Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

It did make things better, india is a democracy now. And one with a fast-growing economy. The fact that they started with nothing isn't because of the revolution. but the fact that they have a fast-growing economy is because of the democratic capitalism that came out of the revolution.

But again your only claim was that revolutions always made things demonstrably worse. The average revolution only needs to make a society 1% better than before to disprove that entire statement.

you have a very twisted view of Napoleon's legacy. He personally enacted most of the freedoms for his people you take for granted today, and spread those across Europe. The fact that you're entirely ignorant of what laws he passed and his legacy isn't anyone else's problem but your own.

* and did you actually read the point by the historian. He enacted policing that eliminated rural banditry. Now you're saying he spread banditry. boy, you sure know how to show those "professional historians". I'm learning so much from you.

[Archibald]

I am gonna go ahead and step down from this debate. But before I go, I will just say this. Whenever something (be it republic, ideology, whatever) requires human blood to exist on this world, it is just not worth the trouble. It also seems you didn't understood that the banditry quote was for the mexican revolution, but whatever. Why do I even bother arguing with someone who is defending a dictator that sent thousands to slaughter to get on the throne? If you are saying that he didn't allow stealing artworks to fill the French museums well, and that he tried to spread his power through things liek nepotism... why even bother?

[ChairmanPoo]

You poor naive youngling....

everything, literally everything on this world, is built on blood and sweat. There is no human activity that doesn't exact it's price in blood. This is doubly true for social change, as the price for bringing down the thrones of kings is particularily steep

The important thing is what exchange rate you're getting for the spilt blood. I tend to think that Napoleon  managed a good bang for the buck. So what if he actually built himself a throne in the process? Like Reelya said, he did away with banditry and the Inquisition, and set up the base for modern democracies. His legacy is far more bright than dark

[Trekkin]

I am gonna go ahead and step down from this debate. But before I go, I will just say this. Whenever something (be it republic, ideology, whatever) requires human blood to exist on this world, it is just not worth the trouble.

I'm a little surprised to hear this from someone who so passionately believes in a faith so enamored of martyrdom.

[Archibald]

I'm a little surprised to hear this from someone who so passionately believes in a faith so enamored of martyrdom.

Okay... what does faith have to do with this discussion? I was talking about when there are two sides who equally spill blood when there is always the chance (or even possibility) that it can be solved in other ways. Was dropping an atomic bomb necessary when Japan was about to surrender anyways? Was killing off the royal family necessary during the bolshevik revolution? Is killing civilians in a war necessary?

[ChairmanPoo]

Was dropping an atomic bomb necessary when Japan was about to surrender anyways?

This is fairly debatable one way or the other, but the common argument in favor of the bomb is that it's not all that clear that they were going to surrender (or at least surrender under any terms that the Allies would accept), and a land invasion of Japan was agreed to be a pretty horrid prospect. So, while its debatable, there is a case to be made

Was killing off the royal family necessary during the bolshevik revolution?

Once more a debatable subject. Which falls down to the following: because they could, because they didn't like the tzars, and because they had a a pragmatical (if cold) reason to do so. 

My next visit to Moscow took place after the fall of Yekaterinburg. Talking to Sverdlov I asked in passing, "Oh yes and where is the Tsar?" "It's all over," he answered. "He has been shot." "And where is his family?" "And the family with him." "All of them?" I asked, apparently with a touch of surprise. "All of them," replied Yakov Sverdlov. "What about it?" He was waiting to see my reaction. I made no reply. "And who made the decision?" I asked. "We decided it here. Ilyich believed that we shouldn't leave the Whites a live banner to rally around, especially under the present difficult circumstances
(...)
Punishing the tzar's family would, of course, have been impossible in the legal sense. The Tsar's family was a victim of the principle that form the very axis of monarchy: dynastic inheritance

In other words: in order to safeguard the republic, wipe out all claimants to the throne you can get your hands on. To be fair, we have to say that republics that did this (eg France) tend to stay republics, and that unsuccessful republican rebels often get the same or worse from the crown (read up on the Decemberist Revolt).

Is killing civilians in a war necessary?

No, but it might be largely inevitable

[Trekkin]

I'm a little surprised to hear this from someone who so passionately believes in a faith so enamored of martyrdom.

Okay... what does faith have to do with this discussion? I was talking about when there are two sides who equally spill blood when there is always the chance (or even possibility) that it can be solved in other ways. Was dropping an atomic bomb necessary when Japan was about to surrender anyways? Was killing off the royal family necessary during the bolshevik revolution? Is killing civilians in a war necessary?

Well, religion is a type of ideology. As a

Christian/Catholic.

You must surely reject Docetism as heresy, as determined at the Council of Nicaea, and therefore believe that Jesus was human and his suffering and shed blood were also human. Furthermore, per the Compendium of the Catechism, you would logically also accept the necessity of that human suffering and bloodshed and death as part of the Paschal Mystery at the center of the faith. This isn't even counting the vast profusion of martyrs, from Saint Stephen up to the present day, who died and continue to die by the thousands for that faith. Thus, per your axiom:

Whenever something (be it republic, ideology, whatever) requires human blood to exist on this world, it is just not worth the trouble.

We can conclude that Christianity is "just not worth the trouble", both canonically (Jesus should just have skipped town at the Last Supper, apparently) and ideologically, particularly since that same Council established in canon law that lapsing in the face of persecution requires only mild penance and all those martyrs were perfectly free to just give it up and come back later. Even if we narrow this to "two sides who spill blood equally", there are always the Crusades to consider, as well as the perpetual slavery (and, thus, corporal punishment) of non-Christians in the New World explicitly allowed by the Romanus Pontifex of 1455.

So: was the slaughter of the Jews on the way to the Holy Land necessary? Was the killing of Muslims necessary? Was the punitive amputation of the hands of insufficiently productive Native American slaves necessary? Were the many papally employed torture devices necessary? Or is Christianity just not worth it?

Or do you believe some things are worth fighting for after all?

[Archibald]

I'm a little surprised to hear this from someone who so passionately believes in a faith so enamored of martyrdom.

Okay... what does faith have to do with this discussion? I was talking about when there are two sides who equally spill blood when there is always the chance (or even possibility) that it can be solved in other ways. Was dropping an atomic bomb necessary when Japan was about to surrender anyways? Was killing off the royal family necessary during the bolshevik revolution? Is killing civilians in a war necessary?

Well, religion is a type of ideology. As a

Christian/Catholic.

You must surely reject Docetism as heresy, as determined at the Council of Nicaea, and therefore believe that Jesus was human and his suffering and shed blood were also human. Furthermore, per the Compendium of the Catechism, you would logically also accept the necessity of that human suffering and bloodshed and death as part of the Paschal Mystery at the center of the faith. This isn't even counting the vast profusion of martyrs, from Saint Stephen up to the present day, who died and continue to die by the thousands for that faith. Thus, per your axiom:

Whenever something (be it republic, ideology, whatever) requires human blood to exist on this world, it is just not worth the trouble.

We can conclude that Christianity is "just not worth the trouble", both canonically (Jesus should just have skipped town at the Last Supper, apparently) and ideologically, particularly since that same Council established in canon law that lapsing in the face of persecution requires only mild penance and all those martyrs were perfectly free to just give it up and come back later. Even if we narrow this to "two sides who spill blood equally", there are always the Crusades to consider, as well as the perpetual slavery (and, thus, corporal punishment) of non-Christians in the New World explicitly allowed by the Romanus Pontifex of 1455.

So: was the slaughter of the Jews on the way to the Holy Land necessary? Was the killing of Muslims necessary? Was the punitive amputation of the hands of insufficiently productive Native American slaves necessary? Were the many papally employed torture devices necessary? Or is Christianity just not worth it?

Or do you believe some things are worth fighting for after all?

Don't bring religion in problems caused by greedy humans. Christianity, sadly, was yet another tool in the hands of the power-hungry individuals, using it as an excuse to fulfill their narrow-minded cravings. Even Jesus himself said it: "Many are called, but few are chosen." You know why? Because those few actually give a damn about what their religion teaches. I am not familiar with procedures you mentioned, and frankly, I am not interested in them. After all, they are just an attempt of blind mortals to describe something divine. Blame human stupidity for those deaths, as you can blame human stupidity for lots of things on this world. And if such things are to be fought, they have to be fought with compassion, truth and care, not death, torture and suffering. I could also say that there is also someone else behind all those wrongdoings, but that is another subject for another debate.

And please, the other posts talked about history and politics (mostly). Try to stick to those themes.

[ChairmanPoo]

"Many are called, but few are chosen." You know why? Because those few actually give a damn about what their religion teaches.

I am not familiar with procedures you mentioned, and frankly, I am not interested in them.

[pisskop]

This sort of smacks of the RAGE thread which Toady isn't cool with anymore. Just figured I'd give you fair warning.

This.

[Trekkin]

And please, the other posts talked about history and politics (mostly). Try to stick to those themes.

I'm afraid I don't understand; the events and documents I mentioned are both matters of historical record and generally the product of politics both ecclesiastical and secular, so I'm afraid I don't see where you draw the line, particularly when you make blanket statements about how no ideology whatever is worth bloodshed.

[Archibald]

ChairmanPoo: I never said for myself that I am perfect, much less and expert debater. And by the way, those things he mentioned are just topics that have already been answered in the book. For me, that is enough. For someone else, maybe yes maybe not. I leave it to them.

I draw the line to things like the world wars. Wars that could be prevented if both parties were actually trying to use reason instead of pulling the strings and pointing fingers.

[Pencil_Art]

This sort of smacks of the RAGE thread which Toady isn't cool with anymore. Just figured I'd give you fair warning.

This.

For some reason, this thread hasn't spiralled out of control. Yet. People are (amazingly enough) doing a fairly good job of keeping it cool, which is probably the only reason this thread has not bren torched to the ground and the ashes thrown over a cliff into the sea.

[Archibald]

This sort of smacks of the RAGE thread which Toady isn't cool with anymore. Just figured I'd give you fair warning.

This.

For some reason, this thread hasn't spiralled out of control. Yet. People are (amazingly enough) doing a fairly good job of keeping it cool, which is probably the only reason this thread has not bren torched to the ground and the ashes thrown over a cliff into the sea.

I never inteded for this to be a "rage" thread (whatever that means). I simply wanted a place where people could be able to confess something that nagged them to the world but with the advantage of being anonymous (sorta like that Reddit page). It was never inteded to be a debate topic. Funny how things sometimes turn out completely different from what one expected.

As for the "debate". I give up. Clearly we can't reach an understanding and complicating it further is futile. So congratulations or whatever.

[Pencil_Art]

I think the only problem there was that most people on this board could immediately see there were severe flaws in your initial complaint. For example, there are quite a lot of Americans on this forum, so of course they would want to respond when you complained about '(asshole) Americans', which might as well be any of them, and try to adress your complaint. If you talked to most of these Bay12ers face-to-face, they would probably not be fine with the things you have said, and, similarly, they are not fine with you posting them here. It is the nature of all of us to become aggravated in the presence of somebody we do not agree with, and try to shoot them down. This is probably the reason why the 'RAGE' thread was shut down as well, although I was not paying attention at the time.

Simply put, debates were almost certainly guarunteed to begin the moment you made the original post. Internet debates/arguments tend to become very hostile very quickly, although Bay12 seems to be pretty good at keeping the peace, so at the moment it's almost a countdown until a moderator takes a good look at this thread. Other threads which also regularly have debates, such as the AmeriPol thread, survive because they have better things to do than argue all the time, and because in the process of arguing about politics, one must do research and become well informed to be able to defend their point at all, which tends to lead to less flame wars (well, not necessarily, but most of the people over there seem to have an idea of what's going on at any particular time). This thread is about 'getting things off your chest', which doesn't seem like a recipe for mutual understanding or a friendly environment, seeing as we don't have to be well-informed or knowledgable to complain about things that we don't necessarily understand.