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.

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.

The conservative agenda has systematically set up the economy over the last 50 years so that poor people are poorer and the middle class is disappearing.

What you mistakenly blame on conservatives is actually caused by the increase in government and the centralization of power. Larger government in bed with industry results in crony capitalism that steers wealth to large government and large companies. This is not the conservative agenda. That is the LIBERAL agenda which is promulgated by both democrats and the GOP. Fiscal conservatives want nothing to do with it. That is what the Tea Party is all about. Do you want to improve income disparity? Join the Tea Party and elect more fiscal conservatives to pare down big government, and knee-cap the crony capitalism that results from it.

So Christ was just kidding about "turn the other cheek"? You can hold someone accountable without killing them in cold blood.

First off – no one is killing in cold blood. That’s just your bias talking.

Second - Christ teaching people to avoid anger and revenge in their personal lives has nothing to do with capital punishment. A person can follow the turn the other cheek philosophy in their personal lives, and yet still support capital punishment for society’s guilty. Capital punishment isn’t about revenge. It is about justice.

And you're being utterly disingenuous to pretend they're "cheering for justice". That is BS and you know it. They are cheering for vengeance.

Who are you to say that? Are you a mind reader? Do you have psychic powers? Of course not. You’re just another biased neolib who is projecting your own anger and hatred onto other people. You say its BS. Well, could not someone else say it is “BS” to claim that neolibs are cheering ‘free choice’ when they applaud the murdering of innocent children? See how that works? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

>> ^VoodooV:

They do realize that it looks like he's pissing flame right?


I think that was the intent. An odd choice. Along with the choice to intro the trailer in max douchebag let's-never-be-sincere mode.

Yeah but I was half expecting the article to be about some redneck racists seeking belated vengeance for 9/11 or something, after they this guy on the news or something. If he had to go, i'm glad it was a more natural cause. It does suck though, I hope they met again before he died.>> ^hpqp:


>> ^sme4r:
Unfortunately THIS

>> ^alien_concept:

This whole argument is getting on my nerves! There is only so much you can pin on the fact that the cops killed Mark Duggan. I understood the riots, the kick-offs at the heavy handed, I'm sure often racist tactics enforced by the police. But then it stopped being about that and started being about theft and destruction OF THEIR OWN COMMUNITIES.
If your argument is of police racism, then target the police stations, cop cars, whatever if you really feel you want your vengeance in this way. But to try and justify greed and theft and ruining peoples homes and livelihoods because you're oppressed? Fucking spare me. All they're managing to do is turn the majority of the UK against them and I really resent that I am one of them


Sorry if my quality came across as irksome. I wasn't really endorsing the rioters, so much as someone giving voice to what the grievances of the riots really are.

Here in America we're getting the standard BS about thugs and opportunism, without really giving us any sense of what people are pissed off about.

This whole argument is getting on my nerves! There is only so much you can pin on the fact that the cops killed Mark Duggan. I understood the riots, the kick-offs at the heavy handed, I'm sure often racist tactics enforced by the police. But then it stopped being about that and started being about theft and destruction OF THEIR OWN COMMUNITIES.

If your argument is of police racism, then target the police stations, cop cars, whatever if you really feel you want your vengeance in this way. But to try and justify greed and theft and ruining peoples homes and livelihoods because you're oppressed? Fucking spare me. All they're managing to do is turn the majority of the UK against them and I really resent that I am one of them

PLOTTING VENGEANCE.

Comic geek info...

Few people realize that Ghost Rider is one of the most powerful entities in Marvel. As the spirit of vengeance, he has essentially unlimited power. The thing is, the amount of power he has is equivalent to the task at hand.

If he were to exact vengeance on, say, the Phoenix (for the destruction of the solar system in the Dark Phoenix saga), he would be powerful enough to overcome the Phoenix force. If he's putting the smackdown on some generic street thug, he's much less impressive.

The catch is, no matter how much of an evil prick you might be, if there's no need for vengeance, he's not interested in you. If you have wronged the innocent, you're pretty much screwed when he comes calling.

I want vengeance for Mr. Meowmers!!!

OMG OMG OMG OMG!

Dude. God had nothing to do with it. The spaghetti monster was brandishing righteous vengeance upon driving heathen texters.

Is not all paper money supposed to be backed by gold to start with.


Assuming this is a question without a question mark, the answer is no - all national currencies have been fiat money for a while now (not just US dollars).

From the video: "The United States should welcome the self determination of Africans". Guess what, it does. That's why it supports rebels not getting massacred by a horrible, moronic dictator named Qadaffi.

And I hate these "secret motivation" conspiracies. Remember how the Afghan war was all about oil, then a pipeline, then minerals, then drugs or illegal arms sales or something? Is it the same people coming up with these new dumb ideas? How come we never get a "oh yeah, guess I was wrong about all that" video? Does anyone still believe the stupid, stupid Afghanistan war-for-pipeline theory? Lots of people did. Do they experience any kind of cognitive dissonance now that the pipeline remains unbuilt? Or do they just not remember?

And the theories are pointless to begin with when we have perfectly believable explanations right in front of us. No big secrets or surprises, just human nature. For example, Afghanistan: Bush (and a good percentage of Americans) wanted a war mostly out of vengeance (and general hate), government thought it would be a huge win politically, Bush honestly thought he'd kill some terrorists and be remembered as a hero, and was certainly encouraged by a military contractors who'd make a killing (and did). That sounds like enough reasons to me.

Similarly, the humanitarian atrocity of a dictatorial government bombing its own populace sounds like enough motivation to want to help those being killed.