Print

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

[SalmonGod]

I... don't really understand this statement...

Or rather, I don't understand how this can be said on behalf of anyone who is responsible for the decisions and proposals that guide the system... Kissinger was not being overridden by anything... those massacres were his ideas...

I can also understand participating in a system that pushes the boundaries of one's morals to a point, but there's a limit... and that limit is waaaaaaaaay before the point of "ordered to participate in the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians because they made a peaceful ideological choice that we disagree with."  I have little empathy for someone who allows their morals to be overridden to that extent.

If you've spent your whole career having to make hard calls, you'll eventually grow numb to the human cost. The idea that you can't help everyone, or can't make an omelet without breaking eggs, or that small evils now are acceptable to prevent larger evils that you foresee becomes the reality.  That's when the seriously bad stuff happens. It doesn't help that people like Kissinger didn't actually participate in massacres of civilians. He committed actions that put others in a position that they could order other people still to commit the massacres. That's two degrees of separation.

I still can't bring myself to find it excusable.  There are psychology terms for people who are numb to human cost, and they're generally synonymous with "not capable of thinking in terms of morality".  Mentally disabled people should not have access to positions that give them influence over millions of lives. 

Regardless, it can't be called morality being overridden by the system.  I think it's very important that we understand this.  A person cannot be considered moral (/ethical for anyone who may try to step in and make the distinction when I'm using the terms interchangeably) if they betray their morals to the extreme of knowingly initiating the chain of events that will result in the deaths of thousands of innocents.  We won't progress until our culture purges itself of permissibility for such bullshit.

[Loud Whispers]

If you've spent your whole career having to make hard calls, you'll eventually grow numb to the human cost.

And by this point, retire.

[Lagslayer]

Once again, the U.S. has chosen where to prioritize it's inventive technology energy and once again it is seeing things naked....

You also forgot our capacity to create more new and inventive forms of dakka.

I... don't really understand this statement...

Or rather, I don't understand how this can be said on behalf of anyone who is responsible for the decisions and proposals that guide the system... Kissinger was not being overridden by anything... those massacres were his ideas...

I can also understand participating in a system that pushes the boundaries of one's morals to a point, but there's a limit... and that limit is waaaaaaaaay before the point of "ordered to participate in the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians because they made a peaceful ideological choice that we disagree with."  I have little empathy for someone who allows their morals to be overridden to that extent.

If you've spent your whole career having to make hard calls, you'll eventually grow numb to the human cost. The idea that you can't help everyone, or can't make an omelet without breaking eggs, or that small evils now are acceptable to prevent larger evils that you foresee becomes the reality.  That's when the seriously bad stuff happens. It doesn't help that people like Kissinger didn't actually participate in massacres of civilians. He committed actions that put others in a position that they could order other people still to commit the massacres. That's two degrees of separation.

I still can't bring myself to find it excusable.  There are psychology terms for people who are numb to human cost, and they're generally synonymous with "not capable of thinking in terms of morality".  Mentally disabled people should not have access to positions that give them influence over millions of lives. 

Regardless, it can't be called morality being overridden by the system.  I think it's very important that we understand this.  A person cannot be considered moral (/ethical for anyone who may try to step in and make the distinction when I'm using the terms interchangeably) if they betray their morals to the extreme of knowingly initiating the chain of events that will result in the deaths of thousands of innocents.  We won't progress until our culture purges itself of permissibility for such bullshit.

But who gets to choose what is right and wrong? One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. One person's thief is another person's father just trying to get his family to scrape by. Much more frequently than most would dare imagine, the opposing side may have equally valid reason for diametrically opposing you. Which side is going to have to be silenced?

If you've spent your whole career having to make hard calls, you'll eventually grow numb to the human cost.

And by this point, retire.

So once someone gets the system down to a formula, the system should be destroyed? Wouldn't that ultimately lead to complete inconsistency of enforcement? What happened to equal and unbiased protection?

[SalmonGod]

But who gets to choose what is right and wrong? One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. One person's thief is another person's father just trying to get his family to scrape by. Much more frequently than most would dare imagine, the opposing side may have equally valid reason for diametrically opposing you. Which side is going to have to be silenced?

Who gets to choose right and wrong doesn't matter when it's near-universally agreed upon that killing innocent people is wrong.  It's also pretty much universally agreed upon that replacing a peaceful democratically elected leader with a violent dictatorship is the exact opposite of being a freedom fighter from just about any possible perspective.  Finally, being opposed to something does not necessitate the organization of death squads.  I think you're unaware of the context of our conversation.

If you've spent your whole career having to make hard calls, you'll eventually grow numb to the human cost.

And by this point, retire.

So once someone gets the system down to a formula, the system should be destroyed? Wouldn't that ultimately lead to complete inconsistency of enforcement? What happened to equal and unbiased protection?

How does one person retiring from service to the system = destruction of the system?  We're not talking about monarchy here.  And what does equal and unbiased protection have to do with anything?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I still can't bring myself to find it excusable.

It's not an excuse, it is an explanation. These behaviors are not simply because

There are psychology terms for people who are numb to human cost, and they're generally synonymous with "not capable of thinking in terms of morality".

No, they aren't. You're thinking of psychopaths, but our governments aren't full of psychopaths. It's impossible, both statistically and practically. You have to think of these things from the viewpoints of the people who do them if you are ever to understand why they happen.

[SalmonGod]

I still can't bring myself to find it excusable.

It's not an excuse, it is an explanation. These behaviors are not simply because

There are psychology terms for people who are numb to human cost, and they're generally synonymous with "not capable of thinking in terms of morality".

No, they aren't. You're thinking of psychopaths, but our governments aren't full of psychopaths. It's impossible, both statistically and practically. You have to think of these things from the viewpoints of the people who do them if you are ever to understand why they happen.

There's too much debate as to what constitutes psychopathy, proper terminology (I prefer sociopath myself), whether it deserves to be broken out into categories, etc to properly dig into this.  Ability to remain affable in the face of the most extreme moral accusations, egocentrism, and lack of remorse for one's actions are all defining features, regardless.  This condition is actually not at all uncommon among the general population, and I'm pretty sure there have been studies showing that they are very, very good at populating the upper levels of authoritative hierarchies.

I do look at things from their point of view, as much as is possible for me to do so.  The motivation was to stop "the threat of a good example".  Kissinger, and others involved, were afraid that the legitimacy of their ruling class would be damaged by an opposing ideology actually achieving positive social change, so they stepped in to disrupt peaceful attempts at progress with violence.  If that isn't sociopathy in action, I don't know what is, and I hold that righteous indignation followed by steps taken to prevent those and similar people from causing further harm is the correct reaction.

[lemon10]

I do look at things from their point of view, as much as is possible for me to do so.  The motivation was to stop "the threat of a good example".  Kissinger, and others involved, were afraid that the legitimacy of their ruling class would be damaged by an opposing ideology actually achieving positive social change, so they stepped in to disrupt peaceful attempts at progress with violence.  If that isn't sociopathy in action, I don't know what is, and I hold that righteous indignation followed by steps taken to prevent those and similar people from causing further harm is the correct reaction.

No, that isn't how they looked at it. They didn't want what they were sure would be a terrible communist dictatorship taking hold (as they believed it inevitably would even if it started out democratically), and then its influences and effects spreading out to the rest of region, converting them to dictatorships just as bad. Not just in the short term, but squashing freedom in the long term.

Now, while I don't agree with that at all, looked at from that view, some rather bad actions become more palatable (never good, but not as bad).
EDIT: Not massacare level bad actions, but things that are simply bad (like overthrowing a democratic communist government).

[SalmonGod]

Yeah, it can be seen as extremely misguided instead of malicious if you're willing to give every possible benefit of the doubt, which I'm not in light of the specifics of how it was handled and PR-managed after the fact... but it's admittedly a subject I tend towards highly cynical on.

[lordcooper]

http://gizmodo.com/5989386/dude-has-75-percent-of-his-skull-replaced-by-3d+printed-replica

[MetalSlimeHunt]

http://gizmodo.com/5989386/dude-has-75-percent-of-his-skull-replaced-by-3d+printed-replica

Was.....was something wrong with the old skull? I mean, I'm all for transhumanism but this is a little bit hasty if there was no reason behind it.

[Putnam]

It wasn't replaced, it was covered to aid recovery, so far as I can tell.

[Reelya]

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/12/18/kkk-step-in-to-counter-god-hates-fags-picket-at-military-memorial-ceremony/

My mind is well and truly fucked.

MY mind just how did that even come to who even knows what is why?

This is just amazing. It's like the WBC wants the entirety of the world to be united in hatred against them, and then once the people finally kill the church off, they will look to each other and exist in harmony once and for all.

This is the exact twist at the end of a very popular anime series. Unfortunately telling you which one would ruin the whole thing.

[Flying Dice]

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/12/18/kkk-step-in-to-counter-god-hates-fags-picket-at-military-memorial-ceremony/

My mind is well and truly fucked.

MY mind just how did that even come to who even knows what is why?

This is just amazing. It's like the WBC wants the entirety of the world to be united in hatred against them, and then once the people finally kill the church off, they will look to each other and exist in harmony once and for all.

This is the exact twist at the end of a very popular anime series. Unfortunately telling you which one would ruin the whole thing.

Though the WBC people might at least be inbred enough to honestly believe that that sort of Thanatos Gambit would work.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/12/18/kkk-step-in-to-counter-god-hates-fags-picket-at-military-memorial-ceremony/

My mind is well and truly fucked.

It's not that odd. Remember, the KKK are white nationalists. Nationalists. Soldiers are more or less off-limits to them, especially since some of those soldiers are also white.

[NobodyPro]

Sorta-nsfw