I will get back to you on this soon. Some good points to address.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
I don't see how a moral code can be held or followed without the need for justifying it's application, so it doesn't really bother me that is required by my own. Just look at every religion throughout history, even holding approximately the same moral code, the applications span from tyrant to saint depending on how it has been applied.

When it comes to something as severe as the act of ending another human life, I'll readily admit that how you justify it is huge. Is it not, however, equally important to justify the morality of your response to someone killing thousands?

In the extreme is WW2, which my grandfather and his brothers refused to participate on exactly the moral grounds you propose. They had to be willing to at least claim that morally, with a gun in their hand, they would watch their families murdered rather than shoot the killer. My conscience recoils at that.

That morality also insists that the lack of action taken in Rwanda's genocide by the world was the right moral decision. I reject that. I see the refusal to act to stop such a horrific genocide as morally evil and I oppose it. I don't feel that is weakened by the fact it depends upon using some judgment, logic and facts to reach that definition.


In reply to this comment by Kofi:
You seem to have a consequentialist morality. I sympathise with it greatly but find it an incoherent morality due to its double standards and subjectivity.

I guess my greivance is calling something moral that would otherwise not be moral. It seems to dilute the very notion. Call it just or necessary but do not call it moral. Calling it moral leads to all sorts of other "justifications" such as "pre-emptive war" (which I guess this was) and terrorism etc etc. (No I am not calling you a terrorist : I am just mentioning how such claims to morality can be contorted to suit ones needs).



In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^Kofi:

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.
When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.
However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.
Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.


Only if your morality is absolute, inflexible and immune to logic.

My moral compass declares the killing of another human being one of the worst things that can happen. That is DIFFERENT than someone that believes that killing another human being is the worst thing a person can do.

The difference is vitally important. By one compass, which my pacifist forefathers held to, killing one human to stop him from operating a Nazi gas chamber killing thousands every day is morally wrong and much worse than refusing to kill him and letting the people die. By my moral compass, failing to stop that man is by far the worse crime.

This applies directly to the NATO involvement in Libya, as Gaddafi had publicly declared his intention of waging a genocide against the opposition, and cleansing the nation of these cockroaches house by house. More over, Gaddafi had done it before, and was in the very process of seizing the military positioning required to do it. His own deputy minister to the UN stated on the day that NATO decided to participate in the UN mandated mission that Gaddafi was within hours of instituting a slaughter of innocents.

I don't see how a moral code can be held or followed without the need for justifying it's application, so it doesn't really bother me that is required by my own. Just look at every religion throughout history, even holding approximately the same moral code, the applications span from tyrant to saint depending on how it has been applied.

When it comes to something as severe as the act of ending another human life, I'll readily admit that how you justify it is huge. Is it not, however, equally important to justify the morality of your response to someone killing thousands?

In the extreme is WW2, which my grandfather and his brothers refused to participate on exactly the moral grounds you propose. They had to be willing to at least claim that morally, with a gun in their hand, they would watch their families murdered rather than shoot the killer. My conscience recoils at that.

That morality also insists that the lack of action taken in Rwanda's genocide by the world was the right moral decision. I reject that. I see the refusal to act to stop such a horrific genocide as morally evil and I oppose it. I don't feel that is weakened by the fact it depends upon using some judgment, logic and facts to reach that definition.


In reply to this comment by Kofi:
You seem to have a consequentialist morality. I sympathise with it greatly but find it an incoherent morality due to its double standards and subjectivity.

I guess my greivance is calling something moral that would otherwise not be moral. It seems to dilute the very notion. Call it just or necessary but do not call it moral. Calling it moral leads to all sorts of other "justifications" such as "pre-emptive war" (which I guess this was) and terrorism etc etc. (No I am not calling you a terrorist : I am just mentioning how such claims to morality can be contorted to suit ones needs).



In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^Kofi:

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.
When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.
However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.
Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.


Only if your morality is absolute, inflexible and immune to logic.

My moral compass declares the killing of another human being one of the worst things that can happen. That is DIFFERENT than someone that believes that killing another human being is the worst thing a person can do.

The difference is vitally important. By one compass, which my pacifist forefathers held to, killing one human to stop him from operating a Nazi gas chamber killing thousands every day is morally wrong and much worse than refusing to kill him and letting the people die. By my moral compass, failing to stop that man is by far the worse crime.

This applies directly to the NATO involvement in Libya, as Gaddafi had publicly declared his intention of waging a genocide against the opposition, and cleansing the nation of these cockroaches house by house. More over, Gaddafi had done it before, and was in the very process of seizing the military positioning required to do it. His own deputy minister to the UN stated on the day that NATO decided to participate in the UN mandated mission that Gaddafi was within hours of instituting a slaughter of innocents.

You seem to have a consequentialist morality. I sympathise with it greatly but find it an incoherent morality due to its double standards and subjectivity.

I guess my greivance is calling something moral that would otherwise not be moral. It seems to dilute the very notion. Call it just or necessary but do not call it moral. Calling it moral leads to all sorts of other "justifications" such as "pre-emptive war" (which I guess this was) and terrorism etc etc. (No I am not calling you a terrorist I am just mentioning how such claims to morality can be contorted to suit ones needs).



In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^Kofi:

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.
When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.
However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.
Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.


Only if your morality is absolute, inflexible and immune to logic.

My moral compass declares the killing of another human being one of the worst things that can happen. That is DIFFERENT than someone that believes that killing another human being is the worst thing a person can do.

The difference is vitally important. By one compass, which my pacifist forefathers held to, killing one human to stop him from operating a Nazi gas chamber killing thousands every day is morally wrong and much worse than refusing to kill him and letting the people die. By my moral compass, failing to stop that man is by far the worse crime.

This applies directly to the NATO involvement in Libya, as Gaddafi had publicly declared his intention of waging a genocide against the opposition, and cleansing the nation of these cockroaches house by house. More over, Gaddafi had done it before, and was in the very process of seizing the military positioning required to do it. His own deputy minister to the UN stated on the day that NATO decided to participate in the UN mandated mission that Gaddafi was within hours of instituting a slaughter of innocents.

>> ^Kofi:

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.
When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.
However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.
Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.


Only if your morality is absolute, inflexible and immune to logic.

My moral compass declares the killing of another human being one of the worst things that can happen. That is DIFFERENT than someone that believes that killing another human being is the worst thing a person can do.

The difference is vitally important. By one compass, which my pacifist forefathers held to, killing one human to stop him from operating a Nazi gas chamber killing thousands every day is morally wrong and much worse than refusing to kill him and letting the people die. By my moral compass, failing to stop that man is by far the worse crime.

This applies directly to the NATO involvement in Libya, as Gaddafi had publicly declared his intention of waging a genocide against the opposition, and cleansing the nation of these cockroaches house by house. More over, Gaddafi had done it before, and was in the very process of seizing the military positioning required to do it. His own deputy minister to the UN stated on the day that NATO decided to participate in the UN mandated mission that Gaddafi was within hours of instituting a slaughter of innocents.

I said this in response to another video earlier the week. There's no point, we're all just cockroaches. It's becoming truer everyday. There was a similar story in Italy awhile ago, but that was to do with the Romany population and two dead girls lying on the beach, ignored by the Italian beach goers.

Cockroaches. Fuck us all.

>> ^bareboards2:

It's all fascinating, however you slice it.


No, we're all just cockroaches.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Why in the fuck should loving someone of the same sex be something that needs to be "cured"?
Ask the future parents who will have the option to choose their fetus' sexual preference, as well as height, disease-resistance and skin tone.

Rich people of the future may have these options. Your decendants on the other hand, Homo Hillbillius, will have to stick with the old trailer park technique: Breeding like cockroaches and discarding the weak.

God is a cockroach:

Yesssssss.......I remember this movie vividly, it's the ultimate "diamond in the rough" (went straight to video if I ain't mistaken) & was beyond a doubt Cage's best performance EVER.

Trivia:- He ate THREE cockroaches, thats how many takes the scene took (Yuk)

^Upvoted^

>> ^bcglorf:

@ghark, you are fool who is completely blinded by their hatred for America.
Everything in thread was praising the victory of Libyan rebels over Gaddafi. Joy that all of Gaddafi's promises to exterminate them house by house like cockroaches would no longer come to pass. That is good.
Then you come along and declare that the rebels have some loose ties to the satanic forces of the empire, so their victory over Gaddafi is no victory at all. In fact, you seem to suggest that association makes their victory over Gaddafi even worse for Libyans than Gaddafi's continued rule.
You are insane, or possibly even in the employ of the likes of the regime. I don't really care much which, I'm done with you and your madness.
Congratulations to the Libyan people, may your gains now be as long lived as possible.


What I've given you are facts, the fact that you find them hard to digest doesn't make the facts wrong, it makes you closed minded. In return you've tried to pass off the Iraq invasion as 'an improvement' and called those that question the improvements the "ignorant masses". Refuting history is important for the likes of you because it allows you to more easily justify what's just happened to our friends in Libya. I'm also happy for the Libyans that wanted this, however I see both sides, something you seem closed to and I can't help you there obviously.

@ghark, you are fool who is completely blinded by their hatred for America.

Everything in thread was praising the victory of Libyan rebels over Gaddafi. Joy that all of Gaddafi's promises to exterminate them house by house like cockroaches would no longer come to pass. That is good.

Then you come along and declare that the rebels have some loose ties to the satanic forces of the empire, so their victory over Gaddafi is no victory at all. In fact, you seem to suggest that association makes their victory over Gaddafi even worse for Libyans than Gaddafi's continued rule.

You are insane, or possibly even in the employ of the likes of the regime. I don't really care much which, I'm done with you and your madness.

Congratulations to the Libyan people, may your gains now be as long lived as possible.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^rottenseed:
intelligence is a spectrum

single-celled organisms-->bacteria-->people from Arizona-->...-->cockroaches-->...-->gorillas-->dolphins-->humans

Now, now rottenseed. There are smart people in Arizona--and Idaho.


The "smart" people in Arizona are the exception, not the rule. There's something about desert dwelling people in general. I think the sun does something to their brain (at least during the summer).

>> ^rottenseed:

intelligence is a spectrum

single-celled organisms-->bacteria-->people from Arizona-->...-->cockroaches-->...-->gorillas-->dolphins-->humans


Now, now rottenseed. There are smart people in Arizona--and Idaho.

intelligence is a spectrum


single-celled organisms-->bacteria-->people from Arizona-->...-->cockroaches-->...-->gorillas-->dolphins-->humans

>> ^quantumushroom:

Listen moonbat, no one gives a fuck whether your lame questions were answered to your satisfaction, least of all me. liberalism is a mental disorder.

>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^quantumushroom:
I feel guilty for all the people who bust their asses at work, then have their money seized and pissed away on shitbirds like this, so lefties can allay their manufactured guilt at events two centuries old.
Three years of "kollij" and GNOMESANE still can't speak proper English.
Be PROUD, Liberal. You made him.

>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^quantumushroom:
"Vermin" is easier to type than "parasite".
Judging by skin color is racist.
Judging by content of character is also racist?
What's left?
>> ^Boise_Lib:
Vermin?
The Nazi's called Jewish people rats, the Hutu called the Tutsi cockroaches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide); and the wingnuts called anyone who disagreed with spending trillions to invade and occupy a country, which did not attack us, un-american and un-patriotic.
This guys not too bright, but calling people vermin crosses a line.
What's your definition of vermin? Anyone you dislike?


Why are you bringing up racism? Guilty conscience?


I notice you didn't answer my question. I believe that the Hutu and Tutsi belong to the same race. I said nothing about racism, yet you came back with a, "Wah, He called me a racist" defense. Typical wing-nut deflection.



A Mental Disorder is definitely on display here. I leave to the readers to determine whose mentality is more disordered.