Philip Wollen : Animals Should Be Off The Menu

[truthreality]

Yes, but by these conditions most wars could be argued as just by each and every participant.

Over generalization.

Then give me a solid example and definition of a righteous war.

World War 2.

Did the US NEED to oust Saddam?

Not by invading Iraq and disobeying the UN and most of the world.

Did Britain NEED to try and stop Hitler?

Yes

Give me an example of someone's who was.

I am talking about aspects about the Nazi ideology (Master Race) and his acts such as the holocaust.

The Germans felt it did.

The Nazis felt exterminating Jews was correct. I don't trust their feelings.

How do you determine who is right?

We are talking about just war. Germany did not NEED to invade Poland.

You are the one claiming there are just wars, not me. If there can be a just war to protect territory, YOU need to have a method of determining who has a rightful claim.

Another straw man. I never said anything about just war and protecting territory. I don't need to prove your ideas right or wrong. That's your job.

No, ethics are NEVER accurate. The adjective "accurate" makes no sense when applied to the noun "ethics". I have no idea where you are getting this.

I disagree. The law which is based on ethics requires accuracy.

Ethics should be based on accurate facts because otherwise it is misguided. If you base your ethics on an inaccurate belief that something is extremely dangerous then... your own basis is flawed.

Again. You are saying that ethics should be based on an objective measurement such as accuracy and facts. This means ethics are objective.

I don't care if those are the "only criteria".

Apparently not. You brought up these criteria.

I am asking specifically what it means for something to be wrong when guilt and punishment are completely disassociated.

You brought up guilt and punishment in relation to wrong. Stop asking me to prove your ideas.

[LetThereBe]

Over generalization.

No it isn't. I said "most".

Not by invading Iraq and disobeying the UN and most of the world.

So you are implying that we did need to oust Saddam, just through a different method? How?

Yes

Why did they NEED to? Why couldn't they try to oust Hitler through some peaceful method instead?

I am talking about aspects about the Nazi ideology (Master Race) and his acts such as the holocaust.

I'm well aware. Now give me an example of someone that went to war and was not deluded.

The Nazis felt exterminating Jews was correct. I don't trust their feelings.

Americans helped wipe out the Native Americans. The French and British historically have been very bigoted against one another. Nearly every culture has a history of racism, if not on going racist tendencies. Who is trustworthy?

We are talking about just war. Germany did not NEED to invade Poland.

If you say so. Tell me when something is actually NEEDED. Did Israel need to defend the West Bank, Gaza Strip, or Golan Heights (I think I've got those right...)?

Another straw man. I never said anything about just war and protecting territory. I don't need to prove your ideas right or wrong. That's your job.

So you do not think a just war can be to protect territory? Yes or no. Either my question accurately represents your position and you should answer it, or you should be clear that a just war cannot be to protect territory.

I disagree. The law which is based on ethics requires accuracy.

How does one measure the accuracy of "ethics". We can measure the accuracy of a statistic or a factual claim, but accuracy is meaningless when applied to ethics.

Again. You are saying that ethics should be based on an objective measurement such as accuracy and facts. This means ethics are objective.

No it doesn't. It means that your subjective opinion should be based on objective fact.
Again, it is a fact that X number of people die because they didn't wear seatbelts. That is objective. To say "we should have a law to protect these people" is not objective. That is subjective.

Apparently not. You brought up these criteria.

I brought them up because your position does not make sense based on these criteria. You could say that you are going to make a house out of balsa wood and I could "bring up" criteria such as instability and flammability that would make your idea untenable.
Yes, I "brought up" the criticism. Now you must address the criticism if you wish to defend your position. That is how debate works.

You brought up guilt and punishment in relation to wrong. Stop asking me to prove your ideas.

I am not asking you to "prove my ideas", whatever that is supposed to mean. I am asking you to defend YOUR position. You say that in some situations something can be wrong but that there should be no guilt or punishment. What does this mean?
This is your position. Defend it or recant.

[truthreality]

No it isn't. I said "most".

Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence— essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.

Provide evidence to back up your assertion that most wars fit the variables I gave.

So you are implying that we did need to oust Saddam, just through a different method? How?

Trial by the UN.

The Trial of Saddam Hussein was the trial of the deposed President of Iraq Saddam Hussein by the Iraqi Interim Government for crimes against humanity during his time in office.

The United Nations has been primarily responsible for the prosecution of crimes against humanity since it was chartered in 1948.

Why did they NEED to? Why couldn't they try to oust Hitler through some peaceful method instead?

Peace was tried.

Hitler's Actions:

In 1936 Hitler ordered German troops to enter the Rhineland. At this point the German army was not very strong and could have been easily defeated. Yet neither France nor Britain was prepared to start another war.

In March 1938, German troops marched into Austria.

Hitler did not keep his word and six months later demanded that the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia be handed over to Germany.

Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of Britain, met with Hitler three times during September 1938 to try to reach an agreement that would prevent war.

Hitler was not a man of his word and in March 1939 invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia. Despite calls for help from the Czechoslovak government, neither Britain nor France was prepared to take military action against Hitler. However, some action was now necessary and believing that Poland would be Hitler's next target, both Britain and France promised that they would take military action against Hitler if he invaded Poland. Chamberlain believed that, faced with the prospect of war against Britain and France, Hitler would stop his aggression. Chamberlain was wrong. German troops invaded Poland on 1st September 1939.

When Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, he broke the terms of the Munich Agreement.

Peaceful cooperation was tried. Hitler continued to break agreements and this cooperation. On top of this Germany was not the issue so were the other countries of the Axis. War was the only and last resort to stop the Axis. In fact the allies waited to long.

I'm well aware. Now give me an example of someone that went to war and was not deluded.

Britain in World War 2. There reason to engage in war with Germany did not arise from delusion.

Americans helped wipe out the Native Americans.

Over generalization and vagueness

The French and British historically have been very bigoted against one another.

Over generalization and vagueness

Nearly every culture has a history of racism, if not on going racist tendencies.

Over generalization and vagueness

Who is trustworthy?

Family

If you say so.

Explain to me why Germany needed to invade Poland.

Tell me when something is actually NEEDED.

Dependent on the circumstance and situation.

Did Israel need to defend the West Bank, Gaza Strip, or Golan Heights (I think I've got those right...)?

I never stated that territory dispute is always a just cause for war. There are alternatives to dealing with territorial dispute that do not involve war.

So you do not think a just war can be to protect territory? Yes or no.

False dilemma fallacy

Either my question accurately represents your position and you should answer it, or you should be clear that a just war cannot be to protect territory.

Neither. Your question is a logical fallacy.

How does one measure the accuracy of "ethics".

Well being, health, justice...

We can measure the accuracy of a statistic or a factual claim, but accuracy is meaningless when applied to ethics.

Explain why.

No it doesn't. It means that your subjective opinion should be based on objective fact.
Again, it is a fact that X number of people die because they didn't wear seatbelts. That is objective. To say "we should have a law to protect these people" is not objective. That is subjective.

Your position is inconsistent. You stated that survival is a necessity. If you believe this then ethics created to protect survival are objective.

I brought them up because your position does not make sense based on these criteria.

Explain my position and explain how the criteria you brought up make my position nonsensical.

You could say that you are going to make a house out of balsa wood and I could "bring up" criteria such as instability and flammability that would make your idea untenable.
Yes, I "brought up" the criticism. Now you must address the criticism if you wish to defend your position.

Your analogy doesn't work. You have yet to show how the criteria you brought up contradicts my position. I have stated that guilt and punishment are not the only determinants of what is unethical and cited cold criminals who get away. The criteria you have brought up and your implications do not contradict my position.

I am not asking you to "prove my ideas", whatever that is supposed to mean. I am asking you to defend YOUR position. You say that in some situations something can be wrong but that there should be no guilt or punishment. What does this mean?
This is your position.

First you brought up guilt and punishment. Second I explained a situation in which someone could commit an unethical act while been forgiven (stealing for necessity). In this situation guilt would go away and there would be no punishment due to forgiveness.

[LetThereBe]

Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence— essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.

Provide evidence to back up your assertion that most wars fit the variables I gave.

Is this seriously something you even contest?
You give this ridiculously general "stop violence, genocide, and other atrocities". What constitutes "other atrocities"? Was slavery an atrocity during the Civil War? Is losing the right to self-rule an atrocity? Is an invasion of territory an atrocity? Is an assassination an atrocity? Is an embargo that cripples your economy an atrocity? Is a religious insult an atrocity?
Let's play it this way: name me a war and I'll give a "righteous justification" given your insanely ambiguous criteria.

Trial by the UN.

The Trial of Saddam Hussein was the trial of the deposed President of Iraq Saddam Hussein by the Iraqi Interim Government for crimes against humanity during his time in office.

The United Nations has been primarily responsible for the prosecution of crimes against humanity since it was chartered in 1948.

Trial by the UN wouldn't really work when he was comfortably ruling his own nation. I doubt he would entertain a court summons.

Peace was tried.

So was peace with Saddam. Why did BRITAIN need to go to war? They were never invaded. Hitler made no claims to their land, nor did any of the other Axis powers.

Britain in World War 2. There reason to engage in war with Germany did not arise from delusion.

What did it arise over then? Germany broke a treaty by taking non-British land, so it is justified to kill Germans?

Over generalization and vagueness

Over generalization? Not at all. Without question, citizens of the United States contributed to the death and suffering of the Native Americans. Do you contest this point?

Over generalization and vagueness

Do you contest that there was irrational animosity between the British and French? Do you disagree that this influenced their many wars with one another?

Over generalization and vagueness

Name one counter example.

Family

...and apparently the British? Last time I checked, it wasn't your personal family that declared war on Hitler.

Explain to me why Germany needed to invade Poland.

I'm not saying he did. I'm saying that there is very rarely a NEED and almost all wars are based on bigotry and false-righteousness.

Dependent on the circumstance and situation.

Then what specifically would be the circumstances and situation that would make it just? All you do is hide behind ambiguity. Give a real answer so I can test your position.

I never stated that territory dispute is always a just cause for war. There are alternatives to dealing with territorial dispute that do not involve war.

Strawman. I never said "always". I'm saying "ever". Is it ever just to fight over territory? (You seem to indicate as much with your feelings regarding WW2).

False dilemma fallacy

What other option is there?
Either it can be, or it cannot be. There is nothing false about this dilemma. They are literally the only options.

Neither. Your question is a logical fallacy.

No, not at all. Either something can be, or something cannot be. There is nothing fallacious about that. I am not saying "must be" or "always is" and "cannot be". I am saying can or cannot. Those are the only choices. Please stop with the cowardly evasion tactics and just answer the simple question.

Well being, health, justice...

How does one measure any of those? Who says that those are the things that ethics promote?

Explain why.

Because it doesn't make testable claims.

Your position is inconsistent. You stated that survival is a necessity. If you believe this then ethics created to protect survival are objective.

No, ethics created to protect survival subjectively view survival as important. Survival is a necessity for the individual.

Explain my position and explain how the criteria you brought up make my position nonsensical.

Your position seems to be (hard to tell, as you never answer direct questions or elaborate) that committing a crime is still wrong, even if it is justified. It is still wrong to steal if you do it due to necessity. Despite being "wrong" the person that steals and is justified should feel no guilt for their action and should not be punished.
A concept of "wrong" with no guilt and no punishment is meaningless.

Your analogy doesn't work. You have yet to show how the criteria you brought up contradicts my position. I have stated that guilt and punishment are not the only determinants of what is unethical and cited cold criminals who get away. The criteria you have brought up and your implications do not contradict my position.

It doesn't "contradict" your position, it just shows that your definition of "wrong" is essentially meaningless. It is irrelevant if criminals get away, as the criminal doesn't view their act as wrong. If they do, then they feel guilt. That is what it means to feel what you did was wrong. Wrongness and guilt are always linked.

First you brought up guilt and punishment. Second I explained a situation in which someone could commit an unethical act while been forgiven (stealing for necessity). In this situation guilt would go away and there would be no punishment due to forgiveness.

So clearly they felt guilt prior to the forgiveness, correct? It doesn't make sense to have forgiveness without guilt, as there would be nothing to forgive.

[truthreality]

Is this seriously something you even contest?

Absolutely. If you apply my position to what is not my position I am going to contest your false assumption.

You give this ridiculously general "stop violence, genocide, and other atrocities".

I recommend patience my dear sir.

What constitutes "other atrocities"?

How about I give you the definition of atrocity. This might help you.

Atrocity: an extremely wicked or cruel act

Was slavery an atrocity during the Civil War?

Slavery in the United States of America was an atrocity

Is losing the right to self-rule an atrocity?

Define self-rule and explain how you are using the term

Is an invasion of territory an atrocity?

Depends on the motives behind the invasion. If the objective is to liberate then no. invasion is not an atrocity.

Is an assassination an atrocity?

Depends on who is being assassinated and why.

Is an embargo that cripples your economy an atrocity?

Embargos are prohibition of commerce and trade. There is nothing atrocious about an embargo. If a policy has a negative effect on the economy that doesn't make the policy atrocious especially if the intentions were to help the economy.

Is a religious insult an atrocity?

Define insult.

Let's play it this way: name me a war and I'll give a "righteous justification" given your insanely ambiguous criteria.

The Al-Anfal Campaign

Trial by the UN wouldn't really work when he was comfortably ruling his own nation. I doubt he would entertain a court summons.

Whether or not he is comfortable ruling his own nation is irrelevant to the whether or not he International Criminal Court of the UN would try him.

So was peace with Saddam.

I am talking about peace with Saddam. I am not advocating any peace towards Saddam. He should have been tried and convicted by the UN.

Why did BRITAIN need to go to war? They were never invaded. Hitler made no claims to their land, nor did any of the other Axis powers.

Britain and France made a treatie with Poland that if Germany invaded they would go to war.

What did it arise over then? Germany broke a treaty by taking non-British land, so it is justified to kill Germans?

Again. Britain made a treaty with Poland. Britain went to war not to kill Germans but to put an end to the atrocities of Nazi Germany.

Over generalization? Not at all. Without question, citizens of the United States contributed to the death and suffering of the Native Americans. Do you contest this point?

Absolutely. You said "Americans helped wipe out Native Americans". Native Americans aren't wiped out. Who are the American citizens that caused the death and suffering of Native Americans?

Do you contest that there was irrational animosity between the British and French? Do you disagree that this influenced their many wars with one another?

You are stereotyping and you have negated other variables for the cause of the wars between the British and French and this is a red herring because it has nothing to do with my argument or position.

Name one counter example.

The burden of proof is on you. You made the positive claim.

...and apparently the British? Last time I checked, it wasn't your personal family that declared war on Hitler.

Strawman. I never said the my personal family declared war. You asked "who is trustworthy" and I gave you an example.

I'm not saying he did. I'm saying that there is very rarely a NEED and almost all wars are based on bigotry and false-righteousness.

Another positive claim without evidence.

Then what specifically would be the circumstances and situation that would make it just?

So many variables so little time.

All you do is hide behind ambiguity.

Again I recommend patience friend

Give a real answer so I can test your position.

What is a real answer?

Is it ever just to fight over territory? (You seem to indicate as much with your feelings regarding WW2).

Straw man. WW2 was not merely a territorial dispute.

What other option is there?Either it can be, or it cannot be. There is nothing false about this dilemma. They are literally the only options.

Negotiation is an alternative to war.

No, not at all. Either something can be, or something cannot be. There is nothing fallacious about that. I am not saying "must be" or "always is" and "cannot be". I am saying can or cannot. Those are the only choices. Please stop with the cowardly evasion tactics and just answer the simple question.

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.

How does one measure any of those? Who says that those are the things that ethics promote?

Health and well being: Medical sciences and Justice: Rationality

Because it doesn't make testable claims.

Yes. If I took all your necessities for survival, put you in a concentration camp and tortured you for 50 years because you were born would you consider the situation unethical?

No, ethics created to protect survival subjectively view survival as important. Survival is a necessity for the individual.

Explain why survival is a necessity. Then explain how ethics created to protect survival do not match necessity when you deem survival necessary.

Your position seems to be (hard to tell, as you never answer direct questions or elaborate) that committing a crime is still wrong, even if it is justified.

Straw man. I never said anything about crimes.

It is still wrong to steal if you do it due to necessity. Despite being "wrong" the person that steals and is justified should feel no guilt for their action and should not be punished.

Strawman. I never said someone who steals for necessity should not be punished. I said a person who steals for necessity should not feel guilty.

A concept of "wrong" with no guilt and no punishment is meaningless.

Strawman. I never said that the concept of "wrong" is without guilt and punishment.

It doesn't "contradict" your position, it just shows that your definition of "wrong" is essentially meaningless. It is irrelevant if criminals get away, as the criminal doesn't view their act as wrong. If they do, then they feel guilt. That is what it means to feel what you did was wrong. Wrongness and guilt are always linked.

Someone without conscience may know their act was wrong, get away with punishment and still not feel guilty.

So clearly they felt guilt prior to the forgiveness, correct?

They might or they might not.

It doesn't make sense to have forgiveness without guilt, as there would be nothing to forgive.

Depends who is doing the forgiving. If the person who is forgiving did not commit the unethical act but is forgiving someone who committed an unethical act he may or may not be aware if the person is guilty or not. I can forgive someone who is not guilty.

[LetThereBe]

Absolutely. If you apply my position to what is not my position I am going to contest your false assumption.

Then please tell me exactly what your position is. You keep accusing me of misrepresenting you, yet you refuse to elaborate...

I recommend patience my dear sir.

...like that. Instead of just explaining yourself you hide behind constant evasion.

How about I give you the definition of atrocity. This might help you.

Atrocity: an extremely wicked or cruel act

That doesn't help at all. The definition is nebulous enough to be essentially meaningless. Hitler would call the "unjust" seizure of "German lands" an atrocity. I want to know specifically what YOU mean by atrocity. What do you consider "extremely wicked"?

Slavery in the United States of America was an atrocity

Alright, good. We have one example. Why is it you consider this an atrocity? Hopefully based on your answer I can generalize to actually understand what you mean since you wont' explain it.

Define self-rule and explain how you are using the term

As in another power forcefully imposes rule upon you and denies you self-autonomy.

Depends on the motives behind the invasion. If the objective is to liberate then no. invasion is not an atrocity.

So us "liberating" Iraq was justified?

Depends on who is being assassinated and why.

What are some examples of assassinations that are worth going to war over?

Embargos are prohibition of commerce and trade. There is nothing atrocious about an embargo. If a policy has a negative effect on the economy that doesn't make the policy atrocious especially if the intentions were to help the economy.

What if the intention isn't to help the economy but instead to serve a political agenda and impoverish the target nation (like Cuba). What if your people are starving due to the embargo?

Define insult.

Do you really not know what this means?
Insult: A disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or action.

The Al-Anfal Campaign

It was a heathen army! By not living by God's laws they were committing atrocities in the eyes of the Muslims. It was a tremendous insult to their religion.

Whether or not he is comfortable ruling his own nation is irrelevant to the whether or not he International Criminal Court of the UN would try him.

It is very relevant, because the court can't try him if he doesn't show up. You can rule him guilty, but that doesn't mean a damn thing if you don't actually excercise authority and he remains in power.

I am talking about peace with Saddam. I am not advocating any peace towards Saddam. He should have been tried and convicted by the UN.

...which again does nothing. He can continue to gas Kurds while you make resolutions and pronouncements in a distant court room.

Britain and France made a treatie with Poland that if Germany invaded they would go to war.

So keeping a promise is also a just cause to go to war?

Again. Britain made a treaty with Poland. Britain went to war not to kill Germans but to put an end to the atrocities of Nazi Germany.

The "atrocities" being that they broke a treaty?

Absolutely. You said "Americans helped wipe out Native Americans". Native Americans aren't wiped out. Who are the American citizens that caused the death and suffering of Native Americans?

What do you want, names?
Those that displaced them. Those that were in the military that marched them off their lands. Those that made the decisions to march them off their lands. Those that supported those decisions with their votes, their taxes, and their hearts.

You are stereotyping and you have negated other variables for the cause of the wars between the British and French and this is a red herring because it has nothing to do with my argument or position.

The point is that the Nazis aren't the only ones that go to war based on bigotry and delusion. It is almost always a factor.

The burden of proof is on you. You made the positive claim.

Well, what constitutes "nearly every culture"? I can provide sources showing that nearly every Western nation showed blatant racism at one point in history. I can show racist tendencies against Japan and China, and other Eastern nations. I can show the racist undertones of our own war with the Japanese. I can show the religious bigotry that was responsible for countless battles between Christians and Muslims and Jews and other Christians.
Do you really contest that all of this is true? If what I say is inaccurate, wouldn't it be far simpler to even provide ONE counter example?

Strawman. I never said the my personal family declared war. You asked "who is trustworthy" and I gave you an example.

Yes, you gave a worthless answer that makes absolutely no sense in the context of the discussion. You said that the Nazis could not be trusted in their decision to go to war. What the hell does it matter that you can trust your family? How often do they go to war?

Another positive claim without evidence.

This depends on your definition of "need" which you still have refused to define. Name me a war and I'll show you signs of bigotry.

So many variables so little time.

You spend plenty of time making frivolous evasions and nonsensical comments considering context... yet you can't be bothered to actually clarify your position?

Again I recommend patience friend

...basically admitting that you have no plans on defending your position. At the very least I admire that shred of honesty.

What is a real answer?

Sufficiently specific to test conditions.

Straw man. WW2 was not merely a territorial dispute.

I can only work with the nebulous answers you give me. You claim WW2 was a just war. You claim WW2 was started due to the broken treaty and invasion of territory. If my question was not accurately reflecting your position, please clarify what your position actually is.

Negotiation is an alternative to war.

Are you saying negotiation is an alternative to EVERY war? If not, that doesn't answer my question.

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.

Yes, and in this case there clearly is no additional option. I am not saying "A or B". I am saying "A or not A". That literally includes everything. There are no other options.

Health and well being: Medical sciences and Justice: Rationality

How do the medical sciences measure that? Give me a number that shows something is more ethical than something else.
Give me a specific measure of rationality to show that something is more just, and therefore more ethical.

Yes. If I took all your necessities for survival, put you in a concentration camp and tortured you for 50 years because you were born would you consider the situation unethical?

I would subjectively consider the situation unethical. There are no testable claims in your silly scenario.

Explain why survival is a necessity. Then explain how ethics created to protect survival do not match necessity when you deem survival necessary.

Because if you do not survive you do not exist. Ethics created to "protect survival" do "match" the biological imperative of individual necessity, but whether or not such ethics SHOULD be created is subjective.

Straw man. I never said anything about crimes.

Yes you did. The original situation was stealing food because you were starving.

Strawman. I never said someone who steals for necessity should not be punished. I said a person who steals for necessity should not feel guilty.

Yes you did, or at the very least you never contested that presentation.

Strawman. I never said that the concept of "wrong" is without guilt and punishment.

Haha... are you seriously going to undergo this egregious backtracking? This is what you had said all along, and what I've been calling absurd for perhaps a dozen posts!

Someone without conscience may know their act was wrong, get away with punishment and still not feel guilty.

They may know it was ILLEGAL, but they did not feel their act was wrong.

Depends who is doing the forgiving. If the person who is forgiving did not commit the unethical act but is forgiving someone who committed an unethical act he may or may not be aware if the person is guilty or not. I can forgive someone who is not guilty.

...what?
That doesn't even make sense. What is the purpose of forgiving someone that isn't guilty? What are you even forgiving them of?

[truthreality]

Double Post...

[truthreality]

Then please tell me exactly what your position is. You keep accusing me of misrepresenting you, yet you refuse to elaborate...



...like that. Instead of just explaining yourself you hide behind constant evasion.



That doesn't help at all. The definition is nebulous enough to be essentially meaningless. Hitler would call the "unjust" seizure of "German lands" an atrocity. I want to know specifically what YOU mean by atrocity. What do you consider "extremely wicked"?



Alright, good. We have one example. Why is it you consider this an atrocity? Hopefully based on your answer I can generalize to actually understand what you mean since you wont' explain it.



As in another power forcefully imposes rule upon you and denies you self-autonomy.



So us "liberating" Iraq was justified?



What are some examples of assassinations that are worth going to war over?



What if the intention isn't to help the economy but instead to serve a political agenda and impoverish the target nation (like Cuba). What if your people are starving due to the embargo?



Do you really not know what this means?
Insult: A disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or action.



It was a heathen army! By not living by God's laws they were committing atrocities in the eyes of the Muslims. It was a tremendous insult to their religion.



It is very relevant, because the court can't try him if he doesn't show up. You can rule him guilty, but that doesn't mean a damn thing if you don't actually excercise authority and he remains in power.



...which again does nothing. He can continue to gas Kurds while you make resolutions and pronouncements in a distant court room.



So keeping a promise is also a just cause to go to war?



The "atrocities" being that they broke a treaty?



What do you want, names?
Those that displaced them. Those that were in the military that marched them off their lands. Those that made the decisions to march them off their lands. Those that supported those decisions with their votes, their taxes, and their hearts.



The point is that the Nazis aren't the only ones that go to war based on bigotry and delusion. It is almost always a factor.



Well, what constitutes "nearly every culture"? I can provide sources showing that nearly every Western nation showed blatant racism at one point in history. I can show racist tendencies against Japan and China, and other Eastern nations. I can show the racist undertones of our own war with the Japanese. I can show the religious bigotry that was responsible for countless battles between Christians and Muslims and Jews and other Christians.
Do you really contest that all of this is true? If what I say is inaccurate, wouldn't it be far simpler to even provide ONE counter example?



Yes, you gave a worthless answer that makes absolutely no sense in the context of the discussion. You said that the Nazis could not be trusted in their decision to go to war. What the hell does it matter that you can trust your family? How often do they go to war?



This depends on your definition of "need" which you still have refused to define. Name me a war and I'll show you signs of bigotry.



You spend plenty of time making frivolous evasions and nonsensical comments considering context... yet you can't be bothered to actually clarify your position?



...basically admitting that you have no plans on defending your position. At the very least I admire that shred of honesty.



Sufficiently specific to test conditions.



I can only work with the nebulous answers you give me. You claim WW2 was a just war. You claim WW2 was started due to the broken treaty and invasion of territory. If my question was not accurately reflecting your position, please clarify what your position actually is.



Are you saying negotiation is an alternative to EVERY war? If not, that doesn't answer my question.



Yes, and in this case there clearly is no additional option. I am not saying "A or B". I am saying "A or not A". That literally includes everything. There are no other options.



How do the medical sciences measure that? Give me a number that shows something is more ethical than something else.
Give me a specific measure of rationality to show that something is more just, and therefore more ethical.



I would subjectively consider the situation unethical. There are no testable claims in your silly scenario.



Because if you do not survive you do not exist. Ethics created to "protect survival" do "match" the biological imperative of individual necessity, but whether or not such ethics SHOULD be created is subjective.



Yes you did. The original situation was stealing food because you were starving.



Yes you did, or at the very least you never contested that presentation.



Haha... are you seriously going to undergo this egregious backtracking? This is what you had said all along, and what I've been calling absurd for perhaps a dozen posts!



They may know it was ILLEGAL, but they did not feel their act was wrong.



...what?
That doesn't even make sense. What is the purpose of forgiving someone that isn't guilty? What are you even forgiving them of?

My position in this thread is that animal cruelty is unethical which is the topic of the OP. The rest of this post is quite frankly off topic and irrelevant. The reason my position is ambiguous to you is because you have created another discussion in which I do not have a position. I don't need you testing for internal consistency in my personal ethics with your ridiculous hypothetical, failed analogies and childish questions. The topic of this thread is a specific problem with specific variables and conditions. You keep bringing up other problems with other variables and conditions. If you cannot engage in argumentation without creating incredibly tangential discussions without ever getting to a point there is a problem in your argumentation and you are wasting time.

[truthreality]

They are testing different things. Let me give you an example.
You can say that x=4.
I can give you a situation to test if it is true. x^2=16.
From THIS equation your premise that x=4 holds.
I can then ask if x+10=6.
If it turns out that this separate condition is also true, then your premise is inconsistent. It turns out that x != 4, instead x = -4.

This entire analogy is fucked up and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of both mathematics and logic on your part. First when you take the square root of a number there are always two solutions. The square root of 16 is + and -4. Second you have applied the value of x gained from one equation to a separate equation which is fundamentally incorrect. You don't just plug in random numbers for variables to find answers to equations. You solve for the variable. The reason you do not get the same answer for the two equations you have given is because you are applying the conditions of one problem to a separate problem but it doesn't matter because the second condition you have given yields the same answer to one of the solutions gained in the first equation. Third you are comparing two separate equations but you have yet to establish that the two equations are related in any sense. Quite frankly this analogy makes zero sense. How about you explain this analogy and its relevance to the discussion and I will take any of your analogies seriously.

Here is a better analogy of the discussion at hand.

f (x) = x^ 3 - x ^2 - 6x

If I take the first derivative I find that f if is increasing on (- ∞, - 2) , and (3,∞) f is decreasing on (- 2, 3) and f has a local max at x = - 2 and a local min at x = 3. Substituting numbers outside of the conditions given into the incorrect range is useless and fundamentally wrong which is what you are doing.

This analogy is incomplete, anyways, because Mathematics and Ethics are two different subjects that don't complement each other.

[grandpa]

This entire analogy is fucked up and shows a fundamental
lack of understanding of both mathematics and logic on your
part.
First when you take the square root of a number
there are always two solutions.

Like you say, mathematics and ethics tend not to go hand in hand. An equation alone doesn't get a heart beating and lungs breathing. Then again, neither do ethics.

There are no hard and fast rules when it comes to ethics. Every theory will be flawed.

Grandpa h.

[LetThereBe]

My position in this thread is that animal cruelty is unethical which is the topic of the OP. The rest of this post is quite frankly off topic and irrelevant. The reason my position is ambiguous to you is because you have created another discussion in which I do not have a position. I don't need you testing for internal consistency in my personal ethics with your ridiculous hypothetical, failed analogies and childish questions. The topic of this thread is a specific problem with specific variables and conditions. You keep bringing up other problems with other variables and conditions. If you cannot engage in argumentation without creating incredibly tangential discussions without ever getting to a point there is a problem in your argumentation and you are wasting time.

If all you are trying to get across is "I think animal cruelty is unethical and I have no justification for that belief" then fine, I can't really argue against that. It is just an arbitrary opinion so I can't really disagree that that is how you feel.
Still, if that is all you are trying to say then it is impossible to have a discussion anyway. You might as well talk about your favorite color.

Being that this is a discussion board I had hoped that your ethics would be a position you would try to defend. I thought you would have justification and reasoning behind your opinions, and as such they could be tested and questioned.

This entire analogy is fucked up and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of both mathematics and logic on your part. First when you take the square root of a number there are always two solutions. The square root of 16 is + and -4.

There are two possible solutions. That was the entire point of the analogy. You only consider one possible solution, but when presented more information we see your proposed solution is not correct.

Second you have applied the value of x gained from one equation to a separate equation which is fundamentally incorrect. You don't just plug in random numbers for variables to find answers to equations. You solve for the variable. The reason you do not get the same answer for the two equations you have given is because you are applying the conditions of one problem to a separate problem but it doesn't matter because the second condition you have given yields the same answer to one of the solutions gained in the first equation.

This happens all the time . It isn't "random", it is applying two known equations that use the same variable which individually cannot provide a solution, but combined can. I will agree that my example was bad since just one of the equations alone gave an answer, making the other redundant.
A better example is when you are solving for a particular variable and based on known relationships come up with two functions (the geometric interpretation being the intersection of the graph).

Third you are comparing two separate equations but you have yet to establish that the two equations are related in any sense. Quite frankly this analogy makes zero sense. How about you explain this analogy and its relevance to the discussion and I will take any of your analogies seriously.

Given that I was using the same variable I thought that could be assumed.
The thing is, for ethics to be a useful system it must be consistent. Like math, if we assume the same starting conditions and the same rules, we MUST logically come to the same conclusion. If not, then one of us (or both of us) are wrong.
The point of the analogy was that it isn't enough for your position to match with just one of your rules. Internal consistency demands that your position match EVERY one of your rules.
We can consider each rule as an equation (or better yet, a function). From each function there is a set of possible outcomes. Only the values which intersect both functions are consistent across both and valid.

[truthreality]

Double post...