Comments | deusexpirata: Religion and war, revisited

deusexpirata

Religion and war, revisited

Nov 19, 2004 21:42

In response to my previous post, having read Sloth's, I have come to two conclusions. 1) War is wrong. 2) Sometimes war can be neccessary.

I think that war is and has always been wrong, and Sloth agrees with me. But sometimes it can be neccessary. Though I think that there could be better alternatives. For example, assassination. [Sloth: We ( Read more... )

Comments 14

darksoulforever anonymous November 21 2004, 22:08:46 UTC

hell yeah!

i agree with ya, Hunter. i think the idea of becoming more childlike in our acceptance of people and things would be an awesome thing. the simplicity of it would be sweet as well.

and Sloth, haha. the comments were funny. *grin*

anonymous November 27 2004, 01:23:02 UTC

after seeing kill bill i wanted to be an assasin ^_^ <3patience

infairverona December 28 2004, 02:04:50 UTC

Intellectual revolution? I suppose that completely rules you out of having any part in it.

You say we shouldn't fight, but you've "never had to fight for anything"? How the hell would you know? Try asking people that have HAD to fight for what they have. They've used their fists and came out better because of it.

I don't support the war, but what I really don't support is people who make opinions without having any idea of how serious or bad the situation is. This isn't a game of Stratego, assface.

infairverona December 28 2004, 15:56:30 UTC

GOOD LORD what the hell is your deal with supporting violence?

I think that Hunter having made it as far as he has without having to fight shows that he has more character than you ever will. It is my opinion that people who "have HAD to fight for... [whatever]" are only worse off in the end because they are left with the impression that fighting solves problems. You are a good example of this- why are you being so confrontational?

RELAX, and try to be nice.

infairverona December 28 2004, 21:15:11 UTC

Just to eliminate any confusion, I didn't write the second paragraph in my previous comment ( ... )

What? I'm Jesus? When did that happen? deusexpirata January 10 2005, 01:23:11 UTC

Hmm... It seems that because I've never had to fight with fists means I've never strived or fought for what I believe in. You see, I think that one can fight with words and intellect better than one can fight with fists. In the end of a fistfight, all you have is a bloody face and hurting fists. In the end of an intellectual debate, you leave with a better understanding of the people around you and the topic at hand ( ... )

Thread 5

anonymous December 29 2004, 21:15:46 UTC

Violence in and of itself will always be a tricky subject. It gets into more morality than you apparently have time to discuss. Suffice it to say that no one wants violence it is only the debate as to whether or not it is justified at times. Yes, I understand that this is obvious, but it needs to be said nonetheless. Peace out.

anonymous January 23 2005, 05:28:35 UTC

Allow me to expand upon my very vague cop out to argument ( ... )

Sloth hath smiled deusexpirata January 23 2005, 19:25:25 UTC

This seems closer to my view of war than Hunter's. My father has been in the military as a pilot for over 24 years now, so I've had plenty of time to contemplate the subject of "the morality of war". I finally decided however that contemplating the morality of something so circumstantial and (speaking in terms of moral exceptions) twisted is a big fat waste of time unless there really is a clear line between what a country does or does not deserve. And yes, saying that a country deserves anything is pretty short sighted. I don't intend to clump the innocent with the militant. You're right though, this topic by itself pretty much deserves one big "fucking duh".

Thanks for posting something intelligent. I *really* appreciate it.
You get a golden cookie.
::walks off::

Human Conflict reduced to words buckydakat January 23 2005, 19:26:33 UTC

Finally a decent post by someone who used anonymous. All i have to say is that its in human nature to fight. The human psyche thrives on conflict whether it be the car starting, violent sports(gotta love em), or war. There will always be war,justified or not, and there isnt any happy resolutions that remain permenant. Thats why communism doesnt work. Not everyone wants to be middle class and i guarantee you the terrorists dont want peace. With peace they lose all power and they will not allow that to happen willingly. Fight it all you want man will still fight back. I personally dont think there is a right or wrong position. Just uninformed ones. Personally i just wish that our leaders when in conflict would get locked in a room with various implements of destruction and duke it out for 24 hours. Open the door and whoever is standing wins the war. Wouldnt that be great. The ones with conflict get to settle their arguments for themselves instead of getting innocents to fight for them. Ahhhh arent humans grand?

Out like arson,

Re: Human Conflict reduced to words anonymous January 23 2005, 20:56:21 UTC

"Finally a decent post by someone who used anonymous."

You realize that I've posted anonymously here several times? So really what you mean is a nonconfrontational post. Or unassholeish one. Or one with which you can sort of agree. "Decent" is such a broad word.

No, I'm the same person who has, in fact, read philosophy and gets to be amused when you guys tack up lists of philosophy authors that you read in the intro courses. Yup. Same guy here.

Thread 6