Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 11:56 am
Maybe your right, maybe the one that uses the most bombs to kill the most people is the most evil..
a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
https://talk-polywell.org/bb/
In the war against Japan it was thought that ending the war with atomic weapons saved at least a million lives.Nanos wrote:Maybe your right, maybe the one that uses the most bombs to kill the most people is the most evil..
As opposed to people who kill with bullets, starvation, gas chambers, etc. ?Nanos wrote:Maybe your right, maybe the one that uses the most bombs to kill the most people is the most evil..
MirariNefas wrote:Well, if they were all white, it would make me uncomfortable. I'd feel that any system that selects monoethnic groups can't possibly represent my views.Even for yourself, were you to face fear from people, (such as a jury) would you prefer them to be similar to you, or different ?
And would I want them all to be from California, or all have the same level of education as I? Not really. I'd hope they have better education, frankly. I'm barely out of undergrad. And I don't care if they're from the East Coast or Canada or England, but I would draw the line at a place with fundamentally, radically different ethical and political values, like, say, Iran.
Agreed, but I think the point isn't just that they're scary because they look different, but they're scary because of what that means. I think that my upbringing has allowed me to base my sense of a tribe more on ethical philosophy than on appearances or customs. I assert that this is superior and a good goal for the whole world, because of course my tribe knows best.Yeah, unless you're in THEIR group ! Thats the whole point. They are naturally and instinctively scary because you aren't sure they will treat you fairly should they ever get in a position of power over you.
But those people from those darn ethnically homogenous tribes... their values are just too different from my tribal values of tolerance and multiculturalism.
Nanos wrote:Maybe your right, maybe the one that uses the most bombs to kill the most people is the most evil..
Maybe so. I know these sorts of ethical calculations are difficult and vague, and people won't always agree. Maybe some people will think that Americans are the biggest evil, and some people will think that they're a darn sight better than certain other evils.Oh indeed, there are many other ways than bombs, so it can be hard to figure out how many degrees more evil one approach is to another..
Exactly. My education is in a biological field, and it's really sunk in for me that genetically, all the different peoples of the world are basically the same, a few minor trait clusterings notwithstanding. But that doesn't make us all one big happy family. Our programming makes a huge difference in how well we can, or should, get along. Though it can be natural, racism is not necessary - but some form of discriminatory impulse is natural and necessary, and in my view, can even be useful. People from across the world can easily bridge cultural and racial divides, but only if they're programmed correctly.ravingdave wrote: I'm thinking that your point is not what their design plan is (DNA) but rather how they are programed.
MirariNefas wrote:Exactly. My education is in a biological field, and it's really sunk in for me that genetically, all the different peoples of the world are basically the same, a few minor trait clusterings notwithstanding. But that doesn't make us all one big happy family. Our programming makes a huge difference in how well we can, or should, get along. Though it can be natural, racism is not necessary - but some form of discriminatory impulse is natural and necessary, and in my view, can even be useful. People from across the world can easily bridge cultural and racial divides, but only if they're programmed correctly.ravingdave wrote: I'm thinking that your point is not what their design plan is (DNA) but rather how they are programed.
Nanos wrote:I'm for improvement, but when you single out specific countries like for example Iran, and say its much worse there than here, yet here was probably suffer more gay people being killed and the authorities doing nothing about it, sure its less legal, but its happening.
I don't mind the finger of blame being pointed, but I don't like it when we try and prove we have the higher ground because our god is so much better than their god.
Its like the debate about a little bit of torture is ok because we are doing it in the best interests of our country, when as I see it, any amount of torture is evil no matter how you dress it up.
I suppose it comes down to double standards, and also the way that some countries (The US for example.) try and worm their way out of being responsible by having justifiable excuses for what they do, rather than just admiting that yes they supply bombs to allies to drop how they see fit, and somehow this is not as bad as other countries suppling arms to people to stop those allies trying to drop bombs on them..
Hence the, they are all just as bad as each other on the whole.
But, I would say, invading other peoples countries is the worst, whether you do it by military force, or economic shenanigans where the people starve to sell us cheap food..
Do you have any data to back this up, or do you just randomly think that all crimes are evenly distributed across the world?Nanos wrote:I'm for improvement, but when you single out specific countries like for example Iran, and say its much worse there than here, yet here was probably suffer more gay people being killed and the authorities doing nothing about it, sure its less legal, but its happening.
You seem to be a bit of a hypocrite, Nanos. You say you don't like singling out countries, obviously riled up when I dared to mention Iran, yet you do the same thing by singling out the US. You seem to think in black and white about evil actions, with everything being equal everywhere and there being no such thing as justification, yet somehow you think that invading a country is worse than any other evil action, for some reason. This makes me think don't really believe that we're all equally bad, but rather, we're all equally bad except for the US, who would have to be worse.Nanos wrote: I suppose it comes down to double standards, and also the way that some countries (The US for example.) try and worm their way out of being responsible by having justifiable excuses for what they do, rather than just admiting that yes they supply bombs to allies to drop how they see fit, and somehow this is not as bad as other countries suppling arms to people to stop those allies trying to drop bombs on them..
Hence the, they are all just as bad as each other on the whole.
But, I would say, invading other peoples countries is the worst, whether you do it by military force, or economic shenanigans where the people starve to sell us cheap food..
Then stop trying to prove that you have a better god than me. Either you think this kind of moral debate has merit, or you don't.Nanos wrote:I don't mind the finger of blame being pointed, but I don't like it when we try and prove we have the higher ground because our god is so much better than their god.
I agree, but I'm going to come out critical and say that the torture debate is rather tired. How often does it really come up anyway, outside of TV? That's a nice example you brought up, but the ultimate futility of the situation you mentioned suggests to me that there aren't a whole lot of situations where torture really was useful for you to draw from, or you'd have done so. So we're left with a debate being waged across years about something which might help one or two children in the next few decades.I am completely in favor of torture for the right reasons and using the right methods.