Print

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

[Derekristow]

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

At that point it isn't really a war.  You can't really claim a victor if neither side took any kind of loss.

It also depends on the intelligence of the robots, but that is a derail for another day.

[Realmfighter]

I see what your saying, we might as well make a uber-complex videogame and have the two parties duke it out until a winner comes out.

You would need a system with more power then both to rule it, but thats probably not the worst problem with it.

[Bauglir]

I see what your saying, we might as well make a uber-complex videogame and have the two parties duke it out until a winner comes out.

You would need a system with more power then both to rule it, but thats probably not the worst problem with it.

South Korea would quickly rise to world dominance.

[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.  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.

Non-applicable analogy.  Your example involves no harm to another human being, therefore not selfish or conceited.

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?

No I was commenting on how Virex strikes me as someone who would celebrate the event because it benefits his personal agenda, not because he appreciates the integrity of the act.

[Virex]

Why would I care about US interests in the first place? I'm not even from the US...

[Tack]

I'm replying to track this. But first i've got to read back along it so I know what's happened since then.

However-

I've posted this before, but it's worth mentioning again:

Anon are a funny group to understand. They don't have any ideology, motivation or care for anything, the only reason they attack things and people is because it's fun. As has been said a number of times, they do it "for the lulz". "Coldblood" is not Anonymous, he's got a name and he's shown his identity. He's made out that there is a considerable political reason for what they're doing, when really they're doing it because it's fun to fuck with people, especially on a large scale.

That's why they support Wikileaks. Not for free speech. Not for freedom of the internet. For the fact that it's fucked with a lot of people, and they respect that.

[dragonshardz]

Unless you are a "moralfag", in which case you do fight for freedom of speech, etc. Most of the people associated with AnonOps (Coldblood included) are moralfags.

[Tack]

I got up to about page eleven, and then bombed out.

So what's the latest news on Assance?

[Mysteriousbluepuppet]

I pity the day humanity will have enough idiot to believe that torture and atrocities should be repaid the same that they will actually do it. I also sincerely hope that the rest of humanity will be vigilant enough not to let any of those fool get that power, or to remove that power to them.

Full Poes law affront from Virex.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

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.

The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions.

Not that Manning's intentions were good so much as they were petty and stupid... "Oh, I'ma get them militaries by stealing all these random messages sent by people who were not them to people who were also not them and sending them to a random third party!" He was disgusted by small, isolated incidents he felt his direct superiors mishandled, so he stole documents from an entirely different branch of US operations and leaked them, without regards for their contents. In doing so, he put his head on the chopping block, and, quite hilariously, accomplished exactly nothing that he wanted, aside from a smug sense of self-importance.


You also - and this is the really big thing I keep trying to drill into your head - don't understand that humans are inherently self-serving. It gets a little fuzzy when you look at close circles of friends, family, and even mere neighbors, since generally benefiting (or often just being seen to benefit) the circle is the most advantageous course of action, since by fostering an environment in which such happens the others are more likely to benefit you as well. But then there are the people outside your circle. They don't benefit from your wellbeing, though occasionally they benefit from appearing to care about you.

This is the crucial flaw of Anarchism: believing that such people don't exist, or that they could be stopped from exploiting others, often coupled with an insane notion that this is all just a western phenomenon rooted in Dem Gubmints being evil, despite those very governments being the closest damn thing to an exception to all this that has ever appeared on such a scale in the history of humanity. There is corruption and folly, but less so than in humanity as a whole, and the structures have wound up fairly benevolent, which is absolutely amazing when one looks at history, and even at the other contemporary powers, next to which they look like fucking saints.


Then there's the No True Scotsman you keep pulling, where someone is only "acting with their conscience" or "with good intentions" if you personally agree with what they're doing. I suppose it really is inconceivable that anyone could ever think something you don't like is morally right, so obviously everyone that does anything you disagree with is evil, because I mean, what's right is just so glaringly obvious to everyone, not to mention universal...

[Urist is dead tome]

Sir Pseudonymous is right. I completely agree with everything he just said. I was just too stupid to think of the words.

[Phmcw]

Well pseudo, I 'd accept your text if this was a discussion on whether or not manning should be awarded the medal of merits.
But At it is about discussing the fact that he is being tortured, detained, and that some senator called for his execution, let me tell you that it's both revolting and out of place. For two reason : First several of these revelation have led to international inquiries, proving that there is strong evidence for crime, thus that they were worthwhile. Two, torture in this case is completely uncalled for : you don't even want any informations.

I don't think you'd understand how much this is hurting America : ten years ago, Europe was an ally of America, and public opinion was usually favorable about most of is actions, save for the hard left.
Nowadays, America is pretty much loathed, and any party opposing strongly the Americans will have a huge boost for the next elections.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Well pseudo, I 'd accept your text if this was a discussion on whether or not manning should be awarded the medal of merits.
But At it is about discussing the fact that he is being tortured, detained, and that some senator called for his execution, let me tell you that it's both revolting and out of place. For two reason : First several of these revelation have led to international inquiries, proving that there is strong evidence for crime, thus that they were worthwhile. Two, torture in this case is completely uncalled for : you don't even want any informations.

Actual torture is a punishment, not an information gathering technique. As an interrogation technique, torture is completely fucking useless at gaining actual information.

What is being done to Manning isn't actively torture. Solitary confinement does horrible things to someone's head, but it's still SOP when holding high-profile detainees. Put Manning in with other prisoners and he'd be skinned alive within the hour. Leave him with something that could be used to kill oneself, and a guard might start getting some ideas about offing him quietly. He should be put on trial as soon as possible, but such things take time.

Really, anything done to him is a lose/lose situation. Make an example of him to deter others from being as fucking stupid as he was, and you just make him a martyr and encourage more idiocy. Let him off easy and you send a message that such behavior is acceptable.

[Phmcw]

Actual torture is a punishment, not an information gathering technique.

Well, that make it easy then : torture is forbidden by international law, and the fact that you don't hide behind critical information gathering get rid of the moral dilemma.

What is being done to Manning isn't actively torture. Solitary confinement does horrible things to someone's head, but it's still SOP when holding high-profile detainees.

No, both are false : solitary confinement is recognized as torture by several nation and an inquiry is about to be launched. And it's only used as procedure for the most violent criminal, when all contact is an hazard to the personnel.

[Zangi]

What is being done to Manning isn't actively torture. Solitary confinement does horrible things to someone's head, but it's still SOP when holding high-profile detainees.

No, both are false : solitary confinement is recognized as torture by several nation and an inquiry is about to be launched. And it's only used as procedure for the most violent criminal, when all contact is an hazard to the personnel.

His words are a hazard to personnel of course.