Right Wing Discussion Thread XV: A New Hoppe

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Alessandra Mussolini and Jim Carrey flamed each other.

Sometimes I wonder if heaven has a sense of humor.

Alessandra's last name is....Somewhat unfortunate for a European politician.

If would be worse if a German politician who was right wing was named and related to Hitler. The first part is banned though.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Reconciliation still means a grave sin was committed.

Yes, and I agree that unjust wars are sinful. The difference between you and me is that I don't believe all wars are unjust wars, or that being a soldier means you're damned.

Perhaps, but you've been saying that there's no sin in fighting in an unjust war.

Moreover, I've said that most wars are unjust wars, and that soldiers will inevitably be ordered to fight in unjust wars. On that basis, it makes more sense to not be a soldier to avoid being ordered to fight in an unjust war.

[Salus Maior]

Yes, and I agree that unjust wars are sinful. The difference between you and me is that I don't believe all wars are unjust wars, or that being a soldier means you're damned.

Perhaps, but you've been saying that there's no sin in fighting in an unjust war.

Moreover, I've said that most wars are unjust wars, and that soldiers will inevitably be ordered to fight in unjust wars. On that basis, it makes more sense to not be a soldier to avoid being ordered to fight in an unjust war.

I'm saying the guilt is not always on the soldier (who you've compared to slaves, which begs the question: Are slaves responsible for sins they're forced to commit?), because the soldier may not be culpable because they may fully believe that the war they're fighting is just based on information given to them. I would say the government is the far more culpable party because they would know whether a war is just or not and declare it regardless as well as deceiving the people to support and fight it.

And honestly, I don't think every war fits nicely into "Just" and "Unjust" categories. The reasons people and nations fight can be complicated.

[Hanafuridake]

I don't presume to judge killing in self-defense, unless one is a monk, as long as the person has reason to believe their life is in danger. I would join the military to defend my country in the event of an invasion from a foreign power, but I wouldn't take up arms to defend my religion. I'm opposed to the death penalty, so it would be weird for me to support wars outside of self-defense.

Why wouldn't you defend your religion?

Hatred towards those who speak insultingly about or damage sacred images or stūpas is inappropriate. The Buddhas do not get angry at such things.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Perhaps, but you've been saying that there's no sin in fighting in an unjust war.

Moreover, I've said that most wars are unjust wars, and that soldiers will inevitably be ordered to fight in unjust wars. On that basis, it makes more sense to not be a soldier to avoid being ordered to fight in an unjust war.

I'm saying the guilt is not always on the soldier (who you've compared to slaves, which begs the question: Are slaves responsible for sins they're forced to commit?), because the soldier may not be culpable because they may fully believe that the war they're fighting is just based on information given to them. I would say the government is the far more culpable party because they would know whether a war is just or not and declare it regardless.

And honestly, I don't think every war fits nicely into "Just" and "Unjust" categories. The reasons people and nations fight can be complicated.

No one can be forced to commit any sin, they're always the choice to accept whatever punishment the state will force on your for not committing the sin.

As I showed, even if you don't have all the information, you're still responsible. "Oops" doesn't get people off the hook for intentionally killing people in courts, and it shouldn't in warfare. Could you imagine how angry you'd be if someone shot a member of your family and got away with it because they thought he had a gun?

And again, if just war doctrine justifies anything, it would justify the soldiers who fought against the US military in Iraq and Vietnam killing US troops, not the other way around. If anything, you'd have to consider the Republican Guard and the Fedayeen Saddam the real heroes of something like the Iraq War.

[Salus Maior]

I'm saying the guilt is not always on the soldier (who you've compared to slaves, which begs the question: Are slaves responsible for sins they're forced to commit?), because the soldier may not be culpable because they may fully believe that the war they're fighting is just based on information given to them. I would say the government is the far more culpable party because they would know whether a war is just or not and declare it regardless.

And honestly, I don't think every war fits nicely into "Just" and "Unjust" categories. The reasons people and nations fight can be complicated.

No one can be forced to commit any sin, they're always the choice to accept whatever punishment the state will force on your for not committing the sin.

As I showed, even if you don't have all the information, you're still responsible. "Oops" doesn't get people off the hook for intentionally killing people in courts, and it shouldn't in warfare. Could you imagine how angry you'd be if someone shot a member of your family and got away with it because they thought he had a gun?

And again, if just war doctrine justifies anything, it would justify the soldiers who fought against the US military in Iraq and Vietnam killing US troops, not the other way around. If anything, you'd have to consider the Republican Guard and the Fedayeen Saddam the real heroes of something like the Iraq War.

I think I'd be more mad at the person who insisted to the shooter that my family member was out to kill them.

Sure, but that doesn't make American soldiers evil, who were convinced by the government and media that they were doing the right thing.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Why wouldn't you defend your religion?

Hatred towards those who speak insultingly about or damage sacred images or stūpas is inappropriate. The Buddhas do not get angry at such things.

I’m gonna verbally damage your sacred ideas and you can’t stop me.

[United Muscovite Nations]

No one can be forced to commit any sin, they're always the choice to accept whatever punishment the state will force on your for not committing the sin.

As I showed, even if you don't have all the information, you're still responsible. "Oops" doesn't get people off the hook for intentionally killing people in courts, and it shouldn't in warfare. Could you imagine how angry you'd be if someone shot a member of your family and got away with it because they thought he had a gun?

And again, if just war doctrine justifies anything, it would justify the soldiers who fought against the US military in Iraq and Vietnam killing US troops, not the other way around. If anything, you'd have to consider the Republican Guard and the Fedayeen Saddam the real heroes of something like the Iraq War.

I think I'd be more mad at the person who insisted to the shooter that my family member was out to kill them.

Sure, but that doesn't make American soldiers evil, who were convinced by the government and media that they were doing the right thing.

But you would still think that the shooter did something wrong.

Even if they were convinced they were doing the right thing, they still did the wrong thing.

[Salus Maior]

I’m gonna verbally damage your sacred ideas and you can’t stop me.

Rude.

[Hanafuridake]

I’m gonna verbally damage your sacred ideas and you can’t stop me.

Okay.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I’m gonna verbally damage your sacred ideas and you can’t stop me.

y tho

[Salus Maior]

But you would still think that the shooter did something wrong.

Even if they were convinced they were doing the right thing, they still did the wrong thing.

Yes, because instead of going to the police or whatever to investigate whether my family member was guilty, they took it into their own hands.

Which is why manslaughter or murder isn't really comparable to war, because war is in its own category and there isn't really a governing body to oversee wrongs between countries or put world leaders in jail.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

I’m gonna verbally damage your sacred ideas and you can’t stop me.

y tho

Because I can unless the Buddhists get rid of freedom of speech and religion.

[Salus Maior]

y tho

Because I can unless the Buddhists get rid of freedom of speech and religion.

Ok, but that doesn't make you not an asshole or rude for doing so.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

y tho

Because I can unless the Buddhists get rid of freedom of speech and religion.

And what happened to the Golden Rule?

[United Muscovite Nations]

But you would still think that the shooter did something wrong.

Even if they were convinced they were doing the right thing, they still did the wrong thing.

Yes, because instead of going to the police or whatever to investigate whether my family member was guilty, they took it into their own hands.

Which is why manslaughter or murder isn't really comparable to war, because war is in its own category and there isn't really a governing body to oversee wrongs between countries or put world leaders in jail.

There is though, the UN had told the United States repeatedly that Iraq was complying with Security Council resolutions, and the UN condemned the United States in the General Assembly, declaring the war to be unjust and illegal. The UN judges every war as either just or unjust. (legal or illegal). There's also the International Criminal Court, which has been successful more times than not.

And even if there were no such body, acting as though everything you hear is true still leads to doing the wrong thing. Like I said, "Oops" shouldn't get a country off the hook for killing hundreds of thousands of people and leaving a country in ruins.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Because I can unless the Buddhists get rid of freedom of speech and religion.

Ok, but that doesn't make you not an asshole or rude for doing so.

^

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Because I can unless the Buddhists get rid of freedom of speech and religion.

And what happened to the Golden Rule?

It’s not a law, plus I have no problem with people insulting my religion.

[Hanafuridake]

I’m gonna verbally damage your sacred ideas and you can’t stop me.

Rude.

I've already won because nothing he says can remotely bother me.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

And what happened to the Golden Rule?

It’s not a law

And you have nothing else to stop yourself from doing wrong? "It's not a law so I can whatever I want no matter how bad it might hurt someone else" is your philosophy?

plus I have no problem with people insulting my religion.

That literally has no bearing on how someken else feels about that.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

And you have nothing else to stop yourself from doing wrong? "It's not a law so I can whatever I want no matter how bad it might hurt someone else" is your philosophy?

That literally has no bearing on how someken else feels about that.

You probably want to restrict the first amendment with your authoritarian theocratic law. The golden rule is a suggestion and there is no reason to follow it.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

And you have nothing else to stop yourself from doing wrong? "It's not a law so I can whatever I want no matter how bad it might hurt someone else" is your philosophy?

That literally has no bearing on how someken else feels about that.

You probably want to restrict the first amendment with your authoritarian theocratic law.

Nice whataboutism. Good thing that's not the topic at hand right now.

The golden rule is a suggestion and there is no reason to follow it.

I ask again: And you have nothing else to stop yourself from doing wrong? "It's not a law so I can whatever I want no matter how bad it might hurt someone else" is your philosophy?

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

I ask again: And you have nothing else to stop yourself from doing wrong? "It's not a law so I can whatever I want no matter how bad it might hurt someone else" is your philosophy?

I won’t ever drink or smoke out of regard for my own health. Also, I’m not racist or anything particularly bad. I don’t do a thing if I decide it’s wrong, I don’t follow fanatic religious ideas or such. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and shouldn’t be given any grief if they are not expressing especially hateful views.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I ask again: And you have nothing else to stop yourself from doing wrong? "It's not a law so I can whatever I want no matter how bad it might hurt someone else" is your philosophy?

I won’t ever drink or smoke out of regard for my own health. Also, I’m not racist or anything particularly bad. I don’t do a thing if I decide it’s wrong, I don’t follow fanatic religious ideas or such. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and shouldn’t be given any grief if they are not expressing especially hateful views.

But are you ok with being disrespectful to others?

[The Feylands]

I won’t ever drink or smoke out of regard for my own health. Also, I’m not racist or anything particularly bad. I don’t do a thing if I decide it’s wrong, I don’t follow fanatic religious ideas or such. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and shouldn’t be given any grief if they are not expressing especially hateful views.

Please reconsider. It's good for health to chill out and relax and stop taking stuff so seriously.