Print

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

[Alexhans]

I'm shaking with rage after reading that.  Behold the consequences for acting according to one's conscience, as all human beings should.  Reminds me of Battle Royale.  Beat it into people's heads that good intentions only get you stabbed in the back, because they can never unite as long as they believe that.

I'm sorry but what good intentions? This man is being held in conditions that are deplorable. I can not deny that. But this man also committed treason. It's uncomfortable. But it's treason.

it might or might not be.  But, until he is convicted of anything he should have the same right as any other citizen, am I wrong?  Wasn't there a law somewhere that spoke about fair and speedy trials?

[dragonshardz]

Oh, please.

Everyone knows that the Constitution is just a set of guidelines.

[/sarcasm]

[Virex]

I don't really want to invoke Godwin's law on this thread (or actually it's pacific counterpart), so I'll just point out that good intentions and following your conscience don't always have results that are desirable.

I don't think good intentions and Godwin's Law have much to do with each other at all... the actions of Nazis were not carried out with good intentions, at least not for the majority of the world.

And while it's true that a person can do bad things with good intentions, this isn't very useful to point out except as a plea to think through one's actions.  If you really want to invoke Godwin, Manning could have been exposing secrets of the Nazi government leading up to WW2.  I'm sure they would also accuse him of treason.

If it is your good intention to rid the world of the Chinese (or Jews if you're going to stick with the western situation) because you think the world is better off without them, then from your point of view, you're doing the Right Thing^tm. Same with Iran. They view it their moral obligation to bomb Israel into a smoldering radioactive crater the first chance they'll get. You can't claim these people aren't handling from (quite perverted) good intentions, only that their good in this case is not your good.

[SalmonGod]

I don't really want to invoke Godwin's law on this thread (or actually it's pacific counterpart), so I'll just point out that good intentions and following your conscience don't always have results that are desirable.

I don't think good intentions and Godwin's Law have much to do with each other at all... the actions of Nazis were not carried out with good intentions, at least not for the majority of the world.

And while it's true that a person can do bad things with good intentions, this isn't very useful to point out except as a plea to think through one's actions.  If you really want to invoke Godwin, Manning could have been exposing secrets of the Nazi government leading up to WW2.  I'm sure they would also accuse him of treason.

If it is your good intention to rid the world of the Chinese (or Jews if you're going to stick with the western situation) because you think the world is better off without them, then from your point of view, you're doing the Right Thing^tm. Same with Iran. They view it their moral obligation to bomb Israel into a smoldering radioactive crater the first chance they'll get. You can't claim these people aren't handling from (quite perverted) good intentions, only that their good in this case is not your good.

But you're narrowing the scope of good intentions, which is specifically what I was speaking against.  Good intentions for a specific group of people isn't good intentions, it's selfish and conceited.  "The world would be better off without ___" isn't good intentions for humanity as a whole because ___ are a part of humanity.  People who think in such a way are twisting the notion of good intentions to the service of their own agenda.  This was my point in the first place.

And I believe you're the one who mentioned that a soldier's only duty is to protect the citizens of their own country.  If this is your opinion, then you're no better than the examples you just invoked, caring only for one's own.

I bet if Manning were an Iranian soldier releasing classified information to reveal his government's planned course of genocide to the world that you wouldn't have a problem with it.  Although you might only favor it because it would serve U.S. interests 

[Osmosis Jones]

But you're narrowing the scope of good intentions, which is specifically what I was speaking against.  Good intentions for a specific group of people isn't good intentions, it's selfish and conceited.  "The world would be better off without ___" isn't good intentions for humanity as a whole because ___ are a part of humanity.

The counterpoint to that is, let's say some nutbags threaten the rest of humanity, and the *only* way to stop them is to kill them. They're still human, so surely that's bad for humanity, right? So is it still good intentions? More importantly, are the actions therefore good?

Now, think about how easily that form of logic can be applied both to actions on both sides of the debate, and you'll see why this has always been such a deep philosophical problem through the ages.

[Leafsnail]

It's a retarded comparison anyway, since a) it's doubtful that the Nazis had "good intentions", and b) Manning didn't commit genocide against 6 million people.  The situations are so completely and utterly different that you can't compare them at all.

[SalmonGod]

But you're narrowing the scope of good intentions, which is specifically what I was speaking against.  Good intentions for a specific group of people isn't good intentions, it's selfish and conceited.  "The world would be better off without ___" isn't good intentions for humanity as a whole because ___ are a part of humanity.

The counterpoint to that is, let's say some nutbags threaten the rest of humanity, and the *only* way to stop them is to kill them. They're still human, so surely that's bad for humanity, right? So is it still good intentions? More importantly, are the actions therefore good?

Now, think about how easily that form of logic can be applied both to actions on both sides of the debate, and you'll see why this has always been such a deep philosophical problem through the ages.

This is why I'm a (technical) pacifist.  Violence should only ever be a very last resort and only on a personal level.  Nutbags are a minority, and if the decent majority didn't buy into the massive marketing efforts that are required to move any population to war, then they would be a very harmless minority.

[Phmcw]

From my point of view, denouncing atrocities, bad governance, and inference in the internal politics of several European nation is a very good thing, even if i involve the betrayal of an oath. So we ask for his release. But feel free to disagree.

However, if you estimate that torture is an adequate punishment, then we might have a very serious problem.
Namely, you might be an indoctrinated fanatics, disregarding the live of other as mere obstacle in the path of your cause.
And, I'm afraid, not better than the worse of your enemies.

[Virex]

How is indoctrination to believe that torture is a valid punishment any different then indoctrination to think the opposite? For some crimes* I think simply locking someone away can never suffice as compensation for the way those people tortured their victims and their family. I'm looking forward to the day that people like them get assigned to 80 hours of medium torture, for example.
*For the record that's not leaking sensitive information, but things such as mass rape or committing a terrorist attack (not attempting, actually committing)

It's a retarded comparison anyway, since a) it's doubtful that the Nazis had "good intentions", and b) Manning didn't commit genocide against 6 million people.  The situations are so completely and utterly different that you can't compare them at all.

Why does everyone keep hammering on the Nazi's (who most likely knew they were committing genocide) while at the same time ignoring that the Japanese were quite a bit worse and they were fully convinced that they were doing the world a service by conquering it.

[Bauglir]

Why does everyone keep hammering on the Nazi's (who most likely knew they were committing genocide) while at the same time ignoring that the Japanese were quite a bit worse and they were fully convinced that they were doing the world a service by conquering it.

Because we don't have time to list every atrocity in history, and, unfortunately, the Nazis are more familiar to most people in Western cultures, which (at a guess) is a majority of people on the forum. Now, if you want to actually use the WW2 Japanese as an example, that's perfectly reasonable and it's fair to expect people to look that up if they don't already know it; it's not exactly obscure. But accusing everyone of ignoring them because "Hitler" is more closely associated with "atrocity" than whatever other one you think deserves more attention is just whining.

[PTTG??]

Great, now we're going to need a Virex's Law about how conversations about politics always devolve into comparisons to the rape of Nanjing.

On a different note, assuming both sides use exclusively robotics and have strongly-enforced collateral damage laws, does war become less negative?

[Leafsnail]

Why does everyone keep hammering on the Nazi's (who most likely knew they were committing genocide) while at the same time ignoring that the Japanese were quite a bit worse and they were fully convinced that they were doing the world a service by conquering it.

Considering you were the one who originally brought it up, you have some cheek to be complaining about it now.

[Zangi]

Why does everyone keep hammering on the Nazi's (who most likely knew they were committing genocide) while at the same time ignoring that the Japanese were quite a bit worse and they were fully convinced that they were doing the world a service by conquering it.

Considering you were the one who originally brought it up, you have some cheek to be complaining about it now.

The internet secretly loves Nazis.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

and nazi zombies, and robot nazi dinosaurs with lasers... the internet also loves ninjas, tough...

[ed boy]

But you're narrowing the scope of good intentions, which is specifically what I was speaking against.  Good intentions for a specific group of people isn't good intentions, it's selfish and conceited.  "The world would be better off without ___" isn't good intentions for humanity as a whole because ___ are a part of humanity.  People who think in such a way are twisting the notion of good intentions to the service of their own agenda.  This was my point in the first place.

Nonsense. My aunt has cancer. Although it is part of her body, I would reckon that she is better off without it.

I bet if Manning were an Iranian soldier releasing classified information to reveal his government's planned course of genocide to the world that you wouldn't have a problem with it.  Although you might only favor it because it would serve U.S. interests 

You mean the US government would support things that further their interests and act against things which go against their interests? Egad! Who would have thought it?