ADVERTISEMENT

Istanbul bombing

Don't strain yourself on the metaphors. You're going to have difficulty deterring people -who are not afraid of death- by killing them, or threatening to kill them. They've got you outmatched. You're afraid of being attacked and dying... they aren't.


ETA: When you do attack and kill them, it only helps to validate THEIR incentives to continue what they're doing, and you also recruit younger generations to follow suit.

Oh for fux sake. You provided an analogy and now say don't worry about the metaphors?

Will you or won't you elaborate on your analogy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UNC '92
Yes.


No one, to themselves, does anything "wrong." They feel completely justified at the time they do it. You can obviously have regret or remorse later. But, when you do something "wrong", it feels "right" at the time you do it. Otherwise, you'd never do it!

Or you have weighed the risks and rewards and decide doing that which is wrong is worth the risk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UNC '92
Why are you sorry? It makes perfect sense to me.
I'm sorry for you if you really think this way, because you are dead wrong. Whether something is right or wrong is not dependent on the perspective. That's the very way people justify doing evil acts. They are clear cut ways to determine if an act is good or bad regardless of perspective
 
  • Like
Reactions: UNC '92
Strum, If you molest a child it makes no difference if you are looking at it from the child's perspective or from Strum's perspective, it's wrong, period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UNC '92
Oh for fux sake. You provided an analogy and now say don't worry about the metaphors?

Will you or won't you elaborate on your analogy?
I don't think it needs any elaboration. It's succinct.


These people who you're afraid of are NOT afraid of YOU. And, they certainly don't care if you threaten them with guns, bombs, or violence of any kind. All of those things are exactly what helped to create them in the first place. If you want more terrorism, keep using the same measures that has been used for decades now.
 
I'm sorry for you if you really think this way, because you are dead wrong. Whether something is right or wrong is not dependent on the perspective. That's the very way people justify doing evil acts. They are clear cut ways to determine if an act is good or bad regardless of perspective
You just proved everything I have been saying. Thank you!

If YOU think it's right to YOU, then it is.
 
Or you have weighed the risks and rewards and decide doing that which is wrong is worth the risk.
Yes, to YOURSELF! We may, collectively, have SIMILAR perspectives, usually based on similar circumstances in our environment and cultural perceptions. But, regardless, each individual still determines what is "right" or "wrong" based on their understanding of the universe. It is all relative. This entire plane of existence that we are in is completely relative.
 
Strum, If you molest a child it makes no difference if you are looking at it from the child's perspective or from Strum's perspective, it's wrong, period.
Look, I'm not condoning child molestation. I'm not condoning ANYTHING that other people do, or don't do, that can be perceived perceived as right or wrong to anyone else. In fact, I'll probably agree that anything you see as "wrong" I will see as "wrong", too. But, again, it may differ, given the circumstance. Now... to the CHILD MOLESTER, what he or she is doing is NOT WRONG to THEM. Okay? They have justified it in their mind, based on their understanding. I'm not saying that I THINK IT'S RIGHT. I'm saying, THEY THINK IT IS. If their dominant thought was "this is wrong", then it would not happen. They have reasoned and justified their actions.

Now, this is important: Their reasoning for what is right or wrong, and then their actions that follow, DOES NOT MAKE THEM EXEMPT FROM THE REPERCUSSIONS BY THE REST OF SOCIETY. Okay? That is something that we all are subject to. Actions have RE-actions. And, those repercussions help to form the socially acceptable norms that a culture or society, as a whole, follows. But, still, to the individual, they may have a different idea, depending on the situation.
 
That's a crock of shit even by your standards.
Well, you can think that. But, I have no control over YOUR CHOICES. I don't want control over it. I can't have control over it, even if DID want it. You are YOUR OWN responsibility and you don't have control over anyone else either. You can, as a parent, claim you control your children. But, you really don't control them. You try to guide them, or influence them, but they are their own unique being.
 
C'mon man...there's no way you're THIS far gone. Stop f'ing with the group. The hilarity is beginning to wane a bit. Need new material.
"This far gone?" I'm not trying to make you laugh. I'm trying to make you mad. I'm not trying to make you happy, or sad. I'm simply explaining, with no success obviously, that our entire universe is RELATIVE.

Are you having difficulty seeing examples, ALL THE TIME, of people who are blatantly exhibiting that they can go against the collective "right" and "wrong"? It is happening every second. They happen on varying levels all the time. And, perceptions of those examples vary in just as many varying levels. Is smoking pot "wrong?" Or is it "right?" Is shooting heroin "right" or "wrong?" Is eating too much sugar "right" or "wrong?"

Without HOT, there is no such thing as COLD.
 
Sometimes the devil tempts you and you listen and do things you KNOW are wrong, but you do it because it's fun despite the wrongness of it, or you just have a moment of stupidity and do it without thinking it through.

The DEVIL??? You're going to make some mythological creature responsible for your choices? The Devil?

To quote your favorite movie:

sermon-slides-the-supernatural-authority-of-jesus-luke-82639-5-638.jpg


THAT is the Devil that you're talking about?

Your better nature took a leave-of-absence, and you decided "I am going to do this." Now, you may have had reservations right before, and regrets right after... but, when YOU DID IT, it was all Green Light, dude.
 
I don't think anybody even knows what is their end goal. One week they blow up people in Paris, the next week Istanbul. How can those two cities be connected?

Do they have to be? These people blew themselves up, obviously they aren't highly rational individuals. The idea that radical Islamic extremists are all working together towards a common goal is a big part of the problem with our thinking on this issue. There are radical Islamic groups fighting against each other in that region, they aren't even all on the same team, much less working towards the same goal.
 
Not gonna lie though, its funny watching Strum trying to engage in a philosophical discussion with a bunch of people who just aren't having it.

Interesting that child molestation was brought up as a counter to his argument that right and wrong is relative, or subjective. Its really the perfect proof of his argument. There are primitive societies in the world where a teenage boy or girl must engage in sex acts with the adults of the village before they can be considered an adult. We (and most of the world) would consider this to be child molestation. They consider it to be a rite of passage. Anyone who denies the fact that our ideas of right and wrong are based on a subjective understanding of social norms just doesn't know enough about human psychology.
 
Not gonna lie though, its funny watching Strum trying to engage in a philosophical discussion with a bunch of people who just aren't having it.

Interesting that child molestation was brought up as a counter to his argument that right and wrong is relative, or subjective. Its really the perfect proof of his argument. There are primitive societies in the world where a teenage boy or girl must engage in sex acts with the adults of the village before they can be considered an adult. We (and most of the world) would consider this to be child molestation. They consider it to be a rite of passage. Anyone who denies the fact that our ideas of right and wrong are based on a subjective understanding of social norms just doesn't know enough about human psychology.

No one said teenager. Make it a 3 year old and try to use the same argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UNC '92
I don't think it needs any elaboration. It's succinct.


These people who you're afraid of are NOT afraid of YOU. And, they certainly don't care if you threaten them with guns, bombs, or violence of any kind. All of those things are exactly what helped to create them in the first place. If you want more terrorism, keep using the same measures that has been used for decades now.

I couldnt care less if they are afraid or not. I just want them gone. And until you have a better plan than holding hands and singing Kumbaya, I'm going with killing them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UNC '92
No one said teenager. Make it a 3 year old and try to use the same argument.

You completely misread my post. I don't think its acceptable for those acts to be committed on a teenager any more than I think it's acceptable for it to be done to a 3 year old. Neither of them are consenting adults. I'm not saying that because that tribe has a different idea of right and wrong, that makes it okay. I'm just trying to help explain that our ideas of right and wrong are actually based on a subjective understanding of social norms. Obviously we are evolved social creatures, so to a certain extent our morality is inherited but most of it comes from socialization. That's what Strum has been trying to say all along but all you keep reading is that he's saying that those behaviors are okay. No one is justifying those actions. Just explaining the reasoning and context behind them.

Its the exact same thing as when we try to explain the role American foreign policy plays in radicalizing Islamic extremists. Nobody is trying to say that they're right for blowing up an airport, or shooting people, or that it's all America's fault and they aren't responsible for their own actions. But if you have a better understanding of what led them to that point, you will have a better chance of preventing it in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strummingram
I couldnt care less if they are afraid or not. I just want them gone. And until you have a better plan than holding hands and singing Kumbaya, I'm going with killing them.
I never said "sing Kumbaya and hold hands." I have never once offered that as a remedy. But, I can guarantee you that "killing them" is only going to make the situation worse for you. I believe whatever you do to another, you do to yourself and whatever you want for another, you want for yourself.

In reference to what I put in bold:

I do have a question for you. You said "I just want them gone." That is vague, but I will assume you mean dead. You're not talking about a perpetual Caribbean Cruise for these people. So, let's go with dead. Do you want to do the killing, so they're "gone", or do you want someone else to do it for you? Because, wishing people that you don't even know to die, is pretty serious. In fact, that is not too far removed from what I see these terrorists doing. The main difference - assuming your answer is "someone else" to the former question- is that they will do it themselves, and don't need someone else to do it for them. In which case, they have you beat because they DON'T need someone else to do it for them... you do. Unless I'm being presumptuous about your answer. If you are willing to do it, then get to it.
 
Last edited:
Strum...Uncboy... I mean this in the most Christian way possible. This is the only response that I can generate for you guys.

I love that. Thank you. I'm sure Jesus does too. Jesus was a big proponent of insulting people in the most Christian way possible. I think Jesus would be ashamed of most Christians.
 
Some of you should watch the original Red Dawn again! Maybe that would help.
 
Exactly the answer I would expect from someone who has absolutely nothing of substance to say.

Incorrect -- I feel like I have a decent knack for adapting to a conversation, and the moment when I realize that there is simply no getting through to someone, there are a few reasons: (a) The person is just trying to f*** with me and piss me off, (b) the person genuinely believes what he/she/it is saying, even if completely idiotic in my mind, or (c) I feel as though no substantive response would even remotely register within the rational (I'm giving you benefit of the doubt here...you're welcome) thinking side of his/her/its brain. Once I realize any of these three scenarios, I stop wasting my time -- usually resorting to what I personally find amusing, which is flipping the script and f***ing with that particular individual in return. Selfish of me, I know, but I'm easily amused.

That's basically where I am at this moment.

Carry on...
 
Incorrect -- I feel like I have a decent knack for adapting to a conversation, and the moment when I realize that there is simply no getting through to someone, there are a few reasons: (a) The person is just trying to f*** with me and piss me off, (b) the person genuinely believes what he/she/it is saying, even if completely idiotic in my mind, or (c) I feel as though no substantive response would even remotely register within the rational (I'm giving you benefit of the doubt here...you're welcome) thinking side of his/her/its brain. Once I realize any of these three scenarios, I stop wasting my time -- usually resorting to what I personally find amusing, which is flipping the script and f***ing with that particular individual in return. Selfish of me, I know, but I'm easily amused.

That's basically where I am at this moment.

Carry on...

Lol dude you couldn't refute anything I said, so you went with an ad hominem. Don't try to make it something it isn't.

To be blunt, if you fundamentally disagree with the notion that our ideas of right and wrong are based on social norms then you're an idiot. Cultural differences around the world clearly prove that is the case. So I have no idea what else in my post you might have been disagreeing with, but frankly your attempt at insulting the intelligence of others come across as more ironic than anything. Honestly, I doubt you even read my original post so idk why I'm even bothering to respond.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uncboy10
Yes, to YOURSELF! We may, collectively, have SIMILAR perspectives, usually based on similar circumstances in our environment and cultural perceptions. But, regardless, each individual still determines what is "right" or "wrong" based on their understanding of the universe. It is all relative. This entire plane of existence that we are in is completely relative.

Unbelievable.
 
Lol dude you couldn't refute anything I said, so you went with an ad hominem. Don't try to make it something it isn't.

To be blunt, if you fundamentally disagree with the notion that our ideas of right and wrong are based on social norms then you're an idiot. Cultural differences around the world clearly prove that is the case. So I have no idea what else in my post you might have been disagreeing with, but frankly your attempt at insulting the intelligence of others come across as more ironic than anything. Honestly, I doubt you even read my original post so idk why I'm even bothering to respond.

It's ok. I know you are angry. I don't like being hit with spit balls in 3rd grade English either, but it really is okay. Let's take a deep breath, count to ten, and just use some love and positive reinforcement. Whadda ya say?
 
You completely misread my post. I don't think its acceptable for those acts to be committed on a teenager any more than I think it's acceptable for it to be done to a 3 year old. Neither of them are consenting adults. I'm not saying that because that tribe has a different idea of right and wrong, that makes it okay. I'm just trying to help explain that our ideas of right and wrong are actually based on a subjective understanding of social norms. Obviously we are evolved social creatures, so to a certain extent our morality is inherited but most of it comes from socialization. That's what Strum has been trying to say all along but all you keep reading is that he's saying that those behaviors are okay. No one is justifying those actions. Just explaining the reasoning and context behind them.

Its the exact same thing as when we try to explain the role American foreign policy plays in radicalizing Islamic extremists. Nobody is trying to say that they're right for blowing up an airport, or shooting people, or that it's all America's fault and they aren't responsible for their own actions. But if you have a better understanding of what led them to that point, you will have a better chance of preventing it in the future.

No tribe anywhere thinks it is acceptable with 3 year olds. Therefore, not subjective.

And developing an understanding of what led them to this point requires several assumptions. Two people could look at the same facts and arrive at completely different conclusions. And in the end, it doesnt matter, unless someone can use their conclusion as the basis for an alternative solution.

There is no long term solution, other than to keep them at bay whenever, wherever and however possible.
 
"This is a war-like country. We come from that Northern-European gene. Those blue eyes. Everyone eventually learned that when those blue eyes sailed out of the north, you better nail every fvcking thing down. Nail it down, strap it down... or they'll get it. If they can't take it home, they'll burn it. If they can't burn it, they'll fvck it. It's a war like country. Forget about foreign policy, even the domestic rhetoric is war-like. Even our domestic policy shows it. If we don't like something in this country, we declare war on it. The war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on crime, the war on AIDS, the war on cancer... We've got the only national anthem with fvcking rockets and bombs in the god damn thing." - George Carlin
 
I never said "sing Kumbaya and hold hands." I have never once offered that as a remedy. But, I can guarantee you that "killing them" is only going to make the situation worse for you. I believe whatever you do to another, you do to yourself and whatever you want for another, you want for yourself.

In reference to what I put in bold:

I do have a question for you. You said "I just want them gone." That is vague, but I will assume you mean dead. You're not talking about a perpetual Caribbean Cruise for these people. So, let's go with dead. Do you want to do the killing, so they're "gone", or do you want someone else to do it for you? Because, wishing people that you don't even know to die, is pretty serious. In fact, that is not too far removed from what I see these terrorists doing. The main difference - assuming your answer is "someone else" to the former question- is that they will do it themselves, and don't need someone else to do it for them. In which case, they have you beat because they DON'T need someone else to do it for them... you do. Unless I'm being presumptuous about your answer. If you are willing to do it, then get to it.

Your guarantees are worthless.

I dont care if they are dead or not, so therefore the assumption on which you based the rest of your gibberish is TL;DR.
 
No tribe anywhere thinks it is acceptable with 3 year olds. Therefore, not subjective.

And developing an understanding of what led them to this point requires several assumptions. Two people could look at the same facts and arrive at completely different conclusions. And in the end, it doesnt matter, unless someone can use their conclusion as the basis for an alternative solution.

There is no long term solution, other than to keep them at bay whenever, wherever and however possible.

Uhh you realize there are countless tribes that mutilate children as part of their cultural practices right? Way before the age of three. How is it not subjective? You didn't even address the issue of how 13-15 year old kids in certain societies have to engage in sexual rituals to be considered an adult. In most societies that would be considered rape and pedophilia. That's about as subjective as it gets. You cherry picked one ridiculous example that doesn't really even make your case, then tried to use that to prove that our ideas of right and wrong are not subjective? I mean seriously dude? Give me a challenge for a change.

In certain Asian cultures it is acceptable to leave a family's elders alone in the forest to die of starvation or exposure once they reach the age of not being able to fend for themselves. They believe it preserves the honor of their elders, because they never reach the age of helplessness. Again I will say, anyone who believes our human understanding of right and wrong is not subjective and based on social norms is an IDIOT. Pick up a damn psychology book.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT