Is it right to rage or start wars?

[deltro300111]

Re: Is it right to rage or start wars?

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind; cliché, but true.

what the **** are you talking about? If you are really saying that punishments don't teach anyone anything, you are ****ing stupid. Something that deserves a slap on the wrist deserves a slap on the wrist. Something that deserves a beat down, deserves a beat down. What the US is doing to Iraq right now is a spanking on a 3 year old, but the three year old is freaking out, and telling all his friends that his daddy beats him. But like, the US is a 9 year old, so like, 12 3 year olds could beat it down.

[Z3ratul]

Re: Is it right to rage or start wars?

what the **** are you talking about? If you are really saying that punishments don't teach anyone anything, you are ****ing stupid. Something that deserves a slap on the wrist deserves a slap on the wrist. Something that deserves a beat down, deserves a beat down. What the US is doing to Iraq right now is a spanking on a 3 year old, but the three year old is freaking out, and telling all his friends that his daddy beats him. But like, the US is a 9 year old, so like, 12 3 year olds could beat it down.

Where's the definetive list that decided what every action deserves? I think I missed that memo.

[deltro300111]

Re: Is it right to rage or start wars?

Where's the definetive list that decided what every action deserves? I think I missed that memo.

There's no definitive list, but we're not firing a nuke because they blew up a tower.

We're punishing them with forced reform.

[flamingspinach]

Re: Is it right to rage or start wars?

Stop being so petty and living in the past. As Gandhi said, "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent [...] Things undreamt of are daily being seen, the impossible is ever becoming possible. We are constantly being astonished these days at the amazing discoveries in the field of violence. But I maintain that far more undreamt of and seemingly impossible discoveries will be made in the field of nonviolence." An eye for an eye does indeed make the world go blind. I certainly hope that our world leaders are not thinking in such childish terms as "teaching lessons" to people by "punishing" them, or else our "modern" society is sadly degenerating.

-fs

[T0rajir0u]

Re: Is it right to rage or start wars?

Discussions like this never lead anywhere. You know why? Because people don't define what's right.

If you can't define it, don't talk about it.

[flamingspinach]

Re: Is it right to rage or start wars?

You can't really define that it's right not to talk about what you can't define, now can you? :P

[Reach]

Re: Is it right to rage or start wars?

You can't really define that it's right not to talk about what you can't define, now can you? :P

Unless you like to dodge the topic at hand

Of course it isn't going to lead anywhere. Like almost every thread in this forum. Deal with it.

I agree with your last post. I really dislike violence and the caveman attitude towards life and lessons XD

[flamingspinach]

Re: Is it right to rage or start wars?

You can't really define that it's right not to talk about what you can't define, now can you? :P

Unless you like to dodge the topic at hand

So... what you're saying is that it is true that you can't really define that it's right not to talk about what you can't define, unless you like to dodge the topic at hand.

So if you like to dodge the topic at hand, you can indeed define that it's right not to talk about what you can't define? o_O lol

-fs

[deltro300111]

Re: Is it right to rage or start wars?

Wrong: Crashing planes into towers, killing thousands of innocent civilians.

Wrong: Forcing reforms upon an elder country who's values, politics, and religion are- though backwards in our eyes- are far more set in than ours.

Regardless of how much of Iraq/The Middle East in general we destroy, we can quite easily brush it off as damage control- the less funding, and willing souls they have, the less chance acts of terrorism will hit us. It's much more straight-foward than many of you seem to think.

A.) We're attacked by a country.
B.) In retaliation we wage 'war' on that country, and smaller countries that share links, and similar outlooks.

It's not going to end well for the Middle East, but the majority have only themselves to blame. And the majority is greater than the minority.

rofl.

[flamingspinach]

Re: Is it right to rage or start wars?

Retaliation doesn't solve anything. Apparently you didn't read my post.

[deltro300111]

Re: Is it right to rage or start wars?

Retaliation doesn't solve anything. Apparently you didn't read my post.

Apparently you have absolutely NO common sense.

This doesn't even ****ING touch ethics. This is instinct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_feedback

shut the **** up, get off my internet, idiot.

By the way- on the effectiveness of Ghandi's actions.

Look at what great shape India and South Africa are in now, non-violence is the way.

[Z3ratul]

Re: Is it right to rage or start wars?

Wrong: Crashing planes into towers, killing thousands of innocent civilians.

Wrong: Forcing reforms upon an elder country who's values, politics, and religion are- though backwards in our eyes- are far more set in than ours.

For the sake of creating an arguement, I think those innocent civilians deserved to die, and that the values of those countries 'suck', therefore making my viewpoint correct. I'm right now, and you are the one that's wrong. As idiotic as this logic may seem, it has the same basis yours has. T0r pretty much hit on the head what I was trying to hint at.

By the way- on the effectiveness of Ghandi's actions.

Look at what great shape India and South Africa are in now, non-violence is the way.

Because Ghandi's outlook on nonviolent civil disobedience is the sole reason India and South Africa are in their 'shape'. Yes, that makes perfect sense.

Btw Deltro, whether I agree with you with my personal opinion is to stay reserved. I'm just doing this for the sake of disagreeing with somebody.

[Reach]

Re: Is it right to rage or start wars?

So... what you're saying is that it is true that you can't really define that it's right not to talk about what you can't define, unless you like to dodge the topic at hand.

So if you like to dodge the topic at hand, you can indeed define that it's right not to talk about what you can't define? o_O lol

You are the biggest overthinker on the forum.

I wasn't even talking about you, really. That was more or less a joke in support of what you were saying directed at T0rajir0u.

Instead of contributing he just jumped on the 'oh well we can't define it so lets not talk about it' bandwagon.

ANYWAY

[deltro300111]

Re: Is it right to rage or start wars?

For the sake of creating an arguement, I think those innocent civilians deserved to do, and that the values of those countries 'suck', therefore making my viewpoint correct. I'm right now, and you are the one that's wrong..

Please clarify, I'm interested in understanding what you're talking about, but this post doesn't express it.

Because Ghandi's outlook on nonviolent civil disobedience is the sole reason India and South Africa are in their 'shape'. Yes, that makes perfect sense.

Regardless of reality, Ghandi is credited with 'shaping up' india, and south africa. If I recall correctly, flaming was using that as an example of how non-violence works, which it clearly doesn't.

[djreality14]

Re: Is it right to rage or start wars?

This is an extremely vauge question. Realize, that in the Bible it talks about fighting. I think that it says something like, "If someone hits you in one cheek, turn the other cheek so he can hit you on that one." Although it has a lot of wars in the Bible. I think that this question could be answered in hundreds of different ways.