Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / anna nicole smith

Author
Message
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 18th Feb 2007 17:40
Link
When I die and go to the afterlife, if I have a dinner party, I think it's safe to say I'd invite Gandhi and Mother Teresa, but Pol Pot and Hitler would be barred at the door. Of course you can judge people by their merits, and you most certainly should. Unfortunately, we're closer to an Orwellian society than a Utopian one. There is definitely such a thing as good and evil. A few examples, living and dead...

Good
Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, Vivien Thomas

Evil
Hitler, Pol Pot, Tomas De Torquemada, Joseph Stalin

Who would ever even think to say one of the good people I just named was evil, or one of the evil people I named was good? You could have a personal perception of someone like Joseph Stalin as being good, but doesn't that just make you evil as well?

Think about it this way. Let's compare the deeds and offerings to humanity from Martin Luther King versus Anna Nicole Smith, and figure out whose contributed more to the cultural and social growth of humanity as a whole.

Martin Luther King is widely considered to be a key figure in the civil rights movement of the 1960's. He played a substantial role in ending segregation and securing the rights of black people in the United States and even around the world, and he did it by preaching peace and teaching tolerance, very much akin to what Ghandi did.

Anna Nicole Smith. She posed in Playboy.

Okay, now weigh these two by their actions, figure out who contributed more to humanity, then get back to me when you've figured it out


"In an interstellar burst, I'm back to save the universe"
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Miguel Melo
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Aug 2005
Location:
Posted: 18th Feb 2007 18:15
Link
Quote: "Anna Nicole Smith. She posed in Playboy."


Yeah, but what magazine spread that was, LOL

I have vague plans for World Domination
Back to top
Profile PM
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 18th Feb 2007 18:53
Link
lol yeah, it may have ended conflict in people's pants, but beyond that spectrum of influence, her expertise is limited


"In an interstellar burst, I'm back to save the universe"
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Uncle Sam
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jul 2005
Location: West Coast, USA
Posted: 19th Feb 2007 04:29 Edited at: 19th Feb 2007 04:30
Link
Quote: "So by your ideals, a man who slaughtered hundreds, ate their flesh, should be viewed the same as a man who cures all disease, and donates all profits to charity...?"


No, lie I said we are not the ones to judge people.

Quote: "It is most certainly a perception. However, from a logical standpoint it becomes quite clear. This is putting aside all religious and political views.

Mother Teresa helped lots of people. Osama was instrumental in the deaths of lots of people. Whatever his reasons, he did much more damage than good. He is a political activist that uses death as his tool of communication. I know of political activists that got their point across with violence.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that Osama is bad, I'm sure you all agree. I'm just trying to look at it from a purely logical viewpoint so that we can judge people appropriately."


We are not supposed to judge people. And like Hob said, it's all a matter of perspective. If someone kills you say it's wrong, right? Well, what if the law changes to allow, or even encourage killing? Is this person wrong? Where are you getting the info that killing is wrong (I'm saying that's what I think)? I'm interested to know the answer to that last question, coming from you personally.

Uncle Sam
Nvidia Geforce 7950GT 512MB PCIEx, 2.66 GHZ Pentium 4 proccessor, 1GB RAM
Need particles? Click here!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Steve J
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Apr 2006
Location: Vancouver, Washington
Posted: 19th Feb 2007 04:37
Link
So if nobody judges anyone, therefor everyone is is viewed the same, therefor what I said is true. Seriously, while your logic is ok, it isn't structured under morality, its just an independent ideal. You need morals for a society to function, so your logic has no place in a society (since it requires nobody to believe in anything on any side).

Support Freedom by supporting fascism. For under hard conditions freedom prevails, while under stagnation, it crumbles to dust.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 19th Feb 2007 04:43
Link
It's the very principal of killing that makes it wrong, not the man-made laws that make it good or evil. And it isn't really the act of killing in and of itself that is actually evil. Killing is a tool, and its how you use the hammer that makes the nail go into the wood.

Okay, look at it this way...

In World War II, Nazis were genociding an entire race of people. That's bad. They were innocent and put to death because they believed something different than a single psychopath. But allied forces killed a lot of people as well... they didn't kill civilians (not purposefully anyway), but they killed some unfathomable number of german soldiers. But if they didn't kill said soldiers, we'd all be speaking german right now, and the world would be a very different place (and definitely not in a good way). We had to kill to prevent others from being killed. At the end of the day, killing is a tool, and it can be used for good, although it's more commonly used for evil. Does that make sense or did I just confuse everyone, lol.


"In an interstellar burst, I'm back to save the universe"
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Uncle Sam
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jul 2005
Location: West Coast, USA
Posted: 19th Feb 2007 06:06 Edited at: 19th Feb 2007 06:06
Link
Er, that did not make sense. Basically you are saying that it's ok to steal because it will help your family survive.

Even if you had to kill someone to save the whole world from dying. That does not make it right. Nothing justifies it.

Quote: "So if nobody judges anyone, therefor everyone is is viewed the same, therefor what I said is true. Seriously, while your logic is ok, it isn't structured under morality, its just an independent ideal. You need morals for a society to function, so your logic has no place in a society (since it requires nobody to believe in anything on any side)."


I was trying to give the impression that the judging should be done by a higher. In any country today, people are judged, indeed, but not for how good or bad they are, just if they have broken laws.

Uncle Sam
Nvidia Geforce 7950GT 512MB PCIEx, 2.66 GHZ Pentium 4 proccessor, 1GB RAM
Need particles? Click here!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Steve J
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Apr 2006
Location: Vancouver, Washington
Posted: 19th Feb 2007 07:15
Link
But those laws are given by morals, which are usually the same that people on a lower scale have, because laws give them their moral beliefs, so we should be able to judge someone...

Support Freedom by supporting fascism. For under hard conditions freedom prevails, while under stagnation, it crumbles to dust.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Crazy Ninja
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2005
Location: Awesometon
Posted: 19th Feb 2007 07:54
Link
This conversation does not matter for i have just finished the bomb that will rocket the earth off course and into the sun. Goodbye fellow TGCers.

Back to top
Profile PM
Uncle Sam
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jul 2005
Location: West Coast, USA
Posted: 19th Feb 2007 09:56
Link
Well, tell me where you got the morals?

Uncle Sam
Nvidia Geforce 7950GT 512MB PCIEx, 2.66 GHZ Pentium 4 proccessor, 1GB RAM
Need particles? Click here!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Saikoro
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Oct 2003
Location: California
Posted: 19th Feb 2007 10:03
Link
Two moralless people bump into each other, one takes advantage of the other's territory and the two become enemies, a third party comes along and helps the first one to destroy the second with the promise of a cut of territory, it then becomes advantageous for these two to keep each other and others alive until they wrong them as it is potentially more advantageous to be alive so that they can benefit off each other, and thus morals and society are born.


My band Phoenix Ophelia : http://www.myspace.com/phoenixophelia
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Flindiana Jones
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Nov 2004
Location: Bosnian Power
Posted: 19th Feb 2007 14:29
Link
You know, it would be weird being her kid a few years down the road, searching the internet for pictures of her...

not many kids see that type of picture of their parent...

You'd Forget you header if it wasn't compiled on!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Dazzag
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: Cyprus
Posted: 19th Feb 2007 16:34
Link
Would be worse if her kid was a boy. In a totally unrelated incident didn't he top himself?

Cheers

I am 99% probably lying in bed right now... so don't blame me for crappy typing
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 19th Feb 2007 19:57
Link
Quote: "Basically you are saying that it's ok to steal because it will help your family survive."

I'm sorry, but if I had a family who was starving to death, I most certainly would steal. It would have to be pretty extreme circumstances for that to happen though... basically, the nation's economy would need to crumble or something. But if we woke up tomorrow in a world similar to Road Warrior or Fallout, then yes, I'd steal, and I'd kill anyone who tried to steal from me, and it would be justified in my head. And I'll bet you, oh, everything I own that in conditions like that you'd do the same

Quote: "Even if you had to kill someone to save the whole world from dying. That does not make it right. Nothing justifies it."

Again, I definitely need to disagree. You talk about morality and whatnot, but seriously, if some guy showed up on the subway with a nuclear weapon, you wouldn't drill his face? I know I would... twice. If killing one person would save five others, then I say kill that person, and kill them quickly.

Sometimes you don't have the option to play nice. Some people simply won't "come to terms" on certain issues. A terrorist, for instance, he doesn't care about laws or morality... he cares about body counts, because that's what makes the nightly news. You can't talk a terrorist into playing nice, and you can't simply subdue him, because he'll more than likely do whatever it takes to complete his goal. If you don't kill that person, he could end up killing a whole heck of a lot of people. I could never kill a person, but if I felt like my life was in serious danger, and/ or the lives of others were being threatened, then yes, I'd put a moonroof in the back of someone's head without thinking twice .

I'm sure morals come from instinct and emotion. Someone killed someone else, and people got depressed about it, and presto, humans started thinking of killing as wrong. It is wrong, no question about that, but sometimes it's easily justifiable, in my opinion anyway.


"In an interstellar burst, I'm back to save the universe"
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Peter H
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Feb 2004
Location: Witness Protection Program
Posted: 19th Feb 2007 20:51
Link
Quote: "but seriously, if some guy showed up on the subway with a nuclear weapon, you wouldn't drill his face? I know I would... twice. If killing one person would save five others, then I say kill that person, and kill them quickly."

in that instance it's obvious though that the guy has ill-intent

if someone showed up at a subway station unknowingly with a virus that would infect and eventually kill 5 people if you let him take one step further. would you shoot him?

it kind of depends on the reason for killing them (i agree it would be right to stop someone with a nuke say, but not an innocent person who has no idea)

One man, one lawnmower, plenty of angry groundhogs.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Gil Galvanti
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Dec 2004
Location: Texas, United States
Posted: 19th Feb 2007 20:56
Link
Quote: "unknowingly with a virus that would infect and eventually kill 5 people if you let him take one step further. would you shoot him?"

That's different though, unless he was going to intentionally kill 5 people with it, it's not the same as someone coming in with a gun and killing 5 people.

Pirates of Port Royale
Live the life.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Peter H
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Feb 2004
Location: Witness Protection Program
Posted: 19th Feb 2007 21:05 Edited at: 19th Feb 2007 21:05
Link
exactly... that was my point, that you can't just generalize killing 1 guy to save other guys

One man, one lawnmower, plenty of angry groundhogs.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Hobgoblin Lord
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2005
Location: Fall River, MA USA
Posted: 19th Feb 2007 22:59
Link
Quote: "If killing one person would save five others, then I say kill that person, and kill them quickly. "


That really is a weak statement. Killing someone that has the intent to kill others and there is no other solution can be justified only on an individual basis (though a large portion of people may consider it justified). Again remember there are 2 sides to everything, said terrorist on the subway may certainly believe that his counrty/religion/ beliefs etc are in serious jeopardy and carry out the attack as a way (odd as it is) to defend his views and justifies it.

http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=73324&b=8
My RPG WIP, check it out
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 19th Feb 2007 23:21
Link
But that doesn't make the terrorist right, and if killing one aggressor could save even three innocent lives, it's my opinion that said aggressor needs to be shot. Granted I should have illustrated that the intent of the person validates the necessity for killing, but in a case where one person or even a group of people severely threatens the lives of several others, I would personally want to see that person (or group of people) irradicated. Again, I return to World War II in an example. If Allied forces didn't do what they'd done, who on earth would consider the state the world would theoretically be in today as a good one?


"In an interstellar burst, I'm back to save the universe"
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Steve J
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Apr 2006
Location: Vancouver, Washington
Posted: 19th Feb 2007 23:40
Link
So matt, our entire army needs to be killed...?

Support Freedom by supporting fascism. For under hard conditions freedom prevails, while under stagnation, it crumbles to dust.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Hobgoblin Lord
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2005
Location: Fall River, MA USA
Posted: 20th Feb 2007 05:50
Link
Quote: "But that doesn't make the terrorist right"


Matt think you are missing the point, we certainly do not think he is right, but when a group or individual feels threatened they may strike, ala the American Revolutionary War. What do you think the opinion of the British was of the revolutionaries? The tools have changed, but I would be willing to bet that Patriots of the revolution would have been more than willing to strap a bomb to their chest to win that independance. We won so we wrote the history, what do you think we would have been taught about them had we lost that war and were still under British rule?

Morality is formed by your surroundings. Quick example; Would you consider puting up a Swaztica in you home? Most people would find this morally reprehensible, but to a Buddist and several other religions the swaztica has been a symbol of life and hope for thousands of years. Heck in WWI our own army had a unit with it as their symbol, yet today if you displayed it for whatever reason you would likely be viewed as an evil person. This comes back to the point of it not being our place to truly judge good vs evil.

http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=73324&b=8
My RPG WIP, check it out
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 20th Feb 2007 06:05
Link
Yes, but there's also this thing called common sense. No amount of common sense will tell a "normal" person that it's ok for a child predator to sexually abuse kids. These things are built into our brains as un-natural. A child will feel weird, even at 2 years old, as has often been the case when the news comes out when they're older. Therefore, in some cases, it *is* acceptable for us to truly judge whether something is good or evil.

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Hobgoblin Lord
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2005
Location: Fall River, MA USA
Posted: 20th Feb 2007 06:25
Link
Quote: "Yes, but there's also this thing called common sense. No amount of common sense will tell a "normal" person that it's ok for a child predator to sexually abuse kids. These things are built into our brains as un-natural. A child will feel weird, even at 2 years old, as has often been the case when the news comes out when they're older. Therefore, in some cases, it *is* acceptable for us to truly judge whether something is good or evil."


While I think this statement is quite valid, I think there is a difference between judging the act and judging the person. Did the above person commit the act because they are evil? Does the act itself make them so? We still have little true understanding why some people are prone to things like this, upbringing, previous abuse, other mental defect, or evil at work.

As for built into our brains, I disagree. Formed in our brains by our culture IMO. If you took a group of people and found a way to truly seperate them and teach them that things we find morally wrong are not, after a period of time (generations likely) those concepts would be accepted as natural. Think about that not too long ago marrying a 13 year old girl off to a 30 year old man was fine and accepted. What changed? certainly not the age girls hit puberty. What did change was our concept of right and wrong (and in some places it is still fine, as is marrying an uncle).

http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=73324&b=8
My RPG WIP, check it out
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Uncle Sam
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jul 2005
Location: West Coast, USA
Posted: 20th Feb 2007 09:18 Edited at: 20th Feb 2007 09:19
Link
Quote: "Again, I definitely need to disagree. You talk about morality and whatnot, but seriously, if some guy showed up on the subway with a nuclear weapon, you wouldn't drill his face? I know I would... twice. If killing one person would save five others, then I say kill that person, and kill them quickly."


I would not try to kill him, but instead try to disable him fom causing any harm, e.g. shoot his hands or legs or something like that. When you say that you'd kill him twice, it's obviously for other reasons (like personal pleasure or to get even) because killing twice, if possible, would not be necessary to prevent the danger.

Quote: "I'm sorry, but if I had a family who was starving to death, I most certainly would steal. It would have to be pretty extreme circumstances for that to happen though... basically, the nation's economy would need to crumble or something. But if we woke up tomorrow in a world similar to Road Warrior or Fallout, then yes, I'd steal, and I'd kill anyone who tried to steal from me, and it would be justified in my head. And I'll bet you, oh, everything I own that in conditions like that you'd do the same"


You can't say that without knowing me. I've never stolen in my life and I never plan to.

Consider this: you and your family is starving, and the only possible way of getting food would be to still the little that another starving family has. Would you do it?

As for these morals, they may come from society, but where did society get those morals? I think everyone here knows, but will not admit what it is...I will not say what I am thinking of.

Uncle Sam
Nvidia Geforce 7950GT 512MB PCIEx, 2.66 GHZ Pentium 4 proccessor, 1GB RAM
Need particles? Click here!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Steve J
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Apr 2006
Location: Vancouver, Washington
Posted: 20th Feb 2007 16:52
Link
From religion. Is that the big bad word you were looking for? If you consider that terrible in some way, please go jump in a hole and cover the top, because that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Religion gives us an influence, a strong one, but all religions preach goodness to others, thats how they spread. And if you were going to say government, your wrong, because people had morals when they lived in small tribal societies, with very basic laws.

Support Freedom by supporting fascism. For under hard conditions freedom prevails, while under stagnation, it crumbles to dust.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Uncle Sam
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jul 2005
Location: West Coast, USA
Posted: 20th Feb 2007 21:28
Link
Er...no, not religion, a specific part of religion, from a specific religion...should I say it and start a flame war (which is what I wanted to avoid)?
...
...
...
IT'S THE BIBLE!!!!

What I'm trying to prove in all this is that if people think that they should not kill others (which they got from the Bible), why shouldn't they believe what's in the rest of the Bible?

Uncle Sam
Nvidia Geforce 7950GT 512MB PCIEx, 2.66 GHZ Pentium 4 proccessor, 1GB RAM
Need particles? Click here!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Antidote
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Mar 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posted: 20th Feb 2007 22:34 Edited at: 20th Feb 2007 22:35
Link
Quote: "
What I'm trying to prove in all this is that if people think that they should not kill others (which they got from the Bible), why shouldn't they believe what's in the rest of the Bible?"


Because people don't get the notion to not kill people from the bible. The idea of not killing other people is hardwired into our brains, but is sometimes broken by desperation, frustration, anger, or other emotions. You can't say that people don't kill others because it's in the bible. If that were the case then two-thirds of the world would be killing people. I hope a mod locks this thread soon, this is getting out of hand.


Back to top
Profile PM
Hobgoblin Lord
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2005
Location: Fall River, MA USA
Posted: 20th Feb 2007 22:59
Link
Quote: "Er...no, not religion, a specific part of religion, from a specific religion...should I say it and start a flame war (which is what I wanted to avoid)?
...
...
...
IT'S THE BIBLE!!!!"


Have to agree that the bible is not the source of man's written/unwritten law of not killing others. The notion was around long before the written word, the bible itself was a new telling of older religions oral traditions, Sumeria particularlly. I am not looking to start a religious debate here as this is a tenant common to almost all belief (or non belief) systems. I again do not think it is "hardwired" (Innate) in man not to kill, but a learned behavior and fear of possibly being killed yourself in an attempt to take the life of another. Anyone get butterflies just before a fight? its your body warning you of danger.

http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=73324&b=8
My RPG WIP, check it out
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Antidote
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Mar 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posted: 20th Feb 2007 23:12
Link
I probably shouldn't have said hardwired, but really more what you said Hob. Part of out notion of not killing others is probably protecting us from possible danger, but the other part could be that we find comfort in other humans around us and as "cavemen" we needed other humans to survive since we were much more vulnerable alone.


Back to top
Profile PM
Hobgoblin Lord
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2005
Location: Fall River, MA USA
Posted: 20th Feb 2007 23:15
Link
Quote: ""cavemen" "


Had a history proffessor once that would have crucified you for refering to Pre-historic man as "cavemen".

http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=73324&b=8
My RPG WIP, check it out
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Deathead
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Oct 2006
Location:
Posted: 20th Feb 2007 23:24
Link
Quote: "What's really sad is the baby will grow up only knowing about her mother from videos like this:
"


That's Sad man her baby would say to her daddy ten years later ...
[Who is probably dead by the time] "Daddy what happened to mummy." And he'll probably say "Check Youtube and write Anna nicole Smith." a whole page of porn would show.

It was a sad loss but it was the same with George Best. Who went overboard with the alchie. And it was the same with Anna Nicole Smith to much drugs.

Lesson:
Never Do Drugs MKAY.
Its bad Mkay.


http://powerslaveuk.proboards83.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1168805417
Meet me on Xbox live
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Antidote
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Mar 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posted: 20th Feb 2007 23:26
Link
And that is why I used quotes .


Back to top
Profile PM
Uncle Sam
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jul 2005
Location: West Coast, USA
Posted: 21st Feb 2007 05:08 Edited at: 21st Feb 2007 05:09
Link
Quote: "Have to agree that the bible is not the source of man's written/unwritten law of not killing others. The notion was around long before the written word, the bible itself was a new telling of older religions oral traditions, Sumeria particularlly. I am not looking to start a religious debate here as this is a tenant common to almost all belief (or non belief) systems. I again do not think it is "hardwired" (Innate) in man not to kill, but a learned behavior and fear of possibly being killed yourself in an attempt to take the life of another. Anyone get butterflies just before a fight? its your body warning you of danger."


What you say makes some sense to me...well, kind of. It also implies that man will do anything so as to prevent that thing from happening to himself. Does that mean everyone is born already knowing that it is wrong to kill, steal, etc...? If not from the Bible, then there is only one other way....but actually it IS the Bible where people found out what is right and wrong...think of the 10 commandments. Many things that are considered wrong in the Bible are also considered wrong in most governments today.

Quote: "Had a history proffessor once that would have crucified you for refering to Pre-historic man as "cavemen"."


I know someone who would crucify you for refering to "Pre-historic".

Uncle Sam
Nvidia Geforce 7950GT 512MB PCIEx, 2.66 GHZ Pentium 4 proccessor, 1GB RAM
Need particles? Click here!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Kentaree
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2002
Location: Clonmel, Ireland
Posted: 21st Feb 2007 12:16
Link
Quote: "But allied forces killed a lot of people as well... they didn't kill civilians (not purposefully anyway)"


Do your research, World War 2 was a dirty war from both sides as they both intentionally bombed civilian targets, London for the germans and Leipzig (iirc) for the allies come to mind. Oh, and we wont mention hiroshima or nagasaki

Nephin Games
Devhat Developer Network and IRC Channel
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Crazy Ninja
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2005
Location: Awesometon
Posted: 21st Feb 2007 12:20
Link
Quote: "hiroshima or nagasaki"


Since your talking about the A bombs may I point out that more people would have died had they done a full island assault. While the consequences may have been dire, there weren't many other options.

Back to top
Profile PM
Kentaree
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2002
Location: Clonmel, Ireland
Posted: 21st Feb 2007 12:32
Link
I'm not commenting on whether it was the right or wrong thing to do, all I'm saying is that it was a targetted attack on civilians, as most of WW2 was.

Nephin Games
Devhat Developer Network and IRC Channel
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Hobgoblin Lord
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2005
Location: Fall River, MA USA
Posted: 21st Feb 2007 13:09
Link
Quote: "but actually it IS the Bible where people found out what is right and wrong...think of the 10 commandments."


Yes this was widely spread to modern day by this means, but they already existed prior to being given to any biblical figure (sans the "no go before me for I am a jealous god" line) as Hammurabi's Law.

Quote: "I know someone who would crucify you for refering to "Pre-historic". "


Then the person has no idea what pre-historic means. It does not refer to a throw back of man, earlier etc. It means prior to written history, thus PRE-historic. What seperates Neolithic man from modern man is a written language, first developed in Babylon about 5,500 years ago.

http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=73324&b=8
My RPG WIP, check it out
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 21st Feb 2007 18:22
Link
Interesting article about how the Americans warned the Japanese before dropping the bombs: http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=30

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Chris Franklin_
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Dec 2006
Location: Home
Posted: 21st Feb 2007 18:33
Link
^
Hmm cool got me thinking

llllRgt
Back to top
Profile PM
Agent Dink
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Mar 2004
Location:
Posted: 21st Feb 2007 21:10
Link
Though it sort of would be a waste to display the Abomb's power, they could have dropped it on some large Japanese base or something. At least for the first bomb. I just can't stand it when innocent lives are killed off. Certainly to me it seems a cowardly act... To kill undefended and innocent, mothers, fathers, and children with such a brutal weapon... Doesn't make one very proud of the U.S. for winning WW2. Yes, sure, it may have saved many American AND Japanese lives, but at least the killing on the battlefield is justified by a survival instict. It was the EASY way out for America. I most definitely would never have ordered those bombs dropped on civilian targets...


Quote: "Interesting article about how the Americans warned the Japanese before dropping the bombs"


At LEAST we did that. And I know the Japanese pretty much asked for the second one... but still.

Sometimes the only way over a wall is to pile up enough bodies to climb over - Dave W.
Back to top
Profile PM
Lost in Thought
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Feb 2004
Location: U.S.A. : Douglas, Georgia
Posted: 22nd Feb 2007 02:58
Link
In any case regardless of circumstance, if I could kill one person to save more than 1 I would do it. In the case of the bomb and the virus, whether they were intentionally going to cause the deaths is irrelevant.

In the case of the bomb, you can't talk to the guy because you would warn him and give him a head start. Once he pushes the button there is nothing you can do. Any guy on a subway with a nuclear weapon is not holding it for good intentions, unless you are the guy who just shot the guy with it. And are holding it until police arrived. In which case you will know this by all the people standing around saying wow he just shot that guy with the bomb.

In the case of the virus, you can try to warn the man. If he can't hear you or refuses to listen then shoot him and save the other 5.

If I am in either of these situations you have my permission to shoot me. I would not hold it against you. It is worse to cause another's death unintentionally than it is to live, if it is absolutely certain the unintentional death(s) can be avoided.

Just like people who drink/ do drugs and drive. If you catch me too impaired to drive and driving then shoot me.

Quote: "Consider this: you and your family is starving, and the only possible way of getting food would be to still the little that another starving family has. Would you do it?"


Absolutely. If it comes down to my family or theirs and there is no other way around it ... they better watch out. However on the other side of this fence, if I had the little bit of food I would share it until it was gone and then starvation would be both of our problems to face together. But if they refused to share ...

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Hobgoblin Lord
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2005
Location: Fall River, MA USA
Posted: 22nd Feb 2007 03:25
Link
So then should the scientists behind the developement of the Abomb have been executed prior to making it? that would have saved many lives. Same for whoever designed the first short and long arms, cannons, bows, swords, and spears I suppose. keeping people from developing them might mean we only have fists, perhaps clubs and stones. I find it hard to punish someone for what they will, or might do.

As for the stealing bit, that is a hard call, I would hate to see my family suffer, then again I would hate to think I caused the suffering of another family by my actions.

http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=73324&b=8
My RPG WIP, check it out
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 22nd Feb 2007 09:48
Link
Better somebody else's family than my own. After all, the other family would do the same to me.

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Lost in Thought
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Feb 2004
Location: U.S.A. : Douglas, Georgia
Posted: 22nd Feb 2007 11:46
Link
Quote: "So then should the scientists behind the developement of the Abomb have been executed prior to making it? that would have saved many lives."


If you could guarantee that everyone who would make one then yes.

Quote: "Same for whoever designed the first short and long arms, cannons, bows, swords, and spears I suppose."


Some of these actually have alternate purposes and the surroundings and event should be used to determine the killing or not. The man who invented the bows, spears, and firarms for hunting food should not be killed. Whoever the ones who use them for killing should. In this day and age I agree that for the most part you can do away with most or all of these for food purposes, but when they were invented they had some reason. As for the non-food hunting ones .. kill'm.

Quote: "keeping people from developing them might mean we only have fists, perhaps clubs and stones. I find it hard to punish someone for what they will, or might do."


Again this is taken way to an extreme, you know how to tell if someone invents something for the purpose of killing or surviving. The ones who use good tools for killing alot of people are the ones who need removing.

I wouldn't kill any man if I wouldn't want someone else to kill me if I was in his place. If I'm about to intentionally or unintentionally kill some people and you can't 100% stop me otherwise, then kill me if it will 100% stop their deaths from my influence. I would use the same judgement for anyone elses situation. So please don't walk into a store pointing a loaded weapon/ waiving a knife in Douglas, GA while i'm in there. You may not make it far.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Dazzag
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Aug 2002
Location: Cyprus
Posted: 22nd Feb 2007 12:09 Edited at: 22nd Feb 2007 12:09
Link
Quote: "I would not try to kill him, but instead try to disable him fom causing any harm"
Taking a bit of a chance that he (bit sexist there methinks?) doesn't have a dead man's switch or somesuch? Better to shoot him between the eyes to be sure.... Been watching E-Ring and The Unit way too much (plus reports about that innocent bloke that British police blew away on the underground)....

Cheers

I am 99% probably lying in bed right now... so don't blame me for crappy typing
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 22nd Feb 2007 21:32
Link
Quote: "If you could guarantee that everyone who would make one then yes."


Are you serious? So the entire army RND firms should execute their employees immediately? After all, they are constantly researching better ways to kill and to protect from being killed. Ludicrous. Sometimes a war is the only way to *prevent* deaths.

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Peter H
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Feb 2004
Location: Witness Protection Program
Posted: 22nd Feb 2007 21:45
Link
Quote: "Sometimes a war is the only way to *prevent* deaths."

lol, good point, by LiT's thinking we should kill him before he kills the aBomb creators, because he would be causing deaths

(and don't say that you are killing them to prevent deaths, because i'm sure that's what the aBomb creators were thinking too)

it obviously all requires discernment... killing someone is something that shouldn't be done lightly.

One man, one lawnmower, plenty of angry groundhogs.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Benjamin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 22nd Feb 2007 22:25
Link
Quote: "Whoever the ones who use them for killing should."

So how do you want soldiers to defend their country? Maybe they can hurl rocks.

Tempest (DBP/DBCe)
Multisync V1 (DBP/DBCe)
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Agent Dink
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Mar 2004
Location:
Posted: 22nd Feb 2007 23:00
Link
Quote: "So how do you want soldiers to defend their country? Maybe they can hurl rocks."


Maybe the world simply shouldn't have armies or weapons and maybe leaders should be content with their own current portions of the planet. If they want more land, they should start a space research program and haul their butts to a new planet.

I have no signature...
Back to top
Profile PM
Matt Rock
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Mar 2005
Location: Binghamton NY USA
Posted: 22nd Feb 2007 23:23
Link
I tend to think peace is always the best answer, but Jeku is right, sometimes war is the only way to solve something (I'm looking at you again, WWII).

Humans have sharp teeth. As long as we have those sharp teeth for eating meat, we'll be murdering other people. It's human nature, and there's absolutely nothing anyone can do to change that. Some people won't kill (hopefully, none of us in this conversation will ever be forced to do that), but some others will, and while we might not like that it happens, it's going to happen regardless.


"In an interstellar burst, I'm back to save the universe"
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-18 09:31:25
Your offset time is: 2024-11-18 09:31:25