prefer to kill an unlimited number of bad men rather than 1 innocent man?







What if the bad men are all those wicked Jewish homosexuals?

[MarMan]

Well we would have to define "Bad" at this point. I see nothing "Bad" about Jewish homosexuals. In the context of this thread "Bad" is someone committing mass murder. So if you have 1 million people committing mass murder killing them all as opposed to killing one innocent would have a net effect of saving at least 2,000,001 people where at least 1 is not bad. And if you factor in the laws of probability you will come out ahead.


Of course you can always poke holes in many things. You can say what if those 1 million people are killing people on death row?

I am learning where some of these arguments arise. Sometimes someone will be generally speaking. Someone may not agree so choose an outlier that contradicts the general consensus.

For example, I can say "What goes up must come down." Basically, that's what happens every day. Then someone else can say what about voyager? It never came down. So depending on what point of view you take, almost anything can be "correct" in its own way.

@zaza, if I call "Bad" people mass murders and you call them (just for the sake of discussion) Jewish homosexuals you can see why we don't agree. Mass murders <> Jewish homosexuals.

[zaza]

Some say that a lot of the troubles in the Middle East are because the Jewish people displaced a load of Palestinians and have since been killing and torturing them on a daily basis for 50 years. Would you say that qualifies as bad? There are, as point of fact, quite a large number of people who are of that opinion, including most of the Islamic world.

[MarMan]

Some say that a lot of the troubles in the Middle East are because the Jewish people displaced a load of Palestinians and have since been killing and torturing them on a daily basis for 50 years. Would you say that qualifies as bad? There are, as point of fact, quite a large number of people who are of that opinion, including most of the Islamic world.

First of all torture is different from killing. Second of all, a lot of that resentment is second generation, i.e. "Your father killed my father so I will kill you". I believe that kind of thinking is wrong no matter what side its on. There doesn't need to be any killing (even though it helps the global problem of over-population). I notice what you DID NOT say, that some of the Palestinians that were killed died because they were attacking innocent people. I'm sure some died that were innocent. What about the Jewish people that were there before the Palestinians who were forced out? you can make anyone look bad if you pick a point in time that suits your needs and ignore the rest. and you forget the Jewish people tried to peacefully co-exist with the Palestinians. Except it failed when 7 Arab nations attacked them. By the way, the nation of Israel existed before what we think of as the nation of Palestine. Palestine was not even a nation in ancient times, but an area of land with no definite people nor leader.

In my opinion, a lot of the trouble in the middle east is not trouble, but self-correction. Some of it is trouble. The middle east was ruled by outside forces for too long. When those forces left, dictators took over. The people never got a chance at any kind of freedom except what the rulers gave them. So this causes tension that builds before it breaks. Sometimes it can be well directed, other times it is not. It is like a powder keg, and until they get their freedom, they must constrain their energy until it bursts. It is kind of like being very angry, you may do things that you regret, but at the time, you do not seem to care.

[zaza]

You aren't going to suggest that murder, rape and paedophilia are "bad" crimes worthy of killing a "bad" person, but torture isn't... are you? I reckon you would find a lot of people across the world who would put torture in there above rape, for example. Possibly even above murder.

The argument that there are Palestinians who have killed innocent Jews is entirely beside the point. The point is that if you took a poll of the Islamic world, I think you would find a large number and possibly a majority who would say that Israel as a whole, and by extension the Jewish people it represents (for it is the Jewish homeland), commit acts of murder and torture against innocent Palestinians and this therefore justifies killing a Jewish person. Some might, and do, say that this justifies a holy war, or jihad, against the State of Israel.
In what way is their thinking flawed?


In fact, allow me to spell it out a little clearer. They would say that the Palestinians have lived in that land for thousands of years, until they were forced to accommodate the creation of Israel in their midst after WWII. Since then, Palestinians living in that area have been attacked, tortured and murdered and there is no reason why they and the surrounding Arab states should not go to war with Israel, as they are the intruders.
As for a pre-existing Jewish claim to the land, Palestinians would say that this wholly depends on the word of a holy book which they do not recognise as such because they, the Muslims, KNOW that the word of God is found in the Koran only, and there is no mention of the state of Israel in the Koran. Hence the Jewish people have no legitimacy to their claim, and their intrusion is unjustified.

[MarMan]

You aren't going to suggest that murder, rape and paedophilia are "bad" crimes worthy of killing a "bad" person, but torture isn't... are you? I reckon you would find a lot of people across the world who would put torture in there above rape, for example. Possibly even above murder.

i could torture you by eating in front of you when you are hungry. That is a very broad category and you should define what you mean. Murder is murder. Dead is dead. Sometimes torture causes death, sometimes permanent physical/mental injury, sometimes temporary, sometimes slight discomfort. If you spoke to a lot of people across the world and asked them to define torture you would get a different definition from every person. you can not ask vague questions and expect definite answers, it just does not make sense.

The argument that there are Palestinians who have killed innocent Jews is entirely beside the point. The point is that if you took a poll of the Islamic world, I think you would find a large number and possibly a majority who would say that Israel as a whole, and by extension the Jewish people it represents (for it is the Jewish homeland), commit acts of murder and torture against innocent Palestinians and this therefore justifies killing a Jewish person. Some might, and do, say that this justifies a holy war, or jihad, against the State of Israel.
In what way is their thinking flawed?

If you took a poll of the Islamic world where there was no Israel, there would be other countries who would have to go. The Islamic religion has 3 broad categories:

1. Live in peace and don't bother anyone
2. Kill Isreal
3. Kill everyone who is not Islamic

You can design a poll of any subset of people you want and you will get a different answer depending on the group that you choose to ask. That is nothing new. It also proves that people are different, nothing else.

I notice you keep mentioning Israel commits acts of murder and torture (I know they commit murder, I haven't heard of torture, nor have you defined it, sounds like you are trying to sway opinion) but you ignore the murdered Israelites. Both sides are doing wrong. And incorrect biased thinking like that perpetuates negative thinking which contributes to the killing. You should be vocal against ALL killing, instead of trying to justify one side over the other, that just leads to more hatred. Unless you enjoy hating a race, then just continue as you are. Fortunately I am not predujice, and I am thankful for that.

[zaza]

i could torture you by eating in front of you when you are hungry. That is a very broad category and you should define what you mean. Murder is murder. Dead is dead. Sometimes torture causes death, sometimes permanent physical/mental injury, sometimes temporary, sometimes slight discomfort. If you spoke to a lot of people across the world and asked them to define torture you would get a different definition from every person. you can not ask vague questions and expect definite answers, it just does not make sense.

I would probably go with the definition as laid down by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. No mention of eating in front of other people there, although if you enjoyed lunch with a particular masticating fellow in my team you might beg to differ.
Would that be definite enough for you?
By the way, your example about eating in front of somebody is what is called a metaphor. It is not literally torture. When I say "MarMan exploded with rage at the continued backchat by insolent zaza", I do not mean that you literally exploded. I hope.

If you took a poll of the Islamic world where there was no Israel, there would be other countries who would have to go. The Islamic religion has 3 broad categories:

1. Live in peace and don't bother anyone
2. Kill Isreal
3. Kill everyone who is not Islamic

You can design a poll of any subset of people you want and you will get a different answer depending on the group that you choose to ask. That is nothing new. It also proves that people are different, nothing else.

I notice you keep mentioning Israel commits acts of murder and torture (I know they commit murder, I haven't heard of torture, nor have you defined it, sounds like you are trying to sway opinion) but you ignore the murdered Israelites. Both sides are doing wrong. And incorrect biased thinking like that perpetuates negative thinking which contributes to the killing. You should be vocal against ALL killing, instead of trying to justify one side over the other, that just leads to more hatred. Unless you enjoy hating a race, then just continue as you are. Fortunately I am not predujice, and I am thankful for that.

You can find articles on Israeli torture dating back 10 years. Do what we in the civilised world call "a search on Google" and I'm sure you'll find plenty.
The fact that there are israelis who have been murdered is, I shall say again, beside the point. The fact that some of Gadaffi's loyalists have been murdered doesn't stop you from calling for

his head on a pike

People on both sides get killed. I agree. But that fact that Israelis have killed and, yes, tortured Palestinians is seen by many Muslims as justification for their actions, irrespective of the fact that Palestinians have killed Israelis. You yourself feel that it is justifiable to kill Gadaffi in the name of the greater good despite the fact that several of his own loyal followers have been killed by rebels. How is it any different for a Muslim to say "let us kill all the bad Israelis who as a people elected their government, so that we can prevent slaughter of the Muslims".

I am asking you how this viewpoint is different from yours.

[MarMan]

I would probably go with the definition as laid down by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. No mention of eating in front of other people there, although if you enjoyed lunch with a particular masticating fellow in my team you might beg to differ.
Would that be definite enough for you?

I could care less on the definition you choose. When you introduce vague terms into a discussion that tends to be very specific it is wise to define them otherwise new arguments emerge and nothing gets accomplished.

And as for people who haven't eaten for days, to watch someone eat in front of them, YOU tell them that is not torture. I would love to be a fly on the wall for that one. That is NOT a metaphor, here is the definition:

a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance

And here is your definiton of torture:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

So you are saying while someone is experiencing hunger pains to purposefully and willfully hold the cure to thier PAIN and keep it from them is not torture? I'm not going to the diner with you, that's for sure.

You can find articles on Israeli torture dating back 10 years. Do what we in the civilised world call "a search on Google" and I'm sure you'll find plenty.

Can you prove that are not biased? Can you prove they are not truthful? Just because something comes up in a search does NOT mean it is definitely true. I've already seen biasness in these posts to filter through some more.

I am asking you how this viewpoint is different from yours.

You are comparing apples to oranges. I don't know how you can compare animosity that has been going on for thousands of years between different races of people to a dictator who has been mowing down his countries citizens for a month. If you can't see that difference, then nothing I can say will sink in. I would bet behavior similar to what gadafi is doing now is what CAUSED the conflict between Isreal and certain Muslim groups.

[FunkyDexter]

Perhaps you could tell me what caused you to think this? I am trying to improve my communication. I was intending to compare the actions of Hitler with the actions of Gadafi. NEVER the people themselves.

It's a general truism on internet discussions that anyone invoking Hitler has already lost the debate. There was a guy who formulated it as a principle (albeit tongue in cheek). I can't remember his name but google will find it for you quick enough if you can be bothered to look. I can't.

And comparing the actions of G & H is no more legitimate than comparing the individuals. They're utterly different in both scale and nature.


I have to say Marman, at this point I really do think you're the one willfully missunderstanding the points that are made against you. Zazas argument is quite clear. He's not making a judgement about the Palestinian/Israeli situation, he's merely highlighting the fact that there is a judgement to be made.

You may take the view that Palestinian terrorists are unjustified in killing Israelis and are, in fact, murderous sadists but there are a large number of people who take the view that the Israelis are engaged in an illegal occupation that has so impoverished the indiginous Palestinian that they starve to death and are denied basic healthcare. By your own terms that would justify the palestinian freedom fighters in their act of killing Israelis.

Whether you or I, as individuals, agree or disagree with either of these points of view is irrelevent. What's relevent is that there is more than one point of view and significant sections of the human race adhere to each of them. So who decides, in this scenario, who is right or wrong. Who deserves to live and who deserves to die? Who arbitrates which of these deaths are somehow justified and which represent a murder? You've implied that there is some sort of world wide consensus that dictates the answer but there simply isn't.

In fact from reading your posts it's increasingly apparent that you see yourself as the arbitrator. You believe you see the world for what it is and the rest of the world will agree with you as long as it's right minded. Anyone who disagrees must be ill informed and can therefore have their opinion dismissed. I'm afraid that that kind of narcisim would, again, cast you in the role of the tyrant.

This is akward for me because, at least as far as Gadaffi is concerned, I believe your opinion is correct. The difference is that I don't believe it's the only one worthy of consideration.

[MarMan]

It really puzzles me the misunderstanding that occurs in posts that is completely absent in face-to-face discussions. What is so different between the forms of communication? Perhaps people don't remember everything they read but listen better? I don't think that is the case, because some people don't listen. Oh well, I must keep observing this curiosity.

And comparing the actions of G & H is no more legitimate than comparing the individuals. They're utterly different in both scale and nature.

But thank you for this sentence, I realized my error here. Neither was I comparing the men nor their actions. Well maybe I said I was, but I was wrong. I wanted to point out that what matters is OUR reactions, and the fact that we are learning from them. Instead of just watching someone kill their people we now do something about it. The whole world is learning also, because of the support. The world is learning, great!!

Zazas argument is quite clear. He's not making a judgement about the Palestinian/Israeli situation, he's merely highlighting the fact that there is a judgement to be made.

What needs to happen is the killing to stop on both sides. They are both wrong. My opinion? the Palestinians are sore losers to attack Israel FIRST, lose, then complain because they lost. If they didn't attack in the first place, they wouldn't be in the predicament they are in. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen and don't complain because the stove puts off heat. Deal with it or eat a sandwhich.

Whether you or I, as individuals, agree or disagree with either of these points of view is irrelevent. What's relevent is that there is more than one point of view and significant sections of the human race adhere to each of them. So who decides, in this scenario, who is right or wrong. Who deserves to live and who deserves to die? Who arbitrates which of these deaths are somehow justified and which represent a murder? You've implied that there is some sort of world wide consensus that dictates the answer but there simply isn't.

Almost no one deserves to die. That is rule #1 from the begining. When someone breaks rule #1, they are changing the rules. So the rules change for them. Starting with rule #1. If someone decides they can kill people then people can kill them. Its only fair. I know the world isn't fair, but the more we try to be fair, the better it becomes. Killing people because you do not like what they are doing is not fair. Killing for justice can be. Killing for vengence is immature and definitely wrong.

If someone killed my family would I wish to kill them? Absolutely. would I be correct? Absolutely not. I can only hope I would come to my senses, otherwise I would be wrong, but feel like I did right. It is important to know the difference. some people can not judge the difference between right and wrong and how they feel.

There will always be more than one point of view. There will never by appropriate action for EVERY point of view. for example, I could say nuke them all and solve the problem. that can be my point of view. It by no means is accetable, even if people believe it to be a valid solution. I reserve some of my own opinions because I believe them to be inappropriate. sometimes they sneak out, like wanting to see his head on a pike. Do I believe that is a good solution? Of course not. That's where I need to be more clear. I would like to see his head on a pike, but that sets a bad example, sends an inappropriate message and can be considered poor taste. If I could choose whether his head is on a pike or he retired somewhere I would pick the latter. Not because it is what I want, but because it is the better choice. What people want isn't alwayas the better choice. But anyone who thinks a tyrant should be allowed to kill their own people has me concerened.

[Shaggy Hiker]

It really puzzles me the misunderstanding that occurs in posts that is completely absent in face-to-face discussions. What is so different between the forms of communication? Perhaps people don't remember everything they read but listen better?

Yeah, I've thought about that one, too. A large part of it has to do with non-verbal cues that exists in face-to-face communication that doesn't exist in writing, as well as inflection cues that could transmit over phone lines, but not in person. However, I don't think that one form of communication is necessarily more effective than the other. I, personally, prefer face-to-face communication, though that may be because I am in a category that is consistently treated well above average, so people may listen more to me than they would to the average person. On the other hand, I feel that I make more complete statements when writing, unless I am in certain, prepared, oral situations: Giving presentations, or taking questions about same.

One thing that I have always liked about this forum is that people can make as complete a case as they like, and over time, with a group of people who have well above internet-average IQ and communications skills. There are points that come out that I would not have thought of, and opinions that have informed my own. Would the people writing them have been so effective if we were speaking in person? In some cases, it is likely that they would not, if only because we have so many nationalities represented here that there would be some difficulty with comprehension due solely to accents.

I would say that we learn as much about how to communicate as anything else. Listening is always a good policy, but it is not the ONLY good policy. Sometimes you have to be able to persuade, if you wish to be effective, and a discussion such as this one will improve those skills, whether or not you actually change any mind, either your own, or other peoples.

[honeybee]

I don't know where you live Honeybee, but if that's your belief, you must have some strange living conditions. Every country I've been to puts people in jail (at the minimum) for killing for money, fun or power. Any I never gave you my definition of civilized, so how can you comment on it? I find the more you post the less sense you make. Are you sure you are not getting emotional over this issue and mot making wise statements?

I think you yourself have posted the criteria you use for deciding if a society is civilized or not. Or perhaps they aren't criteria and something random?

How many US presidents have gone to jail over Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How many over Vietnam? How many over the Iraqi civilians?

In duels, a tough opponent tends to bring out the best in you, it's said. So if you find I am making less sense, you should probably examine how much sense your own posts are making. So far I have tried to not take this personally, but your persistent assumptions about you knowing things better and your viewpoint being right are just going too far.

About killing, can you please once and for all set down all YOUR rules about what killings are justified and what are not? It seems to me that with every counter argument, you have been reshaping your own rules about killing of others. So please pause for a moment (or a few minutes as the case may be) and set down all your rules regarding killing of others.

.

[honeybee]

If someone killed my family would I wish to kill them? Absolutely. would I be correct? Absolutely not. I can only hope I would come to my senses, otherwise I would be wrong, but feel like I did right. It is important to know the difference. some people can not judge the difference between right and wrong and how they feel.

There are some societies (they are actually called civilizations, mind you) where killing for revenge/honour is an accepted way of life. An eye for an eye. There are yet more societies (civilizations) where if you kill someone you can legally buy your way out by paying blood money. When you start preaching 'killing is never justified', you are proclaiming that your way is the best and everyone should fall in. Samurai warriors in Japan used to kill themselves if they broke the Samurai code of conduct. It's killing one's own self. It was considered honourable.

Taking your example, if someone killed your family, post fact you cannot kill them because that is barred by law. However if you found those someones in the process of killing your family or trying to kill your family and then if you killed them, it's an accepted form of self defence and you can walk free. Unless you understand the subtleties in both these incidents you cannot generalize on killings. There are mercy killings, honour killings, jihads and johars and many other types of killings which were all accepted in different societies at different times. Without being able to understand the rationale behind each and the way different societies lived, it's impossible to frame any rules on such acts.

.

[MarMan]

Initially I was hoping to explain the value of life to the people that were missing it. But now this post has become a lesson for me on how misunderstood posts seem to be. And you're my number one subject Honeybee. You have make the most incorrect assumptions then anyone else. I'm trying to pinpoint the the source. but I can correct you further.

I think you yourself have posted the criteria you use for deciding if a society is civilized or not. Or perhaps they aren't criteria and something random?

No I did not. I gave YOU some guidelines to help get the things you were missing. For you to think those were my guidelines shows you severely underestimate me which supports why you make so many incorrect assumptions about what I type.

Possibility #1 - Misunderstandings can be the result of incorrect perceptions? And it goes both ways. Misunderstandings can be the result of unclear or incomplete statements.

How many US presidents have gone to jail over Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How many over Vietnam? How many over the Iraqi civilians?

In duels, a tough opponent tends to bring out the best in you, it's said. So if you find I am making less sense, you should probably examine how much sense your own posts are making. So far I have tried to not take this personally, but your persistent assumptions about you knowing things better and your viewpoint being right are just going too far.

About killing, can you please once and for all set down all YOUR rules about what killings are justified and what are not? It seems to me that with every counter argument, you have been reshaping your own rules about killing of others. So please pause for a moment (or a few minutes as the case may be) and set down all your rules regarding killing of others.

.

I am not putting down my rules for killing for two reasons. One is it would take too much time. Two I do not think you would understand anyway since you seem to misunderstand much easier to understand topics. I can give you generalizations that you can poke holes in if you wish.

1) Killing is not OK. Honorable killing is really for people who are too ignorant to know killing is wrong.
2) If someone IS killing people then they need to stop. If they don't stop then they are not living by rule #1. Therefore they are not protected by rule #1. So KILL THEM!!! The net effect is lives saved.

How many US presidents have gone to jail over Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How many over Vietnam? How many over the Iraqi civilians?

0. If you are trying to forge a link between any U.S president and gadafi, then here again we have a mistake. You are comparing 3 different things here as if they were the same. Can you really not see the difference? I am starting to believe that you can not. which leads to #2...

Possibility #2 - Unable to see the big picture or the details. Focus on a subset of information which leads to wrong conclusions when valuable information that affects the outcome is ignored. Which means apples to oranges again. If someone is talking about the big picture and someone else discusses a small peice there is no way they can refer to the same thing even if they use the same words.

There are some societies (they are actually called civilizations, mind you) where killing for revenge/honour is an accepted way of life. An eye for an eye. There are yet more societies (civilizations) where if you kill someone you can legally buy your way out by paying blood money. When you start preaching 'killing is never justified', you are proclaiming that your way is the best and everyone should fall in. Samurai warriors in Japan used to kill themselves if they broke the Samurai code of conduct. It's killing one's own self. It was considered honourable.

The word civilization is controversial to begin with. It is pointless to bicker about this word. And killing for revenge/honour is barbaric. That is how cavemen thought to behave. Any society living by those laws is not as advanced as one who learned it is better to settle things in court. Remember hindsight is 20/20. So an advanced culture will have learned what mistakes it was making after it has corrected them. Any society that has not advanced will be ignorant to the advances it missed and therefore not know what it is missing. You yourself sadi "It was considered honourable", key word there is was. And I believe you should be allowed to kill yourself if you want, just not anyone else.

Possibility #3 - Misunderstanding due to lack of knowledge?

Taking your example, if someone killed your family, post fact you cannot kill them because that is barred by law. However if you found those someones in the process of killing your family or trying to kill your family and then if you killed them, it's an accepted form of self defence and you can walk free. Unless you understand the subtleties in both these incidents you cannot generalize on killings.
.

Please reread your post. It is a good point of misunderstandings. You generalize on two different scenerios then state you can not generalize on those situations.

Possibility #4 - Could be setup from the begining for contradiction.


Conclusion - These misunderstandings seem to step from two head-strong posters. BOTH talking about different things. Basically Honeybee seems to thing killing is OK and I do not. No wonder we disagree.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Basically Honeybee seems to thing killing is OK and I do not. No wonder we disagree.

If that is really how you interpret his post, I would say that the source of your disagreement is plain indeed.

[MarMan]

Then perhaps I am misunderstanding what he is trying to say as much as he is misunderstanding me?

[zaza]

What needs to happen is the killing to stop on both sides. They are both wrong. My opinion? the Palestinians are sore losers to attack Israel FIRST, lose, then complain because they lost. If they didn't attack in the first place, they wouldn't be in the predicament they are in. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen and don't complain because the stove puts off heat. Deal with it or eat a sandwhich.

Well, from their perspective, they were not the ones who did the attacking first. That is the point which you seem to have missed. In their opinion, a bunch of chaps showed up after WWII, said "Right, all this is now ours" and promptly threw a large number of people off their land and made them homeless. They then became refugees in the surrounding Arab countries, who didn't much care for them either. These surrounding Arab nations eventually got their act together and coordinated an attack, ostensibly in the name of Palestinian freedom but really because they wanted to have a pop at the Jews. They lost. And so on it has gone for the last 50 years.

Do you consider somebody marching into your home one day, throwing you and your family out into the street where grandma dies of malnourishment and your kids fall sick and eventually die too, do you consider that to be aggression? Perhaps even murder? What if it happened to your entire street? Your entire town? Your entire country?



Or do you just "get out of the kitchen" and "deal with it" ?



[edit: technically speaking, that area was a British mandate between WWI and WWII, and they decided to make a chunk of it into the State of Israel after WWII]

[honeybee]

Basically Honeybee seems to thing killing is OK and I do not. No wonder we disagree.

Just what I have been pointing at: Because I am questioning your assumptions or thoughts, you have assumed automatically that I believe in something, or that I don't believe in something. Without having answered my questions or clarified your own thoughts. It somehow reminds me of "You are either with us or with them", where you don't want to allow someone to question you by labelling that someone as from the opposite party.

Fine, I can understand about having misunderstandings, but I cannot really keep up with your persistently wrong assumptions. Bye.

.

[abhijit]

It is time to close this thread.

[MarMan]

Well, from their perspective, they were not the ones who did the attacking first. That is the point which you seem to have missed. In their opinion, a bunch of chaps showed up after WWII, said "Right, all this is now ours" and promptly threw a large number of people off their land and made them homeless. They then became refugees in the surrounding Arab countries, who didn't much care for them either. These surrounding Arab nations eventually got their act together and coordinated an attack, ostensibly in the name of Palestinian freedom but really because they wanted to have a pop at the Jews. They lost. And so on it has gone for the last 50 years.

You are picking a point in time that suits your needs. What about the settlers that were kicked out by the Palestinians? Oh, but that's OK. No that's biased. (untruthful)

We are going live with a new ERP in 4 weeks and I do not have time for this. All it boils down to people trying to impose thier beliefs on others. Well I am not buying into other's beliefs. No one is interested in mine. This thread has outlived its usefulness.

Have a good weekend!!!

[Shaggy Hiker]

You are picking a point in time that suits your needs. What about the settlers that were kicked out by the Palestinians? Oh, but that's OK. No that's biased. (untruthful)

The point that Zaza was making was that it really doesn't matter what WE think about it. What matters is what the aggrieved party thinks happened. They will act on their perception of the situation, regardless of what our perception is. We can disagree with them. We can side against them. But we are not them, nor can our point of view be theirs simply by saying that we are right. So they feel that they were kicked out. They feel that they were wronged. And they act on those perceptions, just as we act on our perceptions. In this matter we have different perceptions, but we are both just acting on our own perceptions.

Aside from that, when you talk about who wronged who first, how far back do you go? That particular patch of land has been fought over longer than any other patch of land in all of recorded history. The Jews weren't there first, as it was settled land before Judaism even came into existence. Then they were removed by various conquerers at various times, and repatriated by various rulers at various times, and so on. The bible records two instances where they came in and killed off or drove out the current inhabitants, and there are suggestions of other such actions. If you were to go back to antiquity to who had the original right to the land...well, those people aren't even well defined.