Trump - Go To War In Somalia

[LordKiran]

1. Why, because you say so? Are you under the impression that your baseless assertions are going to be taken at face value when nothing about this conversation has given you any reason to think that?

2. That's a very clumsily constructed hypothetical. If you're going to argue with a hypothetical scenario, the least you could do is make it plausible. When the stated scenario is implausible that allows you to construct any inane and asinine set of circumstances you like where one's normal logic or ethical standard might not apply. "SHOOT THE BABY OR AMERICA GETS ALL ITS CITIES NUKES OH NO WHAT DO YOU DOOOOO!?!?!?!"

I could just as easily ask you "There's the leader of a terrorist organization. You can kill him, but if you do he'll blow up ALL THE WORLD'S ORPHANAGES AND PUPPY HOSPITALS OH GOD WONT SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?"

You're making my point here. You're unwilling to address a situation where there are only very bad choices.

For reasons already laid out for you to read. Your given scenario is asinine.

Also this is coming from the person who's unwilling to confront the fact that when you kill civilians when targeting terrorists, you're killing the citizens of an unallied nation through your military action; A known cause for war.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're making my point here. You're unwilling to address a situation where there are only very bad choices.

For reasons already laid out for you to read. Your given scenario is asinine.

Also this is coming from the person who's unwilling to confront the fact that when you kill civilians when targeting terrorists, you're killing the citizens of an unallied nation through your military action; A known cause for war.

Extreme cases are useful for making things clear. And what it's made clear is that you're in the do-no-evil group, even if that means the outcome is worse.

 

[LordKiran]

For reasons already laid out for you to read. Your given scenario is asinine.

Also this is coming from the person who's unwilling to confront the fact that when you kill civilians when targeting terrorists, you're killing the citizens of an unallied nation through your military action; A known cause for war.

Extreme cases are useful for making things clear. And what it's made clear is that you're in the do-no-evil group, even if that means the outcome is worse.

Your given scenario has clumsy emotional appeals designed to obfuscate the point and doesn't even address my position.
My position is that in killing these terrorists you're also killing the citizens of a foreign power that is in all likelihood, actively fighting said terrorists.
A more accurate dilemma would be instead of a baby, if it were a foreign diplomat. Further, our problems with terror cells are not so nearly immediate or life-or-death. "Stop the terrorists or they'll set off an H bomb?" More like "Stop the terrorists or they'll kidnap and sell a few dozen Yazidi women into slavery."

Also no, you don't have to bomb them. Instead you could just take the money we spend on bombs and dole it out to help fund local efforts to burn out terror cells. (A third option your given scenario leaves, out by the by...)

Real life is not a game of 'would you rather.' I am not engaging your dumb hypothetical because I don't have to let you choose the rules of engagement. Your assertions are two dimensional, poorly rationalized and stupid.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Extreme cases are useful for making things clear. And what it's made clear is that you're in the do-no-evil group, even if that means the outcome is worse.

Your given scenario has clumsy emotional appeals designed to obfuscate the point and doesn't even address my position.
My position is that in killing these terrorists you're also killing the citizens of a foreign power that is in all likelihood, actively fighting said terrorists.
A more accurate dilemma would be instead of a baby, if it were a foreign diplomat. Further, our problems with terror cells are not so nearly immediate or life-or-death. "Stop the terrorists or they'll set off an H bomb?" More like "Stop the terrorists or they'll kidnap and sell a few dozen Yazidi women into slavery."

Also no, you don't have to bomb them. Instead you could just take the money we spend on bombs and dole it out to help fund local efforts to burn out terror cells. (A third option your given scenario leaves, out by the by...)

Real life is not a game of 'would you rather.' I am not engaging your dumb hypothetical because I don't have to let you choose the rules of engagement. Your assertions are two dimensional, poorly rationalized and stupid.

No, the scenario is deliberately very extreme.

The choice is simple: Kill one innocent or a city dies along with the innocent.

 

[LordKiran]

Your given scenario has clumsy emotional appeals designed to obfuscate the point and doesn't even address my position.
My position is that in killing these terrorists you're also killing the citizens of a foreign power that is in all likelihood, actively fighting said terrorists.
A more accurate dilemma would be instead of a baby, if it were a foreign diplomat. Further, our problems with terror cells are not so nearly immediate or life-or-death. "Stop the terrorists or they'll set off an H bomb?" More like "Stop the terrorists or they'll kidnap and sell a few dozen Yazidi women into slavery."

Also no, you don't have to bomb them. Instead you could just take the money we spend on bombs and dole it out to help fund local efforts to burn out terror cells. (A third option your given scenario leaves, out by the by...)

Real life is not a game of 'would you rather.' I am not engaging your dumb hypothetical because I don't have to let you choose the rules of engagement. Your assertions are two dimensional, poorly rationalized and stupid.

No, the scenario is deliberately very extreme.

The choice is simple: Kill one innocent or a city dies along with the innocent.

I'm not shooting you down merely because it's extreme. I'm shooting you down because it's also not anything remotely comparable to the grand strategy of bombing brown people over the course of several decades, collateral damage be damned. Not exactly the life or death scenario you're trying to make it out to be.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, the scenario is deliberately very extreme.

The choice is simple: Kill one innocent or a city dies along with the innocent.

I'm not shooting you down merely because it's extreme. I'm shooting you down because it's also not anything remotely comparable to the grand strategy of bombing brown people over the course of several decades, collateral damage be damned. Not exactly the life or death scenario you're trying to make it out to be.

You're looking with too narrow a focus.

It's an illustration of the fact that sometimes for the greater good one must do an act which is generally regarded as evil.

 

[LordKiran]

I'm not shooting you down merely because it's extreme. I'm shooting you down because it's also not anything remotely comparable to the grand strategy of bombing brown people over the course of several decades, collateral damage be damned. Not exactly the life or death scenario you're trying to make it out to be.

You're looking with too narrow a focus.

It's an illustration of the fact that sometimes for the greater good one must do an act which is generally regarded as evil.

Too narrow? When my focus is on the political implications of killing innocent civilians of a foreign power in an attempt to assassinate alleged terrorists which said civies had nothing to do with?


How exactly in god's name is that "For the greater good?" Interestingly enough you neglect to specify who's good. Certainly not the good of those nations we've been destabilizing which in turn has lead to the propagation of more terror cells. So by that metric you can't even say it's for our good either!
I'm reminded of the Disney animated film Hercules. Each time Hercules cuts off a hydra's head, two more spring out of the neck stump. Because Herc is also somewhat dim, he doesn't pick up on how his actions lead to more hydra heads until there's a billion of them.

All you've offered thus far are baseless and vague assertions with no meat behind them and it's getting old.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're looking with too narrow a focus.

It's an illustration of the fact that sometimes for the greater good one must do an act which is generally regarded as evil.

Too narrow? When my focus is on the political implications of killing innocent civilians of a foreign power in an attempt to assassinate alleged terrorists which said civies had nothing to do with?


How exactly in god's name is that "For the greater good?" Interestingly enough you neglect to specify who's good. Certainly not the good of those nations we've been destabilizing which in turn has lead to the propagation of more terror cells. So by that metric you can't even say it's for our good either!
I'm reminded of the Disney animated film Hercules. Each time Hercules cuts off a hydra's head, two more spring out of the neck stump. Because Herc is also somewhat dim, he doesn't pick up on how his actions lead to more hydra heads until there's a billion of them.

All you've offered thus far are baseless and vague assertions with no meat behind them and it's getting old.

What's better--some innocents die, or life under ISIS where many, many innocents die?

 

[LordKiran]

Too narrow? When my focus is on the political implications of killing innocent civilians of a foreign power in an attempt to assassinate alleged terrorists which said civies had nothing to do with?


How exactly in god's name is that "For the greater good?" Interestingly enough you neglect to specify who's good. Certainly not the good of those nations we've been destabilizing which in turn has lead to the propagation of more terror cells. So by that metric you can't even say it's for our good either!
I'm reminded of the Disney animated film Hercules. Each time Hercules cuts off a hydra's head, two more spring out of the neck stump. Because Herc is also somewhat dim, he doesn't pick up on how his actions lead to more hydra heads until there's a billion of them.

All you've offered thus far are baseless and vague assertions with no meat behind them and it's getting old.

What's better--some innocents die, or life under ISIS where many, many innocents die?

Because bombing them worked out so well for everybody last time.

Do you know what the definition of idiocy is? To do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result each time.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What's better--some innocents die, or life under ISIS where many, many innocents die?

Because bombing them worked out so well for everybody last time.

Do you know what the definition of idiocy is? To do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result each time.

That's not an answer.

 

[LordKiran]

Because bombing them worked out so well for everybody last time.

Do you know what the definition of idiocy is? To do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result each time.

That's not an answer.

To be fair, your question was a false dichotomy and thus need not be dignified with a proper answer.

 

[fromderinside]

LordKiran is right Loren Pechel

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's not an answer.

To be fair, your question was a false dichotomy and thus need not be dignified with a proper answer.

LordKiran is right Loren Pechel

You just don't want to answer the hard question.

 

[LordKiran]

To be fair, your question was a false dichotomy and thus need not be dignified with a proper answer.

LordKiran is right Loren Pechel

You just don't want to answer the hard question.

If that's what you have to tell yourself. You won't learn anything that way though. Do you never ask yourself why it is that when you ask a (perhaps unintentionally) dumb question that people never take it seriously?

 

[funinspace]

hard questions

LordKiran is right Loren Pechel

You just don't want to answer the hard question.

If that's what you have to tell yourself. You won't learn anything that way though. Do you never ask yourself why it is that when you ask a (perhaps unintentionally) dumb question that people never take it seriously?

For some reason this movie clip came to mind... (As it is a GIF file, I not sure if I can upload the limpy Eiffel Tower)

[video]http://makeagif.com/gif/meg-ryankevin-kline-french-kiss-eiffel-tower-tyIRsP[/video]

 

[Derec]

(As it is a GIF file, I not sure if I can upload the limpy Eiffel Tower)

You can't upload it, but you can embed it just like any other image.

Now, what was the point of posting it?

 

[KeepTalking]

(As it is a GIF file, I not sure if I can upload the limpy Eiffel Tower)

You can't upload it, but you can embed it just like any other image.

Now, what was the point of posting it?

Perhaps that the question posed by Loren was not hard at all, but rather facile?

 

[funinspace]

You can't upload it, but you can embed it just like any other image.

Now, what was the point of posting it?

Perhaps that the question posed by Loren was not hard at all, but rather facile?

I'm glad someone figured out my humor...Yup. Or flaccid

BTW, thanks Derec for showing me up , though I was also having size complaints on this site...but I guess I could have downloaded it and adjusted it.

 

[KeepTalking]

Perhaps that the question posed by Loren was not hard at all, but rather facile?

I'm glad someone figured out my humor...Yup. Or flaccid

While "facile" certainly describes the question accurately, I agree, "flaccid" is the better word for both the question and the image.