Is self defense immoral for nations or individuals?

[Varysblackfyre321]

I just have to say when I have been in disagreement with most posters on a political threads I never saw the value in claiming my interlockers were silencing me because they were harsh or even unfair in their response to me. 

 A free public forum allows someone to make political statements—and in response people are premised to say the statements are absurd, bigoted, or nonsense.

Such complaints often just seems like a way to skip having to demonstrate why a particular political position is worthy of respect or not worthy of ridicule.

Bringing it back to how people defend Russia they often don’t want to go through the labor of explaining why Russia isn’t acting evil with the rapes and child thieving.

It’s easier to say all sides bad and pretend Russia isn’t by any reasonable metric worse.

pretty standard way of apologia for it and other far right entities when dealing with a liberal audience. When they can’t look good defending what they believe on it’s own they just cry it’s all relative and no one knows truth, and thus you’re not allowed to call their godawful takes godawful. 
 

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I just have to say when I have been in disagreement with most posters on a political threads I never saw the value in claiming my interlockers were silencing me because they were harsh or even unfair in their response to me. 
 

You don't need to when you can just compare people to Nazis. 
 

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Bringing it back to how people defend Russia they often don’t want to go through the labor of explaining why Russia isn’t acting evil with the rapes and child thieving.

Is anyone here actually doing that?

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It’s easier to say all sides bad and pretend Russia isn’t by any reasonable metric worse.

In this case it seems to be that one poster thinks it's more complicated than every is making out and that the narrative that the West can be absolved from blame is tenuous. I don't agree with that, as I've said many times on this thread, Putin wants Ukraine to be Russian, that is all we need to know, but even Ripp isn't doing Putin apologia, its just a slightly uninformed opinion that I think a lot of people fall into.. because it is kinda complicated.

Either way, I don't think it's a good argument to say 'ugh we've discussed this all before in other threads'. Not everyone is sitting on this forum 24 hours a day reading everything. There is no requirement to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of everything anyone has ever said here.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

You don't need to when you can just compare people to Nazis. 

What are you talking about I’ve never called a person I’ve argued with on here a nazi?

Wait Do you think any use of comparison to Nazis is always invalid no matter the context or just saying the word nazi automatically means a person’s argument may be ignored?

In my opinion the Chinese republic of China  is comparable to that of Nazi Germany.

Do you think I’m wrong to say such a thing just by virtue of me comparing a totalitarian state in the process of committing genocide to Nazi Germany?

If so dude I’m sorry, I fundamentally disagree.

Debate should flow freely as possible within reason and be constructive. It not be so easily stunted by the apparent invocation of “bad words” regardless of the context of the use of those words.

Let’s have ideas be challenged and defended on merit not on which individual is the most PC.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

s anyone here actually doing that?

No one here certainly, it’d make you look like a a vindictive sociopath to directly defend Putin’s actions by themselves—least to a more modern liberal audience.

It’s best to just say all sides, bad and the situation is honestly too complicated to comfortably posit a moral proclamation.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

In this case it seems to be that one poster thinks it's more complicated

Such is the stated position of many trying to do the genocide denial.

to Stalin’s holdomor, to Hitler’s final solution, to China’s Uyigurs.

the world is just so complicated I can’t  know who to believe!. And so you can’t tell me I’m wrong

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

but even Ripp isn't doing Putin apologia,

Oh he definitely is doing apologia for Russia’s imperialism in a way he’d never for the west.

All sides equally problematic, but one side in particular could easily stop this—and that’s the west.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Either way, I don't think it's a good argument to say 'ugh we've discussed this all before in other threads'. Not everyone is sitting on this forum 24 hours a day reading everything. There is no requirement to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of everything anyone has ever said here.

when did I make that argument lol? 

[Spockydog]

Pretty sure Dave Chappelle's goons will be using self-defence as their excuse for hospitalizing the idiot who tackled the comedian on stage last night. They nearly killed the guy.

[Heartofice]

7 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

What are you talking about I’ve never called a person I’ve argued with on here a nazi?

 

Your only debating tactic is comparison to nazis/stalin etc. Any argument put forth by someone is countered with 'this is what the nazi's would say'. 

9 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Such is the stated position of many trying to do the genocide denial.

to Stalin’s holdomor, to Hitler’s final solution, to China’s Uyigurs.

 

Oh look you literally did it again in the same post! Someone says a situation is complicated.. oh you know what else is complicated.. HITLER! There is literally no way to discuss anything with someone who does that, it's completely pointless. 
 

11 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

when did I make that argument lol? 

you didn't, other people did a few posts back.

[Heartofice]

11 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Pretty sure Dave Chappelle's goons will be using self-defence as their excuse for hospitalizing the idiot who tackled the comedian on stage last night. They nearly killed the guy.

I mean if you are going to run on stage to attack someone, a broken arm is the least you should expect.

[Spockydog]

Yeah, a dozen men literally stomping on a dude's head for three minutes was entirely justified. 

[Heartofice]

11 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Yeah, a dozen men literally stomping on a dude's head for three minutes was entirely justified. 

Might have a bit over zealous but hard to have any sympathy for a person who runs on stage to attack someone, who might potentially have a knife or a gun. Not sure what sort of treatment he should have expected.

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

you didn't, other people did a few posts back.

So it’s a bit weird to address their arguments when responding to me right?

3 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Your only debating tactic is comparison to nazis/stalin etc

I have never called another person on here in the course a nazi. 

You’re now claiming I’ve called other posters Hitler or Stalin or some other genocidal despot.

That’s patently absurd and requires a great deal of proof.

Its okay to compare the CPC to Nazis Germany.

I stand by that position though firmly and I don’t care who knows it.

5 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Oh look you literally did it again in the same post!

Oh which poster did I call Hitler or Stalin or some other despot whose committed genocide?

8 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Someone says a situation is complicated.. oh you know what else is complicated.. HITLER!

The presence of bad words  does not make an argument invalid.

It’s okay to note that some people cry “it’s complicated”  situations are complicated to frame a moral condemnation against a particular side(the side they align with) unreasonable when there’s plenty reason to condemn them.

Going “Both sides bad!” “It’s way more complicated!!” Can be benign or malicious depending on when or how it’s invoked.

Context always matters,

Do you think it’s unreasonable for someone to be at least suspicious when someone says China’s treatment of the Uyigurs is more…complicated than what mainstream western media is showing, an evil state-sponsored genocide? 

22 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

There is literally no way to discuss anything with someone who does that, it's completely pointless. 

Sigh

it’s not bad to make comparisons between generally historically frowned upon groups or figures and contemporary figures when the behavior of the contemporary figure warrants it.

 

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Its okay to compare the CPC to Nazis Germany.

I stand by that position though firmly and I don’t care who knows it.

Oh which poster did I call Hitler or Stalin or some other despot whose committed genocide?

 

 

Let's be clear. Your standard response to almost any opinion you don't agree with, is to extrapolate it as far as you can to the point where you can say 'That is what the nazi's did'. You are basically playing Godwins law with every post. 

If someone says 'both sides bad', they might be incorrect, but the response shouldn't be 'I'm sure those who defend Nazis also would say both sides bad!'. That isn't an argument, its just a way to demonise an opinion. 

Anyway this is really sidetracking the discussion.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

54 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

That is what the nazi's did'

Some people do bad things that the Nazis do, with the same bad reasons.

It’s okay to say the cpc is as evil as nazi Germany for its state sanctioned genocide and it’s okay to note how CPC supporters and statesmen try to downplay it id similar to how Holocaust deniers operate..

Comparisons can be appropriate.

54 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

You are basically playing Godwins law with every post. 

I don’t care about laws prescribed by memes.

I ignore them like Putin ignores international law .. 

Oh wait now I have compared a poster to a genocidal despot; myself.

54 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

If someone says 'both sides bad', they might be incorrect, but the response shouldn't be 'I'm sure those who defend Nazis also would say both sides bad!'

Depends on the context.

Sometimes one side is no way morally equivalent to their opposition on a given topic and there should be no pretense otherwise.

It’s silly to suppose every single time a person goes “both sides bad!” it’s in good faith and there’s no chance of it being Justin to detract criticisms away from a side of a conflict that they don’t feel comfortable defending outright.

If someone says “the us has its problems with Islamphobia too” in response China’s treatment of Uyigurs is criticized it’s reasonable to suspect they’re not purely acting in good faith.

 

sigh goddamn it I confused you again ; I’ll summarize the rest of my post now.

“Comparisons not automatically bad.” 
I don’t know if you agree with such a statement but I hope you understand it.

 

 

[straits]

Is self defense immoral for nations or individuals?

It is better to split the question into whether it is moral for nations, and whether it is moral for individuals, and to answer each with separate reasoning.

Individuals are not analogous to nations. There is no individual born guilty or aggressive. But many nations certainly started out that way, with atrocities and genocides as original sins. Often this question is moot because the atrocities were committed centuries ago and the people in the nation do not inherit the guilt even though they "should" have some responsibility for improving the situation.

But what if the atrocities, ethnic cleansings, and repressions happened within living memory? What if they happened only a few years ago, or even now? Does such a nation have the moral right to defend itself  from the people it is oppressing? I'm not sure it does. The better question to ask in such cases could be, is it immoral to not attack this nation? And would attacking it improve or worsen the situation for the victims?

So in the case of nations at least, it is better to decompose the nation into its context and its activities and institutions, to see why it is being attacked, and whether its act of defense is moral. In either case it is not nearly as simple to answer as with individuals.

 

[Rippounet]

On 5/4/2022 at 12:06 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

All sides equally problematic, but one side in particular could easily stop this—and that’s the west.

- The "equally" is only in your head.

- Discussing what the West can do is not saying it is the only decidor. There's just no point in focusing on Russian politics atm.

[Varysblackfyre321]

33 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

- The "equally" is only in your head.

- Discussing what the West can do is not saying it is the only decidor. There's just no point in focusing on Russian politics atm.

Sure, there are questions of what can be done to Russia to weaken them to actually start negoating in good faith or abandon this disgusting enterprise declaring a victory that most Russians wouldn’t even believe.

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 5/4/2022 at 7:12 AM, straits said:

But what if the atrocities, ethnic cleansings, and repressions happened within living memory? What if they happened only a few years ago, or even now? Does such a nation have the moral right to defend itself  from the people it is oppressing? I'm not sure it does. The better question to ask in such cases could be, is it immoral to not attack this nation? And would attacking it improve or worsen the situation for the victims?

Russia was not being oppressed by Ukraine and it is not trying to stop a genocide.

They’ve oppressed and brutalized their neighbors for years and now in the process of committing national genocide.

Russia indeed bad.

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 5/4/2022 at 7:12 AM, straits said:

So in the case of nations at least, it is better to decompose the nation into its context and its activities and institutions, to see why it is being attacked, and whether its act of defense is moral. In either case it is not nearly as simple to answer

Yeah Russia bad for wanting the genocide in Ukraine. This isn’t as morally complex as some trying to make it out to be.

[straits]

Is there an internationally recognized genocide going on?

[Varysblackfyre321]

14 minutes ago, straits said:

Is there an internationally recognized genocide going on?

You ask this after insinuating Russia invaded Ukraine to stop one.

Russia bad for the mass rapes, murders, child-abductions, puppy stealings it’s committing in the war it started with the goal of erasing Ukrainians national/ethnic identity.

West good for trying to stop that.
Tldr: in regard to Ukrain Russia bad for doing the bad things.

[Conflicting Thought]

29 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

You ask this after insinuating Russia invaded Ukraine to stop one.

Russia bad for the mass rapes, murders, child-abductions, puppy stealings it’s committing in the war it started with the goal of erasing Ukrainians national/ethnic identity.

West good for trying to stop that.
Tldr: in regard to Ukrain Russia bad for doing the bad things.

ugh why are you talking like that, its insulting. 

do you thing this conflict is a simple one? or do you think there is nuance to be found? and i will make it clear i hate putin ok, i hate how he treats the people of russia and neighboring countries, but this is an international conflict with states that have a history, that have an effect on their worldview. to trully understand this and to find solutions we have to treat this as more than just "putin bad". and it is like that in every example, even when you talk about hitler and nazi germany, if you really want to avoid that happening again you must understand the complexities, nothing is black and white (even though i can have a very strong opinion on things, like nazis bad).

and saying that this is a complex issue doesnt mean i have some nefarious plan to muddy the waters, cuz again, i hate putin, i want for the war to be over and for the ucranians to be free to do what they want, that doesnt take away from the many many different angles in wich this conlfict (and really, all conflicts) is a complex one. 

i belive thinking like we have seen on here is very short term and ussualy, when time passes and the fog of war is lifted, we realize that things we used to belive where very very wrong, or at least they DID have some nuance to be found, but the immediacy of the war and our emotions make that very difficult

[DaveSumm]

1 hour ago, straits said:

Is there an internationally recognized genocide going on?

I personally think the term should be reserved for a true attempt to extinguish an entire people; you could argue Putin doesn’t want all Ukrainians  dead, he just wants them obedient. What’s happening in Ukraine is horrific but it isn’t the same thing as the holocaust.