PDA

View Full Version : Saddam Hussein


Heavyarms
03-23-2003, 07:17 AM
I don't feel that this forum really does not know about Saddam, so I am going to speak on this man, and try to show to this forum how evil is kept inside this man, and even if he has no weapons of mass destruction, the thought of how EVIL he is should be enough for anyone to get him the hell out of power. What? Don't all of you anti-Iraqi's think he isn't a threat, or your oil is too important? I'll prove to you all that him and his sons need removed.

1. Saddam has killed his own people with gas- thousands of them. It is time to free these people from such evil things.

2. For entertainment before he goes to bed, Saddam watches executions and people being gassed to death. WHAT KIND OF MONSTER DOES THAT?

3. The Kurds, the group of people Saddam that live in the north- have been gassed and killed by the truckload. An oppressed people needs to be helped, it should be reason alone, but it does not appear to be. Shall I continue?

4. No doubt, Saddam has instructed his republican guard, all 120,000 of em, to camp in people's houses around baghdad. What kind of person tells his soldiers to camp in his OWN PEOPLE'S houses?

5. He is so afraid for his life, that he holds meetings underneath civilian houses so that he won't be targeted.

6. His sons are just as evil. His one son watches women being raped as entertainment.

7. He is in control of Europe's oil supply. I think this asset needs to be stripped from him, and I think that it has already happened. The US doesn't need Iraq's oil.

Personally, I think all those reasons are enough. My soldiers are fighting for their lives to help me. Don't support them, and you have just asked for them to be given a death wish. I don't wish for any more soldiers to be issued such a solemn judgement, so it has happened, and I have supported it, and now have given all the reasons I know of. I think those are enough to remove him. If it was twelve years ago, no one would think what we were doing was bad, would they?

"Evil men will triumph when good men do nothing."-Edmund Burke

Sherack Nhar
03-23-2003, 09:41 AM
.......I thought you would know better than to start yet another thread about this theme after all the complaints.

Fishflesh
03-23-2003, 10:53 AM
Do you even know what the USA has done in the past?

much worse things than saddam
Thay started this all

and even helpt saddam in the past!
for there own purpos

and where did you get the info that his sone is watching video's of raped women??? from the usa? :p

Breton
03-23-2003, 11:19 AM
Evil does not excist, it's just a false religious thought. No person is evil, because it's not in human nature. Even Saddam and Bin Laden does what they belive is best for the world, so they're not evil. Now, I'm not going to comment anything else, except:

7. He is in control of Europe's oil supply. I think this asset needs to be stripped from him, and I think that it has already happened. The US doesn't need Iraq's oil.

Perhaps you could scource that BS? Thought not. For your information, USA imports more oil from Iraq than the whole Europe does.

Scource: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html

And in case you didn't know, Europe has a much larger population.

pbguy1211
03-23-2003, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
Evil does not excist, it's just a false religious thought. No person is evil, because it's not in human nature. Even Saddam and Bin Laden does what they belive is best for the world, so they're not evil.

So then you don't believe in good? Because you can't have one without the other... if they were doing what's best for the world then they could at least feed their own countrymen and not let them starve to death. Don't give me that crap JM.

Snafu7
03-23-2003, 11:37 AM
I agree with pbguy1211

Breton
03-23-2003, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by pbguy1211
So then you don't believe in good? Because you can't have one without the other...

Precisely.

But just think of it for a moment. The US belives they are good and Saddam is evil. However, Saddam belives he is good and the US are evil. You see? This is enough evidence that he's not evil, because you can't be evil unless you know you are evil.

pbguy1211
03-23-2003, 12:16 PM
so it's good to kill your own countrymen for fun and enjoyment? I bet you were a big fan of Hitler's too...

Tie Guy
03-23-2003, 12:26 PM
Alright, Qui-Gon, if good and evil do not exist, then why have laws?

If you truly believe what you say then you can't think its wrong to murder or steal or rape, because it's just what the perpetrator thinks is best.

Zygomaticus
03-23-2003, 12:57 PM
I don't think Saddam really thinks he's doing what's right. He's doing what makes his life more fun to live, more pleasurable.

Now, a person like Bin Ladin - he is doing what he believes is right.

I remember, Saddam once said something around the lines of "I may be looked upon as an evil dictator now, but 200 years from now, I will be regarded as one of the great men in history"

:rolleyes:

DarthMuffin
03-23-2003, 12:57 PM
The USA did a lot of stupid thing, but don't forget that Europe would not have won the WWII without their help...

They should not have started this war, they'll get a lot of trouble (terrorists, possibly)...:(

Breton
03-23-2003, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by pbguy1211
so it's good to kill your own countrymen for fun and enjoyment? I bet you were a big fan of Hitler's too...

For one thing, I'm starting to wonder where you hear all that crap about Saddam being a sadistic monster. Second, I'm not saying killing your countrymen is good, (though he have his reasons for doing it), but as long as he belives it's good, he's not evil. I'm suprised how long it takes before you get my point. And about that comment about Hitler: :rolleyes:

Alright, Qui-Gon, if good and evil do not exist, then why have laws?

Because a community could not work without them. Laws are made to ensure the safety of a nation.

Anyway, if evil does excist, then tell me: What is evil? Alright, let's say you say killing is evil. But what if you kill a guy who's running towards you with an axe he's planning to put through your head? Will it then be evil to kill him? And you might say killing in self defense isn't evil. But what if you kill a guy who's planning to kill you? In one way, that's self defense, in another way, it isn't. And what if Saddam buy some nukes and nuke the entire USA? Would that be evil? But it's certainly self defense.

And what about killing others because they want to be killed? Is that evil?

My point is that if you just think about it, there is no good and evil, there is no right and wrong. There are only opinions and different views of things.

Zygomaticus
03-23-2003, 01:08 PM
My point is that if you just think about it, there is no good and evil, there is no right and wrong. There are only opinions and different views of things.

I agree. There is no good, there is no evil. When you judge a person, unless you judge it from their point of view, you will never know why, you will always be a "judgemental person."

So how about we not use the word "evil" and begin to call him a "person doing things for his pleasure by inflicting pain and mysery upon others"?

I don't think he thinks he's doing what's right.
Need such a man exist?

pbguy1211
03-23-2003, 01:16 PM
Seeing you're an aethiest I'm not going to argue good and evil with you, it's a pointless debate and we have 2 different opinions. however...

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
Even Saddam and Bin Laden does what they belive is best for the world, so they're not evil.

I didn't know you're a mind reader... so the next time you think you know the minds of a dictator of a small country, or a billionaire leader of the biggest terrorist organization on the planet who hides in caves, do me a favor and slap yourself hard enough to bring yourself back to reality. Because you have no idea what's going on inside their heads so don't pretend like you do.

Natopo
03-23-2003, 01:23 PM
I must agree with some facts that people have brought up: Some of what is said about Saddam in the first post is not true, but should you take out even the most evil (or something that would seem bad) things he's done, isn't that still bad? We have proof that he does kill people in Iraq with bio weapons with almost no reason.

Rogue Nine
03-23-2003, 01:51 PM
This discussion is all well and good, but let's keep the conversations civilized, shall we. Oh yes, and while the points about good and evil are quite valid, let's please stay on topic and not digress, all righty? Else this thread's goin' the way of the dodo.

Heavyarms
03-23-2003, 02:11 PM
Thank you, Rogue Nine.

Now to counter on a few points:

NL Ackbar: As for Saddam's sons, don't you know if the father believes something is right, even though it is pretty disgusting, it mgiht transfer to the son's? Learn some psychology, my friend. If his father does stuff similar in nature, then he has a good chance to do it too.

"much worse things than saddam"

By this, I am assuming you mean the atomic bombs, am I correct? Well, the alternate plan was for a 2nd D-day, and although it was not something that was good, it was better for the world in the long run, just as I believe even though 9/11 was a atrocity, it benefits the US in the long run, as it has increased security.

"Thay started this all
and even helpt saddam in the past!
for there own purpos"
It was another soviet-US skirmish. The soviets supplied kholmani, while the US supplied Saddam, as the LESSER OF 2 EVILS.
JM-QUI-GON-JINN:
"Perhaps you could scource that BS? Thought not. For your information, USA imports more oil from Iraq than the whole Europe does."

Umm, would you like to source that BS? The US gets most of its oil from Venezuela and Argentina, and from its reserves in texas and alaska(although not as much as from venezuela) Arab oil, which I doubt comes from saddam saying he hates the US(thank you Krkode), is like 15% or so.

And as I've said, but no one believes me, is that France and Germany do not want war because they have oil contracts with Saddam (don't hold me 100% on Germany, but France definately does)

But still, I don't recall the US gassing its own people, although I can remember us opressing some, but we didn't outright kill them!
Saddam has done that.

I think what trooper was right, you guys are really sympathetic to Iraq and Saddam, even though I have already proven he's a MONSTER, and as for your good and evil crap, if I just walk up and stab someone 15 times, I guess I just killed them cuz I'm jewish, right, Jinn?

Breton
03-23-2003, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by Heavyarms

By this, I am assuming you mean the atomic bombs, am I correct? Well, the alternate plan was for a 2nd D-day, and although it was not something that was good, it was better for the world in the long run, just as I believe even though 9/11 was a atrocity, it benefits the US in the long run, as it has increased security.


But tell me: What the helheim was the point of dropping the bombs in the middle of civillian cities? You could just bomb a military place, but noooo....

Umm, would you like to source that BS? The US gets most of its oil from Venezuela and Argentina, and from its reserves in texas and alaska(although not as much as from venezuela) Arab oil, which I doubt comes from saddam saying he hates the US(thank you Krkode), is like 15% or so.

:rolleyes: I gave you evidence that USA imports a lot of oil from Iraq (close to 450,000 barrels per day), but still, you deny it. You said Iraqian oil is really important for Europe, but doesn't really matter for the US. But I gave you proof that USA imports more oil from Iraq than Europe, and thereby your point gets unvalid.

And as I've said, but no one believes me, is that France and Germany do not want war because they have oil contracts with Saddam (don't hold me 100% on Germany, but France definately does)

But USA have much bigger oil contracts with Saddam.

But still, I don't recall the US gassing its own people, although I can remember us opressing some, but we didn't outright kill them!

Sure you haven't! *cough*Indians*couch*

and as for your good and evil crap, if I just walk up and stab someone 15 times, I guess I just killed them cuz I'm jewish, right, Jinn?

But you wouldn't stab him without a reason, would you? It is only extremely rarely people kills without reason, and in those cases, the killer has a mental disease, wich is a sickness, not evil.


I belive that if you think another person is evil, you completely lacks the ability to see things from that person's view.

Crazy_dog no.3
03-23-2003, 02:49 PM
1) That depends on
a) Does he consider them his people? That will be like when the Romans killed Christians. Using ur logic, u would be accusing the Romans of killing thier own people, as the Christians were a good minority of the Roman Empire's population.
However, I tell u that the Romans did not consider the Christians thier people, becuase thier people worshipped the Roman gods.
Same with Hitler. He was definetely a bastard who killed innocent people, but he didn't consider them to be his people .
b) If they were rebelling or not.

2) How do u know that?

3) see 1

4) I don't see the problem with that. In just about every war in history soldiers have used civilian buildings as cover.

5) a) Not what I read in the newspaper
b) Prove it
c) If u were him, would u go into the place in Baghdad that will probably be among the first targets for US troops?
d) Finally, if it is true, and my previos point be ignored, it will show that he is a coward, not that he is a monster.

6) Prove it

7) So??????? That statement is simply idiotic. JM's point aside, it will be like, say, the ice-cream man comes and stops in a poor neighborhood with no shops. The children rush out to buy icecream. But suddenly the police come and arrest the icecream man. The reason? The icecream man was the only source of icecream into the nieghborhood, and there is a possibility that the icecream man will try to take advantage of this.

8) There is no need for this thread.

Heavyarms
03-23-2003, 03:13 PM
1a and b: there were no rational reasons whatsoever, besides to test his new weapon. Ever heard of Chemical Ali?

2. You didn't know that? That's a proven fact, I don't have a damned source, but I know it is true.

3. They just kinda want their independence, I mean, no real reason to fly planes over and drop gasses and kill them.

4. I bet that isn't true. Vietnam, WW1, Civil War. And if it was even done, not to the extent Sadam is.

5. That information is reportedly obtained from a traitor inside of Sadam's regime, i.e. wednesday's cruise missile attack. Also, the meeting in which he was broadcasted was from a bunker under a civilian house.

6. Ever heard of psychology? If a child is abused or not treated properly, bad things occur. It has happened to his sons.

7. Too bad the US has acted to put bans on Iraqi oil(not sure if those went into effect, but there were definite bills attempted to stop it)


I reiterate my point about you guys liking Sadam or something,
he is a sinister man, what the hell's the matter with you guys?

And as to Jinn's statement on atomic bombs: Well, after the first one, they didn't surrender. What makes you think a military base would have been better?
Plus, I don't recall us pulling out weapons and just start shooting indians, but maybe someone from another country knows more about my country than me. Could happen.

C'jais
03-23-2003, 03:22 PM
Lessee....

Since WW2, France has used their veto power a total of 6 times. USA, on the other hand, has obstructed UN interventions a total of 70 times. 38 of those in connection to Israel, which they as the sole and only member of the UN opposed the idea of acting against Isreal's breaking of UN resolutions.

It sounds familiar, doesn't it? It sounds just the same as this war, except the tables are turned this time.

Israel has had over 30 years to remove themselves from their occupied territory. They've commited crimes against their own people. They've tank shocked Palestinian cities. They've broken more UN resolutions than Saddam has.

"I don't know something called International Principles. I vow that I'll burn every Palestinian child (that) will be born in this area. The Palestinian woman and child is more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian childs existence infers that generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger. I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian women is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do."

-Ariel Sharon, in an interview with General Ouze Merham, 1956

Their prime minister is a racist pig as worthy of execution as Saddam is.

Tie Guy
03-23-2003, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
But tell me: What the helheim was the point of dropping the bombs in the middle of civillian cities? You could just bomb a military place, but noooo....

Hiroshima WAS a military place (not sure if there were troop centers or production facilities or what not, but it did have military elements), it was just in the middle of city. Now, why would you put a large military compound in the middle of a city? Because you think the enemy would never bomb it.


Sure you haven't! *cough*Indians*couch*


Andrew Jackson has absolutely nothing to due with Bush or America today. Thats the great thing about Democracy, the failures of one President don't have to carry over to the next. It's a different country today than it used to be, the same can't be said for Iraq in the past 20 years.


I belive that if you think another person is evil, you completely lacks the ability to see things from that person's view.

You know, i'm really trying to see things from a rapist's point of view, but no matter how i look at it, it is evil. I'd really like to hear you talk you're way out of why raping isn't wrong or evil.

Oh,a nd i'd hope you realize that there is a difference between killing and murder. Killing isn't always evil, but murder is. War, for instance, or self-defense, isn't neccessarily evil, but killing someone in cold blood is. How can you possibly say it is not?

C'jais
03-23-2003, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by Heavyarms
And as to Jinn's statement on atomic bombs: Well, after the first one, they didn't surrender. What makes you think a military base would have been better?

Civilians are civilians are civilians.

Plus, I don't recall us pulling out weapons and just start shooting indians

Selective memory perhaps? Could happen.

Maybe you should try remembering how exactly you got all the land you did. The Indians sure as hell didn't just give it up.

C'jais
03-23-2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Tie Guy
You know, i'm really trying to see things from a rapist's point of view, but no matter how i look at it, it is evil. I'd really like to hear you talk you're way out of why raping isn't wrong or evil.

No, I'd like to hear you explain to me why raping is evil. Because it hurts other people, right? And why is that evil?

No matter how you twist and bend it, the only way you can explain this is by postulating that there's a higher code of morals of sorts. A higher judge, if you will. The concept of evil was invented to justify the violence and punishment.

Most animals have had no need to invent such concepts (except those living in tribes, such as monkies) - are they evil too? Do you have any idea how much brutality goes on in the animal kingdom? It's survival out there, and your cultural constructs bears no meaning in such an environment.

Crazy_dog no.3
03-23-2003, 04:00 PM
Tie Guy- Why nuke the whole city? Why not bomb just the bases?
In other words: U are somewere in town. A man in the town has a detonator with which he going to blow up ur whole family, but for some strange reason or another he is only able to do it in about 5 minutes time, so u still have some time.
He is standing in the middle of a crowd of his friends. Now his friends are pacifist. In order to get to him u don't shoot through them, do u? U find another way.


1) Okey-dokey. I'll type out all my stuff, complete this time, so u can see for urselves of what the USA has done to it's civilians in the name of science or defense. Expect it in a few days.

2) :rolleyes:

3) Maybe not quite as harshly, but I'm sure Bush won't just twiddle his thumbs if Calfornia suddenly became independent.

4) What the...? My friend, that is how street-fighting is war is done.

5) Fair enough, let's say that u disproved points A&B. But there are still C&D.

6) It could happen, but u have not proven that it has happened in this specific case.

7) Still haven't answered to me. That was just arandom comment about Americans and Iraqi oil.

Tie Guy
03-23-2003, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by Crazy_dog no.3
Tie Guy- Why nuke the whole city? Why not bomb just the bases?
In other words: U are somewere in town. A man in the town has a detonator with which he going to blow up ur whole family, but for some strange reason or another he is only able to do it in about 5 minutes time, so u still have some time.
He is standing in the middle of a crowd of his friends. Now his friends are pacifist. In order to get to him u don't shoot through them, do u? U find another way.

I'm not saying it was neccessarily the right thing to do, but people shouldn't just go around saying we bombed a city just to kill civilians, because we didn't.


Avoiding the question, C'jais? It wouldn't be because you can't answer it, would it?

Raping is clearly wrong because it violates another person, and does something harmful to them against their will, as well as causing extreme emotional greif and physcological damage. Now I'll accept your answer, if you have one.

Animals, i would say, are not capable of determining right for wrong on an individual basis. They can tell what they like and don't like, but not what is good and what is bad. I really can't think of one thing that would display a moral code of any sort in animals of any kind, tribe or not. Attacking those who attack cubs or "children" or what not is not a moral decision, BTW, but a genetic survival instinct. Indeed not even all animals defend their children.

Humans, on the other hand, are capable of distinquishing what is right and wrong, and that is why laws were formulated based on that subconscious knowledge. Every human race, civilized or not, that i have ever heard of or studied through history has had some sort of law, and that was well before the times of the bible or judeo concepts. Now, some laws were different among different people, but the core laws remained the same. Where do you think everyone got essentially the same laws? They certainly didn't all call each other up and decide. Therefore there must be some sort of internal code that exists within all humans that causes the concept of good and evil. To deny it, is to deny humanity.

And you know, i am postulating a higher code, but not one that defines good and evil, one that IS good and evil. The concept is a higher code inate within all humans from the dawn of time. You're right, I can't do it without postulating a higher code, because that's the only way that makes sense. Be careful with your words, though, because it is a not a judge, just a list of sorts. Everyone knows what is right and wrong, some people simply choose not to act on it all the time, and that is their choice, with only themselves (or a government created by the same code)to judge them.


Speaking of which, this concept is also what causes guilt. Now, you're obviously not Christian or anything close to it (probably not even agnostic), so i'll use you and aetheists in general as an example. Now, i'm sure at some point in your life, probably in your childhood, you cheated on a test or stole something or did something that would be considered wrong, no? How did it make you feel? Unless you're lying, it made you feel bad about yourself, that is, guilty. If you didn't feel guilty then something is wrong with you (not being able to determine right and wrong is one thing that makes you legally insane). Now i doubt that you grew up in a family that taught Christian values, so what made you (or others) feel guilty? Well, the only explanation is the subconscious adherence to a moral code, however strict. With your views, you probably wouldn't feel guilty about anything now, and that is because you've probably done so many things that go against the code that you've learned (by neccessity) to ignore it altogether. However, if you still do feel guilty, then i thank you for proving my point.

What other explanation is there for guilt? You may say that for Christians and other "religious people" it comes from their own moral teachings since childhood. But what about people that have been aetheists since childhood? I know they feel guilt, because i've seen interviews with convicts. If you truly believe what you now say, you should never feel guilt, but i'd bet everything i own that you and others like you have at least once.

Admiral
03-23-2003, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
[BMaybe you should try remembering how exactly you got all the land you did. The Indians sure as hell didn't just give it up. [/B]

Yes Americans did force indians off their land, but let's not forget history. The Europeans did the same thing when the colonized the Americas. Specifically England, France, and Spain (being the major countries back then).

Also this has nothing to do with comparing the US to Saddam. Reason why: THe people who condoned those actions long since lost power and are dead. Saddam on the other hand is still in power.

You can bring up all the history you want however that means little, the farther you go back the less it matters. Why because those who did such things are no longer in power. Take using an atomic bomb on Japan, that was Truman and he no longer leads this country.

Heavyarms
03-23-2003, 08:09 PM
Tie Guy is right, the past is in the past: this is about now, and about how.


Saddam is a threat, whether or not you like it. He needs to be eliminated.

As for good and evil: they believe killing for a cause is good.

Killing is evil.

Therefore, the logical deduction is they are evil if killing is evil & they are killing. if a=b and b=c, then a=c, right? Some logic, right?

as for c'jais: We didn't shoot them over there, and use our guns as cattle prods. We told them to move, which most of them did, except for the Cherokee, in the Trail of Tears. In fact, the French and Spanish armed the Indians on the frontier. Little Big-Horn, anyone? They fought back.

Natopo
03-23-2003, 08:27 PM
I must say that Admiral and Tie Guy have said some very interesting things. I'll be surprised if C'jais can counter those. I certainly couldn't, even if I wasn't on Admiral's and Tie Guy's side.

Artoo
03-23-2003, 09:27 PM
No, I'd like to hear you explain to me why raping is evil. Because it hurts other people, right? And why is that evil?

Also this has nothing to do with comparing the US to Saddam. Reason why: THe people who condoned those actions long since lost power and are dead. Saddam on the other hand is still in power.

You can bring up all the history you want however that means little, the farther you go back the less it matters. Why because those who did such things are no longer in power. Take using an atomic bomb on Japan, that was Truman and he no longer leads this country.

I'd like to see the reaction of a woman who has been raped if you told that to her. Rape is a violation of personal space without consent, simple as that. It can be verbal, mental, physical, or emotional. It is not confined to intercourse.

*ignores the Saddam/US crap being thrown around*

Rogue Nine
03-23-2003, 09:30 PM
On topic, people. Please. You wanna debate this, start another thread. Stay your course. And watch it with the name-calling.

darthfergie
03-23-2003, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
No, I'd like to hear you explain to me why raping is evil. Because it hurts other people, right? And why is that evil?

No matter how you twist and bend it, the only way you can explain this is by postulating that there's a higher code of morals of sorts. A higher judge, if you will. The concept of evil was invented to justify the violence and punishment.

Most animals have had no need to invent such concepts (except those living in tribes, such as monkies) - are they evil too? Do you have any idea how much brutality goes on in the animal kingdom? It's survival out there, and your cultural constructs bears no meaning in such an environment.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

Good grief. You are basically saying. "It's not wrong to rape someone. It's a natural instinct." WTF HAVE YOU BEEN SMOKING?

We are not animals. We have a moral code and laws to back them up. It is one of the highest crimes to violate someone against their will. We are not dogs here. Most of us don't go down the street and see a woman that looks good to us and rape them. That is SICKENING.

The vast majority of the world acknowledges rape and other EVIL crimes and have passed several laws that deal out high penalties for the crime. In many countries it has the death penalty attached to it.

Do you WANT total anachy? Because that is what you are throwing your support behind right there. No such thing as evil my arse. You can blab all you want with you radical nonsense of no real evil while you rot in a jail cell.

didn't see your post R9, but don't worry. I don't figure on posting to much in the war threads anyway

Zygomaticus
03-23-2003, 10:10 PM
Sorry, R9, I have to post...please forgive me...

I see c'jais's point here. There is no big judge (that we know of), and so he seems to be saying, "Who has said rape is wrong? Some person? What gives that person the right to correct me..."

I don't mean literally you, c'jais, but just a rapist. And true, there is no big judge who decides what is wrong, but as a human there are certain rights we exercise, and one is the right to not-be-raped. As Artoo said, one is disrespecting another's space without consent and whether or not some "big judge" says it's right or wrong, it's wrong.

We have evolved that way. Survival of the fittest does not really apply to humans. It's survival of the smartest, survival of the best.

pbguy1211
03-23-2003, 10:20 PM
Do some of you smoke crack before you post here?

If you believe there's nothing wrong with raping someone, go out and do it... see if you aren't shunned by all your friends after you're convicted, and thrown in jail... not to mention most likely beaten before you get there in some form.

How dare you say raping someone isn't "evil"... i hope you get tossed in the slammer for something stupid and some guy named bubba violates your ass. then maybe you'll understand how it's "evil"

Tie Guy
03-23-2003, 10:42 PM
Just this one little thing, niner, and i'll hopefully be done.

You might say that the same higher code that is good and evil is also the moral code that gives us rights. I do not believe that you can say there is no good and evil but there are human rights. Both are a reference to a higher code that is above all humankind. You mihgt consider the same "judge" who dictates good and evil also allocates our rights. You can't have basic human rights and no good or evil at the same time, because, according to you, there is nothing higher than individuals.

Ratmjedi
03-24-2003, 03:25 AM
All I have to say is that people have their views and have the right to have them no matter how absurd they are.

I have my view's and that is my justifacation for going to war with Iraq. Also no one person on this board had all the answers. They may debate back and forth countering everything but it still isn't going to answer everything.

I think that man is a maniac for killing some of his people. You can also say that about any person because every one has commited wrong even though it may not exist in their mind. But how long has this man been in power?

You can say that the US is filled with a nut aswell but atleast the person loses office in a few years. Saddam has been in power for a great deal of time and has been doing stuff like this for a while now but then I might be giving out false information that my government wants me to believe:rolleyes:

But why does everyone outside the US think that there media is fed to them so cleanly?

If you think that we are being mislead then think again cause I am sure that you guys are too but you are thinking just like I am saying that my government would never do that.

People keep saying that we are the baddies when really the world is filled with them but we are just the obvisous ones cause we are a succesful country that has money while another may be starving to death while its own government is commiting genocide.

I may not have all the intelect in the world like most of you do but I do know what I am talking about. I believe what we are doing is right just as they are over then in Iraq too. But they are surrendering aren't they? We've managed to lose the most lifes from the military side while they surrender. I don't know about you guys but I have a lot of friends that are over there risking their lifes while there are people here fighting about it and complaining and whining. I doubt many of you have a lot of friends that are in the military and that are currently over so please stop talking about us like we are "bad" cause every country has **cked up but has just managed to forget about and never had it thrown back in their face like we have.

I just know that when this world is on the brink of total war, cause Iraq isn't even a drop of the Iceberg, you guys are going to look back on this and say what we were thinking. The French have obviously forgotten what the US, Canada, and British, and I think Aussies (forgive me if I have forotten any other countrys) did on June 6, 1944 when they took he first step in liberating France and a lot of Europe (including Belgium). We have kicked so much @$$ and saved so much @$$ but when the time comes I hope that we just let the world go down the toilet as we watch while country's like France ask for assitance when they are caught with there pants down.

Hopeully we will be the last of the two country's when this world turns to one big apple core.


:lsduel: :duel:

Darth Groovy
03-24-2003, 04:45 AM
I saw A Biography on Saddam a couple of years ago long before Bush, or the thread of war. From what I understand he was rejected by the Iraqi army and a social reject until he joined the Bath Party. His party overthrew the goverment and his mentor was the figurehead while Saddam secretly ran the show. When he died, Saddam was the convenient replacement. He did some good things until the power went to his head, and he grew paronoid. He accused at least 60 people of conspiracy, and of those 60 people(some were members of the Bath Party) he Executed 22. There is no crime he is incapable of. His biggest downfall, is that he is a sad paronoid man who rules with an Iron Fist.

Heavyarms
03-24-2003, 06:53 AM
they may have now found a chemical weapons plant. This changes everything. I hope it is one, just so I can make a thread that says "I told you so!" but anyways, what if he has this? I think this changes the whole game because now France, China, Russia, Germany, will support this war, as well as these anti-war people.

Natopo
03-24-2003, 09:04 AM
Well, some of you people supporting Iraq got your wish. Yesterday there was an article in the newspaper about those DARN Russians sending military supplies to Iraq. Filthy, dirty, rotten Russians.

Breton
03-24-2003, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Heavyarms

Saddam is a threat, whether or not you like it. He needs to be eliminated.


But there is no doubt Bush is a much larger threat. He has already ruined the Europe-US relationship and messed up the entire middle east. Saddam, on the other hand, has done nothing threatening the last few years. I ask as the German foreign minister asked: Warum jetzt?

As for good and evil: they believe killing for a cause is good.

Killing is evil.

Firstly, who are you to judge what's evil and what's not? I hate the fact that certain people think they can play God.

Secondly: If there was a terrorist who was just about to blow up a building wich would have caused thousands of deaths, would you shoot him to stop it? If you would, you are after your own opinion evil.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

Good grief. You are basically saying. "It's not wrong to rape someone. It's a natural instinct." WTF HAVE YOU BEEN SMOKING?

I would've expect better behaviour from a moderator.

We are not animals. We have a moral code and laws to back them up. It is one of the highest crimes to violate someone against their will. We are not dogs here. Most of us don't go down the street and see a woman that looks good to us and rape them. That is SICKENING.

Excuse me? Humans are animals, no point in denying that. The only difference is that we have higher developed brains.

Do you WANT total anachy? Because that is what you are throwing your support behind right there. No such thing as evil my arse. You can blab all you want with you radical nonsense of no real evil while you rot in a jail cell.

It's a strange thing, pretty mystifying, that people are so convinced that evil excists, yet they cannot explain what it is. There is no universal rule of what's bad and what's not, just accept that. As long as a man is doing what he belives is right, he is not (per definition) evil. Now, Saddam kills to remain in power, and he belives him being in power is a good thing. So no matter how you try to twist it, Saddam isn't evil. No one is.

How dare you say raping someone isn't "evil"... i hope you get tossed in the slammer for something stupid and some guy named bubba violates your ass. then maybe you'll understand how it's "evil"

Imagine this: You and a woman is the only people left on earth. The reproduction of the two of you is the only thing that can save the human race. But by some reason, the woman plainly refuses to have sex with you. Then all of the sudden, it doesn't become all that wrong to rape her, since you can save the entire human race by doing it.

But why does everyone outside the US think that there media is fed to them so cleanly?

All right, imagine this: Three African tribes, two of the disgusts eachother and constantly comes with accutions against the other. Both of the thinks at the other tribe as evil. Yet there is another tribe, wich remains neutral in this tribe conflict, critizising both of the other tribes and trying to find a peaceful solution on the whole mess. Now, wich one of these three tribes do you belive have the cleanest media?

they may have now found a chemical weapons plant. This changes everything. I hope it is one, just so I can make a thread that says "I told you so!" but anyways, what if he has this? I think this changes the whole game because now France, China, Russia, Germany, will support this war, as well as these anti-war people.

Do you really think it changes anything? USA does not have any rights to go to war whether they have WoMDs or not. I have never said that Iraq doesn't have WoMDs, though I have said that it isn't proven they have (wich is still not proven), and that it's all wrong to assume they have. And about the "I told you so!": If you are pretty poor and spends your money on lottery, and then your friends think you shouldn't do that, but then you win. Then there's absolutly no reason to say "I told you so!" because you never knew you were going to win and it was all based on luck, and still a stupid thing to use money on lottery.

Well, some of you people supporting Iraq got your wish. Yesterday there was an article in the newspaper about those DARN Russians sending military supplies to Iraq. Filthy, dirty, rotten Russians.

You complain about anti-Americanism, yet you are more anti-Russian than anyone here are anti-American. This disgusts me.

C'jais
03-24-2003, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by Tie Guy
Avoiding the question, C'jais? It wouldn't be because you can't answer it, would it?

No. Dodging the answer, are we?

Raping is clearly wrong because it violates another person, and does something harmful to them against their will, as well as causing extreme emotional greif and physcological damage. Now I'll accept your answer, if you have one.

Let me remind you of what we're discussing here. We're talking about good and evil - universal concepts, holding true for all humans. We're not talking about what you feel is wrong, but if you believe (and if you can prove) a universal moral code.

Now, I think rape is brutal and horrifying as well, but I don't assume that what I was taught to think holds true for everyone on earth. Rape is wrong in so many ways when speaking of preserving the human society. Keyword: Society. Morals are cultural constructs dependant on which society you live in.

Example: If you don't get taught at birth that it's wrong to steal, you won't feel a single drop of guilt doing it. Perhaps when you grow older, society takes on the role that your parents never had, and enforces a moral code by exerting punishment if you happen to break a law. But then again, some "evil actions" are not covered by the law (such as causing heartbreak and generally being an ass), and these have to be imprented by some sort of parent for the person to realize that they're "evil" or "morally wrong". Otherwise, that person won't give a damn about it.

Think about it, nearly every person on earth tries to justify their actions, even monsters such as Saddam - to him, "he's aware of the big picture" and "a great pragmatist". To him, the small human sacrifices he makes counterweights the good it brings (in his mind, of course).

Animals, i would say, are not capable of determining right for wrong on an individual basis.

On an individual basis? Take a loyal dog as an example. A dog that's been trained to protect its master through parenting - whether it be by punishing bad behaviour with less food, or through violence doesn't matter - the dog has now been imprented a very firm moral codex that it would bring great pain upon itself before betraying.

Most animals have this social code more or less imprented at birth - ants, dolphins, lions, monkies - a social code that upholds such virtues as sacrificing onself for the greater good of society, though it may differ to a large degree (an ant hive, fx). It's often centered around a hierarchic structure as evidenced in humans as well - a society needs a leader of some kind, or a ruling body. So far, plenty of similarities between humans and other animals. However, humans have gone beyond the crude social constructs shown in animal cultures. Humans, like other "tame animals" are very moldable - by raising a human a specific way, you're able to dictate which virtues should be upheld, and which should never come into play.

Example: A human raised by wild animals. Such a human, while perfectly sane, cares only about survival first and foremost, and the pack society (if raised by dogs, fx) second. Murder means nothing to this human, except if it's murder of a fellow pack mate. Quite clearly, the morals we take for granted as "human" are completely dicarded in this case. Similarily, I can bet you 10$ that I'd be able to raise a child that not only thinks it's morally right to treat women as dirt and rape them as he sees fit, no he also knows he's right. If you want examples of this, you need not look any further back in history than a few hundred years (hint: the dark ages and beyond).

Quite clearly, what you think are universal morals are really nothing more than cultural constructs. The society you live in defines your morals. Think for a minute, what if you hadn't been raised in USA, but as a homeless kid living on the streets of brazil. Would your morals be different? Hell yes. Your morals in this case would probably include a strong camaradarie with your fellow street kids and maybe a firm ideal of sharing the loot with them equally as well. But would you have any objections against stealing? No. Not even the first you did it - everywhere around you, people stole to get by. From child birth you were raised to know that it's okay to steal to get by. It's about survival, not about protecting rich people's possessions.

Every human race, civilized or not, that i have ever heard of or studied through history has had some sort of law, and that was well before the times of the bible or judeo concepts.

Think. Every social animal has laws built in their society, just as much as humans. For ants, the queen must be obeyed. For lions, the largest male gets the biggest share of the meat, and the females hunt for it and takes care of their young. Society would not exist were it not for laws (written or unwritten is irrelevant) - indeed, cultural norms and laws are what defines a society. Again, this has nothing to do with some sort of "universal" moral codex that holds true for all humans. Every human society has laws that are supposed to uphold the society in turn. But there are subtle and not so subtle differences in this. One society is the homeless one described above - another would be the vikings. Vikings did not have any objections against killing the enemy and their own slaves - such was the cultural norms based around a raider culture. They didn't object to outright raping women either - such was the cultural constructs in a male-dominated society.

Now, some laws were different among different people, but the core laws remained the same.

Just which core laws are you talking about?

To deny it, is to deny humanity.

This is you speaking as an American Christian. Christianity preaches healthy morals for the most part, but it's still nothing more than a cultural construct. A biological imperative is not the same as a cultural construct.

And you know, i am postulating a higher code, but not one that defines good and evil, one that IS good and evil.

Again, the homeless did not think he was right - he knew he was right.



Everyone knows what is right and wrong

Yes, my point exactly. But it's different from human to human based on upbringing. Not the same.

Now, you're obviously not Christian or anything close to it (probably not even agnostic)

Pheh.

Here, I can do stereotypes as well: To the Christian, everyone worshipping another god than the Christian one is a heathen by default, as they're really not worshipping God at all. Right? To the Christian, an agnostic is a person believing in false gods, and an atheist is someone not believing in anything at all.

Correction: I'm an agnostic, but you may call me atheist if you will.

Now, i'm sure at some point in your life, probably in your childhood, you cheated on a test or stole something or did something that would be considered wrong, no? How did it make you feel? Unless you're lying, it made you feel bad about yourself, that is, guilty.

Of course it did, but this has only to do with my society, my environment. I was "tamed" to know that it's bad to cheat or steal. It has nothing to do with a universal moral code inherent in all humans. Nothing.

If you didn't feel guilty then something is wrong with you (not being able to determine right and wrong is one thing that makes you legally insane).

Correction: You're right about the mentally insane part, but you make the false assumption to think that every human thinks it morally bad to cheat or steal. Therein lies the crucial difference.

Now i doubt that you grew up in a family that taught Christian values

WHAT!!?

If by "Christian values", you mean not lying, not killing, not stealing, treating other people good etc, then yes. If by "Christian values" you mean I must worship the one and only god, that Jesus is the saviour, that idols are unholy etc, then No.

With your views, you probably wouldn't feel guilty about anything now

What views are you now talking about? That rape is "good"? get a grip. An example is an example is an example. An example is not per default my "views".

C'jais
03-24-2003, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Heavyarms
Tie Guy is right, the past is in the past: this is about now, and about how.

Then stop whining about how much Europe "owes" you from past events.

Killing is evil.

Killing is bad for your society, which is why you've been taught to respect it as morally bad behaviour.

Is killing bad in all cases, full stop? Of course not.

Imagine yourself being thrown into the wilderness all by yourself. You need to kill in order to survive. There's no way around it. You may even be forced to cannibalize to get food. Slowly or quickly, it doesn't matter, your social norms will be eroded away until only a desperate core of Survival remains. This is all that matters, like it or not. It's not justifiable in the moral sense, but it's self-evident.

And strange, I haven't seen any of you comment on my post about Israel and their racist prime minister. Well, I'd at least have expected it from you, Heavyarms.

C'jais
03-24-2003, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by darthfergie
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

Coming from a super moderator. You sir, lack empathy to an astounding degree.

Good grief. You are basically saying. "It's not wrong to rape someone. It's a natural instinct." WTF HAVE YOU BEEN SMOKING?

Here's a clue: I didn't say rape was good. I said rape wasn't evil. There is no evil in this world. It's all in your head. Rape was an example, and I scorn at rape just as much as the next guy.

We are not animals. We have a moral code and laws to back them up. It is one of the highest crimes to violate someone against their will. We are not dogs here.

Haha. Funny how self righteous people have become as of late. Don't make humanity into something it isn't.

Most of us don't go down the street and see a woman that looks good to us and rape them. That is SICKENING.

Yes, to you and me. Do we dictate moral behaviour? No. Does the government dictate moral behaviour? Does the Bible?

Do you WANT total anachy? Because that is what you are throwing your support behind right there. No such thing as evil my arse. You can blab all you want with you radical nonsense of no real evil while you rot in a jail cell.

I really don't want to say this, but even as a super moderator, you're not qualified to post in this forum. Heck, you should by all rights have been stripped of your posting rights here from the very first flame.

didn't see your post R9, but don't worry. I don't figure on posting to much in the war threads anyway

Split the thread. Don't lock it.

Tie Guy
03-24-2003, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
If by "Christian values", you mean not lying, not killing, not stealing, treating other people good etc, then yes. If by "Christian values" you mean I must worship the one and only god, that Jesus is the saviour, that idols are unholy etc, then No.

A typo sorry, i meant that you didn't grow up in that kind of home.


As for everything else you said, i still have not heard you answer the main point. I know that people brought up in a certain society have different morals and those morals are not something higher, i'm not saying they are. That is not the point, though.

I still have not heard an answer to why, every single society on earth, even those in complete isolation, have laws against murder (even if ony of members of the group) and other crimes like stealing the property of others (in the group) and such. You cannot say it is instinct because basic survival instinct would include only survival of one, to which murder or another group member would not. You would have to say that survival instincts dictate the safety of the group, which would then violate the pure instinct of individual survival theory. So, if everyone truly wanted to survive first and foremost, even if they were travelling in a group, murder would not be problem with anyone to assure individual survival, and thus no laws would be formed, and it would violate everyone's individual interests.

And the more you think about it, the more you realize that instinct IS a higher power, greater than any individual being, muich like good or evil or human rights.

Speaking of which, neither of ya'll answered my question about human rights. If you believe in humans rights (and judging from your previous discussions elsewhere i know you both do), then how can you say there is no higher power handing out these rights if there is no such thing declaring good and evil?

Zygomaticus
03-24-2003, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by Natopo
Well, some of you people supporting Iraq got your wish. Yesterday there was an article in the newspaper about those DARN Russians sending military supplies to Iraq. Filthy, dirty, rotten Russians.

That's as aweful as anything that has been said here.

Anyway, the rest of this thread sounds like a Christian vs an Atheistic point of view.

C'jais
03-24-2003, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Tie Guy
As for everything else you said, i still have not heard you answer the main point. I know that people brought up in a certain society have different morals and those morals are not something higher, i'm not saying they are. That is not the point, though.

Are we really disagreeing then? Morals are ethics are good/evil.

I still have not heard an answer to why, every single society on earth, even those in complete isolation, have laws against murder (even if ony of members of the group) and other crimes like stealing the property of others (in the group) and such.

As I said before, society in general has norms, morals and laws that uphold the society itself. Humans are social animals, just like ants and lions. It wouldn't be a benefit to society if individuals were allowed to run amock and kill other members of the same species left and right.

Generally speaking, it's bad for society if people are allowed to kill, cheat and steal whenever they feel like it. But don't think it's outlawed full stop in any community. Some people always have the right to kill as they see fit. Again, the vikings - not only was it perfectly acceptable to kill, rape and mutilate the enemy, but the same was applied to "objects": thralls. Even fellow warriors were not spared as it was very common practice to take the law into your hands.

When in groups, it the group that matters. Thus, laws are put in place to ensure a working society.

When alone however, it is the individual that matters. Survival of the individual so that he/she can get back to society and mate.

You cannot say it is instinct because basic survival instinct would include only survival of one,

Basic survival instincts include the survival of the species. This is why salmon jump up waterfalls, why birds migrate and why we feel love. Love is what ties the community together, what makes them want to breed so the genepool can be advanced and what is often mistaken as a higher, universal force of "good".

And the more you think about it, the more you realize that instinct IS a higher power, greater than any individual being, muich like good or evil or human rights.

Again, there's a subtle yet very important difference between biological imperatives and cultural constructs.

Survival in society I would call a biological imperative, as we're social creatures first and foremost. However, how that society ensures its own survival is not a fixed imperative. Not stealing is obviously not a instinctual moral. Not killing anyone from the hostile community next door is not something universal. Heck, even not killing anyone from your own community is not a world spanning moral, but rather extremely dependant on how and where you are raised.

Speaking of which, neither of ya'll answered my question about human rights. If you believe in humans rights (and judging from your previous discussions elsewhere i know you both do), then how can you say there is no higher power handing out these rights if there is no such thing declaring good and evil?

Human rights are just a forced attempt at invoking these universal guidelines. The people putting these rights in place have obviously never been alone and tested to see just how far their upbringing would get them in the game of survival.

I don't believe in the human rights. I acknowledge them, and happen to agree with them because they coincide with my own morals. But I'm not as blind as to not see that they're not universal any more than it's universal to celebrate christmas. A good tradition, but the human species will live on regardless of it.

darthfergie
03-24-2003, 06:38 PM
In other words...you're just arguing to be arguing. You specifically believe it is wrong to you, but you just want to make an off point.:o

I can deal with that. I've done it myself more than once, but I don't usually do it with such immoral issues as rape.:evanpiel:

Tie Guy
03-24-2003, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
I don't believe in the human rights. I acknowledge them, and happen to agree with them because they coincide with my own morals. But I'm not as blind as to not see that they're not universal any more than it's universal to celebrate christmas. A good tradition, but the human species will live on regardless of it.

So basically you are saying that people don't deserve the right to live, right? You are saying that people don't deserve to have some sort of property and they don't deserve to say what they want, right? But rather that it just happens to be that way today and you accept it? Actually, it's not a question, that is what you are saying, whether you realize it or not. You accept that there are human rights to uphold communities' developed morals, but that people used to not deserve ot have the right to live, or not be raped for that matter. It's sad really, because i think it's clear people have had those rights from the beginning of time, and no one needed to teach them or tell them that they shouldn't kill their neighbor or friend.

Oh, and what isn't a "biological imperative"? You realize, i hope, that everything we do is driven biologically. Anger, happiness, sadness, depression, all of them are caused by different or different combinations and amounts of chemicals in our body/brain. Everything we do and feel and think is only electrical signals from our nerves to our brains and from our brain to our brain and from our brain to our nerves. If you choose to view survival as such, you are forced to view everything as such, which is fine, i guess.

But what causes these signals, then, that trigger instinct. You know that nothing can be done in biology or the body without some sort of stimulus, but what stimulates instinct? And more importantly, who/what put that stimulus or that instinct in place? Now, you probably choose to believe that it was evolution or something similar, and though i believe you are wrong, i won't debate that here and now. Still, where did the stimulus come from? Was it some sort of random developement that just happened to develope in every single on of the vastly different animals on earth at the same time? I, at least, think it is clear that is a stretch beyinf the elastic limit no matter how many years you give it, that every animal would have the same basic instincts at the same exact time in the evolutionary process.

The only answer, i believe, is some higher power that i cannot rightly explain without involving my religion. But still, there has to be something that drives instinct (that IS instinct, really), it cannot be broken down into anything purely and logically biological. You may choose to believe that that "higher power" is whatever you like, but how can you deny it's existance?

And do not say that it is "hard-wired", so to speak, into our brains, and thus is it's own stimulus. As i've already said, it is statisically impossible for that to happen in every species on the planet at the same time. It's not very good odds, and quite frankly believing that something created and set it all in place has a much higher chance of being true.

Still, even if you don't believe in evolution (though if you don't believe in an evolution then I don't know what you believe in because a creation would instantly justify the higher power) the point stands that anything besides some higher, driving force exists to power instinct, and, in my opinion, good and evil as well as human rights.

Heavyarms
03-25-2003, 06:47 AM
Let's see... C'Jais seems to believe in the "Survival of the fittest" and that it justifies whatever happens to someone... you are a darwinist, aren't you?

C'jais
03-25-2003, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by darthfergie
In other words...you're just arguing to be arguing.

In other words, a few people in here tried to argue that Saddam was "evil" and that their morals held true for everyone on earth.

I argued against that belief, and if you want to defend, start by reading my posts.

You specifically believe it is wrong to you, but you just want to make an off point.:o

Teehee. No.

I can deal with that. I've done it myself more than once, but I don't usually do it with such immoral issues as rape.:evanpiel:

So I can't talk about rape here? Or what is this about?

C'jais
03-25-2003, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by Tie Guy
So basically you are saying that people don't deserve the right to live, right? You are saying that people don't deserve to have some sort of property and they don't deserve to say what they want, right? But rather that it just happens to be that way today and you accept it? Actually, it's not a question, that is what you are saying, whether you realize it or not.

That's not an argument.

As said before, I also hold the belief that all humans have the right to live etc. But logically, there's no "right" or ultimate morals. They're useful to believe in, everyone can see that, but not everyone is able to see that they're "just" useful cultural constructs.

Example: This forum is a society as well. One of its useful cultural constructs is that it's immoral to spam. It's immoral to flame others. But these moral guidelines are not some higher codex or god-given "right" - eg "everyone in here has the right to not be banned". Everyone can see that. There's no magic behind it - it's all a cultural construct (net-culture) invented to make our society become a less hostile place so people can get along better. This is useful. But when looking at it logically, anyone can see that if we remove all the moderators and admins, everyone would be able to do whatever they wanted. And they'd be able to justify it easily - while it isn't nice to spam, there's nothing preventing one from doing it, and there's no "instinct" that tells us from birth that "We must not spam on forums". It's grown. We're tamed.

Example 2: A prison society. In tough, "hell's outpost" prisons, being a killer is considered a good, manly thing. Indeed, one cannot possibly hope to become the leader of a prison society unless you've killed several men. Rape among inmates is common and viewed as natural. Rape even takes such things as hierarchy into consideration as the one higher in that community gets the added benefit of doing the thrusting. "Soft prisoners" are there to be bullied and taken advantage of. If you get on good terms with prison guards, you can expect to be found gutted the next morning. All these morals and laws of this society are once again nothing more than cultural rules and regulations to ensure a "survival of the strongest" community, as that is indeed the prevalent moral and virtue in there.

Oh, and what isn't a "biological imperative"?

A biological imperative could be mating. Or living in societies. Humans will always tend to band together and mate.

Everything we do and feel and think is only electrical signals from our nerves to our brains and from our brain to our brain and from our brain to our nerves.

Correct.

If you choose to view survival as such, you are forced to view everything as such, which is fine, i guess.

Not the whole truth.

As explained before, a biological imperative among humans is the social community. Humans are not loners. But while it's instinctual to band in groups, and that laws and morals will develop in groups, what the specific morals are in such a groups is not determined by inheritance, and nor is it the same, universal morals that apply to every group. What those morals are is completely dependant on what the required traits and virtues are - in a community geared entirely towards survival against the neighboring tribe, it's a highly praised virtue to kill and rape the other tribe's population whenever the chance comes around. This is only natural, as if they didn't, they'd be pillaged in turn themselves.

In a society geared towards social power and upwards mobility in the community, it's acceptable to cheat, steal, kill the competitors and gather as many slaves and women as possible. Again, natural. It's the culturally defined morals that makes this happen, not some instinct they're all born with.

But what causes these signals, then, that trigger instinct.

DNA.

You know what DNA is? It's a simple code, based on simple elements found in nature. There's nothing magical in it.

You know that nothing can be done in biology or the body without some sort of stimulus, but what stimulates instinct?

The environment.

And more importantly, who/what put that stimulus or that instinct in place?

The environment.

Was it some sort of random developement that just happened to develope in every single on of the vastly different animals on earth at the same time?

It's not something random. Selection points are not random.

At the same time? Hardly. If you want to debate evolution vs creationism, I've got 3 8-paged threads waiting for you in the swamp and the forum I moderate.

that every animal would have the same basic instincts at the same exact time in the evolutionary process.

So you agree that animals do have morals and social morals similar to humans?

What same basic instincts are you talking about?

Now it's the exact same time, I see.

The only answer, i believe, is some higher power that i cannot rightly explain without involving my religion.

God is a cultural phenomenon just as morals are.

You can't explain God's logical existence.

"It's logically false to assume that whatever can't be proven wrong must be right." You can explain dragons and faeries with "God-gapping".

But still, there has to be something that drives instinct (that IS instinct, really), it cannot be broken down into anything purely and logically biological.

DNA + Environment = Morals. No magic. No God.

As i've already said, it is statisically impossible for that to happen in every species on the planet at the same time.

As proven by science, we all had a common ancestor. This explains it, and nullifies the postulated claim that "it could only have happened at the exact same time in all species at once".

(though if you don't believe in an evolution then I don't know what you believe in because a creation would instantly justify the higher power)

No it wouldn't. Heard of the Raelians?

the point stands that anything besides some higher, driving force exists to power instinct, and, in my opinion, good and evil as well as human rights.

First you prove the positive existance of God (not try to disprove the negative existance of God) - Then I'll begin to consider your statement as true.

C'jais
03-25-2003, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Heavyarms
Let's see... C'Jais seems to believe in the "Survival of the fittest" and that it justifies whatever happens to someone... you are a darwinist, aren't you?

You want to debate evolution and creationism as well? (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=89510)

Actually, there's no such thing as a Darwinist, just as there's no such thing as a Newtonist or Einsteinist. Their theories have been proven as fact, and it's impossible to believe fact.

That the ones fittest to survive does indeed survive is fact. That natural selection occurs is fact.

Justify what? Y'know, I can handle people putting words in my mouth, but I can't respect someone who's shadowboxing, someone who invents the opponent's arguments, proceed to trounce them and declare himself the logical winner. That's preposterous.

Tie Guy
03-25-2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
That's not an argument.

Exactly, i'm just trying to get you to realize what you are saying in different words so that i can then expound upon the new words rather than your old ones.


As said before, I also hold the belief that all humans have the right to live etc. But logically, there's no "right" or ultimate morals. They're useful to believe in, everyone can see that, but not everyone is able to see that they're "just" useful cultural constructs.p

No, logically there must be some sort of higher "right" otherwise everyone would not have developed the same things. Whether you believe it's some higher code or not, you must believe that is it in everything, even if only biologically, and therefore is a "unviersal" code or genetic trait or instinct or whatever you want to call it.


Example: This forum is a society as well. One of its useful cultural constructs is that it's immoral to spam. It's immoral to flame others. But these moral guidelines are not some higher codex or god-given "right" - eg "everyone in here has the right to not be banned". Everyone can see that. There's no magic behind it - it's all a cultural construct (net-culture) invented to make our society become a less hostile place so people can get along better. This is useful. But when looking at it logically, anyone can see that if we remove all the moderators and admins, everyone would be able to do whatever they wanted. And they'd be able to justify it easily - while it isn't nice to spam, there's nothing preventing one from doing it, and there's no "instinct" that tells us from birth that "We must not spam on forums". It's grown. We're tamed.

I never said that everything we do and all our laws are part of some higher standard, in fact i've admitted that they are indeed a mere construct of your society. However, certain things, basic good and evil is not a construct. Flaming/insulting, is not one of those basic good vs. evil issues, and therefore your example really means nothing to me or this issue.


Example 2: A prison society. In tough, "hell's outpost" prisons, being a killer is considered a good, manly thing. Indeed, one cannot possibly hope to become the leader of a prison society unless you've killed several men. Rape among inmates is common and viewed as natural. Rape even takes such things as hierarchy into consideration as the one higher in that community gets the added benefit of doing the thrusting. "Soft prisoners" are there to be bullied and taken advantage of. If you get on good terms with prison guards, you can expect to be found gutted the next morning. All these morals and laws of this society are once again nothing more than cultural rules and regulations to ensure a "survival of the strongest" community, as that is indeed the prevalent moral and virtue in there.

To use your own argument, that attitude in prison is a construct of prison society, which is basically what you are saying. Just because a group has bent and twisted what is evil into what is "good" for them does not mean that good and evil don't exist, or that they ren't universal. I really don't see what exactly it is you are trying to prove with that.


DNA.

You know what DNA is? It's a simple code, based on simple elements found in nature. There's nothing magical in it.


Well then, what stimulates the DNA to form? What caused the genetic code to be the way it is? Why is this piece the same in every animal on earth? What matter was the DNA created from? Where was that matter created? Science makes it clear that matter cannot be created or destroyed, but it had to be made sometime, right? When?


So you agree that animals do have morals and social morals similar to humans?


No, i'm not directly talking about good and evil anymore, but rather "instinct." If i can prove to you that instinct is higher than any individual then it proves for me that good and evil can be.


God is a cultural phenomenon just as morals are.

You can't explain God's logical existence.

"It's logically false to assume that whatever can't be proven wrong must be right." You can explain dragons and faeries with "God-gapping".


Fair enough, but you can't logically prove evolution either. Law of Conservation of Matter, look it up.


First you prove the positive existance of God (not try to disprove the negative existance of God) - Then I'll begin to consider your statement as true.

I have a book. That book can be verified to be historically accurate in every single instance, such that no one could reproduce it. The book has no contradictions beyond explanation, and it has multiple prophecies, most of which have come true (the rest of which are outstanding), and all of which the prophecy can be accurately dated as prior to it coming true. Now, i doubt this convinces you, and indeed it's not what convinced me, either. I can't explain what i feel and know; it is faith that guides me, not the crude and faulty logic of the world, not that i expect you to understand or accept that.

Even so, what does evolution have? A book written in 1859 and a theory, much of which isn't even scientifically feasible? I gave you my proof (and i can go into furhter detail), make of it what you want, now i want your proof.

Havoc Stryphe
03-25-2003, 03:06 PM
There is no evil...

There are no morals....

There is no God...

The law of the land prevails...

There is only neutrality, then?

There is only apathy, then?

There is only existence, then?

The beliefs of the majority are adopted as law, then?

If this is the case, then where do you get off on saying the war on Iraq is "wrong" of the US and/or President Bush? Wouldn't it, by your own definition, be considered "less Neutral", or "less apathetic" of the US to attack Iraq based on what we have stated are our reasons?

How can this military action be deemed "wrong" if wrong is based soley on the shifting beliefs of a majority of people? Maybe it is "wrong" based on what the UN or majority says at this moment, but perhaps it is time to change those beliefs. After all, if murder and rape are acceptable in prison based on "law of the land" and "majority rules" and the belief that evil and good are fundamentally non-existent and simply the creation of mankind's need for boundraies and purpose, then these "laws", "rules", and "mores" are subject to change and that change is neither for better or worse, because there is no Good or Evil.

How can you sit and debate something that is, in essence, only another event in the linear existence of mankind, neither "wrong" or "right", but rather simply "is". How can any debate exist within a realm of such indefinitives, and amiguities? Wouldn't a debate be simply arguing the logisitics of neutrality and apathy? If wrong and right, good and evil, are subject to majority rules, due to their non-existance, then there is nothing but existence. Something merely exists and that is all. It either "is" or "isn't".

By that line of thinking, a military action against Iraq by the US exists, whether right or wrong, good or bad, it does not matter, because that is simply just conditioning of the human mind and subject to change.

Bush exists, but it cannot be argued that he is right or wrong, good or bad.

Saddam exists, but cannot be evil or good.

Your argument exists, but cannot be deemed right or wrong, but can be deemed fundamentally flawed. Your own logic would suggest that this debate is, in and of itself, subject to the change or shift of thought in the majority.

So do you always stick to, for lack of a better word, the, non-existent, "moral" high ground, and personally subscribe to whatever the majority believes at that particular moment? Therefor validating your own beliefs and lending yourself to supremecy in all you say and do?

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect! Please redefine your logic in such a manner that would not cut your feet out from underneath your own argument. This would prove invaluable to your argument and to my own confusion.

SkinWalker
03-25-2003, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Heavyarms

as for c'jais: We didn't shoot them over there, and use our guns as cattle prods. We told them to move, which most of them did, except for the Cherokee, in the Trail of Tears. In fact, the French and Spanish armed the Indians on the frontier. Little Big-Horn, anyone? They fought back.

I have access to some government transcripts from an investigation that occurred after the Sand Creek Massacre. It basically outlines attrocities that were commited by white soldiers against the plains indians. After being told to move... then told to move again... and again, the indians decided that they were tired of the white man breaking treaty.

One of the accounts is from an officer that describes the killing of a toddler by a soldier on horseback who shot the boy through the head as he ran away. The soldier's companion missed several attempts and the soldier showed his "expertise."

Another account is of a young indian girl who was hiding in the bushes while her sister was killed, her heart cut out and thrown so as to land on the ground near where she was hiding. I can only imagine the "pyschological" effect that would have on a lifetime of remembering.

There were many, many attrocities commited against the Native American nations, of which there were over 500 with a total population that was in the millions prior to the arrival of the white man. History taught in public schools does not go into details as the details are embarassing. Genocide is not foreign to America... our government is founded on it.

True, it happened long ago. I am proud of my nation in spite of how it came to be. There are many opportunities that do not exist elsewhere.

But I can only share this enlightenment by understanding the nature of "good and evil." There truly is no right or wrong. But there is right and wrong.

That last statement was intended to be confusing, but there is truth. That is because there is good and evil, but they are the same. These are concepts that only exist among men (disclaimer: I frequently use the term "man" and "men" to refer to humanity, not gender). Whether they are religious or legal in origin, good/evil or right/wrong are social constructs that man has devised in order to create order.

By observing multiple cultures, one will see that there are practices that are considered acceptable, but detested by one's own culture. I personally do not agree with female circumcision, but in norther Africa, it is a common practice that is accepted in society.

Many societies and cultures view capital punishment as evil, but in my home state of Texas, not using capital punishment is considered wrong in serious, violent crimes.

I'll try to not ramble much more, except to say that there is "good" and there is "evil," but only in the context of the expectations of one's own culture. Looking at other societies through the lens of ones own culture, one will see many things that are disagreeable, even evil.

I will now get back to the rest of the thread....

C'jais
03-25-2003, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Havoc Stryphe
There are no morals....

I've always held the opposite to be true.

The law of the land prevails...

No. Nor should it, if my assumptions of your definitions are right.

There is only neutrality, then?

In what sense? Good and evil? If so, then yes.

There is only apathy, then?

Why? There's no connection between a lack of good and evil, and apathy. What we think is right and wrong will lead to action. But its clearly not what is right and wrong, because that is impossible to locate.

There is only existence, then?

What else should there be?

The beliefs of the majority are adopted as law, then?

No, connection error.

How can this military action be deemed "wrong" if wrong is based soley on the shifting beliefs of a majority of people?

Everyone has morals, but I don't claim mine hold true for everyone on earth. I don't claim my morals (while mostly identical to Tie Guy's) is something universal. I will act according to them, because if I didn't, I wouldn't be human.

I define wrong and right by how much peace and bloodshed this war will bring in the future. I don't claim to know what'll happen, but this is merely my guess. I believe I can speak for us all when I say I want the least amount of war and terror in the future. While utopian, I believe the way for humanity to prosper is through a calm and democratic world.

I don't presume everyone on earth has the same set of morals as mine, but I'll still stand up for them. My point is that these cultural constructs are not "mere" at all - they're what makes us human.

Maybe it is "wrong" based on what the UN or majority says at this moment, but perhaps it is time to change those beliefs. After all, if murder and rape are acceptable in prison based on "law of the land" and "majority rules" and the belief that evil and good are fundamentally non-existent and simply the creation of mankind's need for boundraies and purpose, then these "laws", "rules", and "mores" are subject to change and that change is neither for better or worse, because there is no Good or Evil.

Yes. But humans are incapable (as far as I know) to distance themselves from this fact and will always act according to their upbringing and environment. Not through a higher imperative that is impossible to prove and verify, which makes it irrelevant in such discussions.

If wrong and right, good and evil, are subject to majority rules, due to their non-existance, then there is nothing but existence. Something merely exists and that is all. It either "is" or "isn't".

Yes. But again, if humans acted without their self, they wouldn't be human, would they? While humans are capable of grasping the pityless indifference of the universe, it's evident that they're unable to fully seperate this from their selves when acting.

By that line of thinking, a military action against Iraq by the US exists, whether right or wrong, good or bad, it does not matter, because that is simply just conditioning of the human mind and subject to change.

Bush exists, but it cannot be argued that he is right or wrong, good or bad.

Saddam exists, but cannot be evil or good.

Your argument exists, but cannot be deemed right or wrong, but can be deemed fundamentally flawed. Your own logic would suggest that this debate is, in and of itself, subject to the change or shift of thought in the majority.

Yes. What makes you disagree (if so)?

Just because this debate is meaningless when viewed from without, doesn't mean that it's meaningless to me or you. However, logic can explain human's need to invent such universal morals, but at the same time proves that it's flawed to believe in them as fact.

I don't think my interpretation of the ideal society is fact. It's what I'd like to see, sure, but it's impossible to determine whether its the best unless you set some criteria for this society.

So do you always stick to, for lack of a better word, the, non-existent, "moral" high ground, and personally subscribe to whatever the majority believes at that particular moment?

No. But I'm aware that my upbringing in a democratic society which holds such virtues as the human rights to high esteem has had an effect on the post I write right now.

Therefor validating your own beliefs and lending yourself to supremecy in all you say and do?

No. My beliefs are as good as the next guy's. Facts are sacred, however.

I happen to think that this war will lead to increased terrorism. I think USA is going to abandon Iraq after it's been liberated. I think this might, just might lead to a WW3, as USA has once again intervened in the middle east.

But most of all, I think the justification for going to war, while I agree with them to a degree, will lead to increased hostility between USA and the rest of the world. Animosity will perhaps tear the UN apart, and I, personally, do not want to see that.

I want that monster Saddam out of power as much as you do. If Iraq was an isolated incident happening in a vacuum in the global world, I'd be all for your intervention. But it's not. This war will have an effect on the way the rest of the world view USA and each other.

C'jais
03-25-2003, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Tie Guy
No, logically there must be some sort of higher "right" otherwise everyone would not have developed the same things.

But as I wrote before, not everyone has developed the same things. We've all developed different morals.

That the morals which encourage the same behaviour exhibited by the human rights are the most prevalent ones, is only testament to the fact that they're the ones most useful to a society in our modern world.

Whether you believe it's some higher code or not, you must believe that is it in everything, even if only biologically, and therefore is a "unviersal" code or genetic trait or instinct or whatever you want to call it.

Yes, I agree that the "instinct" to create societies is universal among humans, but one cannot pinpoint how that society will end up looking, and which morals it will end up promoting.

Just because a group has bent and twisted what is evil into what is "good" for them does not mean that good and evil don't exist, or that they ren't universal.

They've twisted what you think is evil into what they think is good. Do we understand each other now?

I'm going to leave the evolutionary and theological arguments out of this, if it doesn't bother you. I'd love to reply to them, but I end up finding it hard to post on a thread with 7 different underlying topics. I'll encourage a moderator to split this thread in two if they're bothered by this going off the original topic.

Artoo
03-25-2003, 06:22 PM
I'm still wondering C'jais, how far you'd get into your discussion about rape, with a woman who'd been raped. My bet is 30 seconds before she either had to leave or knocked you out cold.

Tie Guy
03-25-2003, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
But as I wrote before, not everyone has developed the same things. We've all developed different morals.

Well, i'd say you are completely wrong. While you naturally do not believe all the same things as I, we both believe that murder and rape are wrong. All societies believed (and thus created laws) that murder of one's group is wrong. Sure, not all the laws and morals were the same, but the basic ones remained the same. Call it instinct, but you just admitted that instinct is universal.


I'm going to leave the evolutionary and theological arguments out of this, if it doesn't bother you. I'd love to reply to them, but I end up finding it hard to post on a thread with 7 different underlying topics. I'll encourage a moderator to split this thread in two if they're bothered by this going off the original topic.

Well, i certainly understand, but you can answer this without delving to deep. Where did this DNA come from, what created it, what created the nucleotides and caused them to be arranged in a particular order?

It's important because something has to be there to create all this, because it cannot scientifically happen. I'd say that entity is what gave us universal morals as well and human rights and basic instincts (not to mention everything else.)

SkinWalker
03-25-2003, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by Tie Guy
All societies believed (and thus created laws) that murder of one's group is wrong.

That's not strictly true... depending on your point of view. In some Pakistani cultures (perhaps some Afgani as well), it is acceptable to the society to rape the daughter or sister of a male who dishonors another clan. I believe this is the Pashtoon tribe, which also supports the concept of "honor killing" as well. To the rest of the world, myself included, these two cultural norms are abborent.

Texas has a very structured and well used practice of using capital punishment as a means of deterring violent crimes and punishing the guilty. There are many in the world (Texas included) that consider this murder and nothing more. What makes it acceptable is that capital punishment is supported by the legal system even though it is denounced by many moral or ethical systems.


Originally posted by Tie Guy
Well, i certainly understand, but you can answer this without delving to deep. Where did this DNA come from, what created it, what created the nucleotides and caused them to be arranged in a particular order?

Billions of years of natural selection. But this will too easily go to another topic, so I'd suggest one of the links Cjais offered.

Originally posted by Tie Guy
I'd say that entity is what gave us universal morals as well and human rights and basic instincts (not to mention everything else.)

Human rights and morals vary greatly from culture to culture. Basic instincts are survival driven as they are in most other animals. Some would say that fear of the dark is a basic instinct, since man cannot see as well as predators and would benifit by not venturing into it while in the wild.

This thread, as I understand it, is about Saddam Hussein and whether he is immoral enough to warrant intervention from an outside entity. In order to assess that, one would have to consider whether or not he was the most immoral state leader, what standards of morality are to be used (christian, muslim, American legal, world court, et al), whether or not the means of unseating him will be immoral by said standards, if so to what degree of immorality will be tolerated to achieve the ends, and probably a host of other ethical issues.

The problem that is presented is that Saddam may not be the most immoral, or at least the only immoral, state leader. The leaders of several African states, N. Korea, and perhaps one or two South East Asian countries as well as a couple of former Russian satellite nations come to mind. There are also several non-governmental organizations that may fit this bill (Al Quida, et al).

Another problem is that the moral system used to judge Saddam appears to be the American one. I use "appears" as I believe it is more correct to say the "Bush Administration" moral system. The world opinion seems to differ and would have been demonstrated through U.N. resolution.

That's not to say that what Saddam has done in the past was morally correct by even a few societies of the world. Saddam's method of leadership offends the world through the means discussed many times over in this and other threads. However, by not demonstrating successfully that Saddam posed an immediate or eminent threat to other nations, the United States government gives the impression of having ulterior motives for invading a soverign nation-state.

The "good and evil" debate is always philosophically difficult to discuss as individual and societal belief systems always come into play. I'm not sure if Cjais would agree with me, but I would have to say that "good" and "evil" are merely based upon perspective. Morality and ethics, however, are based upon societal needs in order to maintain stability of communities, states, nations and regions. Morality and ethics manifest themselves most obviously in laws, rules and policies established by various organizations and less obviously in norms and customs of various subcultures (internet-cyberspace communities, et al).

It is coincidental in most cases if "good" and "evil" concur with morality and ethics established by societies. It is therefore to invade a nation based upon the notion that the leader is evil. It would be more appropriate to conquer an aggressor in the act of commiting the aggression. Evidence of past attrocities should be dealt with in the world court. Further attrocities dealt with by military intervention approved by the UN. By invading based upon the suspicion of possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction, we now must invade N. Korea, Libya, Pakistan, India, Israel, S. Africa, and 10 other periphery nations that have established WMD programs. At least four of them with confirmed nuclear programs.

But the issue is moot. Iraq has been invaded. I hope Saddam and his leadership are quickly neutralized so my friends can return home safe.

Breton
03-26-2003, 06:16 AM
Artoo: Would you please change your signature? It is not only stupid, but also very racist.

Havoc Stryphe
03-26-2003, 07:53 AM
No. My beliefs are as good as the next guy's. Facts are sacred, however.

I happen to think that this war will lead to increased terrorism. I think USA is going to abandon Iraq after it's been liberated. I think this might, just might lead to a WW3, as USA has once again intervened in the middle east.

But most of all, I think the justification for going to war, while I agree with them to a degree, will lead to increased hostility between USA and the rest of the world. Animosity will perhaps tear the UN apart, and I, personally, do not want to see that.

I want that monster Saddam out of power as much as you do. If Iraq was an isolated incident happening in a vacuum in the global world, I'd be all for your intervention. But it's not. This war will have an effect on the way the rest of the world view USA and each other.

You know what the frightening aspect of what you said is?
I agree with you! :eek:

As a matter of fact, aside from you non-belief in a "higher Power", it would seem we share very similar lines of logic.

I have to admit, you response was well though out and very insightful. Again, aside from the "God" issue, you pretty much believe as I do. My post was more sarcasm than anything else, I knew you didn't think that rigidly. I was merely a ploy on my part to have you come at the argument from a different angle.

Crazy_dog no.3
03-26-2003, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Natopo
Well, some of you people supporting Iraq got your wish. Yesterday there was an article in the newspaper about those DARN Russians sending military supplies to Iraq. Filthy, dirty, rotten Russians.

I'm going to use a spiler for this, as I am flaming.

YOU SON OF A BITCH! "DARN" Russians, you say? What country are u from? USA? USA ain't no saints either!
The forum rules forbid racist posts. I think you should consider yourself lucky that I'm not reporting this.
Also:
1) Post a link and prove it
2) Watch Red Heat
3) Go f*ck urself.

:mad:

Also Artoo change ur signature it is also racist.

Havoc Stryphe
03-26-2003, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Crazy_dog no.3
I'm going to use a spiler for this, as I am flaming.

YOU SON OF A BITCH! "DARN" Russians, you say? What country are u from? USA? USA ain't no saints either!
The forum rules forbid racist posts. I think you should consider yourself lucky that I'm not reporting this.
Also:
1) Post a link and prove it
2) Watch Red Heat
3) Go f*ck urself.

:mad:

I understand your anger, and I certainly do not condone his post, but you're better than that Crazy Dog. Don't stoop to their level. Your post was definately against the forum rules.

Remember, folks, two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights do make a left!

Tie Guy
03-26-2003, 05:06 PM
CDog, i got the impression that his post was more sarcasm than anything else. At least, i hope he doesn't write that way when serious....


Billions of years of natural selection. But this will too easily go to another topic, so I'd suggest one of the links Cjais offered.

Even billions of years cannot create matter, any scientist will tell you that, all it can do is rearrange it. No, the law of conversvation of matter (or mass) states that it is impossible to create or destroy matter. When you burn an organic compund, you don't destroy anything, you just rearrange the atoms into carbon dioxide and water vapor. No, there is no scientific explanation for where matter came from, it had to be something supernatural, whatever it is. That's the point, and i was just curious to know if ya'll actually believe that it can be any other way. The concept of matter itself, points to a higher being or force or whatever you want. Its cannot be natural or biological.

Crazy_dog no.3
03-26-2003, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Havoc Stryphe
I understand your anger, and I certainly do not condone his post, but you're better than that Crazy Dog. Don't stoop to their level. Your post was definately against the forum rules.

Remember, folks, two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights do make a left!

OK, fair enough.

Oh and thanks for calling me Crazy Dog without no. 3 at the end. Appreciated.:D

Breton
03-26-2003, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by Tie Guy
No, there is no scientific explanation for where matter came from, it had to be something supernatural, whatever it is.

A few thousands years ago, no one could explain why a rock sink when you throw it into the water, so did that mean it was something supernatural that pulled it down?

Tie Guy
03-26-2003, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
A few thousands years ago, no one could explain why a rock sink when you throw it into the water, so did that mean it was something supernatural that pulled it down?

If you want to argue based on future knowledge then go ahead and try.

But you'd think that a theory claiming to be the "scientific explanation" would at least make scientific sense with the knowledge at hand.

Artoo
03-26-2003, 06:02 PM
Nazi's are racist, but they're still allowed to march as long as it is peaceful. People are allowed to print they're opinion, it's called freedom of the press. This is not libel. These are not remarks that damage someone's reputation's. One is a political cartoon, one is a joke from a tv show, and one is a quote from a politician in 1992.

Your accusation that saying these things are racist is almost as ridiculous as me accusing you of discrimination for wanting me to remove them. But I'm not saying that you are, I'm just saying that if I did it would be on almost the same level of ridiculousness.

So the answer is: No.

You have the right to not like my sig, but you cannot make me change it. You are not the supreme deity, you are not my mother, don't tell me I have to change something just because you don't like it, cause tough beans, it's my right.

Course I can see where your coming from, believing in this whole oppression (i.e. dictator (i.e. Saddam)) thing does tend to keep you from remembering people have rights.

Breton
03-26-2003, 06:14 PM
But you would hate it if I talked crap about Americans in my sig, wouldn't you? But I'm not that kind of person. I have not sunk to that level where I talk crap about people from a country just because the country's goverment doesn't have the same opinions as me.

How can you complain about Anti-Americanism when you are Anti-French yourself?

C'jais
03-26-2003, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by Tie Guy
No, the law of conversvation of matter (or mass) states that it is impossible to create or destroy matter.

Actually, when detonating a nuclear bomb, matter gets converted into energy (lots of it!). Energy can likewise be converted into matter (Einstein's theory).

In quantum physics, matter can spring into existance spontaneusly from nowhere, and disappear moments after. It was most likely such an influx of energy that triggered the big bang.

It seems to me you're trying to argue against a natural origin of life. Do you "believe" in evolution then? That species evolve (or adapt, if you prefer that word)?

Havoc: Thanks, you just made my day (:

Artoo
03-26-2003, 06:52 PM
You have the right to, I wouldn't like you for it, but you have the right. I would think you to be mistaken in your views, but you have the right to do it.

I would like to debate with you and prove you wrong on specific points in your anti-american sig, but I wouldn't want it removed, instead I'd try to make you want it removed, for that is the art of debate.

How can you complain about Anti-Americanism when you are Anti-French yourself?

I don't complain about anti-americanism, I complain about uninformed viewpoints. If you have valid anti-american points, then I can't defend myself against them. I'm not anti-French, I don't like they're policies, and I'm expressing it through humor.

Also since when was France a race?

Tie Guy
03-26-2003, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
Actually, when detonating a nuclear bomb, matter gets converted into energy (lots of it!). Energy can likewise be converted into matter (Einstein's theory).

In quantum physics, matter can spring into existance spontaneusly from nowhere, and disappear moments after. It was most likely such an influx of energy that triggered the big bang.

It seems to me you're trying to argue against a natural origin of life. Do you "believe" in evolution then? That species evolve (or adapt, if you prefer that word)?


Concerning nuclear bombs and such, the energy is a by-product of breaking the bonds and releasing electrons in the atoms. The exact same number of protons and neutrons and electrons are there afterwards. Nothing is "created," but energy that had previously been absorbed to create bonds between atoms is released back into the environment, as are certain particles consisting of elctrons and neutrons and other sub-atomic particles. Again, nothing is "created," but things are released.

Energy cannot be converted into matter. It can be used to produce bonds between elements/atoms that make it appear like something is being created, but really it is just being formed. Matter cannot just "spring into existance spontaneously," but a collection of atoms and/or sub-atomic particles can make something entirely different spontaneously and then decompose again. Nothing is being gained or lost, just rearranged.

And, even if you believe nothing of what i said above, where did the energy that "created the world" come from? Surely it didn't just appear in the vacuum of space, did it? Did the nothing that was there react with the other nothing that was there to create something? I think not.


I think you should know by now that I'm a creationist. I believe in God and the Bible, but quite frankly even if i didn't the idea that something created the orignal matter and/or energy is the only one that logically makes sense. Now, i naturally stay away from saying that God had to create it because i know that is something you will never accept. Still, in a debate about a higher code, i don't need to prove that God did anything, just that someting did.

C'jais
03-27-2003, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Artoo
I'm still wondering C'jais, how far you'd get into your discussion about rape, with a woman who'd been raped. My bet is 30 seconds before she either had to leave or knocked you out cold.

I'm not defending rape in any way.

I'm explaining why we're not defending it.

But just so you know I'm sincere in real life - No, I'd never resort to rationalization when getting rape victims to cope with their hurt. That does not work, and you can rest assured that I do not waltz around in real life, talking like this to my friends.

But merely knowing, in the back of my head, that there's a sensible way to explain it, helps me deal with people better. When I meet ignorants and idiotic bullies, I pity them in private.

C'jais
03-27-2003, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Tie Guy
Concerning nuclear bombs and such, the energy is a by-product of breaking the bonds and releasing electrons in the atoms. The exact same number of protons and neutrons and electrons are there afterwards. Nothing is "created," but energy that had previously been absorbed to create bonds between atoms is released back into the environment, as are certain particles consisting of elctrons and neutrons and other sub-atomic particles. Again, nothing is "created," but things are released.

In nuclear powerplants, the uranium used does in fact have less mass after the fission process. Energy is stored in matter as per the famous equation: E=MC^2.

Sorry to dissappoint you, but matter can indeed be created energy and vice versa. Ask your physics teacher.

As for the creation of the universe out of nothing (and not requiring any god) - Here's a link. (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html)



Did the nothing that was there react with the other nothing that was there to create something? I think not.

In physics, there's no such thing as "nothing". And yes, you're right when you say that it came out of the vacuum in space.


I think you should know by now that I'm a creationist.

That's cool. Are you by any chance a "young-earther"? Do you believe the flood is true, that the world has only existed for 6000 years etc? Or do you take a more moderate approach - did God just spark the big bang and steered evolution to his ends?

What are your specifics? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html#continuum)

Still, in a debate about a higher code, i don't need to prove that God did anything, just that someting did.

To be frank, I don't care if this "something" made the Big bang. I only care that it can be explained with pure physics alone. And I care about the indeniable data that the earth is 4.6 billion years old. Oh, and evolution (:
But as before, I don't care if "something" steered and molded the first life to his needs and ends - just that it happened. I don't care about why, I care about how.

As for the supernatural aspect of this, I don't think any such thing as "supernatural" can exist except as a concept alone. As soon as it exists, it goes from "supernatural" to natural. We will never find God because he's always on retreat from science, which does a fine job at explaining phenomena he's previously been attributed to. God will always take care of the stuff we don't know why and how happens, but as that is being explained and revealed to be merely natural occurences, his domain over the natural shrinks by the day.

IMHO.

Tie Guy
03-27-2003, 04:59 PM
I do not believe that the earth is billions of years old, just as i do not believe in any sort of evolution, started by God or not.

The reason I cannot believe in evolution is because of genetics. We all know things evolve, or adapt, over time as gene mutate and multiply through the process of natural selection by genetic mutation. This is not a theory, it is a fact, and it is called microevolution. A lion becomes faster a bear has longer hair for the cold, things like this happen over time, and it doesn't have to be billions of years. However, a faster lion is still a lion, and a bear with longer hair is still a bear, the species doesn't change. Now, all the changes come through mutations in genes, but at a basic level no information is ever added, only subtracted or modified, a change in base pairs or the removal of base pairs. A single celled animal with, say, 4 chromosomes may adapt to an envronment and change some of the genes in its chromosomes, but it can't just pick up another chromosome through mutation, which is the only conduit for natural selection.

As for the earth being billions of years old, what is your proof? I have no belief in carbon data or what not that is only accurate to within billions of years. I've actually seen carbon data results (you won't get them from the evolutionary scientists, a christian scientists showed me these), that when two layers of rock were dated the one on top was "found" to be onlder than the one on bottom, and there were no traces of subterrainian rivers or water of any kind, and the numbers weren't even close. Care to tell me how that's possible?

So what else is there, a canyon or other natural resources? Who's to say they weren't created that way? The big bang could have created the canyon or the carbon just as they are, couldn't it have? Theoretically it could have created fossils already in the ground, no? Of course, i believe some sort of great flood destroyed many animals and created the fossils all at once, which is scientifically possible. The fact that nearly every society, from the Jews to the English tribes to the Chinese tribes to the Native American tribes, all have some version of a flood story lends itself very well to the theory.

I'll tell you right now that i can't prove to you that the earth is only 6000 years old on what i know, but i've never seen anything that says concretely that it is 600 billions years old, either.


Oh, and the idea of "virtual particles" and "false vacuum" sounds just as convoluded and contrived as you might say the Bible is. They seem to be nothing but crazy ideas invented to explain what they cannot. They are theorized, not tested or proven, thought to be potential but not truly known to be.

Think about it. If i have one marble, that marble is the same as two marbles minus one marble. Does that mean i actually have two real marbles and one negative marble which cancels one real marble out? No, i only have one marble, and while other things may be theoretically equal to having one marble, that doesn't change the fact that i only have one.

Artoo
03-27-2003, 05:35 PM
I'm not defending rape in any way.

I'm explaining why we're not defending it.

But just so you know I'm sincere in real life - No, I'd never resort to rationalization when getting rape victims to cope with their hurt. That does not work, and you can rest assured that I do not waltz around in real life, talking like this to my friends.

But merely knowing, in the back of my head, that there's a sensible way to explain it, helps me deal with people better. When I meet ignorants and idiotic bullies, I pity them in private.

*nods*

That makes me feel somewhat better about what you said, thank you. :)

Also creationism vs. the big bang.

Explain to me how something as infinitely complex as chromosomes magically appeared and I'll start to give more of my ear to what you say.

Also there's a good book by an atheist scientist who believed in the big bang and figured up the odds on everything being just right for life to happen. This does not include life happening, just getting the conditions right. It was something on the lines of 1 in 95,000,000,000,000,000,000 that just the conditions for life were right, let alone the odds that life "evolved" out of molecules. Needless to say after his research and publication he became a devout christian.

Boba Rhett
03-27-2003, 06:16 PM
Natopo and CDno.3, watch what you say. Even in jest, please be careful and just because someone else says something such as that doesn't mean you should respond with a like comment.


The creator of this thread has requested that it be closed.