Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Gaddafi is dead ?

inferno
Posts: 10,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 9:09:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Is it Gadhafi or Gaddafi ? Well anyway, Muammar Gaddafi was killed by an
assasin female in Tripoli today. The Libyan Dictator was the reason for all of
the chaos in that part of the world. And now the people of Africa have lost
one more terrorist and a oppressive regime. What are your thoughts on this.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 2:16:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
2011 is a glorious year for the eradication of radical and infamous figures.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
SirLego
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 11:42:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/20/2011 2:16:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
2011 is a glorious year for the eradication of radical and infamous figures.

so it justified to take a life just because of there beliefs or how well known their misdeeds are?
SirLego
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2011 11:46:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/20/2011 9:09:59 AM, inferno wrote:
Is it Gadhafi or Gaddafi ? Well anyway, Muammar Gaddafi was killed by an
assasin female in Tripoli today. The Libyan Dictator was the reason for all of
the chaos in that part of the world. And now the people of Africa have lost
one more terrorist and a oppressive regime. What are your thoughts on this.

umm he was captured by the National Transitional Council then beaten and finally shot then his body was paraded around.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 12:02:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/20/2011 2:16:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
2011 is a glorious year for the eradication of radical and infamous figures.
And a year for Americans to renew their nationalism in the face of the dead...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
visini
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 12:19:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/22/2011 11:46:11 PM, SirLego wrote:
At 10/20/2011 9:09:59 AM, inferno wrote:
Is it Gadhafi or Gaddafi ? Well anyway, Muammar Gaddafi was killed by an
assasin female in Tripoli today. The Libyan Dictator was the reason for all of
the chaos in that part of the world. And now the people of Africa have lost
one more terrorist and a oppressive regime. What are your thoughts on this.

umm he was captured by the National Transitional Council then beaten and finally shot then his body was paraded around.

No, it is reported that he was put into a truck, but was shot in cross fire. IDK if that is true, but he was paraded after he was dead.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 1:50:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/20/2011 2:16:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
2011 is a glorious year for the eradication of radical and infamous figures.

I hope Obama can dodge that trend.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 2:00:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/20/2011 9:09:59 AM, inferno wrote:
Is it Gadhafi or Gaddafi ? Well anyway, Muammar Gaddafi was killed by an
assasin female in Tripoli today. The Libyan Dictator was the reason for all of
the chaos in that part of the world. And now the people of Africa have lost
one more terrorist and a oppressive regime. What are your thoughts on this.

It was only a matter of time.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 8:33:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/22/2011 11:42:24 PM, SirLego wrote:
At 10/20/2011 2:16:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
2011 is a glorious year for the eradication of radical and infamous figures.

so it justified to take a life just because of there beliefs or how well known their misdeeds are?

The man was a tyrannical figure in power for over 40 years, and he threatened to kill every last person that revolted against him, and did all in his power to go through with that promise. He would not step down, he would not give up, and he would not compromise.

I hardly feel a need to justify Ghaddafi's death to you, simply because I feel like you're just a contrarian who's comments pass for the joy of saying something "different." That said, you and I both know history I would hope, whenever people are oppressed, they rise up against their oppressor. This will almost always occur through violent means because force is the LAST channel through which change can occur.

So, go on. You are the same person who opposed the assassination of Osama, though you had a better case there. Go on and preach your non-existent alternatives enjoy the contrariety of your stance, just know that that doesn't make you right. You are FAR removed from the tension and friction of the Libyan battlefield, and FAR removed from the tyranny of the Ghaddafi regime. That's what allows you to make such a naive comment.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 10:52:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 8:33:31 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/22/2011 11:42:24 PM, SirLego wrote:
At 10/20/2011 2:16:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
2011 is a glorious year for the eradication of radical and infamous figures.

so it justified to take a life just because of there beliefs or how well known their misdeeds are?

The man was a tyrannical figure in power for over 40 years, and he threatened to kill every last person that revolted against him, and did all in his power to go through with that promise. He would not step down, he would not give up, and he would not compromise.

I hardly feel a need to justify Ghaddafi's death to you, simply because I feel like you're just a contrarian who's comments pass for the joy of saying something "different." That said, you and I both know history I would hope, whenever people are oppressed, they rise up against their oppressor. This will almost always occur through violent means because force is the LAST channel through which change can occur.

So, go on. You are the same person who opposed the assassination of Osama, though you had a better case there. Go on and preach your non-existent alternatives enjoy the contrariety of your stance, just know that that doesn't make you right. You are FAR removed from the tension and friction of the Libyan battlefield, and FAR removed from the tyranny of the Ghaddafi regime. That's what allows you to make such a naive comment.

I think Sir Lego was talking from a moral nihilist viewpoint. Basically, anything done my Gadaffi cannot be presumed as either right or wrong. Therefore, there is no reason to kill him if we don't know that he is a bad guy or good guy.

Also, what gets me infuriated is labelling of "bad" and "good". You can't label people as good or bad. Everybody has different viewpoints. Morality is not objective. One can say that the holocaust was good and another can say that it was bad (I think that it was awful). We must respect both viewpoints and not immediately take one side.

The labelling of terrorists is the same. We put that name on them while they think that they are freedom fighters. I believe in complete eradication of labelling people as "good" or "bad".
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 11:19:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 10:52:13 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

I think Sir Lego was talking from a moral nihilist viewpoint. Basically, anything done my Gadaffi cannot be presumed as either right or wrong. Therefore, there is no reason to kill him if we don't know that he is a bad guy or good guy.

Also, what gets me infuriated is labelling of "bad" and "good". You can't label people as good or bad. Everybody has different viewpoints. Morality is not objective. One can say that the holocaust was good and another can say that it was bad (I think that it was awful). We must respect both viewpoints and not immediately take one side.

The labelling of terrorists is the same. We put that name on them while they think that they are freedom fighters. I believe in complete eradication of labelling people as "good" or "bad".

Moral Nihilism also means that there are no such things as natural rights. Moral Nihilism is the governing law of total anarchy. There will always be a set of morals that people are expected to abide by for the collective safety and happiness of everyone else. These morals are INDEED objective. By objective, I mean that everyone ought to follow it at every time everywhere no matter what.

To say that nothing is bad or good is a poor attempt to deconstruct the inclinations that are inherent to man. It is generally accepted that people have an inborn sense of fairness,and some animals, under controlled conditions understood unfair treatment. This is a characteristic of advanced intelligence and self awareness. There ARE good and bad things.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 11:44:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism or amoralism) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. Moral nihilists consider morality to be make-believe, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise not in accord with fact or reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 11:56:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 11:50:33 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Just because a society opposes an evil dictator does not automatically qualify that society as "good'.

nor can you give the dictator an "evil" label
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 12:18:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 11:50:33 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Just because a society opposes an evil dictator does not automatically qualify that society as "good'.

Irrelevant. No one called the protesters good. I only called Ghaddafi bad.

You can call a person "bad" based on what he does. If a person violates natural rights, he is bad. Natural rights are absolute. To live means to have a right to live. All who violate this code are bad. All who are unfair are bad. Man has a inherent sense of fairness, it is not just pulled out of no where. Moral Nihilism is a delusion. SOME aspects of morality can change, but the CORE values such as the condemnation of murder and slavery do not. Slavery is always wrong, and murder is always wrong (even when the majority of people didn't think so)
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 12:29:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 12:18:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/23/2011 11:50:33 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Just because a society opposes an evil dictator does not automatically qualify that society as "good'.

Irrelevant. No one called the protesters good. I only called Ghaddafi bad.

You can call a person "bad" based on what he does. If a person violates natural rights, he is bad. Natural rights are absolute. To live means to have a right to live. All who violate this code are bad. All who are unfair are bad. Man has a inherent sense of fairness, it is not just pulled out of no where. Moral Nihilism is a delusion. SOME aspects of morality can change, but the CORE values such as the condemnation of murder and slavery do not. Slavery is always wrong, and murder is always wrong (even when the majority of people didn't think so)

Is murder always wrong?
What if you kill one person to save one million?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 12:45:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 12:29:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/23/2011 12:18:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/23/2011 11:50:33 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Just because a society opposes an evil dictator does not automatically qualify that society as "good'.

Irrelevant. No one called the protesters good. I only called Ghaddafi bad.

You can call a person "bad" based on what he does. If a person violates natural rights, he is bad. Natural rights are absolute. To live means to have a right to live. All who violate this code are bad. All who are unfair are bad. Man has a inherent sense of fairness, it is not just pulled out of no where. Moral Nihilism is a delusion. SOME aspects of morality can change, but the CORE values such as the condemnation of murder and slavery do not. Slavery is always wrong, and murder is always wrong (even when the majority of people didn't think so)


Is murder always wrong?
Murder is, killing is not.

What if you kill one person to save one million?
Utilitarianism favors killing one to save a million. It is logical.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 12:54:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 12:18:41 PM, 000ike wrote:

Irrelevant. No one called the protesters good. I only called Ghaddafi bad.

You can call a person "bad" based on what he does. If a person violates natural rights, he is bad. Natural rights are absolute.

Base on what? What are natural rights and why are they absolute?

To live means to have a right to live. All who violate this code are bad.

Really, my body kills bacteria that have a life all the time. Does that make me a 'bad' person?

All who are unfair are bad. Man has a inherent sense of fairness, it is not just pulled out of no where.

Really? Then why is there such a heated debate between progressive or flat tax? If man is so inherently fair, this shouldn't be a problem. Same with death penalty and determining what is a "cruel and unusual punishment"

Moral Nihilism is a delusion. SOME aspects of morality can change, but the CORE values such as the condemnation of murder and slavery do not.

Condemnation of murder and slavery are modern day phenomena.

Slavery is always wrong, and murder is always wrong (even when the majority of people didn't think so)

So, wait If man has an inherent sense of fairness, why should we judge against the majority that says that murder and slavery is wrong? :p.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 12:57:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 12:29:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Is murder always wrong?
What if you kill one person to save one million?

Assuming murder if defined as something like 'morally unjustified killing of a person' then that wouldn't be murder, just as self-defence or war deaths aren't murder.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2011 2:23:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 12:57:42 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/23/2011 12:29:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Is murder always wrong?
What if you kill one person to save one million?

Assuming murder if defined as something like 'morally unjustified killing of a person' then that wouldn't be murder, just as self-defence or war deaths aren't murder.

Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

War is not murder, because it's not premeditated. The enemy is there, and it's either kill or be killed; you are not seeking to kill that specific person, you are seeking to win the war.

Also killing in war is legal, depending on if the war it's self is legal.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
inferno
Posts: 10,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2011 7:55:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/23/2011 2:23:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 10/23/2011 12:57:42 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 10/23/2011 12:29:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Is murder always wrong?
What if you kill one person to save one million?

Assuming murder if defined as something like 'morally unjustified killing of a person' then that wouldn't be murder, just as self-defence or war deaths aren't murder.

Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

War is not murder, because it's not premeditated. The enemy is there, and it's either kill or be killed; you are not seeking to kill that specific person, you are seeking to win the war.

Also killing in war is legal, depending on if the war it's self is legal.

Much of this also has to do with the Muslim Brotherhood.