Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Jesus tapdancing Christ…first of all, they made Fred and Mary look WAY too human, which is wild considering how everyone else here looks like their faces are either about to melt or just started doing so…Junior and Eric don’t even make an appearance, would love for that to be the case in real life (not like their dad even remembers they exist)…and I love how both Donnie AND “Meelan” gave birth to Tiffany 31 years apart
Sure, but don’t get it twisted, the Brits have no real love for my people either after they kicked us out of the country for a good 350 years…and talk about colonizers! No other nation has a richer tradition of stealing other peoples’ land and treasures than those limey fucks, they only support Israel because they stand to profit off it like America does
In this case the choice is completely ethical one person is about to kill the others
So of course I would act.
You would benefit from a lesson or two from the guy mate lol
Just note, for clarification that i'm not talking about a case where the one person is a "horrible person" anymore. Just a simple rando (or even someone you care about perhaps) AGAINST multiple billion people
Well, if we reduce this issue. You will see that some of the character in OP are making a real choice and it's not the one of the group. As in reality, in the case of OP, the group is INCLUDED in the choice and action of the person.
I never told you that the billion of people were not included in your action. In reality, the best choice is to consider the agency of the person in the problem, on both sides of the balance.
This is what Oda does in One Piece. The characters break the troley problem by including character into the choice and targeting the real problem : the one who pushed the choices on the character.
And this is what I'm telling you to do here.
Stop looking at the balance
Stop weighting the lives of people as if one person is worth more than two
Consider the agency of all the person as their agency might make the difference and target the real problem:
- Not individual behaviors
- Not bad apples
- Not extremely sociopathic people
(even tho these three must be taken into account)
But the system that pushes you to consider some people as more human than others. When in reality, we are all humans and we are all potentially capable of doing horrible things in horrible circumstances.
It doesn't mean forgiving people. It means knowing what to do to create a society where those behavior won't appear.
I'm using OP because it's a OP forum and I need to find a way to vulgarize complexe stuff to people who can't even understand the concept of systemism and domination systems. I know people forget it sometimes, but it's important
We won't build paradise on fatalism and sarcasm.
So of course I would act.
You would benefit from a lesson or two from the guy mate lol
Just note, for clarification that i'm not talking about a case where the one person is a "horrible person" anymore. Just a simple rando (or even someone you care about perhaps) AGAINST multiple billion people
Well, if we reduce this issue. You will see that some of the character in OP are making a real choice and it's not the one of the group. As in reality, in the case of OP, the group is INCLUDED in the choice and action of the person.
I never told you that the billion of people were not included in your action. In reality, the best choice is to consider the agency of the person in the problem, on both sides of the balance.
This is what Oda does in One Piece. The characters break the troley problem by including character into the choice and targeting the real problem : the one who pushed the choices on the character.
And this is what I'm telling you to do here.
Stop looking at the balance
Stop weighting the lives of people as if one person is worth more than two
Consider the agency of all the person as their agency might make the difference and target the real problem:
- Not individual behaviors
- Not bad apples
- Not extremely sociopathic people
(even tho these three must be taken into account)
But the system that pushes you to consider some people as more human than others. When in reality, we are all humans and we are all potentially capable of doing horrible things in horrible circumstances.
It doesn't mean forgiving people. It means knowing what to do to create a society where those behavior won't appear.
I'm using OP because it's a OP forum and I need to find a way to vulgarize complexe stuff to people who can't even understand the concept of systemism and domination systems. I know people forget it sometimes, but it's important
We won't build paradise on fatalism and sarcasm.
People will die over that land till the sun explodes
how do you feel about the allies invading Germany to overthrow the Nazis
and the fact that innocent German women and children died in that invasion. Ally leaders knew innocent Germans would probably die, they just inevitably calculated that the sacrifice was worth it.
Post automatically merged:
how do you feel about the allies invading Germany to overthrow the Nazis
and the fact that innocent German women and children died in that invasion. Ally leaders knew innocent Germans would probably die, they just inevitably calculated that the sacrifice was worth it.
Look at the all the pro war movies during any major war. Also see societies such as the Spartans which glorified wars
80 years is a lot tho, at some point you have to give up on reclaiming an entire area and kicking out the people who curtently live there
Post automatically merged:
In my mind, a colony is a colony no matter how you slice it up…even if Israel agreed to cede the West Bank, there’s enough evidence to conclude that a two-state solution simply won’t work in the long run. Obviously, at my core, I don’t WANT my people to always be nomads, but we’ve just taken over previously established land for 80 years, they can’t reasonably sell a sob story about needing a consistent base while driving out the natives 
I don't know. I don't have all the contextual informations. And my political brain is not always coherent. Killing innocent german would be unethical. The question is "was it necessary" ? I don't know.. I was not there. But if it was done today.. I would do it differently yes.. to a certain point.
Nah.. and this is why it's so cruel but also so interesting. War is not rational and not really ethical or justifiable. There is always a better solution. but in this context... the choices become strange. This is why we must be 1000 time more careful.
Nah. There is no "we need them". We don't.
Nah.. and this is why it's so cruel but also so interesting. War is not rational and not really ethical or justifiable. There is always a better solution. but in this context... the choices become strange. This is why we must be 1000 time more careful.
Nah. There is no "we need them". We don't.