|
farraday posted:Lets see how that looks. By endpoint I certainly mean take more into account than the last post. You can certainly gauge the progression of the argument more accurately than that.
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 02:31 |
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:And yet violence and death caused by murders and war have historically declined. Why might that be? I believe its correlation with the increase in intellectualism, education, and change in political ideas and morality would certainly be non-spurious. Why then should we not move towards more broad change? I believe violence has largely declined on a large scale (war, conflict) because of how expensive it is to wage war and for the fact that military action is no longer "mass a front and push forward" but "crush a center of gravity and watch the body unravel". Violence in Western societies has declined largely as a result of prosperity, to include the things you mentioned. These are existent partially due to violence and the threat-thereof. Rrail fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Oct 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:31
|
|
|
HoveringCheesecake posted:I can't tell if you're calling me an idiot, or that you agree with me somewhat in that it'd be better for him to wallow in a dank cell for the remainder of his life. If you thought I might be calling you an idiot then you're an idiot.  ...no, I really do think that having people like that spend their days in prison is more just than mob justice and also gives a better precedent for the nation's judicial system. I'd like to think of Milosevic as a good example, except he died before the sentencing. So I will cite Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic as good examples instead, assuming that they will be sentenced. e: I should add that even if death penalty was in place, a full trial would have been better than an illegal execution. Gaddafi's victims deserved a fair trial, like Saddam Hussein's victims got. Nenonen fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Oct 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:31
|
|
|
Rrail posted:I don't talk about what company I work for. The Xe title is someones conjecture. You're mistaking complacence for maturity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:32
|
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:And yet violence and death caused by murders and war have historically declined. Why might that be? I believe its correlation with the increase in intellectualism, education, and change in political ideas and morality would certainly be non-spurious. Why then should we not move towards more broad change?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:32
|
|
|
Rrail posted:I believe violence has largely declined on a large scale (war, conflict) because of how expensive it is to wage war and for the fact that military action is no longer "mass a front and push forward" but "crush a center of gravity and watch the body unravel". And I'd flatly disagree with that. We disagree on some core principles, but that doesn't justify dismissing mine or others arguments as simply idealistic. As for your point: I'd In fact suggest that 'prosperity' is also a function of the very things I said caused peace. The level of human education, for instance, most certainly increased prosperity. As did our knowledge about how to distribute wealth (Political positions) and rights (intellectualism). quote:These are existent partially due to violence and the threat-thereof. Prosperity cannot possibly have increased as a function of violence if violence has historically decreased while prosperity increased. Threat of, perhaps, but not use of. PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Oct 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:36
|
|
|
Rrail posted:I believe violence has largely declined on a large scale (war, conflict) because of how expensive it is to wage war and for the fact that military action is no longer "mass a front and push forward" but "crush a center of gravity and watch the body unravel". quote:Violence in Western societies has declined largely as a result of prosperity, to include the things you mentioned. These are existent due to violence and the threat-thereof.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:36
|
|
|
Chortles posted:Just because we can't entirely eliminate human violence, doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't also strive to minimize it and get it as close to zero as possible... we just can't forget that it can't entirely be eliminated. Do you understand what I mean by asymptotic or just restating my position simplified?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:36
|
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:And I'd flatly disagree with that. We disagree on some core principles, but that doesn't justify dismissing mine or others arguments as simply idealistic. I didn't dismiss your ideas as idealistic, did I? I agree with you, violence/the threat of violence has brought us prosperity which advances technology (and thus war-fighting technology) and decreases the body-count of wars as well as violence in the benefited society.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:39
|
|
|
Cartoon Man posted:Here's a graphic picture of his corpse with a clear bullet hole in his head. Well that certainly isn't from running from fighters.. either he did that or someone executed him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:41
|
|
|
Rrail posted:I didn't dismiss your ideas as idealistic, did I? I edited this in to my previous post, but I'll restate. quote:Prosperity cannot possibly have increased as a function of violence if violence has historically decreased while prosperity increased. Threat of, perhaps, but not use of.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:42
|
|
|
superv0zz posted:Well that certainly isn't from running from fighters.. either he did that or someone executed him. You really can't say that. He could have been looking over his shoulder while crawling or running away. Executions are generally to the back of the head, not the temple. Poizen Jam posted:I edited this in to my previous post, but I'll restate. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, unless I am misreading it. Rrail fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Oct 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:44
|
|
|
Rrail posted:You really can't say that. He could have been looking over his shoulder while crawling or running away. Executions are generally to the back of the head, not the temple. It seems awfully well placed to have been accidental.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:44
|
|
|
I just had a argument with a goon on G+, he started quoting RT news at me to prove that NATO was literally raping Lybia as we speak. It's sad how much in denial the Qaddafi supporters are now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:46
|
|
|
I'd like to see someone even worse take up his position. It would serve the US and Nato right for sticking their noses into other peoples business. Gaddafi had every right to use his army to put down the resistance just like the US would have every right to use their army to put up an uprising here in the United States. Irregardless of what he did or was doing. We can't summarily go in and use our forces to destabilize a region and that's exactly what we are doing. I certainly believe that the middle east BEFORE the Iraq invasion may have not been the best but it was stable, now we have all forms of new governments popping up with unknown ideals and plans for their countries. The unknown is the scary part.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:48
|
|
|
superv0zz posted:It seems awfully well placed to have been accidental. Not really, it's on his upper cheekbone. People get shot in the face and head all the time, accidentally and purposely. The placement of that shot doesn't seem particularly noteworthy. Back of the head, definitely. That is not to say he was not executed, it is just that nothing about that tells me that he was executed, and this is coming from someone that has seen a lot of pictures of individuals executed by gunshot. In no way am I an expert, but nothing about that picture makes me go "EXECUTED" on a rational, analytical level.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:49
|
|
|
Two Plus Four posted:I'd like to see someone even worse take up his position. It would serve the US and Nato right for sticking their noses into other peoples business. Gaddafi had every right to use his army to put down the resistance just like the US would have every right to use their army to put up an uprising here in the United States. Irregardless of what he did or was doing. We can't summarily go in and use our forces to destabilize a region and that's exactly what we are doing. I certainly believe that the middle east BEFORE the Iraq invasion may have not been the best but it was stable, now we have all forms of new governments popping up with unknown ideals and plans for their countries. The unknown is the scary part. Oh dear, it looks like the commentors that attacked Brown Moses have followed him here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:49
|
|
|
Two Plus Four posted:I'd like to see someone even worse take up his position. It would serve the US and Nato right for sticking their noses into other peoples business. Uh, this still makes you an imperialist for thinking that stymieing Western interests is more important than the Libyan people's welfare, hth
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:50
|
|
|
Two Plus Four posted:The unknown is the scary part. A security blanket will keep you safe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:50
|
|
|
Two Plus Four posted:I'd like to see someone even worse take up his position. It would serve the US and Nato right for sticking their noses into other peoples business. I want to see a lot of suffering on innocent people to make sure the US and the imperialists know that they wasted a few billion dollars. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:50
|
|
|
Two Plus Four posted:I'd like to see someone even worse take up his position. It would serve the US and Nato right for sticking their noses into other peoples business. Gaddafi had every right to use his army to put down the resistance just like the US would have every right to use their army to put up an uprising here in the United States. Irregardless of what he did or was doing. We can't summarily go in and use our forces to destabilize a region and that's exactly what we are doing. I certainly believe that the middle east BEFORE the Iraq invasion may have not been the best but it was stable, now we have all forms of new governments popping up with unknown ideals and plans for their countries. The unknown is the scary part. Please tell me you're kidding. PLEASE.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:51
|
|
|
Two Plus Four posted:... There is no such word. Don't use it. It makes you sound stupid(er).
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:53
|
|
|
Rrail posted:I want to see a lot of suffering on innocent people to make sure the US and the imperialists know that they wasted a few billion dollars. So are you for invading North Korea or Saudi Arabia or any of the other countries that allow the suffering of their people? I mean, when does it stop? And I'm not trolling, we are making a poo poo load of enemies and one day we will have a nuke put up our asses for the effort.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:54
|
|
|
Two Plus Four posted:So are you for invading North Korea or Saudi Arabia or any of the other countries that allow the suffering of their people? I mean, when does it stop? And I'm not trolling, we are making a poo poo load of enemies and one day we will have a nuke put up our asses for the effort. That is seriously such a fallacious argument I'm not sure I should even engage it. You are wrong in premise and conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:55
|
|
|
ThePutty posted:Oh dear, it looks like the commentors that attacked Brown Moses have followed him here. to celebrate gaddafis death demands you remove the event from its entire context. i.e., bin laden was a bad dude, but his death was at best a bittersweet moment because it came as a result of a needlessly bloody and destructive war campaign that obliterated millions of lives. the nato campaign for north africa is a force for evil and that it accidentally results in some level of justice doesnt deserve celebration
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:55
|
|
|
EdTheHead posted:There is no such word. Don't use it. It makes you sound stupid(er). Mirriam Webster: The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:56
|
|
|
Two Plus Four posted:So are you for invading North Korea or Saudi Arabia or any of the other countries that allow the suffering of their people? I mean, when does it stop? And I'm not trolling, we are making a poo poo load of enemies and one day we will have a nuke put up our asses for the effort. Six: "I am not a kook."
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:56
|
|
|
Rrail posted:
You said prosperity had increased due to violence or a threat of violence. Well, violence has historically decreased. Prosperity has historically increased. They cannot be positively correlated. I'd think it's incredibly obtuse to suggest that it's simply because prosperity gave us more efficient weapons to kill each other with, and that's why body counts and violence are lower. There are many advances in technology that demanded much higher body counts. Prosperity increased as a result of a lot more than violence. Two Plus Four posted:Mirriam Webster: The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. Yet it actually means the opposite of what you and Webter say it means. Regardless means 'without regard for', saying irregardless negates the regardless with a double negative. Most dictionaries will list irregardless as improper or incorrect form. The point I'm getting at is it's a stupid word that got stupidly implemented in regular vocabulary and is completely redundant. That being said, it can be pretty pedantic to point that out. PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Oct 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 20:58
|
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:You said prosperity had increased due to violence or a threat of violence. I said threat of violence because the threat of violence is at an all time high. But yes, there are certainly more contributors to prosperity than violence, I never claimed otherwise. In fact I think I specifically stated "partially".
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 21:00
|
|
|
The battle for Sirte has left this thread in ruins.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 21:00
|
|
|
Two Plus Four posted:Mirriam Webster: The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. "Although well attested, this term is widely regarded as nonstandard and an illiteracy for regardless or irrespective, and is probably inappropriate in virtually any formal setting, except quoted dialog." -Wicktionary Pardon me, it is a word used by the illiterate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 21:03
|
|
|
EdTheHead posted:"Although well attested, this term is widely regarded as nonstandard and an illiteracy for regardless or irrespective, and is probably inappropriate in virtually any formal setting, except quoted dialog." -Wicktionary The context of the word Illiteracy in the sentence is not that the "illiterate use it" moron. It says the word is an "ILLITERACY" for regardless or irrespective.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 21:06
|
|
|
In one of the videos you can see an entry on the left side and an exit on the right, and another entry on the front. It is basically a certainty that one of those shots occurred after he was already dead, and perhaps both while he was already dead or injured, lying on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 21:07
|
|
|
Rrail posted:I said threat of violence because the threat of violence is at an all time high. Legitimate threats of violence, or political posturing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 21:07
|
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:Legitimate threats of violence, or political posturing? Both.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 21:08
|
|
|
Rrail posted:Both. So you think legitimate threats of violence have somehow increased since the days of feudal states warring over family affairs and religion?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 21:10
|
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:So you think legitimate threats of violence have somehow increased since the days of feudal states warring over family affairs and religion? Yes, since it is a far less costly undertaking with dramatically less risk. This is a huge and largely meaningless derail. I'll PM you. (Edit: Or not.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 21:12
|
|
|
This is apparently the corpse of Moatassim Gaddafi: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vppk1Eu7dvE Here's a picture of him  Could be him I reckon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 21:13
|
|
|
Two Plus Four posted:The context of the word Illiteracy in the sentence is not that the "illiterate use it" moron. It says the word is an "ILLITERACY" for regardless or irrespective. "il·lit·er·a·cy noun \(ˌ)i(l)-ˈli-t(ə-)rə-sē\ plural il·lit·er·a·cies Definition of ILLITERACY 1 : the quality or state of being illiterate; especially : inability to read or write 2 : a mistake or crudity (as in speaking) typical of one who is illiterate" - Merriam Webster I believe definition 2 applies here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 02:31 |
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Could be him I reckon. It could be tricky to recognize - dead bodies seldom look at you condescendingly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 21:19
|
|