The Gaming Den

No, that is not self defense. Any culture that has to kill people not attacking them in order to protect their culture does not have a culture worth protecting.

The traditional medicine comparison argument is a false dichotomy anyway and not worth arguing. I just found it repugnant to suggest that some people should eat shit rather than animals, endangered or not.

The traditional medicine comparison argument is a false dichotomy anyway and not worth arguing. I just found it repugnant to suggest that some people should eat shit rather than animals, endangered or not.

WTF? How is it a false dichotomy?

The Chinese grind up tiger parts to form various traditional medicines which do them no good whatsoever.

The Tibetians apparently used to eat the Dalai Lama's shit as a form of traditional medicine which did them no good whatsoever.

I would rather they be harming only themselves with their bullshit, rather than themselves and the environment.

This is not to say they aren't better off under Chinese rule than they would have been had Tibet remained independent (that's really impossible to say) but citing them no longer eating the Dalai Lama's shit as a traditional medicine isn't really one of them, because it has just been substituted for other bullshit traditional medicines.

It is a false dichotomy because those are not your only two options.

Furthermore the majority of chinese citizens obviously do not consume tiger bits.

clikml wrote:It is a false dichotomy because those are not your only two options.

Furthermore the majority of chinese citizens obviously do not consume tiger bits.

I'm moderately certain that, unless the Dalai Lama had some severe digestive problems, most Tibetians didn't do so either.

And yes, obviously, there are other, better options. Like, say, not taking traditional medicine at all. But that doesn't happen even in the West.

The Tibetans weren't above grinding rare animals, either.

-Crissa

This is true as well. Really, I'm pretty sure most Southeast asian cultures do so.

But its a lot less funny as a retort.

Anyway...

Back to the Dalai Lama being a dick?

Tibet while looking at the States and the UN for support, it will more easily look and find support from SAARC, and the other neighboring countries.

India already has a large enough army base near there and around four-five states. It's really not that hard.

But on the Lama himself, China and DL both try surreptitiously find the next leader wunder-kind and indoctrinate them without the other's knowledge. I think CHina tried this thrice with all three being false lamas or whatever. DL has mentioned it in one of his '80s speeches that this was what they continue to do. As the next Dalai Lama usually only comes from inside Tibet (usually meaning: the 2nd-5th came from Mongolia) supposedly Tenzin Gyatzo has said that there won't be a next one or if there is he won't be born in a Chinese government or puppet government land.


But the religious part is not necessary normally except in this case even for a so-called Democratic govt in exile such as Tibet, Religion is tied intrinsically into their coda.


This is the spiritual side of the equation which often pulls most of the Free Tibeters rather than the oppresion. Most of the celebs are free tibeters only because they are Gyatzo's fans and thus Free TIbeters.

--

Also TIbet faring as a state of any of the surrounding countries is rather atrocious as none of them really do give a crap about Buddhists.

Several States in INdia have repeatedly stated that Buddhism is a part of Hinduism which is absolutely repugnant on so many levels

Titanium Dragon wrote:Well, reality has a well-known liberal bias...

But that's mostly sarcasm. Reality is neither liberal nor conservative.

Well, if you consider that reality has an inherent predisposition towards change, then yes, reality does have a liberal bias.

Erm. Are you trying to imply that riots are better if they attack the people they are angry at?

I would venture to say that all violence is significantly improved when it is directed at the person (or persons) you actually have a problem with, rather than innocent bystanders, yes.

I would continue to disagree.

Anger is not a valid justification for attacking someone any more than attacking someone because you are happy with them. It might be an understandable human failure, but it is not any more justifiable.

I suppose I could be getting hung up on different definitions of "better." In my mind I was synonymizing it with "more justificatiable." If you are using "improved" or "better" to refer to "more understandable," then I would happily yield that point and stick to that while it is more understandable, it is not in any sense more justifiable from an ethical perspective.

Anywho, in the case of riots it's something of a tangent since the individuals getting attacked are not really being targeted because of who they are individually, but rather what they appear to be. The rioters aren't conscientiously doing anything, including target selection or identification. Everyone attacked may as well be considered an innocent bystander since they are being attacked on the basis of their appearance.

So definitely riots are a different creature than the notion of attacking an individual because you are angry with that particular individual.

EDIT: For posterity, Caedrus was being a dick face and saying that clickml is a disgusting person for thinking that violent assault to preserve your culture is more justifiable if it's against people who are actually destroying your culture than against total strangers.

Apparently either he deleted it and reposted it, or my post timetraveled. Either way I ended up before him somehow.

This is me insulting him.

Yes you fucking asshole:

All people are equally justifiable targets of violence because you are pissed off.

A muslim man is equally justifable in raping a woman who talks back to him as raping a woman who happened to be nearby when that woman talked to him.

Those are equally justifable acts.

It is not more justifable for Muslim extremists to rape women who upset them or blow up people who upset them than total strangers.

You are a disgusting asshole for saying it is.

Caedrus wrote:I would venture to say that all violence is significantly improved when it is directed at the person (or persons) you actually have a problem with, rather than innocent bystanders, yes.

clikml wrote:I would continue to disagree.

Perhaps I should clarify:

Erm. Are you trying to imply that riots are better if they attack the people they are angry at?

I would venture to say that it is generally better if people actually attack whoever they actually have a motive against rather than completely random people. Senseless, unmotivated violence would worry me more than if I could actually assign a motive to someone.

Apparently, clikml considers all bad options bad.

I suppose if you die, you're not going to much care if it was your friends by accident or your enemies or just being run over by a bus, they're all bad options.

-Crissa

Oh please.


Anger is not the same thing as justification. I am not advocating any sort of violence. I am saying neither is justified on either basis.


Someone could assassinate Hitler calmly and rationally without needing anger. Likewise you can have good reasons for violence aaaand be angry at your target. I am simply saying that anger alone is not a valid justification for violence.

clikml wrote:Oh please.

Anger is not the same thing as justification. I am not advocating any sort of violence. I am saying neither is justified on either basis.

Someone could assassinate Hitler calmly and rationally without needing anger. Likewise you can have good reasons for violence aaaand be angry at your target. I am simply saying that anger alone is not a valid justification for violence.

My statement didn't say anything about anger.

I would venture to say that all violence is significantly improved when it is directed at the person (or persons) you actually have a problem with, rather than innocent bystanders, yes.

Where is anger mentioned there? Oh right, it's not.

Yes Caedrus, It is equally as justifiable. As in: Fucking Zero. Go read me insult you and talk about you supporting rapists a few posts up.

Here's the thing dumb shit. You said "all violence" That includes rapists who hate women for being smarter than them.

You are saying it is more justifiable for them to commit violence on women who show them up than on women who just happen to women.

In neither case is that acceptable. It has zero justification, so when you say "all violence is more justifiable" you are implying that raping a woman who pissed you off has a value of justification greater than zero.

Kaelik wrote:Yes Caedrus, It is equally as justifiable. As in: Fucking Zero. Go read me insult you and talk about you supporting rapists a few posts up.

Hence, you argue that: If you were upset about the Holocaust, you would be equally justified in killing some random little girl than you would be in killing Hitler.

I guess thinking that that's not the case makes me support rapists.

Note also that I never said that violence is good in any way, but that if someone is going to be harmed, random and senseless violence is worse than if the violence was not random and senseless.

Caedrus wrote:

Kaelik wrote:Yes Caedrus, It is equally as justifiable. As in: Fucking Zero. Go read me insult you and talk about you supporting rapists a few posts up.

Hence, you argue that: If you were upset about the Holocaust, you would be equally justified in killing some random little girl than you would be in killing Hitler.

I guess thinking that that's not the case makes me a rapist.

You said all violence. All of it. You are the one making an absolute case about all violence. You are the one claiming that me beating you to death with a tire iron is more justifiable than strangling a cat, because you are the one who is actually doing me harm by claiming rapists have justification.

Seriously. Violence against people who harm you is not automatically more justifiable. You claimed that an inherent property of violence is to be better when aimed at people who have actually caused you harm. Guess what fucker? Women cause harm to pathetic rapists by supporting movements that make rape illegal. Rapists then Raping them is not more valid than raping strangers. It is still zero percent justifiable.

A negation of your statement "All violence is blah blah" would be "Not all violence is blah blah."

Kaelik wrote:because you are the one who is actually doing me harm by claiming rapists have justification.

Where did I claim that they have justification? Oh right, you just fucking made that up. Nice straw man Kaelik. Nowhere did I say that rapists have justification. I didn't even say that any violence ever had justification.

Jimminy, I think we're talking past each other a bit here.

Perhaps we can all take a breather for a few minutes and focus on some happy thoughts or something. For myself, I have to change a poopy diaper and think I am going to post my reply via laptop rather than ipod as I had been doing previously since the ipod isn't so hot for longer messages. When I'm being super brief and not quoting people tis because I am ipod-posting.

I will need to flip back and forth on messages to figure out where this discussion fell off the tracks and I will do what I can to get it back on course.

Caedrus wrote:Where did I claim that they have justification? Oh right, you just fucking made that up. Nice straw man Kaelik.

Fine weaselly asshole.

You: "I would venture to say that all violence is significantly improved when it is directed at the person (or persons) you actually have a problem with, rather than innocent bystanders, yes."

Since you said all, what you said is logically equivalent to:

You: "I would venture to say that in the violent instance of a man raping a woman, it is significantly improved when he rapes the person he actually has a problem with, rather than innocent bystanders, yes."

You just told us that it's better when a man rapes a woman who tells him off than a getting upset and going home to rape his wife.

I would venture that it is not a significantly improved situation.

Kaelik wrote:

Caedrus wrote:Where did I claim that they have justification? Oh right, you just fucking made that up. Nice straw man Kaelik.

Fine weaselly asshole.

You: "I would venture to say that all violence is significantly improved when it is directed at the person (or persons) you actually have a problem with, rather than innocent bystanders, yes."

Since you said all, what you said is logically equivalent to:

You: "I would venture to say that in the violent instance of a man raping a woman, it is significantly improved when he rapes the person he actually has a problem with, rather than innocent bystanders, yes."

You just told us that it's better when a man rapes a woman who tells him off than a getting upset and going home to rape his wife.

I would venture that it is not a significantly improved situation.

Where in that argument is the claim that rape is justified? Because that's what you said I claimed. Own up to your own words.

because you are the one who is actually doing me harm by claiming rapists have justification.

So please, kindly show me where in this thread I said that, under any circumstances, rape (or any violence whatsoever) is justified. Of course you can't do that, because it never fucking happened and you are a disingenuous twat.

I said that senseless violence was, in the general sense, the greater of two evils. There is no possible way you can go from that to "Caedrus said rape was good and justified!"

And that makes you a wholly dishonest twat.

See, that's why I called you a weaselly asshole.

Clickml said "well what the fuck do you mean by improved, because I mean is morally better situation."

You responded that he was a disgusting person for thinking that violent actions taken against people who are unrelated is not more justifiable than those same actions against the people who have actually upset you:

"I continue to disagree.

I suppose I could be getting hung up on different definitions of "better." In my mind I was synonymizing it with "more justificatiable." If you are using "improved" or "better" to refer to "more understandable," then I would happily yield that point and stick to that while it is more understandable, it is not in any sense more justifiable from an ethical perspective. "

"So you disagree that it is better to commit violence against a person you actually take issue with rather than innocent bystanders. That, instead, friendly fire is not worse than properly directed fire. That harming someone for a reason is not better than attacking someone for no reason whatsoever.

That's sickening, Clikml."

Yes, he disagrees that it is better for a man to rape his boss because she fired him than for him to rape his wife.

He said that it is equally justifiable. You find that sickening. That means you can see a difference in level of justification between raping boss and raping wife.

Kaelik wrote:See, that's why I called you a weaselly asshole.

Clickml said "well what the fuck do you mean by improved, because I mean is morally better situation."

You responded that he was a disgusting person for thinking that violent actions taken against people who are unrelated is not more justifiable than those same actions against the people who have actually upset you:

"So you disagree that it is better to commit violence against a person you actually take issue with rather than innocent bystanders. That, instead, friendly fire is not worse than properly directed fire. That harming someone for a reason is not better than attacking someone for no reason whatsoever.

That's sickening, Clikml."

Yes, he disagrees that it is better for a man to rape his boss because she fired him than for him to rape his wife.

He said that it is equally justifiable. You find that sickening. That means you can see a difference in level of justification between raping boss and raping wife.

Still not owning up to your own words. You said that I said that rape was justified. Nowhere in this post have you backed up that statement.

You guys should stop threatening each other with bodily harm (don't even try to deny that saying "You are the one claiming that me beating you to death with a tire iron is more justifiable than strangling a cat, because you are the one who is actually doing me harm by claiming rapists have justification" isn't a very obvious threat) and chill.