Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
I mean if you support a war that is killing civilians then you support killing babies. People should own that.
I drive an SUV that gets 24 mpg highway. I support killing the planet. I'm fine with that.
I mean if you support a war that is killing civilians then you support killing babies. People should own that.
I drive an SUV that gets 24 mpg highway. I support killing the planet. I'm fine with that.
That sort of thing used to be called 'reasonable inference'
It really depends what you mean by support. I 'support' a hell a of a lot I profoundly object to just by paying taxes.
not the Soviets!
I mean if you support a war that is killing civilians then you support killing babies. People should own that.
As a matter of pure logic, this is obviously wrong.
I can imagine a hypothetical just war in which military action was justified in order to prevent 5X civilian deaths, even though the military action itself would result in X civilian deaths.
Under your theory, that means the supporters of the military action support "killing babies," even though the net effect of the military action would be to save civilian lives, including the lives of babies.
As a matter of pure logic, this is obviously wrong. I can imagine a hypothetical just war in which military action was justified in order to prevent 5X civilian deaths, even though the military action itself would result in X civilian deaths. Under your theory, that means the supporters of the military action support "killing babies," even though the net effect of the militar
Supporting war is very bad. Even if it means more people will die, supporting war is very bad
War, at its very fundamental roots, is humans killing humans, and that is bad
As a matter of pure logic, this is obviously wrong. I can imagine a hypothetical just war in which military action was justified in order to prevent 5X civilian deaths, even though the military action itself would result in X civilian deaths. Under your theory, that means the supporters of the military action support "killing babies," even though the net effect of the militar
this isnt just any war
Supporting war is very bad. Even if it means more people will die, supporting war is very bad
War, at its very fundamental roots, is humans killing humans, and that is bad
You think that supporting a military action that indisputably would have the net effect of saving a large number of innocent lives is obviously wrong? It could be wrong, but I don't think that it is inevitably wrong.
If you wanted to argue that such situations arise far less frequently than we imagine, I might agree, but that's a different point.
Supporting war is very bad. Even if it means more people will die, supporting war is very bad
War, at its very fundamental roots, is humans killing humans, and that is bad
Not a nuanced take. There have obviously been several wars in the last century where not engaging in conflict would have resulted in a much worse outcome.
What do you mean? We aren't discussing a specific situation. We are discussing a pure hypothetical and a general principle.
I guess it comes down to how you interpret luckbox's initial post. I took it to mean a war that intentionally and primarily targets children.
but, I also realize the discussion has moved to a more generalized hypothetical of war.
As a matter of pure logic, this is obviously wrong. I can imagine a hypothetical just war in which military action was justified in order to prevent 5X civilian deaths, even though the military action itself would result in X civilian deaths. Under your theory, that means the supporters of the military action support "killing babies," even though the net effect of the militar
If some babies have to die to save other babies, and people aware of that and are still ok with it, then they support killing babies....as a matter of pure logic.
did we just do the trolly problem?
If some babies have to die to save other babies, and people aware of that and are still ok with it, then they support killing babies....as a matter of pure logic.
I disagree. In my hypothetical, it is entirely possible that the person supporting military action abhors killing babies, and for that reason, is choosing the course of action that results in the fewest killed babies.
In my hypothetical, there is no option C that avoids dead civilians.
If some babies have to die to save other babies, and people aware of that and are still ok with it, then they support killing babies....as a matter of pure logic.
Agree
I disagree. In my hypothetical, it is entirely possible that the person supporting military action abhors killing babies, and for that reason, is choosing the course of action that results in the fewest killed babies.
In my hypothetical, there is no option C that avoids dead civilians.
They don’t abhor them enough not to support the war though.
If some babies have to die to save other babies, and people aware of that and are still ok with it, then they support killing babies....as a matter of pure logic.
According to your theory, if I invented a miraculous, anti-air pollution machine that removed pollution from the atmosphere at four times the rate it added pollution to the atmosphere, and had no other negative impact on the environment, then anyone who supported the use of my machine would be properly described as "supporting" air pollution.
That’s not how your analogy works.
You’re saying we need to kill children because it will possibly prevent more deaths later
A machine that adds pollution while cleaning 4x as much is a whole different animal
I disagree. In my hypothetical, it is entirely possible that the person supporting military action abhors killing babies, and for that reason, is choosing the course of action that results in the fewest killed babies.
In my hypothetical, there is no option C that avoids dead civilians.
Option C is called being a pacifist. Such people do exist. Not me. If a bunch of babies are coming at me wanting me dead I'm taking them out.
According to your theory, if I invented a miraculous, anti-air pollution machine that removed pollution from the atmosphere at four times the rate it added pollution to the atmosphere, and had no other negative impact on the environment, then anyone who supported the use of my machine would be properly described as "supporting" air pollution.
Your position is that it's the net impact that's important not individual cases, but I agree with those who say that people and molecules are different enough that your analogy does not fit.
For one-- pollution is fungible. One molecule of pollutant is the same as any other, like how currency works. People are not fungible though.
I drive an SUV that gets 24 mpg highway. I support killing the planet. I'm fine with that.
Would you state this outside of internet anonymity? I'm not trying to do a "gotcha". I really don't know and am curious because people so many hold opinions which they won't even own up to on the internet, let alone in public. The need for claiming the moral high ground for a position is so strong with people, even when they know damn well their aims are wrong in any meaningful sense of the word.
David Duke will not admit to being a racist. He thinks different races should live separately. He has endless criticisms of every aspect of anything associated with any non white people, wants total racial segregation, but is not a racist and is really promoting peace according to him.
In actual fact it was when Victor was banned for a month. Micro said he'd stop posting then and hasn't been back.
Looks like he posted on July 9th in another forum one time but this was his last post here.
But to answer the question about who drove away Micro....it was the mods
This is right. I know Victor came back and as KoNY said, I could come back,
I presume Micro left for the same reason a lot of smart sensible people left:That thread is largely terrible for the average person's emotional well being. And that's because it's overflowing with toxic polarization. It's not a place to discuss ideas, facts, and nuances. It's largely a place to blame, virtue signal, troll, and hurt. And people who have no interest in that, have
But maybe some of this too. I haven't been following the thread, so I haven't been sucked in. And the bolded is certainly true.
