Papy on 4/12/2007 at 19:36
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
Genocide isn't random or arbitrary. It is, instead, by it's nature, highly targeted.
Based on you apparent idea of "random or arbitrary", there's really not a lot of murder which are random. Being Jew, being black, being a woman, being a student of a particular school, having a nice car... most, if not all, murders have a reason and so are not "random". If someone truly kills at random (and that could mean killing himself because "anyone but me" is not completely random), then I think it will be seen as being mentally ill, not as being someone "bad".
Also, your idea of terrorism is simplistic. The US and about every countries have used terrorism, either directly or indirectly, at one time or another... And it wasn't with people blowing themselves up.
Quote Posted by hopper
No backtracks like "some form of murder", "at some point in history" or similar, please.
Backtracks? A society is not some kind of immutable and well defined entity. When someone talks about "societies", you can safely assume a notion of time with it. There is not a new genocide every day (although some people think there is one occurring right now) but there was several throughout recent history. All of them being justified by the nation doing the genocide. Also when someone say "
from genocides
to terrorism", it implies a range going from one extreme to the other. It's even clearer when this same someone add "blind killing" immediately after to precise the common concept associated with this range.
Now do you really want me to give an example of a country that has used blind killing, with a range of action going from genocide to terrorism? Funny... I just read a news today about the French president talking about what France did not so long ago in Algeria, and a few days ago, I was discussing about what the US did to Nicaragua.
hopper on 4/12/2007 at 20:25
Quote Posted by Papy
Now do you really want me to give an example of a country that has used blind killing, with a range of action going from genocide to terrorism?
No, I don't. I want you to name a
society where these actions are
commonly supported and considered as a [sic!] justified at large, i.e. without reference to a specific time, situation or event. Because that's what you were talking about.
Convict on 4/12/2007 at 21:37
Quote Posted by Thirith
What does group A stating something and group B stating the opposite have to do with the truth of what they're stating? Just because there was a time when some people said the earth was flat and others said it was actually round doesn't mean that the earth's actual shape was relative at that time.
Prove to me that the earth is round and not flat. OK you can do that.
Now prove to me that voluntary polygamy is wrong (or right if you want to argue the opposite). You won't do that. ;)
Starrfall on 4/12/2007 at 22:16
Kant could.
heretic on 4/12/2007 at 23:47
So that's where Santa Clara got it's vampire problem...
nickie on 5/12/2007 at 01:00
Well I was wondering that myself.
But seriously though, I found that report and others I subsequently googled quite shocking. Man's inhumanity to man.
'Many and sharp the num'rous ills
Inwoven with our frame!
More pointed still we make ourselves
Regret, remorse, and shame!
And Man, whose heav'n-erected face
The smiles of love adorn, -
Man's inhumanity to man
Makes countless thousands mourn!
Courtesy of Robert Burns, 1785, From Man was Made to Mourn, a Dirge.
And we don't appear to have learnt a thing since then.
Being awake when everyone else is asleep can make me a bit maudlin. Sorry.
heretic on 5/12/2007 at 01:07
Quote Posted by nickie
But seriously though, I found that report and others I subsequently googled quite shocking. Man's inhumanity to man.
Yeah I did too, which is maybe why I made that weak stab at humor.
Your response was definitely more sophisticated and interesting though.
Convict on 5/12/2007 at 07:42
Quote Posted by Starrfall
Kant could.
I disagree.
Papy on 6/12/2007 at 00:29
Quote Posted by hopper
No, I don't. I want you to name a
society where these actions are
commonly supported and considered as a [sic!] justified at large, i.e. without reference to a specific time, situation or event. Because that's what you were talking about.
No offense, but I think I know better than you what I was talking about. I said :
Quote:
Even if you refuse to acknowledge that moral values are personal and define them on a society level only (and in this case you'll have to define what is a society), it's obvious random killing is supported by most societies. From genocides to terrorism, blind killing is commonly supported and considered as a justified.
... And I'm sorry, but that's the case.
Of course, we can debate what is a genocide. Was the killing of American Indians a genocide? Was the killing of Armenians by Turkey a genocide? Is what happening in Darfur a genocide? What about Rwanda? Iraqi Kurds? Can we say that the civil war in Iraq is a genocide? The truth is killing people for futile reasons happens frequently. Also, all have a common point : the aggressor thinks he is justified.
As for the other end of the spectrum, terrorism, its even more frequent. The US, France, England and most nations used terrorism regularly, either directly or indirectly. Again, we can debate on what constitute terrorism, but in my mind, killing someone innocent in the hope of indirectly destabilize a group, is terrorism. Supporting terrorism, for example by giving "rebels" weapons or satellite photos that show the enemy's troops location (so those "rebels" can go elsewhere to kill some villagers without being killed themselves), is also terrorism to me. Does the US government thought it was justified to help the rebels in Nicaragua? Does the French soldiers thought it was justified to randomly torture people who weren't on their side? Of course, otherwise they wouldn't have done it.
Of course, if you want me to give an example of a society that not only did murder people, but where every citizen of that society agreed with it... That was never what I was talking about. I said blind killing was commonly supported among societies, I never said it was common for societies to have all its individuals supporting blind killing. I must admit I have some difficulties understand how you could interpret what I said that way.
Ok, now your turn : can you name a society that never used killing of innocent people for a reason or another?
Peanuckle on 10/12/2007 at 20:54
Those monks in Tibet that live with tigers and stand on their heads to gain spiritual enlightenment.
