[QUOTE=Alessan]
Ok, fine. Only the Germans in Germany (and those invading other countries, of course). Happy now? Will you answer my question?
[/QUOTE]
This doesn’t change my answer. Again, many tens of millions of native Germans were just as innocent as those murdered by the Nazis. I’m not going to kill innocents to save innocents. Thats, what’s the word…retarded.
I love the smell of macho internet posturing in the morning.
Why is it so easy to find a reason to kill, and so hard to find a reason not to?
I can understand killing innocents to save innocents in some situations, but there’s a question of scale…
[QUOTE=Scumpup]
MsWhatsit, you’re a shrill, self-righteous little twat and it’s only the fact that you and your opinions don’t matter that keeps you from being annoying.
[/QUOTE]
What a shrill, self-righteous thing to say.
[QUOTE=Lobohan]
I’d like to introduce myself, I’m lobohan. Please don’t kill me if you child is in trouble. 
[/QUOTE]
Lobohan… Got it.
Now if everyone would put on their name tags, this will be over in no time.
OK… thing is…
Many of these ‘hypothetical moral dilemma’ polls are just fucking stupid - often because they posit such absurdly unlikely scenarios, in which unbelievably few, incredibly specific choices are available. There’s not really even any point answering them because they’re not an exercise in finding out what you would do, they’re an exercise in trying to coerce you to admit that in some pathetic, never-fucking-happen situation, you’d abandon your principles. You wouldn’t do that, of course, because the situation will never fucking happen.
Next, it doesn’t really matter how you answer, because the situation posed is so ridiculously unreal, there’s no way to know what you’d do. There’s probably no way to know what you’d do in a whole bunch of situations a whole lot less extremely unlikely too.
Therefore it doesn’t really matter what anyone else answers - for the same reason stated above, but also, because you can’t even tell if they think they mean it, or if they’re just doing it to cause a stir.
Finally, there’s no point challenging what anyone answers, for all of the reasons stated above - it’s a completely pointless exercise - not only that, but if people gave answers that seem offensive, there’s a fair chance they did it because they want you to be outraged. It’s like getting all upset about someone masturbating in public - if they’re doing it to cause a stir and attract attention, making a big fuss is just playing right into their hands.
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
I love the smell of macho internet posturing in the morning.
[/QUOTE]
It smells like…pussy.
[QUOTE=Alessan]
Ok, fine. Only the Germans in Germany (and those invading other countries, of course). Happy now? Will you answer my question?
[/QUOTE]
I think Q.E.D. summed it up:
You’re still proposing killing millions of innocent people. To do it would make you a monster.
Great post, Mangetout.
I’d kill the ugly one, but only to save the one with the bigger tits.
Except if it was Hitler. If he was about to discover a cure for cancer, I’d just wound him.
Actually, first I’d strangle some other innocent kid, just to show I meant business. Then I’d threaten to kill one innocent kid every hour, until the mayor agreed not to pose any more hypothetical questions.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=JThunder]
In other words, it’s okay for you to kill other people’s children to save your own, but it’s not okay for other people to kill your child in order to save theirs.
What makes you so special?
[/QUOTE]
Objectively speaking, absolutely nothing. But I’m not objective.
When did self-interest become a dirty word?
When did victimhood become the preferred alternative?
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
OK… thing is…
Many of these ‘hypothetical moral dilemma’ polls are just fucking stupid - often because they posit such absurdly unlikely scenarios, in which unbelievably few, incredibly specific choices are available. There’s not really even any point answering them because they’re not an exercise in finding out what you would do, they’re an exercise in trying to coerce you to admit that in some pathetic, never-fucking-happen situation, you’d abandon your principles. You wouldn’t do that, of course, because the situation will never fucking happen.
Next, it doesn’t really matter how you answer, because the situation posed is so ridiculously unreal, there’s no way to know what you’d do. There’s probably no way to know what you’d do in a whole bunch of situations a whole lot less extremely unlikely too.
Therefore it doesn’t really matter what anyone else answers - for the same reason stated above, but also, because you can’t even tell if they think they mean it, or if they’re just doing it to cause a stir.
Finally, there’s no point challenging what anyone answers, for all of the reasons stated above - it’s a completely pointless exercise - not only that, but if people gave answers that seem offensive, there’s a fair chance they did it because they want you to be outraged. It’s like getting all upset about someone masturbating in public - if they’re doing it to cause a stir and attract attention, making a big fuss is just playing right into their hands.
[/QUOTE]
All right. I see your point, and I retract my question - although I still believe that asking whether nuclear weapons should ever be used against population centers is a very relevant question, and has been since 1945.
But I didn’t mean to get in to this arms race of hypotheticals we seemed to have fallen into, here. My original question - “would you kill all the Germans in 1942?” - was meant to be rehtorical: I was honestly surprised to find anyone disagreeing with me. It must be a cultural thing. I apologize if I’ve offended anyone.
However, I must take issue with one thing: I am not a sociopath. Sociopaths dont care about anyone but themselves. I care about about just about everyone (actually, everyone who isn’t actively trying to kill me). It’s just that like most people, I care about some people more than I care about others.
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
OK… thing is…
Many of these ‘hypothetical moral dilemma’ polls are just fucking stupid -
Next, it doesn’t really matter how you answer, because the situation posed is so ridiculously unreal, there’s no way to know what you’d do.
Therefore it doesn’t really matter what anyone else answers -
Finally, there’s no point challenging what anyone answers, for all of the reasons stated above - it’s a completely pointless exercise
[/QUOTE]
Well…true enough, by and large :). That’s why I generally don’t participate in such threads.
But it did make me curious.
For example, Alessan, no, I wouldn’t launch said pre-emptive strike, because I’m a pretty weak patriot/tribalist. I self-identify as an American, but not really to the point where a generic million Americans ( plus me and a few family members ) are really worth more to me than a million generic Belgians. I don’t want the blood of innocents on my hands to save the blood of innocents.
That you feel a little differently vis-a-vis Israelis and Palestinians doesn’t particularly bother me much, even though I disagree with your worldview. You’ve always been honest about your values and frankly yours are the norm in this world, not mine. Plus you live in a part of the world where choices are a lot more attenuated and stark. I get where it comes from and who’s to say that if I had to stand in your shoes that I might not feel differently.
But I do think there is a fundamental difference between killing potential enemy combatants ( or the support network of the same ) that present a perceived threat to you and yours and the deliberate, active murder of an innocent stranger that poses no threat to save a family member. Not that such a thing is really that plausible, but the first is to me a semi-reasonable position. The second is deranged.
I wasn’t meaning to address you specifically, Alessan - that was more of an undirected rant about hypotheticals in general.
[QUOTE=Alessan]
Objectively speaking, absolutely nothing. But I’m not objective.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, so you admit that there is no logical basis for your stance – that is, that it’s okay for you to kill other people’s children in scenarios like this, but it’s not okay for others to kill your children.
Yes, you’re not being objective. On top of that, you’re also inconsistent. Since you admit that there is no basis for giving you special treatment, why should we take you seriously?
This goes far beyond mere self-interest, and you know it. Were Marcos and Ceaucescu not acting in their own self-interests when they chose to enrich themselves at the expense of their nations? Do you condone their actions?
When we stopped dangling from trees, that’s when. Civilized behavior means that you refuse to do the wrong thing, even when it could result in harm to yourself.
[QUOTE=Alessan]
I was honestly surprised to find anyone disagreeing with me. It must be a cultural thing.
[/QUOTE]
No, it isn’t. It’s a question of civilization and human decency, not culture.
[QUOTE=Alessan]
Not to avenge, to save. And not just those six million, but dozens more killed by the end of the war.
And yes, absolutely.
[/QUOTE]
Basically, you’d destroy the village to save it, no?
You sicken me. You’re no better than the Nazis you wish to kill.
[QUOTE=Alessan]
Then you’d let all those millions of Russians, Poles, Gypsies, gays and Jews die? That’s nice.
[/QUOTE]
Every German isn’t responsible for the fucking Holocaust. Get a fucking clue.
Wasn’t Hitler’s reasoning that the Jews were responsible for every evil in this world? So how is this any different?