Subject:
|
Re: Lego Holocaust art (Was: can someone help me identify these parts?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 25 Jun 1999 19:13:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
783 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Dee writes:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 14:03:27 GMT, Jeff Stembel uttered the following
> profundities...
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Dee writes:
> > > The 20th century has seen humanity take a great leap backwards
> > > in terms of our "humanity." Chemical warfare, bombing of
> > > civilian targets, etc.
> >
> > <rant>
> > Civilians have *always* been killed in war. Just because we have more
> > powerful weapons doesn't mean we are "less humane". Ever heard of some
> > small events from before the twentieth century including: The Inquisition,
> > the Crusades, and the Industrial Revolution? That entire period in history
> > could be termed "Inhumane". You use chemical weapons as an example of us
> > being "less humane".
> > Well, how humane is it to lob corpses into a walled city to spread disease?
> > Until recently, governments wouldn't really consider going into another
> > country to defend people would couldn't defend themselves. IMO, trying to
> > defend the Albanians was the right thing to do. We just went about it in
> > the wrong way (by trying to bomb them into submission). Personally, I think
> > this is a more humane era(1) than any other.
> > </rant>
>
> Never said they weren't. Never mentioned, though did not ignore events in
> the past. Didn't know about corpse-lobbing, though. Did know about the use
> of lime, though, to blind opposing forces. So, I would say it is less humane
> to use chemical weapons because we haven't advanced sufficiently to not
> use them. (Cheap, get-out clause. When stuck for an answer, throw ethics
> into the ring, and hope some rational, logical response doesn't bounce
> back!).
By not giving examples of how previous centuries where "more humane", you are
ignoring, to a certain extent, past events.
Also, I may've exagerated slightly on the corpse lobbing thing. I'm not sure
if spreading disease was a purpose or a "helpful" side-effect. I do know that
a major, if not the main, reason was the psychological impact on the besieged
populace. They also did the same thing with decapitated heads, BTW.
Finally, we won't be "sufficiently advanced" until we learn to embrace
everyone's lifestyle preferences and bring the world population down and under
control. Once this happens, the major causes of war will be eliminated
(religion/ethnicity and territory). Unfortunately, these will not happen
anytime soon. Why? People want to feel that they are "right", so those who
are different are obviously "wrong" since they do not conform to the "right"
way. Since they're "wrong", why not get rid of them? The result is war.
Zero/Negative population growth won't happen because people will claim it
infringes their rights. Now, I think the benefits outweigh the relatively
minor rights "infringements". Animal habitat destruction would decrease,
Hunger would be brought under control/eliminated, Some diseases would be
brought under control, More living space for everyone, etc. This is my belief,
anyways.
> Ahh, the Crusades. "Christian" soldiers, merrily slaughtering
> virtually the whole European Jewish population on their way to
> Jerusalem. Upon arrival, diligently trying to slaughter the whole Jewish
> and Arab population of the Middle East. Before, and since, tolerance
> between the two ignored (at least until 1947....).
It has always bugged me that religious groups can't get along, even after two
millenia. I mean, they're all going to the same place, just taking different
roads, right? *Sigh* I probably won't see a resolution to this in my
lifetime. :(
> Defending the Albanians was the right thing to do. However, we (the west)
> ignored the Bosnians and Croatians, and....the Serbs. *All* sides in the
> Balkan conflict are as guilty as the other, with regards to genocide and other
> war crimes. The only difference is that the Serbs did it on a greater scale,
> and not necessarily first.
>
> But we also left alone The Hutus (or was it Tutsi?) in Rwanda & Burundi, the
> Karen in Burma, the Timorese in Indonesia, ethnic Armenians in Turkey, to a
> limited extent the Kurds....and these are just a small selection of the 90's.
Yes, and it really saddens me that we never got involved. I hope we try to get
involved from now on, but I doubt it will happen. Politicians generally don't
like it when we do.
Well, we have some ranting and some philosophizing, which should provide fodder
for many (friendly) debates. :)
Jeff
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
54 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
