Text 18397, 252 rader
Skriven 2005-12-11 11:19:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 18307 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
Ärende: [1/2] [1/2] [1/2] Sociopa
=================================
 >> You must live in a very strange world.  You say you object to
 >> murder yet you admit you can't even *define* it ... [sigh] ...

 MVDV>> That is not what I said. I *can* define murder. I am also sure that my
 MVDV>> definition will differ from yours.

 > So *your* definition is the proper one?  I doubt that.

A definition is a definition. Every definition is arbitrary. They are all
equally "proper".

 >> but there certainly is no reasonable difference of opinion WRT
 >> when life begins.  It obviously begins at conception.

 MVDV>> Obviously *human* life does not begin at conception. A
 MVDV>> fertilised human egg, has no brain so it can not be conscious.
 MVDV>> It is life, but it is no more human than a carot.

 > So you think a fertilized human egg may end up as a carrot --
 > or some other vegetable or perhaps a cat?

Ah, argumentation trick #71. Start with "so you think" and than make it look
like the opponent supports something he never said.

What I said is that a fertilised egg is no more a human being than a carrot.

 >> Anyone not realizing that simply hasn't thought it through.

 MVDV>> Anyone not realising that a fertilised human egg is not a
 MVDV>> human being has not thought it through.

 > But if it *weren't* human it would not end up being born as a
 > human baby.

Of course, a fertilised human egg will never grow up to become a cat. But that
does not make it a human being.

A pile of bricks and bags of mortar is not a house either.

 MVDV>> There is no element of self defence in executing a death penalty.

 > That depends upon one's definition of "self-defense" ...

And you think your definition is the *proper* one?  Ha!..

 >> BTW, I oppose the death penalty for two reasons:  (1) If the
 >> executed person is later found not guilty of the crime there's
 >> no way he can be brought back

 MVDV>> Good.

 > In the U.S. in recent years, recent *months* there have been a
 > lot of Death Row convicts released because modern DNA
 > techniques showed they were *not* proven to have been at the
 > scene of the crime as it was committed.

We had similar incidents here recently. People convicted of murder and rape
were released because new techniques proved their innocence. One of them had
been in jail for seven years... We don't have the death penalty here.

 MVDV>>> A featus is not a human being. Therefor ending it's existance
 MVDV>>> is not murder.

 >> Huh?   Human life begins at *conception*!

 MVDV>> No, it doesn't.

 > That's merely your opinion ...

As it is merely your opinion that it does.

 MVDV>>> Frank are you really so naive as to believe that a self
 MVDV>>> proclamation of objectiveness has any maening?

 >> Of *course* not.

 MVDV>> Then why persist in it?
 >
 > Because I *am* objective.

Only in your mind.

 > To refuse to acknowledge that fact would be hypocritical!

It is not a fact, it is merely your opinion.

 > The fact that *you* don't happen to believe it doesn't change
 > the fact one iota.

Indeed, my belief has nothing to do with it. The fact that your are not
objective remains independent of my belief.

 >> Do *you* think such a proclamation is automatically *false*?

 MVDV>> No, but it does not help to convince me either. Rational
 MVDV>> objective people do not make statements like "I am objective,
 MVDV>> I am sober, I am trustworthy". They realise that statements
 MVDV>> like that are worthless. So they remain silent and let others
 MVDV>> judge for themselves. I never trust people who say "trust me".

 > But I am not *trying* to convince you.

You may not realise it but your *are* trying to convince me.

 > I am merely giving you some information.  What use, if any, you
 > make of it is up to you.

You sre *selectively* feeding me information. And some of it is false.

 >> As before, I'd take all the facts into account, *then* make my
 >> decision.

 MVDV>> And so do I. Having mused over the facts, my conclusion
 MVDV>> is: you are not objective.

 > So your thinking is flawed in this case ...

In your misguided belief...

 MVDV>>> But I can *also* see them as freedom fighters, sacrificing
 MVDV>>> themselves for a cause.

 >> They are murderous criminals *not* freedom fighters.  Freedom
 >> fighters always oppose some oppressive regime.

 MVDV>> They oppose the oppressive regime of the US.

 > Huh?  We *have* no oppressive regime.

You have taken control over Iraq by means of an in an illegal invasion. For
*them* you are an oppressive regime.

 > This is a democracy. Political acts, in general, reflect
 > general opinion.

Only the gerneral opinion of the people of the US. Not the people of Iraq or
Afghanistan. It appears they want something very different from what the US
people want. They seem to want an Islamic state governed by the Sharia.

 >> *These* "freedom fighters" *support* such a regime!

 MVDV>> What regime do they suppprt?

 > al Qaeda ...

Al Qaeda is not a "regime". That's a myth created by the US propaganda. It does
not exest as a centralised organisation with Bin Laden in the middle.

Yes, many terrorist groups operate inder the name of Al Quada, That does not
make it a "regime".

 MVDV>> That their POV is insane is just your opinion, no more.

 > And my opinion happens to be correct ...

Opinions are just opinions. They are all equally correct.

 >> True, however the estimates made at the time with all the
 >> information available at that time indicated that if we were
 >> forced to invade Honshu it would *easily* result in more than
 >> a million deaths -- on *both* sides.

 MVDV>> There was no reason to invade the main country of Japan. A
 MVDV>> bloccade would have done it just as well.

 > Not so.  That has been thoroughly worked over.

Indeed is has and the inevitable conclusion is that the bombs were not needed.

 > If we had blockaded Japan the people there would have suffered
 > terribly. Thousands would have starved.

*Only* thousands? Compare that to the 300.000 that were killed by the bombs.

 > We did the humane thing -- the act which *ended* the war

It has not been proven that that was the ony way to end the war.

 > and which ultimately caused Japan to be the democracy it is today.

You can not prove that dropping those bombs and killing 300.000 people was the
*only* way toi achieve that goal.

I say, Japan would have become a democracy all by itself. With economic growth
comes education and with education comes democracy. Eventually. We see it
everywhere.

 MVDV>>> It does not look that way. There are more active terrorists
 MVDV>>> now than before the invasion of Iraq.
 >
 >> That doesn't mean they aren't learning the lesson.  Their's
 >> are acts of desperation as there's no way they can win.

 MVDV>> There is no way that you can win either. It is a lose-lose situation.

 > We will win.  Why?  Because, unlike the Vietnam "war" this is
 > definitely in our National Interest.

Yes, you need the oil.

Still does not mean you will get what you want.

 >>> Actually, as I recall, only something on the order of 200,000
 >>> enemy were killed.

 MVDV>>> We have been through this before and you have been proven wrong.
 MVDV>>> 300.000 is a conservative estimate.

 >> I have *not* been proven wrong.

 MVDV>> Yes, you have.

 > I spoke of the deaths immediately after the bombs were dropped.

And *I* was the first to mention a figure and *I* spke of the deaths as *a
result* of the bombs.

 > Besides, do you consider 300,000 deaths to be significantly
 > worse than 200,000??

That is a tough question. If it is not why are *you* making an issue out of it?

I can not honestly answer the question. The figures are so astounding that I
can not really imiagine them. OTOH, if I said there is no significant
differnce, someone else will say "so you don't think 100.000 deaths are
significent?"

This is a trick question.

 >> You are making estimates of *future* deaths

 MVDV>> They are not estimates. That "future" has long become the
 MVDV>> past. It is well documented by now.

 > But we were discussing the bombing at the time it took place.

No. *I* was talking about deaths _AS_A_RESULT.
_
 >> while I refer to the deaths based on the bombing itself, not on
 >> what the resulting radioactivity might, or might not, have caused.

 MVDV>> No "might" about it. Over 300.000 people died as a result
 MVDV>> of those bombs.

 > Eventually that many may have died ... I don't know.

I do. It is all pretty well documented. 300.000 is a conservative figure.

Cheers, Michiel

---
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)