What breaks your heart?
Syrian child after air strike Aleppo
Maybe it's because I'm a dad nowadays but this little video broke me heart. It really makes me wonder what to do. Voting in the Netherlands doesn't change a thing. Giving money to ambulance workers or hospitals in the area helps but in the end seems like combatting a symptom that doesn't solve the underlying problem.
So the only solution I can see to really contribute is to pay an assassin to kill some key figures in that region. Unfortunately, I don't know with 100% certainty who the key figures are.
So it breaks my heart again because there's nothing I can do to prevent this and I know it will happen again and again.
Just venting my frustration.
Feel free to add your own.
Maybe it's because I'm a dad nowadays but this little video broke me heart. It really makes me wonder what to do. Voting in the Netherlands doesn't change a thing. Giving money to ambulance workers or hospitals in the area helps but in the end seems like combatting a symptom that doesn't solve the underlying problem.
So the only solution I can see to really contribute is to pay an assassin to kill some key figures in that region. Unfortunately, I don't know with 100% certainty who the key figures are.
So it breaks my heart again because there's nothing I can do to prevent this and I know it will happen again and again.
Just venting my frustration.
Feel free to add your own.
Comments (158)
This is a really good idea. Except the underlying problem is humanity, and problems don't generally solve themselves. I rage against the inhumanity of humanity, and the frustration I feel is the same frustration, the disgust is the same disgust, that is vented in this destruction.
It would be nice if it was that kind of cancer that one could cut out by removing a few key figures, but I think it is more the kind that spreads everywhere, so that assassins and their paymasters are part of the problem and not the solution.
But I think even your vote can help; if you vote for honesty, gentleness, and care for others in your politicians, it has an effect, but if you vote for strong decisive leaders, who will do something, that has an effect too.
They're all missing the fucking point - it's everybody's fault, collectively, and collectively we should be saying "Shit, we've gone too far when we're injuring (and killing) kids".
And I am for strong, decisive leaders. I just have a very different concept of this because I don't agree honesty, care and gentleness are contrary to being strong - in fact, I think they are prerequisites. Being strong to me means going that extra mile for others, even if you're tired as hell yourself. Shouldering the burdens yourself and not depending on others to solve them for you but accepting help (freely given) with grace if it's offered. And decisive, because you are living and acting on these convictions that you don't need to doubt about doing the right thing.
I do not have children, but that doesn't make it less disgusting to me. I usually have the urge to puke whenever something like that is shown.
What frustrates me is exactly what you site here:Quoting Benkei
On the other hand I can understand wanting an explanation which removes culpability so you can get on with your life without much emotional drain when society already taxes you with so much. I also understand that events like this are a part of militant conflict, and that militant conflict was unavoidable in Syria (the government opened fire on those who were peacably assembling). But even though it's understandable it still breaks my heart when it seems like so many people just accept things like the killing of children as if they are part of the natural order of things -- it's like, the one thing that seems to me we should all be able to agree upon regardless of other beliefs.
(Incidentally, I presume this is getting worldwide attention because the Russians or Syrians and not the Americans did the bombing).
+I agree with everything @Benkei said.
All in the name of making sure those stupid twinkies get produced by the sales deadline.
Setting aside the ethics, there are probably quite a few more impracticalities which would render that option unrealistic.
I very much agree with un's reply and with your reply to his reply. What can be done? That is the question - and it's difficult to answer, as well as avoid cynicism. I suppose we just have to keep doing what we can to try to resolve these sorts of catastrophes, even if it seems relatively ineffectual.
Quoting Thorongil
I'm wary of that proposed solution. What exactly is "humanitarian military intervention"? Military intervention which tries a little harder to avoid killing innocents, but does so nonetheless? Military intervention which kills innocents, but does so conscionabley? These missiles kill this amount of innocents, but these other missiles kill less, so they're alright.
So you're capable of flippant mockery. Congratulations.
She is a symbol of triumph too.
Boots on the ground will only serve to address the symptoms (and they would have to be left there indefinitely to do that) it would not cure the real issue.
The main problem is an ideological one and the people in certain areas of the world are fighting over theocratic differences.
For these people fighting each other for their very spiritual lives are at stake and they are committed absolutely to insuring they do not die spiritually.
Suggesting that you simply go in an kill the bad guys is a gross misunderstanding of the issue.
To truly effect change would take decades and would require a willingness to change on the part of the inhabitants of the areas we occupy.
Often that willingness to change exists in only a very small minority of the population.
This is why the idea of intervention is unappealing to many in the west...many realize there is not much that can be done and what little can be done requires great sacrifice of lives and is resource intensive.
Boots on the ground is a visceral response sure...it would be satisfying to punish the "bad guys" (often it is not clear just who that it is) but to believe it would fix the issue at hand is just folly.
I do understand where your coming from, but one question is still in my mind...
... can we actually identify the "underlying problem" without causing even more problems in the process?
As I view it, there is not an "underlying problem", but multiple problems that shift in importance/priority as this situation develops. I've reached the point where I feel that there is no single action or single decision or single solution to this situation. Also, when I look at history, this situation is really nothing new. The situation simply gets a new face or a new set design or a new soundtrack as time passes.
In short... rather than call it "the underlying problem" I refer to it as the situation. (in bold print)
What I can say with some small degree of certainty is that I really have no idea how to rid humanity of this situation, much less identify all the facets of the multiple problems associated with this situation.
Result is me thinking global and acting local.
Indeed I could leave my wife and try to do some active field work in those areas that are mostly effected/affected by this situation, but what sort of problems would that create locally?
One of the problems here is the guilt associated with our moments of joy. Not joy of us being outside of the main core of this situation, but our ability to have joy knowing that such a situation exists. This might well included having joy in life knowing one has no idea how to make a positive effect/affect upon the situation.
Benkei... I have no answer for this situation. I'm not even sure if I can really clearly identify what this situation is without causing the situation to flame. All I feel I can do is act locally, as to perhaps slow the expansion of this situation by fighting elements at the core of the situation... such as racism, xenophobism, jingoism, sexism, homophibia, meritocratic elitism, and other poles of moral/ethical idealistic absolutes founded upon connotative baggage and false premises.
This won't make you laugh, but it's worth it, as it honestly captures a lot of what I'm not doing a very good job of writing about... it probably isn't good either, but anyway:
Meow!
GREG
No, it's very clear in the present case.
Quoting m-theory
No one ever said, or ought to say, that military intervention would solve the crisis within Islam at the moment. It's merely a method of ending the immediate and horrific violence, just as the West did in Bosnia, for example. That intervention never pretended to make relations between Serbian Christians and Bosnian Muslims perfect, but it did end what was escalating into a genocide and brought to justice those responsible for it.
It is not clear to me who the bad guys are in this case.
Who do you think ought to be held responsible?
Islam itself is not the problem as far as I am concerned.
The problem is the idea that society should be governed in accordance with religious beliefs as in theocracy.
I believe the west has the right idea about separation of church and state but sadly many middle eastern nations do not hold those values.
Then you're blind.
Quoting m-theory
Assad, ISIS, and Al-Nusra.
Quoting m-theory
It is the internally fractured nature of Islam at present that is the problem.
Quoting m-theory
Indeed.
Quoting m-theory
Indeed.
You do realize that during war US forces and our allies have also had collateral damage that injured, and even killed, innocent civilians?
Does that make the US a bad guy as well?
Never mind, no need to answer those questions.
Let me ask another instead...
Who do you think the good guys are in syria?
If the US did invade and occupy syria who would we place in charge that was not a bad guy?
I guess I should've have said it is not really clear who the good guys are.
I don't think we can just kill the problems away in syria and of course I don't agree that the US or west should intervene in syrai with military force.
That is obviously not going to happen and it is an unrealistic expectation.
I can understand being upset that innocents are caught in the cross fire...but when violence offers no solution to the problems faced in syria, simply being outraged about the tragedies is not a good reason for a military invasion and occupation.
Even if it would make you feel better.
It isn't going to get better, not because people are inherently wicked and spawn evil over and over again. It isn't going to get better because, in the aggregate, we can't do better. Compassion is always an individual option. It isn't a collective choice. Likewise with the other virtues. You can practice them, we cannot.
Prescient insight would inform us which babies should be smothered in their cribs so they wouldn't become future tyrants. Too bad our preferred intelligence agencies don't have that skill. Too bad we can't even tell exactly when, how, and by whom a known adult tyrant should be shot / bombed / poisoned. Maybe the whole al-Assad clan should have been taken out decades ago. Who was in charge of that?
We are, as Baden noted, self-deceived apes. We got clever but we didn't get wise.
Life probably will have as many, or more tragedies in the future because we are neither clever nor wise enough to avoid them. It's who we are. It's what we do.
You haven't answered the question.
Steven Pinker has written on the subject of human violence and I take solace in fact that over the course of history violence seems to be trending towards the decline.
It is a small comfort perhaps...but it suits me better than these bitter words of yours.
Well said by the way.
Women, children, the Syrian rebels (some of them), the Kurds, and the Iraqis.
Quoting m-theory
The idea would be to let the Syrians decide by implementing a democracy with the secular rule of law. Before that, the military would have to stabilize the country.
Quoting m-theory
Nor do I. But killing does go a long way in this instance.
Quoting m-theory
"Of course."
Quoting m-theory
There is historical precedent for humanitarian intervention, and I've already given you one example. You may not know much about these things, and I suspect you don't given the content of your posts, but international law mandates that certain action, including military actions, be taken to stop crimes against humanity.
There is a historical precedent demonstrating that simply installing a democracy in the middle of war is not mission accomplished as well.
You may not realize engaging in conflict for the "right" reasons does not insure that your goal will be accomplished...and seeking revenge for the innocents sounds like a great story to tell yourself...but it is not a military strategy
I am curious how long do you think it would take to "fix" syria if the west did invade?
And why you believe that the people there would be eager for the west to come in and "fix" it?
It is a serious question. I enquired what "humanitarian military intervention" entailed. You're just choosing to overlook that fact and focus instead on the way in which I phrased it... as if you've never used sarcasm to make a serious point.
Quoting Thorongil
It [i]was[/I] you who made this comment on the previous page, wasn't it? I'm not just imaging that, am I?
Absolutely.
Quoting m-theory
I don't know.
Quoting m-theory
They already are. People in the region have demanded military assistance to drive out ISIS and Assad for a long time now.
Quoting mcdoodle
So... just continue with the status quo of genocide and let ISIS have their "Islamic State," then? Mmk.
Quoting Sapientia
Why would this not already be obvious?
To my understanding the syrian rebels expected to be armed...I was not aware that they expect boots on the ground and for the west to occupy syria and establish a new government. I also don't see how that would be possible considering that russia and iran supports the current regime.
So are you saying the west should risk triggering war with those nations in order that that people like yourself can comfort themselves that you are killing the bad guys? I thought you were supposed to be an authority on this issue...or at least far more informed than I.
It seems to me you are just shooting from the hip talking about how you feel and not suggesting any realistic course of action.
And it seems you're an ignoramus who's trying way too hard to sound clever and ironic. I don't like conversing with you, as I said before, because it's utterly unproductive. So don't expect to see any more replies from me.
Lol...so you can dish it out but you can't take it.
Many people would like to see a definitive solution to the civil war, but it is not a simple civil war. Assad, Iran, and Russia are on one side, and on the other side are a whole bunch of groups who have varying objectives and other allies. The Syrian people are caught in the middle without a good exit, and even if they all did have a good route out, where would they all go?
Assad is bad news, but the opposition does not have all the angels on their side. There is Daesh and Al Qaida. If they were all nicely parceled out on their own territory, that would make life easier--they could be separately bombed-- but they are all mixed in together.
Like as not, a western military would have intervened if the situation had not been so dark and murky.
Maybe we actually learned something from Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan (not sure we did, though). It's one thing to smash the state; it's something else to create a civil society out of the chaos.
You are right bitter.
Thorongil I apologize.
There is no reason we cannot hold different opinions and be civil.
Quoting Thorongil
As Bitter points out:
Quoting Bitter Crank
Sadly, sometimes the most humanitarian thing to do is to not intervene.
Guys...
... thanks for lending support of my suspicion.
Now... please kiss and make up. This arguing is getting us nowhere.
Meow!
GREG
True, but why is that worrisome to you? I'm asking earnestly. Is it because you encounter frustration in your quest to understand current events? Or just that propaganda irritates you? Or what?
I was trying to understand what that point was.
[quote=Baden]
And, yes, it is extremely frustrating to try to untangle what the best thing to do in Syria would be, and what would constitute a humanitarian intervention as opposed to a strategic one where Russia, Iran, the US, Saudi Arabia and co. are just playing geopolitics with the locals' lives.[/quote]
The problem in Syria does not stem from geopolitics. I'm sure you realize that. It's a direct result of social instability that can be laid at Assad's door. He left his country vulnerable to invasion by fomenting unrest. A humanitarian intervention would remove Assad from power. No country in the world is going to take on that mission, though. What we're basically going to do is turn our backs on our brothers and sisters in Syria. This is what you have to consider when you condemn humanitarian military intervention. Turning away is fucking bitter.
It's not a given that humanitarian military intervention will live up to its name.
Quoting Mongrel
I didn't say it did originally, but geopolitics are involved now.
Quoting Mongrel
Remove Assad, how? Without making things worse? And I'm not condemning humanitarian military intervention in a blanket way. It worked in Bosnia as far as I'm concerned. What I'm condemning is the use of the term to cover strategic maneuvering that results in a worse humanitarian crisis than there was to begin with. As was the case with Iraq. Outline for me a credible plan that would involve a real humanitarian military intervention and I will be 100% behind it. So, I'm not for turning away as long as a) The action has purely humanitarian goals and b) has a realistic chance of working.
The British Empire would have executed Assad and put in place a British governor. It wouldn't have been for humanitarian reasons, though. The BE's agenda was pure exploitation (or pretty close to that.)
Quoting Baden
I see. It's deception that bothers you.
You know, the invasion of Iraq wasn't advertised as a humanitarian intervention. It's really just a side note that everybody knew Saddam and his sons were psycho.
Quoting Baden
And here is where I need for you to stop and reflect. You're making this about the crimes of the West and your frustration.
You are diverting attention from the victim.
I was highlighting the fact that from a government / media perspective, the victim will remain invisible until he or she serves a purpose. That's where individual consciousness / conscience comes in.
But sure, let's get to talking about solutions. You say humanitarian military intervention and the deposing of Assad. Tell me how that could work in a context where Iran, Russia and Hezbollah are supporting Assad? How wouldn't it escalate the conflict and cause an even worse humanitarian crisis? Tell me how the Shia population would accept a government by the Sunni? Tell me how democracy would spring from the cesspool of ideology there? Outline your plan. As for me, as far as I can see the only possible solution is to push again for ceasefires when it comes to Assad vs the rebels and then talks i.e. a diplomatic de-escalation on that front while maintaining military action against ISIS who are probably immune to diplomacy.
I hate writing "That's not what I said." I hate it so much I usually opt to drop out of conversation as soon as I'm misquoted. Every once in a blue moon I make an exception.
I said that humanitarian military intervention would take out Assad. I don't expect that to happen. Clinton will likely be the next president of the US, and she has already stated that no ground troops will be sent to Syria.
Quoting Baden
I have no plan there, but I spent about six months last year reading several books about contemporary Islamic issues and how they're rooted in the histories of the various Islamic communities in the world. The view of some Islamic scholars is that Islam has a natural affinity for democracy and would flourish in secular societies. The bonus is that a secular government would resolve a quagmire surrounding Sharia.
Bottom line is that the Islamic communities the world over face serious challenges that no one can solve for them. They have to grow organically out of their mutilated history.
Again I say: you're diverting attention from the victim. That kid probably needs stitches. Where are his parents? Who is making a list of survivors so people can find their relatives? Do they need money?
You wrote this:
"A humanitarian intervention would remove Assad from power. No country in the world is going to take on that mission, though. What we're basically going to do is turn our backs on our brothers and sisters in Syria. This is what you have to consider when you condemn humanitarian military intervention. Turning away is fucking bitter. "
I don't think it's unreasonable or uncharitable to interpret this as a proposal that humanitarian military intervention to remove Assad is the course we should take and at least part of the solution to the problem. But fine, I stand corrected. Let's move on.
Quoting Mongrel
We already have stable democratic Islamic countries like Malaysia, Bangladesh, and Indonesia. But maybe I'm missing your point. In any case, the issue in the Middle East is largely about the sectarian Sunni / Shia divide. That's a layer of difficulty on top of any affinity or aversion to democracy / secularism.
Quoting Mongrel
I thought we were talking about the macro issue here of humanitarian military intervention not the specifics of how to help this particular child. In other words, solving the "underlying problem" that Benkei alluded to in the OP.
I don't think there's going to be any humanitarian military intervention.
Benkei comes from a country that is not contributing its fair share to NATO. I have no idea why he's concerned about solving underlying problems. But then, my outlook is probably skewed from years in pediatric intensive care. The underlying problems abide. Help the kid in front of you.
That kid went to hospital and was released after treatment to my knowledge. The emotional trauma was probably worse than the physical in his case, I can't imagine what the long term effect will be.
I don't get the connection here at all.
I'm not trying to be an ass... it's something I really don't understand.
Quoting Baden
Off topic (well maybe)...
Baden's comment brought this to my mind.
This is why, in spite of the pictures, ask myself... why report this and why now?
There are so many conflicts going on right now and so many conflicts that have been going on in the past, but I'm always curious as to why what is reported and when it is reported.
Anyway...
... how about all of these ongoing conflicts? How many are getting attention?
- War in Somailia (since 2006 or 2009... starting date is an additional conflict)
- South Yemen insurgency (since 2009)
- Sudanese nomadic conflicts (since 2009)
- Operation Enduring Freedom – Trans Sahara (since 2007)
- Boko Haram insurgency (since2009)
- Kivu conflict (since 2004)
- War in North-West Pakistan (since 2004)
- Insurgency in the North Caucasus (since 2009)
- War in Darfur (since 2003)
- Balochistan conflict (since 2003)
- Conflict in the Niger Delta (since 2004)
- Mexican Drug War (since 2006)
- War in Donbass (since 2014)
I've probably left something out.
So... where or what are the "underlying problems" in these cases?
Can we identify them or will that cause even more problems?
Do we care to look at photos of children who have suffered in these conflicts as well?
Will we have them presented to us in the media?
Do we care to look at more than just the children who have suffered?
Does the care or emotional impact we feel hold the same level if it was an adult or a dog?
Are we being informed or are we being lead or something else?
Is this media a service or and industry or something else?
Sorry to be such a "media critic", but I feel these questions need to be considered.
Until then...
All very good questions.
"The media" mostly lead us into the wilderness of images where we get lost.
People who pay attention to "the news" can get a severe case of bad-news overload: everything is falling apart everywhere. Nothing can be done. It's tragic, it's horrible, it's awful. "Up next, huge rats have infested luxury apartment towers in New York City, but first this message from our sponsors."
"The media" probably aren't engaging in a conspiracy; more likely they are just following the Nielsen ratings. Boring analysis doesn't attract and keep large audiences. (Interesting, lively, cogent analysis might, but that's a rare commodity.)
"The media" are, of course, industrial in nature. They always have been, and in the old days, before corporate consolidation, the news was just as trashy and sensationalistic as it is now, if not more so. The gray eminence of the New York Times and the old high-end CBS network never represented the majority of media. Fox Garbage has always been more typical.
It makes sense: the intellectual elite is nowhere big enough or affluent enough to support popular, high-end media. The "booboisie" (H. L. Mencken's term, not mine) aren't rich, but they are very numerous. And the "booboisie" didn't elect to be stupid, they are pretty much blocked from being anything else.
INDEED!
I won't comment too much about this, but you might really find this video, well...
... I'll let you decide.
Meow!
GREG
Having said that, there's no doubt in my mind the world would be a better place if Alain de Botton replaced Rupert Murdoch as de facto head of global media.
I'm a bit of a fan of Alain de Botton (but not everything).
I have to admit his take on overflow media to keep people uninformed/misinformed, as well as his Taylor Swift vs. Global Warming are right on the mark.
I always approach news with a focus on 'why this story' and 'why now', as well as trying to distinguish reporting the news as a matter of fact and news commentary about what has been choosen by the media authorities that is to be reported.
Honestly I like the news reports in Germany the best. It's as if it's being read by robots or Vulcans. There is no different in emotional presentation between reporting a terror attack or fussball scores in the Bundesliga. It makes it somewhat boring, but it's all content with liitle or no commentary. My experience with American or British news is that it is a tiny bit of news with a lot of speculative and biased commentary. The best is in America how they move or insert pictures for extra dramatic effect. Seems to be a lot of "wagging dogs", as the tail is more in charge. ;)
Meow!
GREG
Reading the posts, what does it say that people are more intent on arguing their worldview and what's wrong with the media, instead of thinking about ways to help? I'm not convinced we cannot do anything. Alleviating the symptoms is at least something. If we can't cure certain types of cancer, it doesn't mean we should stop caring for those people who have it. That would be a rather rotten thing to do.
Quoting Mongrel
Why does one preclude the other in your view? I'm safe in my own country so I have the luxury to worry about other people and I think there's an ethical duty to do something (on me, I'm not saying my ethics should apply to you).
By the way, in case people care, the Red Cross is out of money to continue to provide aid in Syria (or so it says in Dutch media, so maybe it's just the Dutch entity).
Thank you for that.
So it's a "yes" to my original question, then. Why didn't you just say so? My criticism, then, is that it isn't right or proper to call that sort of intervention humanitarian.
Quoting m-theory
You [i]were[/I] civil and have nothing to apologise for, but if doing so makes for a more productive discussion, then so be it.
Quoting Baden
I was right to be suspicious, eh?
Quoting Benkei
The Red Cross. That is humanitarian intervention. The ones who make such intervention necessary on the other hand...
I think the best strategy would be this: let's not try to understand one another. It's a waste of time.
I love the Red Cross. Doctors Without Borders is also awesome.
If that's how you feel. Personally, I don't think it's a waste of time to understand other points of view. The better I understand others, the more adept I become at taking their interests into account. That might not mean as much on a forum as it does in real life though.
Quoting Sapientia
You really should try finishing your sentences instead of leaving me to fill in the blanks. I've got an active imagination and have gone through 10 different types of punishment in the past minute or so.
I don't think its a waste of time in general to try to understand people. It's just you, dude.
Quoting Benkei
Well, you did say "Vent your frustration". At least that's what I decided to read into it. O:)
That doesn't really make sense or you have simply left out what it is you really want from us.
The problems, such as the one you posted the photo of, are grounded in worldviews and is presented by the media. (hey... you posted a what? media link)
Maybe I should just say it this way... we have people killing another in the streets because they cannot make worldview options meet and we're left with bits and piece of information the media bring to our attention to somehow make a decision one way or the other.
Unless you wish us (or me) to fly off to where this kid lives and try to intervene, either helping that particular kid (I'd have no clue what that would even be) or telling the people there to the faces to "cut it out with this shit" what do you expect?
Meow!
GREG
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
I wanted you to share.
Quoting Benkei
That was another observation after I asked people to share. What do you think it says?
Maybe it says "I'm not responsible because I can't do anything about it." Or "It's kind off the media's fault because they aren't showing us the really important things, or in a biased way". Or "I care but everybody else doesn't".
I've already established I am responsible; not as much as Assad but still. So if I'm going to own up to my responsibility, what does that mean in practice? The only thing so far I have been able to do is donate to the Red Cross. I'm still trying to figure out if there's more I can do that is in any way meaningful.
Share what exactly? Simply make a list of what bothers me in that I have the notion it "breaks my heart"? Fine...
Quoting Benkei
Well, you mentioned something in the OP that made this a bit misleading.
Quoting Benkei
That reads like an invite to analyse what the "underlying problem" might be, so it has a tinge of an implied question.
OK... you continued with the following:
Quoting Benkei
Well, since this is a philosophy forum and people here love to pick notions apart, it logically follows that people will begin to discuss other options than the assination option, as well as propose possible foundations and ideals... governments, military interventions, media, religions... that possibly are or contribute to "the underlying problem(s)". Once identified/proposed, they may well field possible solutions as to help avoid such things from happening again in the future.
Fine, now I know all you wanted to do was vent and not really wish to discuss the dynamics of the situation presented in the OP. That's fair.
In my case, there is really not much that "breaks my heart". I really cannot think of anything off the top of my head.
Not that I don't care, but I simply don't let things get to me that much.
Sorry to be philosophical here, but my moral relativism as well as my understanding of determinism coupled with my non-existential absurdist core keep me away from being bogged down by "heart break".
Meow!
GREG
Out of curiosity - and you don't have to answer if this is too personal - do you imagine you'd have heart break if your wife left you or one of your cats died? Or not in those cases either?
I view "heart break" as letting emotions take over and that usual leads to many mistakes in spite of "good intentions". I suppose that's why a appeal to emotions is considered a fallacy.
As for my wife or my cats...
... sure I'd be sad. Heart broken... probably not.
Things happen for reasons and have determining factors. My cats will eventually die. That's why I enjoy my time with them now, rather than regert it later that I missed th opportunity when it was here. My wife would only leave me for good reasons. I fail to see any real reason why that should or would happen. We are in constant contact with one another and I don't think she's hiding anything that would cause such an event or decision.
Basically... shit happens and will happen to me too.
Meow!
GREG
I felt a brief flash of outrage then heartbreak because I realize there was not much I could about it.
But then when she won the nobel peace prize I was heartmended by that.
Damn. You just me realise that I'm more emotional about my cat than that boy in the photo. The latter isn't as close to home. I'm quite indifferent and emotionally detached to seeing that sort of thing in photos, to be honest. I don't really get heart broken or start sobbing over things. I'm not trying to boast or prove my manliness or anything silly like that; I'm just being honest. But the feeling I do get is more one of outrage or despair than heartbreak.
Mongrel assumes she/he knows me well enough not to want to waste time on trying to understand me. Or, read charitably, knows himself well enough to know it won't amount to anything.
I assumed MoS wasn't as Stoic as he says he is. In general, I assumed people more or less felt the same. M-theory probably came closest to the sentiments I felt.
There's a gulf of misunderstanding between people and in my experience, it only rarely is crossed through discussion. My daughter of 16 months is an excellent listener, much more so than any of us. Considering her limited ability to understand, relatively speaking she understands more than any of us.
Then to get to the subject many people wanted to talk about when they read my OP. It seems to me the underlying problem is that we talk too much and don't listen and ask follow up questions anywhere near enough.
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
Why do emotions lead to mistakes? Did you marry your wife purely on rational grounds? Love your cats rationally?
If anything, I actually feel I don't have enough emotions. How's that for opposites? ;)
Emotions are highly personal; thus highly supported by personal bias. I find emotions and their foundations are very relative to the individual; thus if one makes decisions soley or largely upon emotional factors, this greatly increases the chance that one has left out (often very willingly) factors that should well be included when drawing conclusions or making decisions.
This is not to say emotions should be completely avoided or negated. On the contraray emotions have the tendency to get out attention to things that appear to be unjust or unfair... but one needs to move beyond the simple foundation of emotions and included non-emotional aspects as to gain a clearer picture.
It's much like the video you posted. If the person was not a child or very young, would the emotional impact be the same? If indeed it was a cat would the emotions be more or less for everyone?
Indeed I feel far more for my cats than I do for people I don't know and honestly more so than most people I do know. What does that say about me? Well... that depends upon who you ask and their personal standard of measure regarding emotions.
The problem with emotions as a standard of measure is the extreme relativity involved; thus I find facts and figures often to help be a better guide of balancing this equation.
Indeed this is take straight from Wiki, but I can go with it:
[i]Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones or appeal to feels is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence. This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking.
Instead of facts, persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion-based argument. Thus, the validity of the premises that establish such an argument does not prove to be verifiable.[/i]
Quoting Benkei
Marry my wife?
Actually yes!
Some here just went "huh"?
Long story short...
... I love my wife. I am American. She is Austrian. We wanted to stay together. Marriage seemed and still seems to be redundant, as we love each other and this outward ceremony would not change that in the slightest.
The problem...
... for us to stay together in the same country we needed, according to the rules of the state, to be married.
In spite of this ritual meaning really nothing to us (purely utilitarian), this ritual meant a lot to the Republic of Austria; thus the rational and logical conclusion was to get married.
* We did so in secret, as to avoid having to get married three time - the official one with the Austrian authorities, the Chruch one in Austria and the Church one in the USA. We were married by a retired judge in Richmond, Va. while on vacation. One nice things, an accident, is that this retired judge was a Mark Twain impersonator, so being married in the livingroom of a Mark Twain impersonator seemed somehow very appropriate.
Quoting Benkei
Love is not really rational or atleast usually isn't. I simply like cats. I have always liked cats. Cats tend to like me too.
When our cats prior to these two we have now passed away, we took some time out before including new cats. Funny thing is for my wife a documentary on the life of Charles Darwin did the most to get her past the death of the previous cats. A very rational process to get past the grieving.
Anyway...
... we went to the Vet who had a number of kittens for adoption. We wanted two females, as they are easier to deal with in an apartment and we do like black cats, but simply like cats.
Not to buy into fate, but two small kittens came to us immediately when we went into the kitten room. One black and the other a fluffy tiger, both female. That was the selection process.
Since then we have bonded with really little or no complications at all.
The care and company is quite rational, but the love is something I don't analyse with rationality.
Then again, I simply co-exist with my cats and don't argue for or against them, nor make any claims of their validity or soundness regarding anyone else's experience.
Quoting Benkei
In which matters or which context do you not have enough emotions and according to who's standard of measure?
Funny thing in that sentence you wrote is that you "feel" you don't have enough "emotions".
A relative notion about a relative quality... how can you be certain? ;) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oShTJ90fC34
Meow!
GREG
That was actually on purpose. X-)
Let's just say I have a very rich emotional life behind my piano and it stops when I stop playing.
Well... now you have a kid, so you can have a rich emotional life making him/her (I forget, sorry) take piano lessons, but (if you do that) be aware that (s)he'll have an emotional reaction to this too... and not always a rational one.
Meow!
GREG
Be aware that you'll have an emotional reaction to this too... and not always a positive one.
This one. The one where you've tried to justify actions which lead to the sort of thing that happened to the boy in the photo, or worse, by attaching the term "humanitarian" to the term "military intervention", despite the apparent oxymoron, given that you include the sort of military intervention which is itself the cause of crises which require humanitarian aid, at least for those who survive long enough.
The irony is that you're being the most unproductive person involved in this discussion, due your unwillingness to set aside trivialities and concentrate on the topic under discussion. Trivialities which you yourself are guilty of at times, and in this very discussion, such as sarcasm and bluntness.
Yes, I chose to poke the bear, because I'm critical of its views, and I'm undeterred by its roar.
I have done, and others can see that I have done, but it seems that you cannot, so you've chosen to ignore it - which is no skin off my back. But I won't be silenced.
Quoting Sapientia
So is it that you like hearing yourself talk or that you have a genuine interest in what I have to say? I suspect the former. You don't care what I think. You've already made up your mind, hence the profusions of sarcasm. I at least know when to stop a conversation if I find it will be no use continuing it, as I did with the other gentleman in this thread.
Mountain of sarcasm? I like that. How about the point up above above about the apparent contradiction between humanitarianism and military intervention which causes humanitarian crises?
Quoting Thorongil
Both.
It remains apparent.
Then you must have a poor understanding of what humanitarianism consists of, because it doesn't consist of causing the very problem it sets out to remedy.
Uh... The back story on that is that I had just been through a little discussion with Baden about his trepidation about "humanitarian military intervention." Was it the concept? The use of the terminology? I wanted to know. I walked away from the conversation pretty sure I don't understand Baden's viewpoint . Several times through the conversation it occurred to me that the gulf between us was wider than I realized.
When you asked why it would seem odd that a person is concerned about the health and welfare of people elsewhere, when that person is not contributing to his own defense... honestly my first response was: "How could you not know the answer to that?"
It seemed obvious to me that short-circuiting the conversation was a good idea.
And.. the Red Cross is awesome.
And since the sort of military intervention that you've cited as examples of so-called humanitarian military intervention cause the very problem that humanitarianism sets out to remedy, they aren't therefore humanitarian. So it is a misleading term.
They have. That you think otherwise, is, I suspect, a result of your warped understanding of humanitarianism.
The first thing that I found upon googling "humanitarianism" was the following paragraph:
[Quote]Humanitarianism is a moral of kindness, benevolence, and sympathy extended to all human beings. Humanitarianism has been an evolving concept historically but universality is a common theme in its evolution.[/quote]
Does so-called collateral damage sit well with this? These are fellow human beings, after all. Are the bombs and bullets which do such damage and cause such harm representative of acts of kindness, benevolence and sympathy? Are these human beings taken into full consideration when attempting to enact humanitarian principles, or are they just written off as collateral damage?
Perhaps there is humanitarian intent, but this is coupled with recklessness, incompetence, and a lack of foresight. Is that included in your notion of humanitarian military intervention? Based on your examples, I think it must be.
The way I see it, organisations such as the Red Cross, Oxfam, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have more authority than the military - who cause death and destruction - when it comes to the meaning of humanitarianism and what it does and doesn't consist of. We should look to the former as prime examples.
Sigh. It's sad to imagine that the discussions going on in this thread is probably not a long shot away from the actual discussions in halls of power. It's heart-breaking. [Connection to the OP established, now I can rant. :) ]
Its sad to see suffering of actual people on the ground as abstracted or taking secondary importance to some greater ideology that must be solved first before taking action.
What I get from Thorongil's comment is along the lines of: "Guys, there are [a lot] of people dying, in pain, have nothing to eat, are displaced, are made feel unwelcome as refugees, etc. etc. Is it not possible to resolve the immediate and obvious suffering first before resolving the ideological differences?"
What I get is that with the current state of affairs in Syria, intervening is better that doing nothing. It is out of control (does anyone disagree?) and needs outside intervention. Intervention would of course mean 'bloody intervention' -- what can one expect from the scale of the problem?
One of the reasons why I believe that a (hopefully benevolent) group of people should have monopoly of violence is precisely because of things like this. War is the natural evolution of unresolved politics and sad at it may sound, only a show of power will stop this.
It may be idealistic and impractical but a possible way forward is to provide military intervention to monopolize the violence, provide aid in reconstruction and setting up basic industries (agriculture, education, healthcare), and assist in setting up some form of government when things get a bit stable. Some might argue that this is not worth pursuing because it will eventually end up in shambles because the 'underlying problem' is not addressed. Err, wouldn't establishing peace and order first and foremost a prerequisite to this?
Eh... Why so preachy Sapientia? You are indirectly the recipient of humanitarian military intervention. Yep.. About a year prior to entry into WW2, the US was smuggling food and supplies to your little ancestors. That ended the American pretense of neutrality and precipitated American entry into the war. Believe it or don't. Idiot Americans were trying to help somebody.
Was there collateral damage? Oh yea.
Ah.. Now I get it. Seems NATO doesn't think we spend enough. So in all fairness, we are contributing! I think that's neither here nor there though since I'm against military humanitarian intervention. We've (the world) had exactly one since the concept was introduced and plenty more where they claimed it was but it wasn't by any reasonable standard.
I assume you mean Don Quixote. Yep. He was awesome.
Because we're talking about a matter of life or death, actions which have and do cause severe devastation and destruction to the lives of innocent civilians, their home, their family, their health and well-being...
Quoting Mongrel
Smuggling food and supplies is one thing, dropping atomic bombs is another. It's not like the one necessarily lead to the other. Humanitarianism isn't about trying to help some innocents at the expense of others.
Collateral damage is tragic and ought not sit well with anyone.
Quoting Sapientia
You don't say....
Quoting Sapientia
Who is firing them, and at whom, and for what purpose? These are questions you have naively neglected, or perhaps cynically neglected, to ask. Assad and ISIS care nothing for collateral damage. The concept is indeed foreign to them, since they seek to cause damage an sich. Military intervention, chiefly by the West, would seek to destroy these forces, in order to end their reign of terror and violence. By all means, let the Red Cross bring aid. Their work is impossibly brave and moral, but they are merely putting a band-aid over a cancerous wound. It is the tumor of these barbarians that needs to be extricated from the body of this region, post haste.
Quoting Sapientia
They most certainly are taken into consideration.
Quoting Sapientia
Quite so.
Quoting Sapientia
Why would it be? No, of course not. I condemn the mismanagement and incompetence of military humanitarian intervention to the utmost, but this does not besmirch the ideals and intentions behind such enterprises in the slightest, which, after all, are not all failures.
Well, there's one way to be sure. Don't smuggle the food.
I didn't "neglect" to ask them. I didn't ask them because the answers won't alter the fact that these actions are authorised and undertaken by people who are aware of the consequence that innocent people will suffer and die as a result, which flies in the face of humanitarianism.
Quoting Thorongil
That's better. You should at least call it what it is: military intervention. Drop the humanitarian tag.
Quoting Thorongil
But then written off as collateral damage nonetheless.
Quoting Thorongil
Okay, not included in the concept, yet you count the invasion of Iraq as an example, despite the known cost to innocent human lives it would and did entail. I wouldn't include it at all, although I accept that there were good intentions involved. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, it's actions that count, and they can't be reversed.
That would seem to misdirect responsibility. If I do the right thing by helping someone in need and someone attacks me for it, who is to blame?
Blame? There's no big Mommy and Daddy in the sky to do anything with blame.
By the time you need valor, you've already seriously screwed up.
It is an even greater affront to human dignity and rights not to intervene with the appropriate measures to end injustice and barbarity. You appear to be a status quo fetishist who apparently thinks that it's okay to leave things as they are, as long as doing so doesn't increase the sum total of human misery. Well, that sum is sometimes ballooned to a greater enormity by not acting forcefully and decisively. It's all well and good to send aid workers to places like Syria. But what if they start being murdered and bombed, as is now happening (several hospitals have been destroyed in the last week alone)? We do nothing? I'm sorry, but that is a grotesque position. We in the West have the capability to deal a decisive military blow to Assad and ISIS but refuse to do so due to the absurd isolationist opinions of people like you. Genocide must continue because you're worried about collateral damage. How shameful.
Quoting Sapientia
No, I won't, because that is their purpose. Are you a pacifist? I get the distinct feeling I'm arguing against a latent assumption in your position you have yet to disclose.
Quoting Sapientia
What would you prefer to call it? If you conceive of the accidents in war to be on a par with deliberate murder, then you possess no moral sense at all. The intentions of actions determine the degree of their justice and morality. You may disagree, but this is the principle on which the law is founded.
Quoting Sapientia
Actions do matter, yes, but that's all the more reason not to abandon our fellow human beings in Iraq and Syria to the scourge of militant jihadists. They cannot defeat the latter on their own, at least not quickly. Or do you object to their military actions too, on account of the collateral damage involved in protecting themselves through the use of force?
And there's the rub: What IS the appropriate measure that will end injustice and barbarism at minimal cost (cash, lost lives)? A lot of people are impatient for something effective to be done: I wish it were just a little more obvious what that was.
For instance, suppose we sent a cruise missile into Damascus and killed Assad (and his retinue) in a lucky strike. We thought that the death of Muammar Gaddafi would improve the situation in Libya. Apparently it didn't. Maybe killing Assad would lead to a beneficial shift in power in favor of a more civil government. And maybe not.
We can be fairly certain that American troops would have difficulty identifying who was who in the urban guerrilla fighting in Aleppo and other Syrian cities. Would the multi-lateral European Union Force do better? Nato? I don't know who would best save the day here. Dutch troops led by the Israeli Defense Force, maybe?
Hi Bitter Crank,
Are you implying that doing nothing is better than military intervention? Or that military intervention is needed but the 'devil is in the details'. Because I think this is one of the fundamental questions that needs to be addressed.
Sure, we have limited information but we have to make do with what we have, act in good will, and hope for the best.
The particulars may vary but I suppose intervention is needed given the scope of the problem, not only in terms of the number of casualties in Syria but also its effects on neigboring countries in the Middle East and Europe in terms of "refugee divide".
This is because we never allocated the proper resources to help stabilize the country. Obama didn't want to go through congress to get approval to declare war against Gaddafi's regime, which would have enabled greater resources, since he wanted to maintain his image as the anti-war senator who voted against the Iraq war. So he was forced into employing very limited military operations so as not to call it a war. It's all the more ironic because the failure of post-liberation Iraq had to with the same paucity of resources and planning on the part of the US in the beginning of the conflict (which necessitated the surge and so on).
Quoting Bitter Crank
It would undoubtedly lead to this if we but wanted it to.
Quoting Bitter Crank
We ought to listen to the Kurds, who have probably the best intelligence on the ground.
If only certain political figures have the decency, they would have stepped out of power just for the mere fact that the situation is already out of control.
It's a false dichotomy to suggest there's only military intervention or nothing.
Maybe we can think of other ways. How about this; cordoning off the entire area that no weapons can enter Syria any more (it's after all not that big)? Or obligate weapon's manufacturers to put non-removable gps chips (charged by the excess heat of firing them) so that we can start tracking the black market and disband it.
Then why bring them up? There doesn't need to be.
Quoting Mongrel
It's not about valour. It's about doing the right thing, and it's about understanding context and extenuating circumstances, and it's about understanding the slippery slope fallacy, and it's about rightly attributing or apportioning blame - which clearly plays a key role in ethics, and has nothing to do with big nonexistent Mommy and Daddy in the sky.
For the most part, yes. I'm certainly not as willing to readily endorse military intervention as you are. I can't help but find the thought condemnable when I consider the consequences in terms of civilian casualties and destruction.
Quoting Thorongil
I would prefer to call it what it is, but without the vague formality which conveniently obscures its significance and conveys the wrong message. That these are human beings and civilians should be at the forefront of peoples minds whenever they hear these events being referenced.
Quoting Thorongil
I certainly do not. You've pulled that one out of thin air.
Quoting Thorongil
If you think that there are no other factors which contribute to that determination, such as the consequences of actions, then yes, of course I disagree. Intention alone is woefully insufficient and can be superseded in terms of moral import by other factors. If, on the other hand, that's not what you were suggesting, then you're not stating anything there that I find controversial or objectionable.
Quoting Thorongil
I don't think that anyone here is of the position that we should do nothing or abandon them. Those sort of comments or questions - whether rhetorical or otherwise - are ill-considered and offensive. Military intervention isn't the only possible course of action, nor necessarily the best. If it were the only option, just think of all the wars and conflicts and acts of terrorism which would have been aggravated and prolonged. Not all of them, of course, but a significant number.
It is complicated, and I am open-minded to a degree. I have read what you've had to say, and I have spent time contemplating these things, and will continue to do so, but I remain unconvinced of your position.
Self-defense is another matter, and was obviously not the target of my criticism. But yes, I believe that there are situations where self-defense is necessary, and in which actions taken in self-defense are justified (although there are exceptions).
Suppose the roles were reversed in 1941. The US is struggling. It could use help. Would the British government act to help the US? Yes. It would see what it could do to help the US cease to exist. We can guess that by its actions just a few decades earlier when it supplied the Confederacy during the American Civil War. It did that for one reason: to undermine the US and fragment North America.
But the US government says, "No, let's risk life and limb to bring food to Britain." So obviously this quest we've been on to see just how big a bunch of chumps we can be has been going on for a while now.
This is isolationist talk. One of the reasons I think it's going to grow is that to some extent... it's based on the truth.
Why do you think Obama is struggling to get the US into the TPP before he leaves office? It's because Hilary Clinton had to abandon her typical moderate views in order to get the nomination. The discussion in the US now is not liberal vs conservative. Its extremist vs moderate. And there are similarities between hard left and hard right concerns and proposed solutions. Where the two extreme sides are coming together amounts to a collection of isolationist attitudes.
I was trying to explain to you that all the mental masturbation you guys are doing about the evil American Empire and some shit about blame is going to be obsolete pretty soon. The US isn't going to be intervening in the Middle East (especially toward the end of this century when the petroleum will be gone). It won't be trying to help anybody including you.
Meanwhile you folks sit there apparently not even comprehending what the word "defense" means (that appears to be true of Benkie anyway.)
Thanks for the history lesson Baden. LOL.
Quoting Mongrel
Now I know why it seems I have been talking to a brick wall. This disclosure only confirms my suspicions that talking with you has been a waste of time.
Quoting Sapientia
Not for the law it's not.
Quoting Sapientia
"Offensive" my left foot. To hell with your thin skin. You have written post after post implying that inaction is the only defensible course of action available to us, and don't pretend that you haven't.
Quoting Sapientia
Of course not. But our other options are 1) continuing to send aid and 2) attempting to seek a diplomatic solution. Both of these are no longer feasible. Aid workers are now being murdered along with the civilians they are trying to help. And Assad and ISIS are not open to negotiations. They are both long past the point of being engaged with in friendly discourse. They need to be brought to justice.
Quoting Sapientia
Congratulations. You've just understood the basic principle of just war theory as developed in the West during the last couple millennia. This is precisely the basis on which we (the West and her allies) would seek to aid our Syrian and Iraqi brothers and sisters by means of military force.
He has repeatedly claimed that it's in the interest of the US to have a close relationship with Russia.
And you're talking about the security of Eastern Europe?
Blank stare.
I note that I've had the same experience Throngil had (and our views aren't identical). You and I aren't communicating.
And... I'm... officially done trying to explain anything to a European.
You weren't trying to explain stuff, you were trying to vent. There's a difference.
This seems to have digressed too far from my original point. I don't feel obliged to defend the past actions of the British government or any hypothical along those lines unless it is somehow relevant to my position in this discussion.
Don't like my poetic style? Who cares?
I guess the point I was trying to make to you was this: Life is a bloody mess sometimes. Sometimes you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. The only way to really avoid that is to become a pacifist. But in that state, we might indict you for a different kind of crime... that you stood by and did nothing. Sometimes it's not a choice between perfection and a messy solution. It's a choice between two bloody messes.
You can deny all of that obviously. It's just the perspective of one of your earthly cohorts.
The law is a red herring, since this is about ethics.
Quoting Thorongil
Are you actually blaming me for your own gross misunderstanding? If you want to put words into my mouth, go ahead, but if you expect me to take that seriously, you'll be disappointed.
You must either be confusing my criticism of a certain type of action with criticism of [i]any[/I] action, or making the [i]non sequitur[/I] that it follows from my criticism of a certain type of action that I'm in favour of no action whatsoever.
Quoting Thorongil
That's stretching the notion of self-defense just a tad. If it helps clarify, I'm only willing to go as far as saying that I'm in favour of limited and proportional self-defense, but even that would have to be weighed against any risk to innocents.
Discrimination. Nice. I thought that you were better than that, but you seem to have shown your true colours here. I think that Baden was right. You really do have a chip on your shoulder, and you're taking it out on Europeans, some of whom happen to be quite bright.
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
Obviously not, so I've WON!
At what point are we going to re-name the forum to"The Jerry Springer Forum"?
Seriously!
This reads on the level of the unmoderated section of old PF.
At the moment...
Facebook 1 : The Philosophy Forum 0.
Also another point...
... to everyone who keeps implying that they're done with this rant and then keeps on ranting, you're only done when you finally shut up.
Meow!
GREG
btw... Sorry Benkei, but it seems this bullshit-a-thon hijacked the thread, in spite of efforts to re-rail it.
The only good thing is this even bigger bullshit-a-thon election will be finally over in about 74 days and I'm sure we'll be off on a new rant-o-thon de jour contributing nothing to the circumstances other than repeatedly dislocating shoulder blades in the hope to pat one's self on the back.
One thing is for sure... I'll be back in December. Indeed... my prize is leaving until this returns to a level of adult conversation with philosophical insights.
Until then... here's a tool to help you guys settle this rant: http://www.mraverage.com/sizer.php
What is "dude"? Me European, no understand.
So what is your proposal? The continued absence of one in your posts does nothing, I'm afraid, but imply that you agree with inaction. If I am misunderstanding, then it behooves you to correct that understanding.
Again, what do you suggest to solve the problem in question? Pray it away? Hold hands and sing kumbaya? I've already given you the only three option available to you, me, and everyone else: 1) continued medical/food aid, 2) diplomacy, and 3) greater military assistance and intervention. I've stated that the first option is now much in danger and the second is impossible. That leaves us with the third. Is there a fourth I don't know about? If so, please enlighten me and cease dancing around the subject.
I don't have all the answers. Sorry, it isn't that simple. Obviously we should do what we can within reason and morality, but, as you know, I have moral objections to military intervention before even getting around to addressing the practicalities such as its likelihood of success, whether it will improve things or make things worse. This is open to discussion. It isn't set in stone, and there are opposing views which I will also take into consideration. I haven't as of yet reached a position that I can be sure of as much you seem to be, although the thought of having blood on my hands is repellent, so I won't be rushing into a decision to condone actions which will cause bloodshed.
Would [i]you[/I] commit to something against your conscience? If not, don't expect me too.
Well then it's as I thought. I did not misunderstand you, for this (non) answer de facto means to do nothing, at least nothing more than we've been doing. Hence, you are a status quo fetishist.
Quoting Sapientia
It's apparently not against your conscience to irritate me and engage in fruitless conversation in full awareness of what you are doing, so I don't think too highly of your conscience.
And you've endorsed the kind of military intervention which has failed in the past and arguably made matters worse, so you shouldn't be so cocksure, and should be a little more empathetic.
I thought it was pretty obvious that guns and bombs and what-nots mass-murder people. No guns and bombs and what-nots = no mass murder.
It doesn't take much thinking, more so philosophizing, to see this. ;)
You might find this hard to believe, but you yourself can be irritating at times, as well as irritable, it would seem. Sometimes it doesn't take much for you to get all curt and snappy. You know you can be just as antagonistic as me.
I don't think that it has been fruitless. Not for me at least. I raised a serious question, and expressed criticism of your position, and I managed to get from you, eventually, a serious reply. You have given me something to think about, so I think it was worth provoking a half-decent response from you. This is the kind of thing that happens on a philosophy forum. Suck it up.
If you're upset that I haven't been able to give you the answer that you were looking for, then maybe I'll give it some more thought and get back to you at some point with something with a little more meat on the bone.
You didn't bring up Hitler. So... no. You didn't win.
Thanks for reiterating it in a way which is easier for me to grasp. Perhaps I overlooked it in your last post.
Yes, it certainly is a bloody mess. And it may well come down to a choice between a rock and a hard place. I honestly don't know quite what to make of it all. I know that I'm not the only one who doesn't claim to have all the answers and who has reservations about some of the proposals that are being pushed. There are proposed solutions which [i]might[/I] do the job, so to speak, but have failed in the past and have even contributed to making matters worse, on top of being difficult to conscionably advocate. And despite ongoing efforts, the situation is still dire.
I know that. And I grieve for the people of Syria and the surrounding area. I hope peace comes soon.
We're all so lonely if we're this diverse about the important things.
It's too late in the present case, so I will simply leave you with this: War has already been declared, and it has been declared against you. The forces of ISIS seek your death, or else your enslavement They could not be more explicit about it. The only question is when you will recognize this. No, Europe is not the main theater of the war, but it is a part of it nonetheless. For the first time in some 70 odd years, bombs and bullets can be heard again in its great cities. Why? Because the West refuses to destroy the source. You shouldn't be so cocksure that playing around with evil and letting it fester is not itself a colossal failure, morally speaking and otherwise.
Quoting Sapientia
Wonders never cease. The feeling is not exactly mutual, though.
Too late in the sense that there is already a multi-sided armed conflict going on in Syria, and international military interventions have already taken place? I already recognise that, and that it includes my own sovereign state. The motion on ISIL in Syria passed December last year, with a vote of 397 to 223 after a debate which lasted over 11 hours. That's a significant length of time and a significant number who were opposed, so it shouldn't be made out to be straightforward with an obvious answer.
I was likewise already aware of the declarations of ISIS. There isn't a problem of awareness or recognition on my part in that respect.
'Refuses to' implies 'is able to'.
Explain then, how the source can be 'destroyed', and how many innocent people would be killed in the process.
Quoting Thorongil
Your suggestion is to put 'more boots on the ground'.
It's fine that you believe that that would work, even though past evidence suggests that that can at best provide a temporary reduction in the problem. There is room for doubt, so it is not unreasonable for you to hold the opinion that it would work.
But it makes no sense for you to assert that the West 'refuses to destroy its source'. The respective governments, and their advisors, simply disagree with you. They do not believe that what you propose can destroy its source. I could equally argue that the West 'refuses to destroy the source' of Daesh by continuing to support the Saudi regime and not taking a hard line with Israel over settlements and genuine attempts at a Palestinian solution. But I won't, because I recognise that there are genuinely differing views about this.
Governments and people can and do have different opinions about what would work, but it's pure fantasy to imply that others know that your proposed solution would work but are just scared to implement it.
Anyways, I remembered having a discussion with college students about the the nuclear bombing of two of Japan's cities and some student said it was justice because it was payback for Pearl Harbor. However, how many non-military people died in Pearl Harbor? How many kids died in Pearl Harbor compared to the Nuclear Bombings of Japan? Military people swore oath to protect the country with their very lives and military deaths are usually inevitable in the purpose of protecting their nation.
Thinking that something is justified because of "payback" or in other words, vengeance, is what keeps wars ongoing or starts wars. The US military (more like generals) justifies the Nuclear Bombings as a tactic to destroy the gun force of Japan since the factories are so close to homes and such. However, Japan's defeat was obviously inevitable after Germany lost and USA was still strong in numbers. USA didn't even need the hydrogen bombs in order to win. I guess saving one's own soldiers is worth more than the children and civilians of the enemy force. That's what I call war ethics, folks. The OP of this discussion hates it when children die; however, in WWII, USA saw more value in their own young men than the children and civilians of Japan. The nuclear warheads could have been used on Japan's military, but it obviously wouldn't be as effective.
So you see guys, war ethics isn't the same shit as actual ethics. War ethics is just an illusion of justice and is just focused on selfish goals and vengeance. The problem is the rationality of thinking violence or war is the answer to solving a problem or best choice of justice. Any attempt regarding how to solve a war situation through force is never going to be 100% angel-like ethical. So discussing about it, is kind of pointless. History repeats itself if we don't learn from it; an old, well-known quote.
I would like to say embrace empathy and all that good jazz, but to cut the horse shit. War doesn't work like the rest of the world does and it's all about and only about winning.
The only argument that I've seen that even attempts to justify, without using vengeance, the nuclear bombing of Japan's two cities is that it'll save more Japanese lives to end the war sooner to prevent the Japanese from killing themselves since most of them thought they would be tortured if caught. The Emperor of Japan lied to his people in that the Americans would torture the Japanese if they were caught and this resulted in some Japanese men into killing their own family members. However, this is a very weak and stupid argument since the two nuclear bombs killed so many people that it doesn't matter. Even if USA defeated the Japanese without using nuclear weapons, Japan would've surrendered before they all killed themselves since the moronic Emperor had enough sense to give up after the second nuclear bombing. Come on, the Japanese aren't that stupid, people. A teacher of mine actually said this shit, my fucking god ignorance is surely fucking bliss for some folks, damn.
War zone is no place for something kiddie like ethics, folks...it's where Satan truly lives.