Towards Religious Tolerance (3 Viewers)

[Sprangler]

Um...you evidently ignored the remainder of the post.

Killing every single person involved in a conflict would solve it yeah, but it's not very realistic, so I am for interfaith movements, getting people to understand what they have in common with people in other groups and tolerating their differences.
That is the absolute best we as humans can do, because people will always interpret their religious texts for evil.

 

[Iheartgays]

Which advancements?

How about the atom bomb?

 

[Old Hickory]

Some of the greatest advancements in society have been made during wartime. A state of peace would bring stagnation. Not to mention the overpopulation issues.

Your point of view is an interesting one, and one which I feel does not gain the creedence it deserves. When did overpopulation become a problem? After the two World Wars of course! There is a clear correlation between overpopulation and the absence of widespread warfare: I can provide a graph....

....OR NOT.

What a stupid argument.

 

[Iheartgays]

Your point of view is an interesting one, and one which I feel does not gain the creedence it deserves. When did overpopulation become a problem? After the two World Wars of course! There is a clear correlation between overpopulation and the absence of widespread warfare: I can provide a graph....

....OR NOT.

What a stupid argument.

Thank you for putting into words what I could only dream of englishizing.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

How about the atom bomb?

Yeah...the atom bomb was a GREAT advancement. Let's create even more ways to kill each other!

 

[Iheartgays]

Yeah...the atom bomb was a GREAT advancement. Let's create even more ways to kill each other!

Why not completely ignore Old Hickory's post? And you fail to realise the implications that the atom bomb had for science, as well as warfare.

 

[Old Hickory]

Yeah...the atom bomb was a GREAT advancement. Let's create even more ways to kill each other!

I dislike the fudamental oversight of your argument. The people who were killed were attempting to pollute our society- not racially of course, but in terms of the tyranny of their government, just as the violent factions of Australian society continue to pollute Aussie ideals.

 

[murphyad]

I dislike the fudamental oversight of your argument. The people who were killed were attempting to pollute our society- not racially of course, but in terms of the tyranny of their government, just as the violent factions of Australian society continue to pollute Aussie ideals.

Argumentum ad baculum: "if we didn't do it, then bad things would happen". This stance is false as there was no 'force/no force' dichotomy as you suggest; there are more than two ways to deal with your enemies. Therefore, killing others because they were attempting to "pollute our society" (disregarding the ambiguity of this statement) is not universally justified.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Therefore, killing others because they were attempting to "pollute our society" (disregarding the ambiguity of this statement) is not universally justified.

Also, in its ambiguity, Old Hickory's argument fails to acknowledge that the people who were bombed in the Hiroshima attacks were not those who sought to bring down the other nations. They were, in fact, innocent civilians who had no part in WW2, did not capture and torture Allied soldiers, etc.

So how did dropping a bomb on *them* stop their leaders?

Punishing the whole is not an adequate way to deter the few.

The same can be said for Sept 11. We would accept no such justification which suggested that this event was moral on the part of the terrorists who did it because they objected to the government's foreign policy. Even if this objection is warranted, we morally condemn the response to it, as many innocent victims resulted from this displeasure with the authority.