4 ms·

> This list probably soon will include Pakistan, ... Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Pak-China relations would really be laughing their ass of at this.

by isr 9y ago

> This list probably soon will include Pakistan, ... Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Pak-China relations would really be laughing their ass of at this. I won't even bother to correct you there. > At which point it'll be China vs the world. And, historically, China has started such conflicts, Aha, spoken like someone desperate to convince others that the big bad Chinaman is really out to get them. China has issues with its immediate neighbours. And I'm not here to make any claims pro or anti China on those. In many ways, its a consequence of having a large country, surrounded by others - all of whom have a history where they can point to themselves being victimised by the others (while each side conveniently forgets when they were the ones doing the victimisation) > Oh and lest I forget, if you want human rights ... What? If I want human rights I should listen to the side which murders civilians across the globe, via drones and trigger-happy killers sitting in a cubicle with a joystick? Or the one which kidnaps civilians around the world, throws them into various torture centers, and when done, usually dumps them in an offshore gulag in Cuba? Oops, thats all from the same side. Seriously, that old argument of "listen to the West, we know whats best for your human rights" really doesn't swallow easily outside of, well, the West. > You should be very apprehensive about China Sure. As apprehensive as we should be about, err, you lot. Fair enough?

candiodari 9y ago
The list will include Pakistan because currently China hates India more. They want cards to play against India. I predict that will stop. India will systematically rise in economic importance from this point forward. China's reasons to make a deal with India are multiplying every day. The rest of your post is nothing more than moral absolutism. It is wrong.
- isr 9y ago
  > The list will include Pakistan because ... (some India rah rah rah stuff) ... I predict that will stop. Hmm, did you just read some of Orson Card's books and started believing that you are the Hegemon or something? Have you communicated your proclamation/prediction to the Chinese, so that they know what to do in the near future, to avoid you having egg on your face? > The rest of your post is nothing more than moral absolutism. Torture is torture. Kidnapping is kidnapping. Deliberately targeting and killing civilians is murder. Campaigns of mass bombing of civilian targets (without any declaration of war on said localities) is terrorism, whether its done by those in uniform or not, or whether its done from the ground or the air. Thats not "moral absolutism" taken to an extreme. Its what you're left with when you strip away the whiny excuses, coverups and propaganda (from all sides), and just at look at things for what they are. The term for that is not "moral absolutism", its "common sense". > It is wrong. Read the above, grab a mirror, go find a quiet corner, sit down, and take a good long hard look at yourself. (and if you are going to reply, please spare us all the amateur philosophy-for-dummies garbage. Thanks much!)
  - candiodari 9y ago
    Moral absolutism: > Torture is torture. Kidnapping is kidnapping. Deliberately targeting and killing civilians is murder. Campaigns of mass bombing of civilian targets (without any declaration of war on said localities) is terrorism, whether its done by those in uniform or not, or whether its done from the ground or the air. It's funny how you debase moral absolutism, then proceed to give an absolutist opinion. You do not know the meaning of the words you use in an argument ... The really, really bad part about your argument is that it is only leveled against one side, with no recourse. This has exactly one result: any side that listens to moral absolutism has a serious disadvantage, giving sides that don't (who are likely much worse), an advantage. In practice you might not know that, but everyone in washington does, and if they make this argument, they are merely trying to get the US to abandon some fight, usually abandoning scores of people to a much worse fate, and much worse moral actors. For example, China. This is where the argument falls down. When following through your argument, we get to the point: because India is far (FAR) from perfect in the moral department, we should not care if China wins and Indian people are subjected to the systematic extermination they suffered under Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Chinese rule. Can I just say ... No we shouldn't. And frankly, if we have to bomb or even nuke a town containing many children into the ground, that action might be justified. Obviously such decisions shouldn't be made quickly or easily, but excluding them is ... just not how the world works. Most western Europeans don't begrudge the US and UK's firebombing of many European capitals, despite how it has affected their families. And only God knows how many children that killed. Total number of victims of the military actions, incidentally, far exceeds the numbers of the holocaust. So, perhaps, and despite how cruel it sounds, focusing on the war itself rather than helping camp victims was probably the right decision. Here's some examples of moral relativism: Given parties A and B, who are in conflict. Who is morally superior ? Example: Kemal Ataturk. He was a racist massacring his way across small Asia. He destroyed what remained of the rule of law in most of Africa. He killed children en-masse for racist reasons, among a list of other crimes that is too numerous to list. He was also, by far, the moral superior of the muslim caliph he defeated. By about a factor 5, or 6, only counting civilians. Or we can name the less desirable qualities of Winston Churchill. He is a man of the sort of character that would send men, with orders to kill indiscriminately, into a hopeless battle. Why ? He banally evil. He was a moron. 30 minutes of research would have told him the situation, but he, quite literally, couldn't be bothered. He also thought that they didn't deserve provisions if it meant his cigarettes might be late. After all, what are a few thousand dead compared to having to do ~2 days without a smoke ready ? And yet, I very much appreciate what he (eventually) helped to achieve. You can see the difference between relativism and absolutism now, I hope ? I hope you can also understand how, in a real and very much non-imaginary world with limited choices, how moral relativism is by far the superior alternative ?

by isr 9y ago

candiodari 9y ago

The list will include Pakistan because currently China hates India more. They want cards to play against India. I predict that will stop. India will systematically rise in economic importance from this point forward. China's reasons to make a deal with India are multiplying every day. The rest of your post is nothing more than moral absolutism. It is wrong.

isr 9y ago
> The list will include Pakistan because ... (some India rah rah rah stuff) ... I predict that will stop. Hmm, did you just read some of Orson Card's books and started believing that you are the Hegemon or something? Have you communicated your proclamation/prediction to the Chinese, so that they know what to do in the near future, to avoid you having egg on your face? > The rest of your post is nothing more than moral absolutism. Torture is torture. Kidnapping is kidnapping. Deliberately targeting and killing civilians is murder. Campaigns of mass bombing of civilian targets (without any declaration of war on said localities) is terrorism, whether its done by those in uniform or not, or whether its done from the ground or the air. Thats not "moral absolutism" taken to an extreme. Its what you're left with when you strip away the whiny excuses, coverups and propaganda (from all sides), and just at look at things for what they are. The term for that is not "moral absolutism", its "common sense". > It is wrong. Read the above, grab a mirror, go find a quiet corner, sit down, and take a good long hard look at yourself. (and if you are going to reply, please spare us all the amateur philosophy-for-dummies garbage. Thanks much!)
- candiodari 9y ago
  Moral absolutism: > Torture is torture. Kidnapping is kidnapping. Deliberately targeting and killing civilians is murder. Campaigns of mass bombing of civilian targets (without any declaration of war on said localities) is terrorism, whether its done by those in uniform or not, or whether its done from the ground or the air. It's funny how you debase moral absolutism, then proceed to give an absolutist opinion. You do not know the meaning of the words you use in an argument ... The really, really bad part about your argument is that it is only leveled against one side, with no recourse. This has exactly one result: any side that listens to moral absolutism has a serious disadvantage, giving sides that don't (who are likely much worse), an advantage. In practice you might not know that, but everyone in washington does, and if they make this argument, they are merely trying to get the US to abandon some fight, usually abandoning scores of people to a much worse fate, and much worse moral actors. For example, China. This is where the argument falls down. When following through your argument, we get to the point: because India is far (FAR) from perfect in the moral department, we should not care if China wins and Indian people are subjected to the systematic extermination they suffered under Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Chinese rule. Can I just say ... No we shouldn't. And frankly, if we have to bomb or even nuke a town containing many children into the ground, that action might be justified. Obviously such decisions shouldn't be made quickly or easily, but excluding them is ... just not how the world works. Most western Europeans don't begrudge the US and UK's firebombing of many European capitals, despite how it has affected their families. And only God knows how many children that killed. Total number of victims of the military actions, incidentally, far exceeds the numbers of the holocaust. So, perhaps, and despite how cruel it sounds, focusing on the war itself rather than helping camp victims was probably the right decision. Here's some examples of moral relativism: Given parties A and B, who are in conflict. Who is morally superior ? Example: Kemal Ataturk. He was a racist massacring his way across small Asia. He destroyed what remained of the rule of law in most of Africa. He killed children en-masse for racist reasons, among a list of other crimes that is too numerous to list. He was also, by far, the moral superior of the muslim caliph he defeated. By about a factor 5, or 6, only counting civilians. Or we can name the less desirable qualities of Winston Churchill. He is a man of the sort of character that would send men, with orders to kill indiscriminately, into a hopeless battle. Why ? He banally evil. He was a moron. 30 minutes of research would have told him the situation, but he, quite literally, couldn't be bothered. He also thought that they didn't deserve provisions if it meant his cigarettes might be late. After all, what are a few thousand dead compared to having to do ~2 days without a smoke ready ? And yet, I very much appreciate what he (eventually) helped to achieve. You can see the difference between relativism and absolutism now, I hope ? I hope you can also understand how, in a real and very much non-imaginary world with limited choices, how moral relativism is by far the superior alternative ?