Israel v Palestine

[Adron]

One person - six million - no big difference. We all die some time.

So does that mean you agree with genocide?

Genocide and murder are two bad things. If you take the standpoint that bad things are ok if they make the world a better place, you might as well consider both of them.

[Tuberload]

One person - six million - no big difference. We all die some time.

So does that mean you agree with genocide?

Genocide and murder are two bad things. If you take the standpoint that bad things are ok if they make the world a better place, you might as well consider both of them.

That is a very good reason! I guess some people can just accept a single murder better that genocide.

Adition:

I think perhaps Adron just maybe might have been cynical when making that comment....

I was just curious about his reasoning behind his comment... Thank you for your input though, it's always welcome.

[MyndFyre]

One person - six million - no big difference. We all die some time.

So does that mean you agree with genocide?

Genocide and murder are two bad things. If you take the standpoint that bad things are ok if they make the world a better place, you might as well consider both of them.

Interesting note, Adron....  German Nazis kill > 12mil people between 1933 and 1945, and we are outraged.  We drop bombs killing millions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing roughly 200,000 and nobody blinks an eye.

Was it because we did something that would make the world a better place?  Or was it because our numbers were so considerably less?

[Dark-Feanor]

One person - six million - no big difference. We all die some time.

So does that mean you agree with genocide?

Genocide and murder are two bad things. If you take the standpoint that bad things are ok if they make the world a better place, you might as well consider both of them.

Interesting note, Adron....  German Nazis kill > 12mil people between 1933 and 1945, and we are outraged.  We drop bombs killing millions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing roughly 200,000 and nobody blinks an eye.

Was it because we did something that would make the world a better place?  Or was it because our numbers were so considerably less?

It was the first. The government, under Harry Truman, made a decision to use atomic weapons againts Japan in interest of ending the war without a massively bloody homeland Japanese invasion. Such an invasion would result in a loss of life catastrophically greater than the damage that they anticipated the atomic bomb would do. The Japanese people, being of a society based on honor, would most rather die than be conquered, as seen in Kamakazee fighters, which were only used at the very end of the war. Once the atomic bombs were used, the Japanese government was forced to surrender, unable ot fight such an extreme display of force. Keep in mind, that these atomic bombs were not "H Bombs" aka nukes. They were much less powerfull, but still, the government underestimated their potency, resulting in more civilian life loss than expected.  

Hitler killed WAYYYYY more than 200,000 people, and it was not for a good cause. He was a sicko attemping to rid the world of Jews, because he was angry that he was gay. He blamed the problems of Germany on the Jews and commited genocide.

A better arguement would be that nobody blinks an eye at Stalin, who killed (I believe) 10 million people in the attempt of colectivization alone (when he moved the peasents onto collective farms), while they do to Hitler. Stalin, however, did not discriminate, he just killed everybody and the government did not know about it at the time, since everything was falsified.

[Grok]

Hitler killed WAYYYYY more than 200,000 people, and it was not for a good cause. He was a sicko attemping to rid the world of Jews, because he was angry that he was gay. He blamed the problems of Germany on the Jews and commited genocide.

Maybe, maybe not..  Hitler used hate against Jews as a motivating force to rally otherwise decent people to an indecent cause.  Whether he actually believed Jews were at fault is probably debatable.  He knew that your typical aryan german were sufficiently anti-semitic to allow him to rally "his kind" politically behind his power struggle.

His writings (http://www.h-net.org/~german/gtext/kaiserreich/hitler2.html) about Jews read like well formed analytical arguments, not hate doctrine which you might expect from a zealot.

[Tuberload]

Hitler killed WAYYYYY more than 200,000 people, and it was not for a good cause. He was a sicko attemping to rid the world of Jews, because he was angry that he was gay. He blamed the problems of Germany on the Jews and commited genocide.

Maybe, maybe not..  Hitler used hate against Jews as a motivating force to rally otherwise decent people to an indecent cause.  Whether he actually believed Jews were at fault is probably debatable.  He knew that your typical aryan german were sufficiently anti-semitic to allow him to rally "his kind" politically behind his power struggle.

His writings (http://www.h-net.org/~german/gtext/kaiserreich/hitler2.html) about Jews read like well formed analytical arguments, not hate doctrine which you might expect from a zealot.

Maybe he was an insane genius? Would explain how he could rally a country to fulfill his insane desires.

[Dark-Feanor]

I read his book "Mien kampf," and it sounded as if he believed it. If he liked Jews, why would he kill 6 million of them?

[Adron]

Genocide and murder are two bad things. If you take the standpoint that bad things are ok if they make the world a better place, you might as well consider both of them.

That is a very good reason! I guess some people can just accept a single murder better that genocide.

Well, think for a while about premeditated murder, where you've considered it and decided to do it - not things that happen in the heat of a fight... Can you accept the idea of killing people?

I think the distance from murder to genocide is shorter than the distance from good person to murderer. Kill one, get used to the feeling, kill two more, feel comfortable, kill a hundred, kill a population...

If you accept that you can kill someone, that their value isn't so unique, there's nothing to stop you from killing some more. If a human life isn't worth preserving, what would make a million human lives worth preserving? Humans do reproduce, just like any animal. Most people don't cry over exterminating ants or other quick-reproducing pests.

[Tuberload]

Genocide and murder are two bad things. If you take the standpoint that bad things are ok if they make the world a better place, you might as well consider both of them.

That is a very good reason! I guess some people can just accept a single murder better that genocide.

Well, think for a while about premeditated murder, where you've considered it and decided to do it - not things that happen in the heat of a fight... Can you accept the idea of killing people?

I think the distance from murder to genocide is shorter than the distance from good person to murderer. Kill one, get used to the feeling, kill two more, feel comfortable, kill a hundred, kill a population...

If you accept that you can kill someone, that their value isn't so unique, there's nothing to stop you from killing some more. If a human life isn't worth preserving, what would make a million human lives worth preserving? Humans do reproduce, just like any animal. Most people don't cry over exterminating ants or other quick-reproducing pests.

I agree with you completely. I just like to here the logic behind your reasoning.

[Tron]

I like it how when Israel kills one Palestinian, it makes frontpage news, when an Arab goes into the middle of public place with a bomb strapped onto the chest taking out 200+ Israelies, it make's the 4th page.

Bravo.  Of course, that's the liberal media (I hope I don't *offend* anyone here) bias.  Hate America, hate Israel, hate freedom, viva socialism.

(This is if you live in America)
You obviously don't value your freedom enough; imagine living in a country like Saudia Arabia or North Korea. You get recruited into the army at age 18 regardless of your ambitions. You probably wouldn't have the chance to major in Political Science living in an inferior country now would you?

[Yoni]

You obviously don't value your freedom enough; imagine living in a country like Saudia Arabia or North Korea. You get recruited into the army at age 18 regardless of your ambitions.

Hmm? This happens in Israel as well.
What does it have to do with ambitions? It's only for a few years, and if you're truly ambitious, you'll get a job where your potential isn't wasted.

[Dark-Feanor]

The United States used to be the same way as well.

[Tuberload]

The United States used to be the same way as well.

Are you talking about getting recruited regardless(draft), or that you can't make it?