You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: [VIDEO] 99.9% of People Are Good; Violent Conflict is Almost Always Avoidable.
I love it man. I get this type of reasoning from people all the time for my views. They look at the work I do and the news I provide and they say, "but you have an "anti-war" bias". They have been told this is a bias to stay away from. That it leads to Nazis taking over Europe, and the Killing Fields. If only those peaceful "antiwar" proponents were charge, so many more people would have been killed.
I simple ask them "Wait, who is "pro-war"?". The puzzled look is enough for me to know they still have their humanity.
Very well said!
So, America shouldn't have fought the Nazis, then?
Who is "America"? Who is the "Nazis"?
Individuals pull triggers.
American army, Nazi army, both made of individuals, yes.
Should the American army have fought the Nazi army? Was that a righteous war?
That's not the right question. If innocent, non-violent lives were lost, then no, those deaths were not "righteous" or "justified" by masturbatory ideas of a "greater good." This is collectivist jargon used to bamboozle people from their original and accurate understanding.
Well you just answered the question. You think we should not have fought in WW2. I differ, but I respect your point of view.
This is of course the great story of the American statist religion. Should the American government have given escaping Jews back to Stalin? How did Hitler rise to power? How was Germany is such dire straits to turn to such a nationalist monster? Treaty of Versailles maybe? WWI perhaps? A war started by monarchs (related monarchs) and blood-thirsty, self-important leaders who drafted millions to die in a war for nothing.
Hitler would have won, then. I wonder what the world would be like now, if we hadn't fought. We'll never know, but I guess it would be worse.
This is my pragmatic assessment. Pragmatism sometimes clashes with other ideals.
A bit off topic But I wonder what the world would be if they would have killed the man on the right, right there on the spot. But somehow the "leaders" never kill other "leaders". Really strange, not pragmatic at all of those "leaders"
source
There is a cost to dishonor. I don't think it's clear that the expediency of killing one leader outweighs the cost.
It might be the case that the one leader you kill is succeed by a worse foe.
Might be. This could also be said with adolf hitler, in mind killing (earlyer on) him might have had that same effect too. That does not mean you can not kill proven dictators.
English is not my native language. So I hope I understood your first sentence correctly
I don't now what you mean exactly with dishoner. Do you mean it is dishonerable for one leader to kill another? Leaders don't kill eachother they talk?
so, america shouldn't have fought the Nazis, then?
so, america shouldn't have fought the Nazis, then?
Look: Literal parroting bots proving my point. Nuance is dead.
Look: Literal parroting bots proving my point. Nuance is dead.
teehee
so, America shouldn't have fought the Nazis, then?