by Cwonation » Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:49 am
by Jute » Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:52 am
Carl Sagan, astrophysicist and atheist wrote:"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.
When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages,
when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling,
that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual...
The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."
Italios wrote:Jute's probably some sort of Robin Hood-type outlaw
"Boys and girls so happy, young and gay / Don't let false worldly joy carry your hearts away."
by Russels Orbiting Teapot » Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:54 am
by Cwonation » Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:55 am
Jute wrote:The nuclear bombing has been discussed a lot already. The question is, what would have been the alternative? Fight every Japanese soldier to death and risk heavy casualties on both sides, or try to force a capitulation quicker to bring the war to a quicker end?
by Independent Republic of Not My Problem » Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:56 am
by Shilya » Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:56 am
by Cwonation » Sun Feb 01, 2015 6:08 am
Independent Republic of Not My Problem wrote:As a general rule, the only fair fight is the one you lose, but I think strapping bombs to children, the elderly, and the infirm is cowardly.
by Puryong » Sun Feb 01, 2015 6:13 am
by Ifreann » Sun Feb 01, 2015 6:19 am
by Cwonation » Sun Feb 01, 2015 6:30 am
Puryong wrote:Cwonation wrote:So would strapping bombs to an adult be okay?
It isn't a case of 'okay' it's a case of, if you're going to do it, it should be someone willing & fully able to understand what they're doing. It's never 'okay' but there are times when it would be more cowardly.
It's like a 20 year old convincing a 15 year old to have sex as opposed to a 20 year old convincing an 8 year old to have sex with them, both are awful but one is considerably more disgusting and immoral because of the age & innocence.
by Puryong » Sun Feb 01, 2015 6:57 am
Cwonation wrote:Puryong wrote:It isn't a case of 'okay' it's a case of, if you're going to do it, it should be someone willing & fully able to understand what they're doing. It's never 'okay' but there are times when it would be more cowardly.
It's like a 20 year old convincing a 15 year old to have sex as opposed to a 20 year old convincing an 8 year old to have sex with them, both are awful but one is considerably more disgusting and immoral because of the age & innocence.
So what you're saying is that when there is no other way, one should pick the lesser of two evils?
by Narland » Sun Feb 01, 2015 7:47 am
by Uawc » Sun Feb 01, 2015 7:54 am
by Alsheb » Sun Feb 01, 2015 7:56 am
by Constantinopolis » Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:01 am
Alsheb wrote:I don't much believe in the existance "cowardly" strategies and tactics. When it really comes down to it, I'd take "cowardly" victory over "honourable" defeat any day. Guess that's my philosophical materialism talking: ultimately you want to reach a goal. If your strategies fail to meet that goal, honourable as those strategies might be, you probably should change them into something more useful for the reaching of your goal.
That being said, I don't believe in full "end justifies the means". There's a difference between cowardice and morality. I don't, for example, think that the US drone warfare is a "cowardly" way to fight a war. It is a criminal and despicable way to wage war though, and it should be banned for those reasons. The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't cowardly. It was criminal and completely senseless, and it was a war crime.
by Great Nepal » Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:15 am
Alsheb wrote:I don't much believe in the existance "cowardly" strategies and tactics. When it really comes down to it, I'd take "cowardly" victory over "honourable" defeat any day. Guess that's my philosophical materialism talking: ultimately you want to reach a goal. If your strategies fail to meet that goal, honourable as those strategies might be, you probably should change them into something more useful for the reaching of your goal.
That being said, I don't believe in full "end justifies the means". There's a difference between cowardice and morality. I don't, for example, think that the US drone warfare is a "cowardly" way to fight a war. It is a criminal and despicable way to wage war though, and it should be banned for those reasons. The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't cowardly. It was criminal and completely senseless, and it was a war crime.
by The Empire of Pretantia » Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:21 am
Cwonation wrote:Jute wrote:The nuclear bombing has been discussed a lot already. The question is, what would have been the alternative? Fight every Japanese soldier to death and risk heavy casualties on both sides, or try to force a capitulation quicker to bring the war to a quicker end?
But wouldn't you find it cowardly to destroy your opponent with them getting any chance to fight back when all it takes is the press of a button?
by Cwonation » Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:35 am
Constantinopolis wrote:Alsheb wrote:I don't much believe in the existance "cowardly" strategies and tactics. When it really comes down to it, I'd take "cowardly" victory over "honourable" defeat any day. Guess that's my philosophical materialism talking: ultimately you want to reach a goal. If your strategies fail to meet that goal, honourable as those strategies might be, you probably should change them into something more useful for the reaching of your goal.
That being said, I don't believe in full "end justifies the means". There's a difference between cowardice and morality. I don't, for example, think that the US drone warfare is a "cowardly" way to fight a war. It is a criminal and despicable way to wage war though, and it should be banned for those reasons. The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't cowardly. It was criminal and completely senseless, and it was a war crime.
This is also precisely my opinion.
There are such things as immoral strategies. But no strategy is "cowardly". If your strategy makes you win, then it was an intelligent strategy, and if the enemy complains that it was "cowardly", he's just a sore loser.
by Shilya » Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:39 am
Cwonation wrote:Constantinopolis wrote:This is also precisely my opinion.
There are such things as immoral strategies. But no strategy is "cowardly". If your strategy makes you win, then it was an intelligent strategy, and if the enemy complains that it was "cowardly", he's just a sore loser.
But where do we draw the line between immoral and cowardly strategies? When a civilian is hurt? When one side betrays another?
by South Pacific Republic » Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:42 am
Cwonation wrote:Jute wrote:The nuclear bombing has been discussed a lot already. The question is, what would have been the alternative? Fight every Japanese soldier to death and risk heavy casualties on both sides, or try to force a capitulation quicker to bring the war to a quicker end?
But wouldn't you find it cowardly to destroy your opponent with them getting any chance to fight back when all it takes is the press of a button?
by Nazi Flower Power » Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:43 am
by Imperializt Russia » Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:45 am
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Imperializt Russia » Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:47 am
Cwonation wrote:Jute wrote:The nuclear bombing has been discussed a lot already. The question is, what would have been the alternative? Fight every Japanese soldier to death and risk heavy casualties on both sides, or try to force a capitulation quicker to bring the war to a quicker end?
But wouldn't you find it cowardly to destroy your opponent with them getting any chance to fight back when all it takes is the press of a button?
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Eahland, El Lazaro, Ethel mermania, Infected Mushroom, Kannap, Keltionialang, Kostane, Port Carverton, Simonia, The Two Jerseys, Tungstan, Uiiop
Advertisement