Meh, I’d dodge the question about Iraq. I’d say I supported it and that I wasn’t the only one, there was majority support in both houses. They can’t win that fight because they were on our side when it began and their leader is on our side now.
EDIT: But Conza has proven my point about the power of taking quotes out of context. It’s a very useful trick. That’s exactly how the political game is played irl too. I’m not running for office, no one cares what I think, but Rand Paul is a big figure in politics right now and people will care about his out of context quotes.
“Meh, I’d dodge the question about Iraq. I’d say I supported it and that I wasn’t the only one, there was majority support in both houses. They can’t win that fight because they were on our side when it began and their leader is on our side now.”
Ohhh legal positivism - it’s now time for the consistency challenge!:
“They have the legal high ground. They’ve got precedent. That’s all that needs to be said imo. The law says property owners aren’t allowed this particular choice, they’re not allowed this particular choice. … this one cannot be won. The people have spoken, they care less about property rights than they do about punishing racial discrimination.”
… the exact same can be said of the Third Reich and their policy towards the Jews.
“The supporters of The Nuremberg Laws have the legal high ground. They’ve got precedent. That’s all that needs to be said imo. The law says Jews aren’t allowed this particular choice, they’re not allowed this particular choice. … this one cannot be won. The German people have spoken, they care less about property rights than they do about punishing Jews.”
As a Jew, how does that make you feel? You still support legal positivism, right? Alternatively I’d suggest sort out your principles, but we both know you haven’t got any. So I won’t waste my breathe.
"EDIT: But Conza has proven my point about the power of taking quotes out of context. It’s a very useful trick. "
How disingenuous. I guess you didn’t click the link and see me emploring everyone to go read the thread for themselves.
You asked me what I’d say about Iraq, I’d say we weren’t the only ones who voted for war.
They can go read the thread, I was talking about what I’d do if I were a soldier, and you’re god damn right I’d kill whoever I had to to survive.
And you’re damn right I don’t have principle values. I have values that change as the situation changes and depend mostly on what I stand to gain or not gain. I’m not going to get into a fight and not do whatever I’ve got to do to win just because some silly moral values say I shouldn’t.
The Third Reich did have the legal authority to persecute the Jews and that’s just what they did and they were fully within their legal rights to do so and they weren’t stopped with moral or logical arguments, they were stopped with guns and tanks and bombs, are you really willing to go to war over allowing private businesses the legal right to racially discriminate? I doubt it.
1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.
Try again. This time without the contradiction. If they had the “legal authority” it wouldn’t be “persecution” now, would it? (According to your legal positivism).
Hahah, or do you ascribe to some kind of natural law now? …
I care about me, it just so happens that I need things from other people, I don’t care about people because I think they have intrinsic value, I care about people because they can be of use. If they can’t be of use, I care not.
So if you could fully satisfy your material needs by gunning down a bunch of african villagers for their diamonds, and would face no legal consequences, you would do it?
Lol if ONLY life were that easy, Snowflake, of course. The problem is that if it were that easy, everyone would be doing it and there would be no diamonds left by the time I got there.
Fine, I’ll be a rational psychopath then. The choice to kill would be perfectly rational given your stated parameters, there would be no reason not to. In fact, the person who didn’t kill them would end up poorer. There’s every incentive in this scenario to kill.
it would make most people poorer to commit mass murder. Not materially though. By rational you mean concerned with only the mechanical aspects of the world.
“In fact, the person who didn’t kill them would end up poorer.”
Tsk tsk, ‘imposing’ your values on others. You’re not exactly a good role model / representation for humanity.
Psychic profit and loss. An increase (Profit) or decrease (loss) in the acting man’s satisfaction or happiness. Psychic profits and losses are sensible, subjective, mental and purely personal. They can be neither measured nor weighed. They can only be felt or sensed. The psychic profit or loss derived from any action can be compared with that of another solely in terms of more or less.
“There’s every incentive in this scenario to kill.”
For those with no conscience… sure. Fortunately, that crosses out about 96% of the population.
Oh… see I thought killing 10-20 people would be mass murder. Anyway, by your logic, it wouldn’t matter how many, so long as you could benefit and get away with it.
Lol @ psychic profit, sounds like a bunch of mysticism to me. Alright, well last time I checked I couldn’t use psychic dollars to pay my psychic bills.
“For those with no conscience.”
Lol, I think I can deal with a little psychic loss.
“I thought killing 10-20 people would be mass murder.”
I dunno depends on the standard you set.
“it wouldn’t matter as long as you could benefit and get away with it.”
s
-ky
t
)tr.v. per·se·cut·ed, per·se·cut·ing, per·se·cutes