I didn’t accuse anyone else of distracting the thread; I thought the argument, of which I was a part, was doing so and started another elsewhere to stop doing that.
Shame on me for attempting to be polite to other posters.
I don’t know why, but this tempest in a teapot is really starting to irritate me. Grossbottom said:
Gomiboy, you keep insisting that this statement is indefensible. I don’t think it is. You also seem to feel that overwhelming support was for your position in the other thread. Aside from frylock, I think most people understood what Grossbottom meant, and realized that agree or disagree, the subject was better suited to a separate debate. For the record, I agree that WWII was a necessary war, but do not agree that this makes it congruent with morality. The idea I suppose is that war is “extra-moral”, existing outside of the normal rules of morality. Take it for what it’s worth, just stop harping on that Grossbottom’s statement is indefensible.
Grossbottom can’t explain what he means. That’s indefensible.
I never said overwhelming support. I also think that if s/he would bother to answer one simple question which both Shodan and I have asked - do you believe war is immoral - that the argument would be over. Grossbottom won’t - s/he seems more than content with throwing invective about like a monkey at the zoo tossing feces.
I said my piece; someone wants to continue the debate they can knock themselves out.
BTW - I started this thread for exactly that reason - to stop the ‘temptest’ and let the other thread get back to it’s original premise. Unlike some people I could name, I think GD should be reserved for, y’know, debates…
Hrrm, that’s alot to be assessed morally but I would in general conclude that individuals never cease being morally responsible actors notwithstanding their social involvment in a state of war. However, depending on their moral systems, they may receive some degree of moral dispensation; a sort of moral immunity for actions undertaken in wartime. How far that dispensation extends has, of course, been the hot topic of the 20th century and continues to be of interest. But that wasn’t what I was trying to say.
That’s it precisely. A fish cannot be a morally competent actor. But if it could, would a school of fish be capable of making moral decisions? I do not believe so, and I do not subscribe to the idea that nations or states are morally competent in the aggregate. The foregoing statement will no doubt spur various cunts to advise me as to a nearly endless list of moral actions on the parts of states, WW2 omg destroy hitlar. But even a dog or child can do an act that has the appearance of being moral, and yet lack any moral intent or even ability.
War has no greater moral implication than a lion sinking its fangs into the throat of a gazelle. It is extra-moral. It is irreconcilable with what is moral. Not good, not bad, just what animals do when they get together.
Well, here I chose my words carefully. I said war is and ever was, not necessarily always will be. But in general I don’t see any evidence that a state yet exists that could be classified as morally competent. So war not being an individual activity, and the aggregate structure being morally incompetent, wars cannot be reconciled with what is moral.
Grossbottom has, and not out of deference to you, but because AHunter3 asked good questions the other day and I asked him to wait so we could see what Shodan had to say. Shodan, clearly being no more than a trolling fuck, hasn’t had the stones to attack what he demands to see defended. I guess for some people “debate” means “post lots of stuff while I lurk here like a craven bitch and think of snark I can post in response.” But since he hasn’t returned and since I won’t now be addressing him if he does, you will can indirectly receive an explanation of what I mean.
If you were less disposed to disappointment, I would warn you. A number of persons have already hinted or explained to you the position I’ve taken. They, unlike you, comprehend that the absence of a thing does not necessitate the presence of its opposite. They, unlike you, know what irreconcilable means. They, unlike you, understand that dogs cannot make moral decisions. It is not that dogs are moral or immoral. They simply aren’t capable of being either moral nor immoral. They are, as Quint has just said, extra-moral. I like that word, it avoids the social connotations of “amoral” and is dumb enough for even stupid cunts to understand. Shame on me for not thinking of and using it it the first time.
And in reply to your outrage, all I can say is: walk it off, champ. You may never be a philosopher and your sudden post-pitting 4-day vacation probably has most people thinking you’re the chickenshit I said you were, but you invited me, remember? Shake it off, there’s a good chappy.
No, sunshine, debate means posting an idea, and then defending it from attack. Here: (bolding mine)
You don’t like that? Don’t go somewhere called Great Debates then, stupid. And especially don’t come in here, post something stupid, then not expect someone to call you on it.
Dissapointed? You clearly know fuck-all about me or much of anything else. I don’t get dissapointed when half-wits highlight their disability and then perform an immediate knee-jerk descent into blathering insults. I vastly prefer to not lie in the flung feces you choose to decorate your personal environment with. Your pig-pen, sweetheart - you can lie in it.
Outrage? So far, my overwhelming response to everything you’ve said is ‘meh.’
Read the calendar - I posted on a Friday, saying that I didn’t care if you came in or not. I then went on holiday which had been long-planned for the long bank holiday weekend in the UK. You’re familiar with the fact of other countries with other holidays, right? Well, it’s the end of the Late Summer Bank Holiday here in the UK, and I went away for it to not waste the last of the summer.
But according to you, I was so saddened and dissapointed by the response of my initial ‘pitting’ and so intimidated by your verbal kung-fu and 4th grade vocabulary that I waited four whole days to come back and defend myself; instead I should have emulated you the hero and stayed through thick and thin and defended myself against all comers and not eaten or drank or slept or left my house until my point was won and you crept off the stage to nurse your wounds and say ‘curses, I’ll get you the next time, Gomiboy, just see if I don’t’ or something similarly idiotic. Right?
Oh, wait, I have a life and don’t really care all that much. At most, and really this is a stretch, I might have mentioned in the first post that I was going away for the weekend, but I don’t owe strangers here that much, and don’t owe you a single thing. They (and you) can post, or not, just I as I can, or not. I don’t need to inform anyone of my daily schedule. Comes of being a grown-up - you should ask your parents about that sometime, it’s a pretty fun state of affairs.
So bye-bye small irritation in an otherwise pleasant place. I’m sure you’re the victor in your little mind, and if that’s what you need to sleep at night along with industrial quantities of self-gratification, then I don’t really mind. But you’re a fuckwit and in spite of a small smattering of applause, much like any performing monkey would get, you’re always going to be a fuckwit.
Toodles, shithead.
Wah, I pitted Grossbottom and he had a pottymouth, wah. But I don’t care and that’s why I keep posting.
What Grossbottom’s really saying:
Wah, I said something stupid and someone called me on it and they actually expect debate in someplace called ‘great debates’ and I’m a pathetic whiney crybaby and I talk like I have tourettes and like to say cunt a lot because I think I am teh bestest internets debater in the world.
Grow up infant.
Psst, hey dude? He’s wiping the floor with you, and all you’re doing is digging your grave deeper. While I am enjoying Grossbottom’s pithy and effective attacks, after a while it just gets pitiful. So, give it up. Please. For the children.