Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Tsunami, Salami, Boloni

Rate this topic


Zoso

Recommended Posts

You people are horrible.

Okay, how many people out there are actively trying to kill America? I would say that there are enough of them that if many of them were to die, then it could be considered "mass death." You should note that I said "senseful mass death."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 245
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You people are horrible.

Okay, how many people out there are actively trying to kill America?

Probably 20. 21 if you count Brittney Spears. The vast majority of angry Muslims probably would be content if the US stopped actively involving itself in the Middle East.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably 20.  21 if you count Brittney Spears.  The vast majority of angry Muslims probably would be content if the US stopped actively involving itself in the Middle East.

What is your evidence for saying "20"?

P. S. -- The way to make sure text is in a quote box is to make sure a "[ /quote]" follows and is coupled with a preceding "[ quote]" -- but leave out the space between the [ and the / and q. (That is the only way I know how to explain it -- without getting put into a quote box!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably 20.  21 if you count Brittney Spears.  The vast majority of angry Muslims probably would be content if the US stopped actively involving itself in the Middle East.

All kidding aside, I disagree on the numbers. But said mass death would discourage the angry Muslims you speak of in a more lasting way then the US stopping activity in the Middle East.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your evidence for saying "20"?

P. S. -- The way to make sure text is in a quote box is to make sure a "[ /quote]" follows and is coupled with a preceding "[ quote]" -- but leave out the space between the [ and the / and q. (That is the only way I know how to explain it -- without getting put into a quote box!

I was only guessing on the 20. My point was that it is a small percentage of extremists that taint the whole billion or so Muslims. Blowing up Indonesia would be unethical because it would involve killing the 99% of non-violent Muslims in order to get to the violent 1% (I made those numbers up too). Anyway it would be kind of like exterminating all militia people because of the likes of Timmy McVeigh.

Thanks for the help on quoting btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All kidding aside, I disagree on the numbers. But said mass death would discourage the angry Muslims you speak of in a more lasting way then the US stopping activity in the Middle East.

Forgive me for my ignorance if this subject has been addressed in Rand's other writings, I've only read Atlas Shrugged, I'm not yet familiar with the rest of her work. But isn't it her contention that violence should only be used on those who would be violent with you? So the rationale for a pre-emptive strike against a people would be ethical if those people were likely going to attack America. But would a pre-emptive strike against a people still be ethical if they were not planning to attack the US but instead was simply opposed to US intevention in their part of the world? I'm accustomed to thinking about Objectivism as rejecting wanton ass kicking but the members seem pretty bellicose on this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgive me for my ignorance if this subject... But isn't it her contention that violence should only be used on those who would be violent with you?

It's pretty complicated and it has been covered elsewhere. The best place to find out what I am trying to state is to read the thread Here: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...opic=2259&st=50

Specifically post #'s 57, 73, 83, 84, 94

I have personally advocated this argument since 9/11 and held it to be a valid strategy even before that. Dr. Peikoff wrote an excellant article about it, which I believe Stephen cites. If you want miss Rand's direct opinion, I believe she wrote it in her article "The moral status of civilians in war" (I am not sure the exact title)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An Indian helicopter dropping food and water over the remote Andaman and Nicobar Islands has been attacked by tribesmen using bows and arrows.

These are tribes very similar to the Amazon tribes one sees on National Geographic. Their way of life has been unchanged for decades. There was a time when evangelists would go to such places and convert the tribes, but also bring them into the modern world. I reckon modern man -- yes even modern Indians -- lack the moral certainity to bring these people into the 21st century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are tribes very similar to the Amazon tribes one sees on National Geographic. ...

According to a BBC report the Indian government was ferrying some of these folk to the main city on the island and also to the Indian mainland. Then, some NGOs objected, saying that they should be helkped in their aboriginal conditions, without moving them.

I am waiting for the multiculturalist professor who will say that even giving them aid in the jungle is a violation of their aboriginal "purity".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the hell kind of comment is that? Warning up by one notch. Normally I'd do something like this by a private PM, but am making it public this time, so people don't think nothing's being done.

Edit: I should probably explain why a comment like this is inappropriate, just to make everything clear. First of all, it was completely tasteless and inappropriate for a serious forum. Jokes are good, but they have to be tasteful, and fit in with the thread's original message. Moreover, the post contributed nothing of its own, just a tasteless comment and nothing else to its name. So instead of deleting it, which wouldn't be proper anyway in interests of public disclosure, it can remain here as a reminder of what not to do.

So anyway, not to make something out to be bigger than it is. Back to the tsunami discussion :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The exact solution could range anywhere from small unit tactics, in some situations, to an exemplary nuclear attack on other targets in the right circumstances.

I've long advocated the exact tactic. For instance. the United States' should consider the feasibility of targeting Damascus with a-say-nuclear device a quarter strength of the Nagasaki weapon? Consider the Mercedes driving Bathist elite barbequed. Remember, however: Israel, American military and Arab non-moslems are nearby.

This isn't as easily discussed as seems. To prepare my argument-the salvation of Coalition forces victory and well-being-I search engined numerous websites looking for nuclear weapon theory. So far, all I'm able to unearth are the same ol' Cold War eschatology. What's needed are uncannily precise low contamination nuclear ordnance. Are such possible? Are there any sources out there honestly reviewing this option?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I was going to start a new topic for what I'm going to say but I figured I might as well just put it here since a thread on the tsunami had already been started.)

I was driving through town yesterday and started seeing a lot of flags at half mast. I started thinking, "Who died?" It took it a minute to dawn on me: the flags are at half mast for the tsunami victims. It started to make me sick to my stomach.

I can't believe that people can't distinguish between this and a national tragedy. Putting this on the same level as Ronald Reagan's death or the 9/11 tragedy is deameaning to both of those events. I can't believe how far the altruists will go to "help" the entire world.

A lot of people died. It's a sad demonstration of what happens when a perfectly natural disaster strikes non-Capitalistic countries. It did not happen to us. If it had, I seriously doubt as many people would have been killed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a disaster for all of us.

It is a disaster for all those who have lost someone they loved. For the rest of us, it is a sad news item.

If you are in the second group, the rational reaction is to:

1. (optional) Donate a small amount to a reliable organization involved in the relief effort.

2. Shut up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he's merely calling for an end to the omnidirectional sludge-pump of altruism.

You think? I read nothing of the sort in his post. It was in plain English that he said that "the rest of us", which obviously including him, should "1. (optional) donate a small amount" and "2. Shut up".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don't forget that most people who died in the tsunami are innocent fellow human beings. ...(snip)....

It is a disaster for all of us.

Who, specifically, do you think needs to be reminded that innocent people died in that natural disaster?

It was not a disaster for all of us. You should limit your evaluation of the event to it's impact on you and others with whom you can establish a factual or reasonable impact. Your blanket statement demeans the impact that it really had on some folks versus the minimal effect, if any, it had on others. That statements reeks of being a soundbite and cannot be taken sincerely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the tone of redfarmer's post made me write the original post. I am also not so sure whether some people here consider the majority of the tsunami victims (Indonesians) innocent or not.

You are certainly right that this disaster has different impact on different people. I have no intention to demean its impact on those who suffered most terribly.

I don't have loved ones who died or hurt in the tsunami, or in Florida huricanes, or in 9/11 for that matter. I myself was over a thousand miles away from New York when it happened. But still I was literally sick in my stomach, and was shaking all over on that day. What material impact you think 9/11 had on me? There are many people in the world who watched in horror as WTC towers collapsed also considered it a tragedy to them as well. What could be the reason for that?

One thing I want to make clear is that I have not said anything about whether or how we should or should not help the tsunami victims. Please don't make unwarranted assumptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the tone of redfarmer's post made me write the original post. I am also not so sure whether some people here consider the majority of the tsunami victims (Indonesians) innocent or not.

As to the percentage of people who may or may not be innocent (in whatever sense you may happen to mean that term), you guess is probably as good as anyone else's. Natural disasters don't pick victims, so I don't see how innocence bears any role in the discussion. The point that some people are attempting make is that there is a lot of technology available that could quite possibly have reduced the loss of life and it wasn't used because of the culture and adherence to more primitive ways of life. Where is the outcry that Indonesia didn't do all they could for themselves to help reduce this potential (now actual) disaster?

What material impact you think 9/11 had on me? There are many people in the world who watched in horror as WTC towers collapsed also considered it a tragedy to them as well. What could be the reason for that?
I can't provide answers to questions that may have a multitude of legitimate responses based on the limited data given. Considering something to be a tragedy or a disaster is significantly different than something being a tragedy or "a disaster for us all". That is why another poster pointed out that for many, it is a sad news story. We may emotional reactions to sad news stories, but that is a far from being part of the disaster. But to turn the tables around, (and to offer you an equally unanswerable question) how many Indonesians felt as if 9/11 was a disaster for them?

One thing I want to make clear is that I have not said anything about whether or how we should or should not help the tsunami victims. Please don't make unwarranted assumptions.

Is this a response to me? What unwarranted assumptions have I made or are you concerned that I may make? If you don't want people to make unwarranted assumptions, I suggest you be more clear about who and what you are talking about. That is what alleviates the likelihood that people will make assumptions about you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RationalCop,

Regarding the "unwarranted assumptions", no, it was not in response to you - Sorry. I guess it was more toward another poster's comment about "omnidirectional sludge-pump of altruism".

Look, Capitalism Forever's post cracked me up, I couldn't help to pick on it. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your running out of a burning building - you see a young child in a cot - it has no demand over your will, no absolute right to survival - but you still pick it up and carry it out of the flames.

You don't help millions of people, whole countries, that have been devastated by a natural disaster because you have to, or because they 'need' you.

You help millions of individuals, whole countries, that have been devastated by a natural disaster because you a basic empathy with human life and human potential.

A father gets shouted out and abused by his 13 yr old teenage son - the son might even hit him - the father doesnt throw him out on the streets for life, he doesnt remove all the boys means of survival - he sticks to it, he might remove privilages, he might even use force against him for his own good if the boy's behaviour warranted it. The father wasnt the best father in the world, but he learnt enough from his own family history and himself to know whats best.

Right now America is that father - its upbringing wasnt great - it fell out with its father (Great Britain) - it even ran away from home. But he had good reason, he had some ideas. But he is only man, and its takes time to escape your origins - religion and racism had a place at the start of American history, a place that has largely diminished or moderated but not completely. Well, the adolescents of this world are your developing countries - in a very real way the developed world gave birth to a lot of them when we left our colonies to independance. Well the big daddy is sure trying to discipline some of those kids - and we shall how long it takes for them to learn their lessons and swallow their pride. But short of the kid holding a gun to your head, and indonesia certainly isnt, you dont leave the kid to die when it gets hit down in the street by a car.

I know thats tenous, but frankly some of the response here disgust me - some people here are all to ready to put forth selfishness without really considering what makes them who they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...