|
| |||
bcglorf Member Profile  Member Since: 2007-07-23 Last Power Points used: 2009-09-24 • Available: now Max Power Points: 1 • Get More Power Points Now Comments |
Navigation
Member Stats Rank: 870 Rating: 11 star points Votes Received: 195 Average Votes Per Video: 16.25 Votes Cast: 833 Comments Posted: 1255 • browse Comments Applauded: 8 Sifted Videos: 10 Dead Pool Fixes: 1 Profile Views: 31052 Highest Ranked Comments Member's Highest Rated Videos | ||
Add comment
Skillful Videos Submitted by bcglorf
View Mobile VideoSift
bookmarklet - page width: fixed - loose
Copyright © Sift Partners, Inc. 2006-2012
Terms and Conditions - Contact Us - VideoSift Staff
page generated on web1 in 0.8767 seconds
Powered by Varo CMS by Rommel Santor
bookmarklet - page width: fixed - loose
Copyright © Sift Partners, Inc. 2006-2012
Terms and Conditions - Contact Us - VideoSift Staff
page generated on web1 in 0.8767 seconds
Powered by Varo CMS by Rommel Santor
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 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
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.
This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 1 Badge!
always a pleasure my friend.
i may disagree with your arguments sometime but i always respect the way you present them and how you interact.
kudos.
Any group whose main commonality is adherence to cultural laws based on superstitious/ supernatural/metaphysical beliefs is part of a cult.
Tho like Gwiz said, the level of sanity amongst and within groups varies.
In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
wait. what religion isn't a cult?
Wait, are you really content to just say they are all 'equal'?
So, you don't see any utility in distinguishing between Koresh's Waco sect and Hindu's following in the approximate example of Ghandi?
I'm afraid you might find that such a ludicrously oversimplified world view is... inaccurate.
Another unrelated trivia bit about this movie is that Stallone not only acted in it, but was also one of the writers
Actually he's written a lot of his movies, including ALL of the Rocky's, Rambo's, Cliffhanger, Over the Top, and many, many more
Oh no! Taking money from the "poor" rich people!!! You're so mean!
I will defend that the tax is nothing to those who pay it, and that it's billions for those that will benefit. It's no different form the tax I pay on the cup of coffee I buy - that is used to build roads and schools. In fact, the tax I pay on a cup of coffee is magnitudes bigger than this Robin Hood Tax. Some folks here in Canada scream 'Tyranny' and 'Big Government' at those taxes - and most people correctly identify those kooks for who they really are - zealots.
In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
Actually, I believe very strongly that they really would notice.
And don't tell me I'm the one playing semantics when the video goes on about how the tax is both virtually nothing and worth billions. The game is semantics, but I'm the one that's calling it out for that.
In reply to this comment by Throbbin:
I thought that aspect of it came through pretty clear. 0.05% in taxes is effectively nothing - it's harder to get less intrusive than that.
You play semantics when you know damn well the bankers would hardly notice.
In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
I'd prefer some honesty. You can't defend the tax on BOTH the fact it costs nothing AND that it will raise billions. Be honest and say it will take billions from the rich to give to the poor.
In reply to this comment by Throbbin:
Yes....hence the 'Robin Hood" theme. Robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Sounds like a completely legit idea to me.
Or would you prefer the poor rely on voluntary charity, seeing as how it has worked so well to date?
In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
It costs nothing and it will raise billions!
Don't question it or think about it, just say it fast enough and it'll be true. Or, at least it will be true if the billions raised come out of somebody else's pockets, but truth like that doesn't sound as reasonable.
You play semantics when you know damn well the bankers would hardly notice.
In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
I'd prefer some honesty. You can't defend the tax on BOTH the fact it costs nothing AND that it will raise billions. Be honest and say it will take billions from the rich to give to the poor.
In reply to this comment by Throbbin:
Yes....hence the 'Robin Hood" theme. Robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Sounds like a completely legit idea to me.
Or would you prefer the poor rely on voluntary charity, seeing as how it has worked so well to date?
In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
It costs nothing and it will raise billions!
Don't question it or think about it, just say it fast enough and it'll be true. Or, at least it will be true if the billions raised come out of somebody else's pockets, but truth like that doesn't sound as reasonable.
Or would you prefer the poor rely on voluntary charity, seeing as how it has worked so well to date?
In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
It costs nothing and it will raise billions!
Don't question it or think about it, just say it fast enough and it'll be true. Or, at least it will be true if the billions raised come out of somebody else's pockets, but truth like that doesn't sound as reasonable.