Print

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

[Willfor]

I'm going to make a blanket statement:

Anyone who thinks about population elimination procedures must include themselves, and every single person that they care about inside of the first round of eliminations. Their idols, the people who they think are the most brilliant people in the world, their families, the most brilliant scientists, the best of the best. Wiped out in the first round.

If you can do it, more power to you, though I will be attempting to stop you.

If you can't, then you don't really have the stomach for this business, and all you want is vengeance on a perceived wrong.

[SalmonGod]

If your reasoning isn't strong enough to nullify opposition on its own merits, then it isn't strong enough to justify eliminating opposition by force. 

Do what you believe is right.  Encourage others to do the same.  Sharpen your critical thinking and communication skills.  Be just as critical of yourself as others.  This is the only path to change that doesn't undermine its own good intentions.

[Vector]

If your reasoning isn't strong enough to nullify opposition on its own merits, then it isn't strong enough to justify eliminating opposition by force. 

Do what you believe is right.  Encourage others to do the same.  Sharpen your critical thinking and communication skills.  Be just as critical of yourself as others.  This is the only path to change that doesn't undermine its own good intentions.

Thank you.  This.

[SalmonGod]

Btw, I know the kill-bot thing was no more than semi-playing anger venting (I hope), so don't take my above post personally.  I'm just randomly preaching, as I am naturally inclined to do.

[Darvi]

Oh.

And here I was hoping that I could commit some omnicide :/

[Solifuge]

No worries Salmon; I don't actually propose Killbots as a solution to any problem... at least that I can think of. However, your statement got me thinking:

If your reasoning isn't strong enough to nullify opposition on its own merits, then it isn't strong enough to justify eliminating opposition by force. 

Do what you believe is right.  Encourage others to do the same.  Sharpen your critical thinking and communication skills.  Be just as critical of yourself as others.  This is the only path to change that doesn't undermine its own good intentions.

You've outlined several beliefs I share in how to live a life well. Still, there are times when you are opposed by someone who is not arguing from a platform you can even approach, much less refute. Sometimes, people believe they have the absolute truth, without any test in reality... circular logic that, to them, proves itself. This brand of thinking has and continues to lead people to belief in the innate inferiority of people of different races, religions, or cultural practices. Arrogance, dogma, and ignorance have lead countless nations to war and genocide in the past, and as such there was no basis on which to "nullify the opposition on its own merits", because the belief is ultimately baseless.

There are times when force was the most expedient solution to eliminating that opposition. It's perhaps not the only solution, nor an ideal solution, but military action likely prevented decades of loss and death in World War II, as opposed to what a lengthy diplomatic appeal to the hearts and minds of the German populace (and the ensuing propaganda battle) would have.

[Nadaka]

If your reasoning isn't strong enough to nullify opposition on its own merits, then it isn't strong enough to justify eliminating opposition by force. 

Do what you believe is right.  Encourage others to do the same.  Sharpen your critical thinking and communication skills.  Be just as critical of yourself as others.  This is the only path to change that doesn't undermine its own good intentions.

Really? A simple counter example: Someone wants to kill you for fun. That person isn't swayed by your rational argument that it isn't a good idea. Your suggestion says that you can not justify stopping them by force.

When your opposition is unreasonable and demonstrates a clear and present danger, force will always be a viable and justifiable option.

[SalmonGod]

If your reasoning isn't strong enough to nullify opposition on its own merits, then it isn't strong enough to justify eliminating opposition by force. 

Do what you believe is right.  Encourage others to do the same.  Sharpen your critical thinking and communication skills.  Be just as critical of yourself as others.  This is the only path to change that doesn't undermine its own good intentions.

Really? A simple counter example: Someone wants to kill you for fun. That person isn't swayed by your rational argument that it isn't a good idea. Your suggestion says that you can not justify stopping them by force.

When your opposition is unreasonable and demonstrates a clear and present danger, force will always be a viable and justifiable option.

This gets muddy really fast.

I have no problem with self-defense.  I admit that the approach I described offers no advice for when it is not reciprocated. 

The thing is, we must take incredible care to distinguish between necessary self-defense and active elimination of those who don't agree with you.  Self-defense is doing only what is necessary to prevent yourself being subjected to force that eliminates you or obstructs your ability to do what you believe is right.  Anything else is not.

This is where critical thinking and honest self-criticism is so important, because the excuse of self-defense is so easily abused.  I honestly believe with great conviction that the majority of violent conflict occurs when both sides believe they are acting in self-defense (i.e. Person A believes "If I don't kill Person B, they will kill me." and Person B believes exactly the same about Person A.)  When this is supposed to be the sole motivation for both sides, there is clearly a mistake or a lie somewhere.  If they would communicate openly, they would find that this is not the case and are only being openly aggressive towards one another on false pretense.

[Nadaka]

On a lighter note:

I rage at javascript programmers who don't understand javascript. Javascript does not give a damn what "submit" is. But you sure as hell better not name a form field submit because that kinda sorta overrides the forms submit() method and makes it not a method you can use to submit a form.

[ChairmanPoo]

Goddamnit argghh.  The thing is it even seems like something it would be extremely easy to prove wrong with a demonstration on a willing volunteer.

I don't think that even matters. As has been said before, a rapist could use coercion to have a woman cooperate into removing her jeans (or doing anything else, for that matter), without it being any less rape.

I think worth pointing out that we don't know if those two cases were or were not actually rape. They might or might not have been genuinelly innocent men. The problem is that the reasons behind the acquital don't make any sense.

[Leafsnail]

Well, yeah, it shouldn't matter, but demonstrating it to be mechanically untrue would be the easiest way to get rid of such a defence.

[Acanthus117]

The concept of the jeans defense made me RAEG today.

[Angel Of Death]

The concept of the jeans defense made me RAEG today.

Jeans defence?

What's that? Taking off your jeans and going all Bengal Hairybasements on people?

[Vector]

Read above.

[The Merchant Of Menace]

The concept of the jeans defense made me RAEG today.

Jeans defence?

What's that? Taking off your jeans and going all Bengal Hairybasements on people?

The fact that in several cases people have been aquitted of rape because the woman who was raped was wearing skinny jeans which "cannot be removed without cooperation"

To sum it up anyway