Are you proposing we kill everyone who wants to kill people? O_o

I'm not proposing it, just playing with the idea.
What if the tolerant and loving people decided to go to war, one LAST war, to shed blood in the name of a better tomorrow, and killed the people who threatened it.
Sure it wouldn't work I guess, but it's a nice idea for a science fiction novel.

So we arrange a mass military made out of people that vehemently speak out against killing people in order to take out the world's militaries composed wholly of people that are trained specifically to kill people? Sounds like a fun board game, nothing more.

"What if the tolerant and loving people decided to go to war, one LAST war, to shed blood in the name of a better tomorrow, and killed the people who threatened it."

Well this takes the cake for stupidest fucking post.

Why don't we just kill all humans and be done with it.

I guess the question posed is:
Would it be morally justified to kill millions of 'innocent' people if it guaranteed an infinity of peace? I don't know honestly
Is it possible for pacifists to kill for peace? I think yes
Would it work? Probably not because hatred stems from social conditions rather than genes. However it would distinctly deter intolerant or violent behaviour for fear that the pacifist empire would wreak its fury upon the perpetrators.

No.

I think you could almost justify to a bunch of pacifists that "these people are Hitler, and once you are rid of them the world will be a utopia". Also, how would the moral choice change if you had the option to deport all the intolerants to Mars or some place far away instead of killing them?

"Would it be morally justified to kill millions of 'innocent' people if it guaranteed an infinity of peace?"

Nothing would ever guarantee infinite peace, so no.

"Is it possible for pacifists to kill for peace?"

Ever been to Alaska? There aren't any pacifists there but there aren't too many home invasions either because everyone has a hunting rifle and everyone knows it. Might as well leave the doors unlocked and many people do. Is that what you're going for? I doubt it, knowing you.

"Would it work?"

No, you're just posing useless questions that don't have any serious bearing in any society in the world.

Maybe all the tolerant people should just move to Mars... Then they don't have to be anti-peaceful to make their world peaceful.

I'm sorry...

zultar took issue with my posting sometihng that just had Putin's name in the dscriptor yesterday...

But THIS is OK, calling me out in the fucking title?

Again, is there a double standard here or what?

Well, excuse me.
You are the one who said "life isn't fair" when I talked about stopping a genocide from occurring. That's pretty fucking low mate.

Take you're bitch fight to PM unless you want to derail your own thread, SYnapse.

I don't want to derail the thread.
The question is why we tolerate people to exist who say life isn't fair when you point out that 600 innocent people are dead in a week. Discuss

It is NOT a genocide.

It is a war between a terrorist group and a nation with innocent civilians caught in the middle.

I'm sorry you have to resort to hyperbole to make what pitiful semblance of a point you have to make...and that you have to resort to a personal attack in order to do so as well.

SYnapse, calm it down a bit. Like you, I think obiwan is an idiot. Like you, I find his blinkered approach frustrating.

However I really don't think this gives either of us a moral justification for killing him.

"The question is why we tolerate people to exist who say life isn't fair when you point out that 600 innocent people are dead in a week. Discuss"

Maybe because it's a complex, multi-layered reason those people are dead, and life ISN'T fair...AT ALL.

Or have suicide bombers and rocketing innocent civilians suddenly become passe and fair game to you?

Some of you may remember that, awhile ago, SYnapse posted in a college thread, extolling the virtues of skipping college and studying for yourself, and mentioned how far he'd been able to make it in philosophy on his own.

Stay in school, kids.

Welcome to Israel/Palestine thread #9, folks... enjoy the fucking ride...

Innocent civilians are not caught in the middle, this implies they are half-way between. Innocent civilians are being killed on one side very massively disproportionately than to the other side. These are irrefutable facts unlike your bullshit facts.

Jamiet, I cannot calmly discuss why 600 deaths are a bad thing I am sorry his views are completely irreconcilable with my morality. If I had the ability to hack his account and ban him from the site right now, my moral compass would command me to do it.

And it's not exactly the pinnacle of "tolerance" to suggest killing people for a dissenting opinion.

I'm sorry...that IS what the Nazis kinda-sorta did...

]So that's TWO foul-ups with that group and the Holocaust you've made today, nice!

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
― Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies

"Innocent civilians are not caught in the middle, this implies they are half-way between. Innocent civilians are being killed on one side very massively disproportionately than to the other side."

Because one side has a rocket defense system that shoots down 90%+ of the rockets...

Doesn't mean they're not still in the crossfire, it just means THEIR side can actually protect them, whereas Hamas finds the best way of "protecting" its people is to start a shooting war it can't win and piling up dead bodies until the symbol-minded of the Internet and world community condemn WHAT has occurred without actually digging into WHY it has occurred.

Children are dead because HAMAS STARTED A ROCKET WAR.

And the death toll is skewered because ISRAEL CAN *PROTECT* ITS CITIZENS.

I'm so sorry more Jews couldn't die to satisfy your lust for bloody equivalency...

Oh, wait--I'm NOT.

"Jamiet, I cannot calmly discuss why 600 deaths are a bad thing I am sorry his views are completely irreconcilable with my morality."

And your saying they should kill each other for eternity and that someone who oppose that like myself should die is morality?

Again that makes no sense. If Israel can defend itself then it doesn't need to kill Hamas rocketeers.

WOULD
YOU
BOTH
SHUT
UP
?!?!?!

I agree, don't tolerate intolerant people! We need a Final Solution - to the trains with them! That will make the world a better, more tolerant place, perhaps for a Thousand Years! Hail Victory!

Jamiet, can I remind you what caused this:
I said to Obiwan that it's not good that 600 people have died, and Obiwan told me that "life isn't fair".
Now tell me how I am supposed to react.

You're supposed to let Obiwan live in his ignorant little shell and get on with your own life without promoting your own genocidal theories on our forum.