Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

GHook93 · May 8, 2008, 12:55 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Dagda

You have it wrong, Scotland is the greatest country on earth!

Perception is reality I guess!

Simonius · May 8, 2008, 06:02 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Dagda

You have it wrong, Scotland is the greatest country on earth!

Its not been a country for three hundred years!

Dagda · May 9, 2008, 04:01 pm

No, it hasn't been a nation for 300 years. Theres a diffrence(I think).

Chaossaber314 · May 9, 2008, 04:10 pm

This is a really cool topic.

I think the ends can justify the means. Tainted means can potentially mean a tainted end, but what means are truly untainted? What in this world is absolutely good or absolutely bad?

Domino · May 9, 2008, 04:25 pm

Quote:

Tainted means can potentially mean a tainted end, but what means are truly untainted? What in this world is absolutely good or absolutely bad?

I don't think we can judge absolute values without some objective standard, which is impossible to have, in this case. Values and justifications are subjective. Justification is an appeal to a person's judgment, which is subjective.

Simonius · May 11, 2008, 06:07 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Dagda

No, it hasn't been a nation for 300 years. Theres a diffrence(I think).

No... it still is a nation, its not a country...

erm... I think...

christianmathew · May 11, 2008, 06:41 pm

the end can't justify the means. If that were true than war would be merciless and we would live in an opressed world. If the end justified the means, wouldn't it be better if some guy from Germany conquered the world so that we would at least have a universla ruler and no more wars? Even if he did kill millions of people to get on top, there wouldn't be any more death, would there? But of course no one wants that, so the end can't justify the means. It's the means that count. If you were trying to destroy all evil in the world, but you used evil means to do so, in the end you would become the evil you set out to destroy. The end can never be achieved by evil means, so it doesn't justify them.

Thanatos · May 11, 2008, 08:09 pm

Quote:

Quote by: christianmathew

the end can't justify the means. If that were true than war would be merciless and we would live in an opressed world. If the end justified the means, wouldn't it be better if some guy from Germany conquered the world so that we would at least have a universla ruler and no more wars? Even if he did kill millions of people to get on top, there wouldn't be any more death, would there? But of course no one wants that, so the end can't justify the means. It's the means that count. If you were trying to destroy all evil in the world, but you used evil means to do so, in the end you would become the evil you set out to destroy. The end can never be achieved by evil means, so it doesn't justify them.

Hypothetically, yes. The reality of living under the thumb of a giant empire is that the current chaos is more fun. Choose a different example.

Gods_Mercenary · May 11, 2008, 08:48 pm

Plus rule under hitler would be anything besides benign. If the ruler of said empire was a truly well-intentioned despot, you might have a point of contention.

Simonius · May 11, 2008, 08:55 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary

Plus rule under hitler would be anything besides benign. If the ruler of said empire was a truly well-intentioned despot, you might have a point of contention.

He was a benign and well intentioned despot from the point of few of most of his subjects.

Gods_Mercenary · May 11, 2008, 09:38 pm

Most of his german subjects, which would have made up a vast minority of his subjects had he successfully occupied even the territory he had taken over, never mind the whole world. Plus, the germans would have found that the man who wished them total destruction when Germany lost would have been truly malevolent.

christianmathew · May 12, 2008, 02:02 am

Did I say hitler? As far as I remember, all I remember saying is about Germany. Does that automatically mean Hitler to you people? And aren't we talking hyporthetically?

**Jack** · May 12, 2008, 02:25 am

Quote:

Did I say hitler?

No, but it's hard to imagine this describing anyone else.

Quote:

some guy from Germany conquered the world...Even if he did kill millions of people to get on top, there wouldn't be any more death, would there?

May 9, 2008, 04:10 pm	#44 (permalink) (top)
Chaossaber314 The Cake is a lie... Location: St. Louis Posts: 2,156	This is a really cool topic. I think the ends can justify the means. Tainted means can potentially mean a tainted end, but what means are truly untainted? What in this world is absolutely good or absolutely bad? What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

May 11, 2008, 06:41 pm	#47 (permalink) (top)
christianmathew caring christian Location: right here Posts: 177	the end can't justify the means. If that were true than war would be merciless and we would live in an opressed world. If the end justified the means, wouldn't it be better if some guy from Germany conquered the world so that we would at least have a universla ruler and no more wars? Even if he did kill millions of people to get on top, there wouldn't be any more death, would there? But of course no one wants that, so the end can't justify the means. It's the means that count. If you were trying to destroy all evil in the world, but you used evil means to do so, in the end you would become the evil you set out to destroy. The end can never be achieved by evil means, so it doesn't justify them. I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. I gave in, and admitted that God was God. C. S. Lewis

May 11, 2008, 08:48 pm	#49 (permalink) (top)
Gods_Mercenary Altruism Assassin Location: Massachusetts Posts: 3,892	Plus rule under hitler would be anything besides benign. If the ruler of said empire was a truly well-intentioned despot, you might have a point of contention. “What is the use of straining after an amiable view of things, when a cynical view is most likely to be the true one?” -George Bernard Shaw *Your friendly neighborhood Mercenary*

May 11, 2008, 09:38 pm	#51 (permalink) (top)
Gods_Mercenary Altruism Assassin Location: Massachusetts Posts: 3,892	Most of his german subjects, which would have made up a vast minority of his subjects had he successfully occupied even the territory he had taken over, never mind the whole world. Plus, the germans would have found that the man who wished them total destruction when Germany lost would have been truly malevolent. “What is the use of straining after an amiable view of things, when a cynical view is most likely to be the true one?” -George Bernard Shaw *Your friendly neighborhood Mercenary*

May 12, 2008, 02:02 am	#52 (permalink) (top)
christianmathew caring christian Location: right here Posts: 177	Did I say hitler? As far as I remember, all I remember saying is about Germany. Does that automatically mean Hitler to you people? And aren't we talking hyporthetically? I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. I gave in, and admitted that God was God. C. S. Lewis

May 9, 2008, 04:01 pm	#43 (permalink) (top)
Dagda Molten Ash Posts: 79	No, it hasn't been a nation for 300 years. Theres a diffrence(I think).