There is some speculation that FDR allowed the Pearl Harbor attack specifically to get the US into the war as a promise to Churchill. The Japanese may have even been enticed to attack as part of the plan. There are some parallels between Pearl Harbor and 9/11.
Hard to imagine little bitty Japan could take over the world. They thought that in the 1980s too, then their economy blew up and now it’s just an island full of old people who would rather buy plastic dolls than have sex with real women. Meanwhile tsunamis, earthquakes, and nuclear power disasters ravish what little land they have.
Well, I think you moved the goal posts for what defines the gazelle. Instead of just Poland being the gazelle, the whole world becomes the gazelle being threatened by the Hitler lion. This would be the point of view of space aliens watching.
Those lions got old and were overthrown by new lions.
This is paralleled to the banning of people today at the hands of social media. If these ideologies are so bad, then why fight them? Won’t they peter out? And if they don’t peter out, maybe they’re not bad. How long could a country stay hypermilitarized if there is no one to fight? Look at Germany and Japan now… both feminized embarrassments relative to what they once were.
That’s the purpose of it.
The gazelle wants to live and the lion wants to eat. It all boils down to wants. Who wins?
These seem like an artifact of prosperity.
One want vs another want.
And why is that wrong? Weeds seem intent on spreading into my garden where they think they are superior… and they are which is why I hate them.
Yet the Buddhists beat the Brigands evidenced by the fact that the temples are Buddhist. The meek shall inherit the earth.
Then they will study in depth this one: myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/HOW%20 … SFULLY.pdf
…and they learn BASIC ETHICS. [size=88] (Click safely on the third selection in the signature.)[/size]
Then they find it was easy to demonstrate the immorality of the organized mass-murder that is ]war[/u].
Accidental manslaughter in the course of self-defense is different; that is permissible. A so-called “Just War” is immoral also. If invaded, devising “Catch 22”-type situations is recommended. Sabotage is permissible. Resistance is essential.
This comes off as: if you do not agree with me you are not willing to learn. On some level we may all believe that is the case, but it might be better left unsaid.
Even what you are calling brief here is more than I want to read as part of online discussions such as this one. I have a few books I am working through IRL, physical books, that is. 1) I don’t like to read longer texts online 2) I think it is more interesting and fits the medium to see how people interact with ideas, live, as it were. I can find all sorts of wonderful books in libraries or order them. There’s nothing wrong with suggesting I read you texts or others you have, but for me it is not what I come here for.
I don’t have a system. It’s more ad hoc. I wouldn’t know where to begin.
You’re invaded and so you use your army to defend yourself. If you have allies, they come to help you. That was the situation for Poland in 1939. Should Britain and France have reneged on their agreements?
It means taking advantage in a creative way of the stupidity of the rules that the opposing forces must follow to be “good soldiers.” [size=80] (Joseph Heller wrote a book with that title about his adventures in the U.S. Army.q.v.)[/size]
No, this shows the failure of negotiating with people whose headman {Fuehrer} is a madman: psychotic since he was a teenager, namely,Adolf Hitler. The time for us to nip his movement in the bud was much earlier, once Mein Kampf came out, and when thee Brown Shirts, his followers, first appeared.
And yes, allies can help - if they are trained in nonviolent resistance …or if they donate money to support those who are.
That is a good site you went to. Study up further on its recommendations.
I still don’t know what it means in practical terms. What could the Poles, French or Soviets have done when they were invaded?
He is in charge of the country whether you like it or not.
Okay, but you failed to act effectively at an earlier date and now it is 1938 and you have a particular situation. Then 1939 and a new situation. Then 1941 …
In the post of Aug. 25, 2018 at 3:04 p.m. I asked this question about your alternative theory to my synthesis of theories, and you never did respond, Karpel.
I am trying to figure out why my morality is different from your morality. So I ask you again: How do you define the term “morality”? What is your Ethical Theory? How do you justify it?
Yes, it is immoral for a slave to murder his slaveholder although I would not judge him if he did. More moral would be for that slave to escape and join the “Underground Railway” if he or she possibly could find a way to do so.
I wrote in an early post that in emergency situations ethics is suspended; survival is utmost. Of course poking the eye of one raping you is highly moral if it is wise to do so. If it only brings on more violence toward yourself it is not a wise course of action, and thus is less moral.
It was nice of you, Karpel, to put yourself in the situation of a woman being raped.
I’d be glad to discuss your question, “What if Capitalism itself is immoral?”
In my ethical system it is mainly an individual (or group of them) that can be “immoral,” as I have defined it. But if we stretch the meaning, and generalize it, an “ism” may be immoral in the sense that if you hold on to it, it will make you conduct yourself immorally.
Define for us, please, exactly what you mean when you say “Capitalism,” and by “immoral.” Then we can discuss it.
You’re confounding morality with results. It’s moral to defend yourself even if it results in your death. Of course, you may choose not to take that path.
it’s a bad option for a slow person, or a slower person - you eliminate much of your potential defense running and you eliminate all of your potential offense - which is a good defense.
it certainly does not beat having martial arts skills. A person with martial arts skills can run, or they can fight better than someone without those skills.
running can invite future torment. Kids often realize this. You run, that’s fun. The bullies get to feel dominant. They will do it again, why not. I faced down and lost to a bully, but for standing my ground, he left me alone after that and even considered me his friend. I wouldn’t say I considered him my friend, but I sure was more open to him after that than I would have been if I’d run away for the next few years. Then I would have hated his guts.
if the people who listen to you all start running away, what does that do in general to society? The people who are bullies or violent or criminal are not going to listen to you. They will still do what they want. And now, if you successfully convince those who will listen, no one is putting up a fight anymore.
Just a simple NO to this idea. I live here, I don’t cede my home planet to others.
I could start another thread if I want to talk about my morality. It seems to me you are trying to see if my morality might have some of the same potential problems yours does. Even if it does, that does not take away from the criticisms I aim at yours. We could both be confused, wrong, partially correct. It is a separate issue.
Well, that’s a big if. And you just did judged that slave who murdered his slaveholder. You judged labeled his action immoral. Whatever your motivation for NOT judging him, might lead you consider the action NOT immoral.
Why not say that ethics are affected by the context? IOW that the situation affects what is ethical.
I didn’t put myself in the situation of a woman being raped. I chose, I think obviously, a situation that would probe your ethics, and a situation that would be tougher for you. I put you in the situation where you would either judge her immoral or allow for violence.
I don’t see how you can judge the woman less moral for the outcome of a choice she cannot fully predict.
If you run from a fist fight and get hit by a car, rather than punched many times, is your choice less moral?
I’d be glad to discuss your question, “What if Capitalism itself is immoral?”
I think I raised the issue in relation to the mall and the NA burial grounds. It seemed to me that you came rapidly to a solution - make a respectful burial ground within the grounds of the mall. Phyllo and I pointed out various issues there, but I wanted to challenge, I think, the simplicity of the application of your ethics. Perhaps the very system that puts so much power in the few with money - especially with current capitalism in much of the West again - is fundamentally immoral. Capitalism allows for the undermining of democracy by giving more political power to the rich and to corporations in any of a number of ways, now to levels where we are an oligarchy in the states. That could be considered immoral. Capitalism also allows one to earn money not through labor. That also could be considered immoral. I won’t even mention the whole banks can give themselves money out of nothing thing.
I completely agree.
The gross inequality of wealth (that we find in the USA and elsewhere e.g., Colombia, Peru, etc.) has all kinds of side effects. (It is hard to say if they are unintended consequences.) One of them is that people are less-inclined to trust one another.
That’s obviously false since all sorts of things that people want to do are labelled as immoral and suppressed. To be moral, one has to be untrue to oneself to some degree - adjusting your behavior “as appropriate”.
Unless you want to claim that there is a “real moral self” that doesn’t actually want to do the immoral stuff that people do and that your current self is some sort of fake self.
The definition I gave here was incomplete. To get the more-accurate definition
click on the section which discusses the concept “morality” in the first link below in the signature.
Let me know what you think once you study the more-complete definition – one that is not false - but highly-tentative nonetheless; subject to revision when better ideas come along.
The definition given in those writings is dynamic in two respects"
Morality = Increasing correspondence with an ever-improving self-ideal. To be moral is to keep growing ethically. Your Self-concept concerns three factors: your observable conduct [the self], your self-image [the Self], and whether there is a match between the two. [size=85]{Many folks have multiple Selves; and many who don’t have split-personalities are confused.} [/size] Your self-image [or self-definition], if you want to be moral, is to keep improving throughout your lifetime.
I think that it’s a mistake to include ‘prudence’ in morality. That makes evaluations much more difficult and produces all sorts of bizarre results …
doing any ‘good’ which results in personal injury gets labelled as immoral.
you don’t know if something is moral or immoral before doing it because you don’t know if you will be injured.
altruistic acts become immoral.
concrete examples …
A woman who resists a rapist and gets hurt is labelled immoral while a woman who lays back and does not resist a rapist is labelled moral.
A person who resists a weak tyrant, and suffers no harm, is moral while a person who resists a strong tyrant, and is tortured or killed in the process, is immoral.
