""Critically"" ""Evaluating"" Grover Furr's Blood Lies

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > ""Critically"" ""Evaluating"" Grover Furr's Blood Lies

«‹›22 »

DeusExMachinima: Sep 2, 2012; This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!

Put this loser on ignore immediately!

Brainiac Five posted:

Hold on, though, that's not what brain trustee Fojar wrote, so this is irrelevant.

Everyone is constantly screaming and enraged and furious, duh. Otherwise people would be bad-faith actors when they started saying people are mad.

Trolling is only fun to interact with if you make an effort.

# ? Apr 7, 2016 03:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 19:22

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Fojar38 posted:

Unilateral nuclear disarmament does nothing aside from leave you vulnerable. At this point you might as well just say "Everyone should fully disarm all their militaries. That way there will never be a war!"

This is grade school levels of naivete.

You're still conflating what's "good" with what's "acceptable."

I'm sorry, but the world isn't a place that's universally "good" and doing things that are good can often lead to things that are bad.

Depends on your definition of "genocide" which nobody has been able to agree on.

Nice job adding words because you couldn't answer. I'm starting to suspect that you're really loving stupid but also really convinced of your brilliance. A pestilential combo.

Okay, so you're dodging the point here. Is it OK, that is "acceptable", to kill lots of people in the pursuit of good policy goals done by an arbitrarily good person? I need to know before I purchase this lot of uranium hexafluoride.

Oh, ok, well, I define genocide as your posts, then, if we're playing this game.

Acebuckeye13 posted:

Let's run through some pretty basic Cold War history.

For the vast much of the Cold War, both the USSR and the United States positioned military forces adjacent each other, engaged in numerous proxy wars, conducted tremendous amounts of espionage, and generally regarded each other as fundamental enemies. Yet, despite these factors, neither side ever engaged in outright combat, because both sides knew the other possessed nuclear weapons capable of destroying them, and there was no way of defending against all the nukes. This is MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction. It was generally regarded as insane, but it was a policy that in the end proved dangerous enough to create enough equilibrium that the US and USSR would do everything in their power to avoid an outright confrontation, even while plotting and scheming and generally hating the others' guts.

And yes, because the policy depends on a nuclear war being unwinable, that means convincing the other side that any potentially hostile action they take could lead to atomic annihilation. It's also why both sides negotiated not only to limit the number of nuclear weapons, but the number of nuclear weapon defenses-because if somebody got the idea in their head they might actually be able to win a nuclear war, it could get everybody killed.

Edit: This is also why unilateral disarmament is generally seen as potentially destablising-because someone might get the idea that if they stash a few nukes, they can win.

Let's run through some pretty basic ethics.

If you talk down to someone, you are indicating that you don't view them as a full human being, but as a subordinate entity that needs to be corrected. By the Golden Rule, you are asking to be treated as less than human yourself. If this is your desire, yuck, get away you masochist. If this is not your desire, I would suggest not engaging in such behavior in the future.

Anyways, I hope you learn how to read well enough so that you can understand what posts are instead of grasping at what you got from a most limited skimming.

# ? Apr 7, 2016 03:57

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Hrm y'all are reaching for the fishmech posting playbook.

# ? Apr 7, 2016 04:04

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

Brainiac Five posted:

Nice job adding words because you couldn't answer. I'm starting to suspect that you're really loving stupid but also really convinced of your brilliance. A pestilential combo.

*Brainiac Five massages their temples while looking intently at a computer screen* "Fuckin' words, man!"

quote:

Okay, so you're dodging the point here. Is it OK, that is "acceptable", to kill lots of people in the pursuit of good policy goals done by an arbitrarily good person? I need to know before I purchase this lot of uranium hexafluoride.

Depends; what would the consequences of not killing those people be?

Your example of "nuking New York to defeat racism" doesn't seem very convincing because I don't see how nuking New York would inhibit racist sentiment any more than not nuking it, aside from temporarily reducing the number of racists in an absolute sense.

Alternatively, it is always unacceptable if it involves you either coming up with the scenario or being involved with it in any way, since you're clearly an idiot.

Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Apr 7, 2016

# ? Apr 7, 2016 04:04

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

Disinterested posted:

Hrm y'all are reaching for the fishmech posting playbook.

One more post and I'm sure I'll have convinced him

# ? Apr 7, 2016 04:05

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Fojar38 posted:

*Brainiac Five massages their temples while looking intently at a computer screen* "Fuckin' words, man!"

Depends; what would the consequences of not killing those people be?

Your example of "nuking New York to defeat racism" doesn't seem very convincing because I don't see how nuking New York would inhibit racist sentiment any more than not nuking it, aside from temporarily reducing the number of racists in an absolute sense.

Alternatively, it is always unacceptable if it involves you either coming up with the scenario or being involved with it in any way, since you're clearly an idiot.

Okay, so we've established you were wrong in preferring the USA over the USSR, because good goals and moral behavior don't actually justify things in and of themselves. Cool.

# ? Apr 7, 2016 04:19

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

Brainiac Five posted:

Okay, so we've established you were wrong in preferring the USA over the USSR, because good goals and moral behavior don't actually justify things in and of themselves. Cool.

Or maybe you hosed up and didn't provide an example that was actually analogous.

# ? Apr 7, 2016 04:26

kapparomeo: Apr 19, 2011; Some say his extreme-right links are clearly known, even in the fascist capitalist imperialist Murdochist press...

This is all very fascinating, but does Braniac Five's whataboutery in any way disprove the crimes perpetrated by Stalin?

# ? Apr 7, 2016 04:27

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Fojar38 posted:

Or maybe you hosed up and didn't provide an example that was actually analogous.

No, I think someone believing that killing racists will solve racism is pretty akin to believing in the USSR or USA wanting to invade the other and destroy them- true in some ways but far outweighed by the falseness.

# ? Apr 7, 2016 04:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 19:22

Absurd Alhazred: Mar 27, 2010; by Athanatos

This thread has run its course. The OP has amply demonstrated an unwillingness to critically evaluate the sources they have presented.

Blatant denial of atrocities for the sake of ideology is not Kosher.

# ? Apr 7, 2016 04:58

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > ""Critically"" ""Evaluating"" Grover Furr's Blood Lies

«‹›22 »