The American (USA) 2016 presidential elections thread?

[TheDemonLord]

That is certainly not the definition of a pacifist.

The fact that you seem to think it is is a clear indication of the neurological disorder you suffer from.

It's not the Definition, but it IS the ultimate end result.

However, if this troubles you - I'll ask again:

Outline what it would take for you to agree with a military action that results in civilian deaths?

or

Does torture justify invading and taking over the entire societal structure of that country to ensure that Torture doesn't happen?

These are the same moral dilemma which you refuse to contend with and resolve.

[Katman]

It's not the Definition, but it IS the ultimate end result.

Really?

I think you'll find that there have been a great many number of pacifists who have placed themselves in positions of grave personal danger in order to save someone else's life.

However, if this troubles you - I'll ask again:

It doesn't trouble me.

But it sure as fuck sounds like it troubles you.

[TheDemonLord]

Really?

I think you'll find that there have been a great many number pacifists who have placed themselves in positions of grave personal danger in order to save someone else's life.

I'm sure there are, however - that was not my point of contention, was it?

You can stand in the firing line, for all the good it will do you and the person you are 'trying' to save - but that doesn't stop them shooting at you, does it?

And whilst there are some people that will see a selfless intervention and be inspired to hold fire, there are also those that will delight, with psychotic glee, at one more target to kill.

It's that last part where pacifism ultimately fails. Some people can only be stopped by force.

It doesn't trouble me.

But it sure as fuck sounds like it troubles you.

It should, because your two stances are mutually exclusive, thus making you a hypocrite.

[pritch]

In case you wondered if Trump just might have included some porkies in his Iran speech?

Here they are. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlitSLSdVLQ

[Katman]

It's that last part where pacifism ultimately fails. Some people can only be stopped by force.

You seem confused about this whole pacifism deal.

If you think I would stand there and not fight back if someone attacked me then you're considerably more clueless than I've ever given you credit for.

[sugilite:Me]

You two should get a room.

I'm waiting to find out what percentage of torture is acceptable. I'm going with 3.3333% recurring. Half evil seems a good compromise.

[TheDemonLord]

You seem confused about this whole pacifism deal.

If you think I would stand there and not fight back if someone attacked me then you're considerably more clueless than I've ever given you credit for.

You seem to have left your reading glasses elsewhere:

Indeed - you would stand idly by with the means and opportunity to help someone, but would refrain to do so on fear of someone else getting hurt.

It's not about you, it's about whether you'd intervene for a 3rd party. Do try and keep up.

Now, I suspect that whilst you've changed your tune about saying your a Pacifist.

I don't think you are on an interpersonal level, if you saw say, somebody beating their missus, given your character, I'm suspecting that you'd intervene, and more importantly with force if necessary.

The question is where does it scale to, it's one to which you won't answer.

Partly because you probably can't bring yourself to admit it (least of all to me or to yourself), Partly because I don't think that's your fundamental issue - I think the problem is that for any action you don't have access to all the information and so cannot trust that any action taken is not of sufficient moral purity to meet your standards, especially when invariably there is someone who is going to gain to whom you think they shouldn't.

And there is another way you could answer either challenge I put to you whilst maintaining both your contradictory viewpoints.

[sugilite:Me]

You could, however there is enough circumstantial evidence to say otherwise. How does a child go about acquiring significant media connections, awfully convenient when her parents run in the same circles and said circles has a definitive political bias in favour of said cause.

Social media can be very powerful - influencial teachers etc... Is there a conclusive verified report listing her parents circles and definitive political stances?

Whilst it is a point well made and well taken (and I am sure that when Puberty comes, I will laugh at this along with you) - And a genuine Congrats on your children's accomplishments - I'd like you to consider this.

I'm Stubborn, Argumentative, Dyspraxic, bad with social cues and determined. Further consider the force of a Woman that can put up with someone like that and consider the level of resilience, fortitude etc. that she must have.

How exactly do you think our Children have turned out? I'll give you a clue: Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V...

I'm not sure the age of your children, and for sure they will all be different. Things I noticed with 3 of my 4 - to the age of about 12-13 - Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V. 6 Months following aforementioned age - Ctrl X - closely followed by short bursts of Ctl+Z, then followed by long periods of Ctrl+Alt+Z, Ctrl+Alt+Z, Ctrl+Alt+Z, Ctrl+Alt+Z, Then into their late teens and early 20's a judicial amount of reintroduced Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V. The resulting code is very much to their own flavor with a few tipping of caps towards parents - if we are fortunate

Uncomfortable/against it - regardless of the word choice - my opinion is that their unwillingness to tell their Daughter 'STFU you know nothing since you've not even finished school, never had to work to support yourself and have never had to live in the real world' tells me just how uncomfortable they weren't.

There is a very real possible angle of dealing with Asperger's that myself, and possibly you too, could not begin to fathom. Walk 20 miles in another persons shoes yadda, yadda.

[Katman]

It's not about you, it's about whether you'd intervene for a 3rd party. Do try and keep up.

And as I pointed out, a very great many pacifists have placed themselves in situations of very grave danger to intervene for a 3rd party.

[sugilite:Me]

Correct, it's that last part that where he and I differ. Which of the two factors do you think is more likely to increase the scale of conflict:

1: Israel
2: Increase in population coupled with Modern transport and Armaments.

If you are choosing option 1, you have to ignore the history of Armed Conflict in the last ~150 years and downplay the pre-existing issues in the Middle East.

To my mind, clearly both factors are very much at play. As to a possible percentage to which factor plays what part has such a dizzying amount of possibilities, variances and scenarios depending on incalculable amount of perspectives tends to void any possible accurate answer.
I will admit to being perplexed as to why you feel choosing option one as being more dominant, has to have one ignoring the last 150 years etc - HUH?

New Dimension? Sure. But not one that overrides the problems that existed prior to Israels creation. However I agree with you entirely that nomadic Tribal groups the world over regularly engaged in inter-tribal warfare and practices that today we would refer to as Genocide.

The problem is that from an English/European point of view most of that stopped after the Roman occupation, although you could argue that until Alfred the Great, inter-kingdom warfare in England was still a thing. That however was over 1,000 years ago. Whereas Saddam's campaign against the Kurds was within living memory. Iran, the Kuds, ISIS etc. all are acting in a manner that is consistent with what we would call 'Tribal Warfare', including the murdering of entire families who 'helped the enemy'

Sure - Christians have been shitty, no disagreement from me. The Crusades, the Inquisition. However, for all the ills and umbridges I have with Christianity - it eventually ended the Slave Trade (something that the Middle East were and some argue still very much are in love with), created Human Rights - those aren't small things. I'll leave it to you as to whether you think that those (and other things) act as a counterweight to the various shitty things they have done. The one point remains though - these are not things that occur in Islam or Islamic countries unless they have adopted them from an outside source.

When was the last time that an inter-england conflict happened in a manner like what we are seeing? Maybe the War of the Roses (1400s) and maybe the Civil war (1600s) - that's about it.

Furthermore - if you think the umbridge is with Johnny Foreigner - look at how the Sikh community has integrated into Britain, same with the Hindus (and even they have same rather bloody histories) - if anything the current intelligentsia is highly critical of anything to do with England or Englishnes and yet despite this virulent hatred and attempt to portray any event in the most damning light - Little Ol' England comes out as the least smelly shit in the manure pile.

I was specifying a much wider range of the World. Two examples of a massive selection available. The laying to waste of the native American tribes by Spain and subsequent other nations. I.e distribution of diseased blankets etc. Both France and England going across the pacific knowing full well the disease they were spreading was decimating populations - rather convenient to their causes. I have not got the time to get into nitty gritty (hence my late replies). Just giving two basic examples of shitty human behaviors occurring in different areas of the World in recent-ish history outside of the dastardly middle east.

[TheDemonLord]

And as I pointed out, a very great many pacifists have placed themselves in situations of very grave danger to intervene for a 3rd party.

But not kill.

You keep omitting that part, which is the relevant part.

[Katman]

But not kill.

You keep omitting that part, which is the relevant part.

I'm sure I could bring myself to kill another person given the right circumstances.

[TheDemonLord]

Social media can be very powerful - influencial teachers etc... Is there a conclusive verified report listing her parents circles and definitive political stances?

http://www.camelotdaily.com/wp-conte...afiaDotCom.jpg

I should acknowledge the source I'm using there isn't exactly unbiased, however I think the picture illustrates (heh) the point I'm making. As for her Parents circles - I think her Mother is/was an Opera Singer, which is definitely in the milieu of the Left Wing/Arts/Performers and given the status (similar to an Actor) they have contacts that us mere mortals don't.

I'll accept there is a fair amount of inference, but given things that are definite (their support of Antifa as above for example) that confirms their political stances, the rest is reasonable to deduce given their relative status, political beliefs and industry.

I'm not sure the age of your children, and for sure they will all be different. Things I noticed with 3 of my 4 - to the age of about 12-13 - Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V. 6 Months following aforementioned age - Ctrl X - closely followed by short bursts of Ctl+Z, then followed by long periods of Ctrl+Alt+Z, Ctrl+Alt+Z, Ctrl+Alt+Z, Ctrl+Alt+Z, Then into their late teens and early 20's a judicial amount of reintroduced Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V. The resulting code is very much to their own flavor with a few tipping of caps towards parents - if we are fortunate

At the moment, anyway - they are literally a carbon copy of me - which means all of my worst habits they have. Good thing I've got a few more years of being stubbon on them.

There is a very real possible angle of dealing with Asperger's that myself, and possibly you too, could not begin to fathom. Walk 20 miles in another persons shoes yadda, yadda.

Given the type of IT I do, It's borderline a job requirement to have some form of Neural Atypical disorder, there's at least 3-4 people I work with who are on some form of Spectrum. Great people, brilliant at their jobs, can be a right pain to deal with (sometimes) in a way that other people aren't a pain to deal with - but we generally get on - so I'm not sure if you mean personally dealing with as in having the condition or you mean dealing with it as in helping someone who has the condition.

[TheDemonLord]

I'm sure I could bring myself to kill another person given the right circumstances.

And what is the right circumstances?

Then do those circumstances extend to the State and to the international level?

[TheDemonLord]

To my mind, clearly both factors are very much at play. As to a possible percentage to which factor plays what part has such a dizzying amount of possibilities, variances and scenarios depending on incalculable amount of perspectives tends to void any possible accurate answer.
I will admit to being perplexed as to why you feel choosing option one as being more dominant, has to have one ignoring the last 150 years etc - HUH?

Whilst a bit harsh - the point was that all conflicts from about the last 150 years have experienced a massive upsurge in lethality and scale. If you apply the same sort of increases we saw in the west (and you can omit WW1 and WW2 as outliers) to the Middle East, you arrive at a Scale of conflict that is mostly similar to what we see now.

If you think that Israel is the most important factor, you have to omit the increases of scale that have occurred due solely to the factors I listed.

I was specifying a much wider range of the World. Two examples of a massive selection available. The laying to waste of the native American tribes by Spain and subsequent other nations. I.e distribution of diseased blankets etc. Both France and England going across the pacific knowing full well the disease they were spreading was decimating populations - rather convenient to their causes. I have not got the time to get into nitty gritty (hence my late replies). Just giving two basic examples of shitty human behaviors occurring in different areas of the World in recent-ish history outside of the dastardly middle east.

Shitty yes, although I think there is a stretch with the disease thing - I'm not sure that Medical science was sufficiently understood (at the time) to know all the ramifications of their actions that would be required to make some of those statements.

However - Yes, the Colonial period definitely had it's fair share of atrocities, so fair point there.