4 ms·

What if it happens as a result of trying to hold someone worse responsible?

applfanboysbgon 7mo ago
> someone worse You do not get to decide that. If we allow everyone to invade other countries and murder leaders because they deem those people worse than themselves, the world will be engaged in endless war. Or do you think perhaps deciding who to invade and kill is a special privilege reserved only for your country, which should be emperor of the world?
- trimethylpurine 7mo ago
  If a guy pays soldiers to sneak into another country, kidnap rape and murder children, and continues similar behavior for 4 decades I can decide he's worse than Trump. I do get to decide that. Some things are worse than others. The preceding comment was about holding someone responsible. It appears you might have misunderstood that mine points out that this is exactly how the school was hit.
- mhb 7mo ago
  With this reasoning, how do you make any decisions in your everyday life? Does everything look like a morally relativistic gray to you?
  - applfanboysbgon 7mo ago
    ??? Do most of your everyday life decisions involve starting wars or killing people? That's concerning. Are you a high-ranking officer in the US military? As it happens, I'm not, and my decisions do not typically have life-or-death consequences. I also don't even know what you're getting at. There was nothing "relativistic" or "morally grey" about my argument. My point is that in order for any kind of peace to exist, each country must be able to accept that there will be other people in the world who are morally repugnant to them. Because there will always be leaders who consider each other repugnant, so if you endorse starting wars over that, you're committing to a world where everyone is starting wars all the time as the international norm.
    - trimethylpurine 7mo ago
      But if you're getting attacked for 4 decades by another country, do you do something about it or are you saying that's also wrong? My understanding is that the regime in Iran has been terrorizing around the world for decades. It's not just disagreeable. People are seeking justice. It's one thing to dislike another politician. No one needs justice for repugnancy. But if they are committing acts of terror, that's a totally different thing.
      - applfanboysbgon 7mo ago
        The regime in the US has been terrorizing around the world for decades. Among many other things, it overthrew the democratic Iranian government to establish a puppet autocracy in Iran, leading directly to the current one after a revolution. The entire reason Iran funds terrorists that target the US is because the US is an existential threat to it. So your argument basically boils down to "if I shoot someone, and they shoot me back, am I not entitled to self-defense?". The actual answer is to stop shooting them. Stop fucking up the entire Middle East and the people from there won't hate a country across the world so much that they feel a worthwhile use of their life is to strap a bomb to themselves in order to kill people from there.
        trimethylpurine 7mo ago
        >The regime in the US has been terrorizing around the world Yeah, that already happened. Now what? How do we stop more kids from getting kidnapped, raped, murdered, or bombed? Your proposed solution is essentially a leader in every country that has suffered from Iran's terror who can convince his/her people that their kidnapped children are worth it. Obviously that isn't feasible. But worse, how is that different than saying it's okay for Iran to kidnap children?
        applfanboysbgon 7mo ago
        > How do we stop more kids from getting kidnapped, raped, murdered, or bombed? Not launching missiles at schools would be a great start to stopping kids from being bombed! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47479695 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47479695
- testaccount28 7mo ago
  > do you think perhaps deciding who to invade and kill is a special privilege reserved only for your country, which should be emperor of the world? yes. we got the bomb before they did, because our policies are better than theirs.
nixon_why69 7mo ago
We can quantify "Who has killed the most children in the middle east recently" and Iran is in a distant third place.
z3phyr 7mo ago
Sovereignty. You only get to hold responsibility of your own citizens, like Jeffery Epstein AND his supporters. You do that right, and then maybe then people will like you as the world police.
deeg 7mo ago
False dichotomy. There are other ways to deal with Iran that don't involve starting an ill conceived (and illegal) war that kills school children and possibly (probably?) plunges the world economy into recession. It is highly unlikely that the current military action will result in a pacified Iran. Why do people think that since Iran is evil all actions against Iran are justified?
- hkt 7mo ago
  They're not old enough to remember the start of the war in Iraq, I imagine. For those who aren't: it was a barrage of justifications which were found to be untrue, especially the 45 minute claim which said Iraq could strike European targets within 45 minutes with chemical or biological weapons. The UN weapons inspector said this was nonsense, and so it proved to be - after the invasion. Iran will go the same way, one way or another.
galactus 7mo ago
you keep your own moral integrity

> someone worse You do not get to decide that. If we allow everyone to invade other countries and murder leaders because they deem those people worse than themselves, the world will be engaged in endless war. Or do you think perhaps deciding who to invade and kill is a special privilege reserved only for your country, which should be emperor of the world?

trimethylpurine 7mo ago
If a guy pays soldiers to sneak into another country, kidnap rape and murder children, and continues similar behavior for 4 decades I can decide he's worse than Trump. I do get to decide that. Some things are worse than others. The preceding comment was about holding someone responsible. It appears you might have misunderstood that mine points out that this is exactly how the school was hit.
mhb 7mo ago
With this reasoning, how do you make any decisions in your everyday life? Does everything look like a morally relativistic gray to you?
- applfanboysbgon 7mo ago
  ??? Do most of your everyday life decisions involve starting wars or killing people? That's concerning. Are you a high-ranking officer in the US military? As it happens, I'm not, and my decisions do not typically have life-or-death consequences. I also don't even know what you're getting at. There was nothing "relativistic" or "morally grey" about my argument. My point is that in order for any kind of peace to exist, each country must be able to accept that there will be other people in the world who are morally repugnant to them. Because there will always be leaders who consider each other repugnant, so if you endorse starting wars over that, you're committing to a world where everyone is starting wars all the time as the international norm.
  - trimethylpurine 7mo ago
    But if you're getting attacked for 4 decades by another country, do you do something about it or are you saying that's also wrong? My understanding is that the regime in Iran has been terrorizing around the world for decades. It's not just disagreeable. People are seeking justice. It's one thing to dislike another politician. No one needs justice for repugnancy. But if they are committing acts of terror, that's a totally different thing.
    - applfanboysbgon 7mo ago
      The regime in the US has been terrorizing around the world for decades. Among many other things, it overthrew the democratic Iranian government to establish a puppet autocracy in Iran, leading directly to the current one after a revolution. The entire reason Iran funds terrorists that target the US is because the US is an existential threat to it. So your argument basically boils down to "if I shoot someone, and they shoot me back, am I not entitled to self-defense?". The actual answer is to stop shooting them. Stop fucking up the entire Middle East and the people from there won't hate a country across the world so much that they feel a worthwhile use of their life is to strap a bomb to themselves in order to kill people from there.
      - trimethylpurine 7mo ago
        >The regime in the US has been terrorizing around the world Yeah, that already happened. Now what? How do we stop more kids from getting kidnapped, raped, murdered, or bombed? Your proposed solution is essentially a leader in every country that has suffered from Iran's terror who can convince his/her people that their kidnapped children are worth it. Obviously that isn't feasible. But worse, how is that different than saying it's okay for Iran to kidnap children?
        applfanboysbgon 7mo ago
        > How do we stop more kids from getting kidnapped, raped, murdered, or bombed? Not launching missiles at schools would be a great start to stopping kids from being bombed! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47479695 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47479695
testaccount28 7mo ago
> do you think perhaps deciding who to invade and kill is a special privilege reserved only for your country, which should be emperor of the world? yes. we got the bomb before they did, because our policies are better than theirs.

nixon_why69 7mo ago

We can quantify "Who has killed the most children in the middle east recently" and Iran is in a distant third place.

z3phyr 7mo ago

Sovereignty. You only get to hold responsibility of your own citizens, like Jeffery Epstein AND his supporters. You do that right, and then maybe then people will like you as the world police.

deeg 7mo ago

False dichotomy. There are other ways to deal with Iran that don't involve starting an ill conceived (and illegal) war that kills school children and possibly (probably?) plunges the world economy into recession. It is highly unlikely that the current military action will result in a pacified Iran. Why do people think that since Iran is evil all actions against Iran are justified?

hkt 7mo ago
They're not old enough to remember the start of the war in Iraq, I imagine. For those who aren't: it was a barrage of justifications which were found to be untrue, especially the 45 minute claim which said Iraq could strike European targets within 45 minutes with chemical or biological weapons. The UN weapons inspector said this was nonsense, and so it proved to be - after the invasion. Iran will go the same way, one way or another.

galactus 7mo ago

you keep your own moral integrity