Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

War shouldn't happen, but there are evil nations and thus has to happen

Evil is a sujective term. Your view is exactly what causes war, a feeling of superiority and arrogance. "Anyone who doesn't agree with us is wrong!"

Evil is quite subjective in a lot of cases, but there are things that any sane person will agree are evil. The Holocaust was evil. Not to say that the German people of that time as a whole were evil, but Hitler was. The Rape of Nanking was evil. The 2001 World Trade Center/Pentagon attacks were evil. Not everything is subjuctive.

Evil is always objective. It's just sometimes hard to figure out whether or not it's good or evil.

At 12/15/02 09:53 PM, DarkCyrstal wrote: I can't agree with you more. Anything less than the death penalty for first or secend degree murder is an insult to the victim. I think we should bring back harsher executions than lethal injection. Let's bring back crucifiction... upside down during the monday night football! We'd have peoepl tuning in who don't care about football. If you market the death penalty right you could almost balance the stupid budget.

Don't take credit for George Carlin's idea. You could at least have the courtesy of quoting him.
I'm in total agreement with his ideas about everything. Fuck golfing hand the land over the homeless!! Everybody should listen to his capital punishment piece. its hysterical and makes a lot of sense, like all of his stuff.

At 12/29/02 12:34 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: Evil is always objective. It's just sometimes hard to figure out whether or not it's good or evil.

Hypothetical Sit.: Mr. X's wife is very ill, and there is a cure but the drug needed uses rare compounds and is hard to make, so it's in extremely extremely short supply. Consequently, it's enormously expensive, and he couldn't possibly afford it. So he steals it, and he and his wife live hapily every after. Is what he did evil because he took something valuable that wasn't rightfully his? Or was he doing the right thing, saving his wife? There is gray, in some places, there is gray.

I agree with the death penalty for certain situations. Not every crime deserves the death penalty and the punishment should coincide with the crime itself, but some crimes are just too harsh or too anger filled that only an execution would be fitting. As for everyone else's comments about publicizing executions, I support public executions, but aren't crucifictions a little overboard?

Evil is quite subjective in a lot of cases, but there are things that any sane person will agree are evil. The Holocaust was evil. Not to say that the German people of that time as a whole were evil, but Hitler was. The Rape of Nanking was evil. The 2001 World Trade Center/Pentagon attacks were evil.

Actually some people think that 911 was a good thing you know people chanting "Osama Osama!" There is very few people who would think the elimination of millions of people is a good thing,unless it went with their subjective beliefs.

Not everything is subjuctive.

Because there is a consensus doesn't mean it is right. Truth is not governed by the majority.

fuck politics

We don’t need your right wing shit,
Or your left wing politricks.
People have it hard enough, the way it is,
So all your talks we can miss.
Since the beginnning, they have been here
People who think they’re better, they don’t care.
Call it left or right wing crap.
Call it what you want, I’ve had enough.
To help people! ? Up your ass!
To exploit the mass, is what they want.
They only care about themselves, and their fancy car.
And who has to fight, when they start their wars?Now the time has come, to end this mess.
Power to the people, and nothing less.
Stick your finger in the air, and shout it loud:
"Fuck all the politics" say it proud!
Ther’s no need to follow, and act like a sheep.
Are human beings are equal, together we live.
Together we stand and divided we fall.
Politics divide, and make you feel small.We don’t need your right wing shit,
Or your left wing politricks.
People have it hard enough, the way it is,
So all your talks we can miss.

i think killing people is bad.

At 12/29/02 12:17 PM, Slizor wrote:

Evil is quite subjective in a lot of cases, but there are things that any sane person will agree are evil. The Holocaust was evil. Not to say that the German people of that time as a whole were evil, but Hitler was. The Rape of Nanking was evil. The 2001 World Trade Center/Pentagon attacks were evil.

Actually some people think that 911 was a good thing you know people chanting "Osama Osama!" There is very few people who would think the elimination of millions of people is a good thing,unless it went with their subjective beliefs.

Yes, there are people who belive that the WTC/Pentagon attacks were right. To them, the attacks were just, for good. But those people are wrong. Killing people for no other reason than their nationality is just wrong. You can always argue that, but what you say doen't change it. A little dogmatic perhaps, but it's right...

Not everything is subjuctive.

Because there is a consensus doesn't mean it is right. Truth is not governed by the majority.

You obviously misread my post, I did not say that Truth is governed by the majority; I did not say anything of the sort! What I'm saying is that while ou can always make an argument that something or another is subjective, some things are evil. I contend that there are things that are right, and things that are wrong. If someone tourtures and kills innocent people just because they thought it was fun, that would be evil. A person who's doing that would probably disagree with me, but that doesn't change the fact that what he'd be doing is wrong. It just is. I can't explain it any better than that, I'm afraid.

At 12/29/02 01:39 PM, w4t422 wrote: We don’t need your right wing shit....

Oh yeah. Complete anarchy. Fun.

Look. Government, any government, isn't perfect, it often isn't even good. But can you think of anything better that would work?

At 12/29/02 05:38 PM, TheNewAuk wrote:

At 12/29/02 01:39 PM, w4t422 wrote: We don’t need your right wing shit....

Oh yeah. Complete anarchy. Fun.

Look. Government, any government, isn't perfect, it often isn't even good. But can you think of anything better that would work?

yes i do

Quote: Look. Government, any government, isn't perfect, it often isn't even good. But can you think of anything better that would work?

Yes, but it would require stupidity to hurt. Anyway, a sort of peaceful anarchy, actually, more of an egalitarian democracy that chooses as a whole one random person in the village to govern for the week... That would only work, of course, for small countries. Once you're dealing with anything greater than the size of, say, a standard fiefdom, you need one of our flawed modern governments.

However, as Plato said, if there is one person who excels and is superior to the masses, and is fit to lead, then he should lead, and make use of his abilities. Absolute monarchy is at times a good idea. But if people are relatively equal in ability, then a direct democracy works just fine. One like Athens's, but with more women's rights. A direct democracy wherein the current leader can be voted out of power.

I'm yet to hear anyone prove to me why a direct democracy is not feasible. I wish someone would come up with a good argument for that.

At 12/29/02 11:36 PM, Nevah73 wrote: Quote: Look. Government, any government, isn't perfect, it often isn't even good. But can you think of anything better that would work?

I'm yet to hear anyone prove to me why a direct democracy is not feasible. I wish someone would come up with a good argument for that.

people are idiots, that's why the framers of the constitution created the electoral system. You get the representatives to choose the president, your vote doesn't count it's only added to the pool that represents indicatively of how the group decides. If the elector thinks that the people he represents are morons he can choose whoever s/he wants. That's why it works. However, many don't understand this part of the deal since it rarely ever happens. It's just insurance that uninformed or mislead people don't make the wrong choice for our nation, which is what a direct democracy can possibly do.

At 12/29/02 11:36 PM, Nevah73 wrote:

However, as Plato said, if there is one person who excels and is superior to the masses, and is fit to lead, then he should lead, and make use of his abilities.

Don't make me use the Hitler cliche...see if you ever saw the movie, "A Beautiful Mind," Nash revises that theory by saying that if you make a decision, it must be the best for you and the best for the group. If someone is an awesome leader, he may not be the best for the world. And in this time in history, the information revolution, we can no longer be isolated by oceans.

At 12/29/02 11:36 PM, Nevah73 wrote: Quote: Look. Government, any government, isn't perfect, it often isn't even good. But can you think of anything better that would work?

Yes, but it would require stupidity to hurt. Anyway, a sort of peaceful anarchy, actually, more of an egalitarian democracy that chooses as a whole one random person in the village to govern for the week... That would only work, of course, for small countries. Once you're dealing with anything greater than the size of, say, a standard fiefdom, you need one of our flawed modern governments.

A "peaceful anarchy"?! Do you know what anarchy is? Anarchy is the lack of any organized government. Under that system, or rather, lack thereof, there are no government services, no welfare, no social security, no road services, no police, no fire department, no organized national military, no nothing. People could do whatever they wanted, unless someone else stopped them. People would form their own armies and try to gain power. No "peaceful anarchy" would stay peaceful for long. As for the "one random person in a village governs the place" idea, that is just rediculous. A person is only a ruler if they have some sort of force backing them (police, military, palace guards, something like that) and the people who make up that force would never stand for such a crazy government system. There would be a coup within days. Besides, even if such a system could work, which it couldn't, it would still be madness. The las of the land would change evey week, and the potential for abuse of power is enormous.

However, as Plato said, if there is one person who excels and is superior to the masses, and is fit to lead, then he should lead, and make use of his abilities. Absolute monarchy is at times a good idea. But if people are relatively equal in ability, then a direct democracy works just fine. One like Athens's, but with more women's rights. A direct democracy wherein the current leader can be voted out of power.

I'm yet to hear anyone prove to me why a direct democracy is not feasible. I wish someone would come up with a good argument for that.

It's not feasable because in today's modern world, governments have a lot to do. There are public services now, and so many desisions have to be made that if every citizen were to vote on on every issue, there wouldn't be much time to get things done. And keep in mind the nation would have to break up into tiny tiny city-states for it to be possible to register all those votes. Unless you want to give up almost all public services and break up the world into thousands and thousands of countless little nations, direct democracy just isn't feasable. As for Plato's idea, it's far too instable. If that one clever person dies and does not appoint an equally clever succesor, rule would go to one of his or her relatives, preticularly decendants, who could very well not be as competent, and could very well not be out for the best intrests of the nation. Or they may choose a family member as succseor out of favoritism, even if that person is not capable of just rule. Also, modern government is far too complicated for any one person alone, unless you want to give up a bunch of government services.

At 12/29/02 10:41 PM, w4t422 wrote:

At 12/29/02 05:38 PM, TheNewAuk wrote:

At 12/29/02 01:39 PM, w4t422 wrote: We don’t need your right wing shit....

Oh yeah. Complete anarchy. Fun.

Look. Government, any government, isn't perfect, it often isn't even good. But can you think of anything better that would work?

yes i do

*scoffs* Really. What?

Constitutional democracy works far better than regular democracy. There are some things that are too important to be left to the majority (like the right to vote, should whites be able to vote away the rights of blacks?)

good point

go to rense.com itll tell you all about bpolitics

www.rense.com

At 12/31/02 04:09 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: Constitutional democracy works far better than regular democracy. There are some things that are too important to be left to the majority (like the right to vote, should whites be able to vote away the rights of blacks?)

Direct democracy doesn't exlude provisions of self-preservation.

It's just that the important issues are difficult enough for intelligent people to debate, there's no chance that the average joe will be able to comprehend the philisophical backings of many ideas. Democracy's weakness is that it creates a rule of the stupid people.

Do you think the average person can name more than 2 major politcal parties (I'd be suprised if the average person can name 1 party). More importantly, do you think that the average person understands the basic ideas and philosophies behind each party.

Certain things must be beyond the decree of popular opinion; things like human rights and political freedoms.

I belive in the death penalty this is because prisons are way too crowded and people serving life is another dollor out of some tax payers account.

The death penalty is extremely uneconomical. The ethical requirments for it (near complete confidence in the persons guilt) are extremely expensive to acquire.

It's easier to let them rot in prison, or even better, mine for lead and/or uranium.

i think that if the politicians that are supposed to be doing what is best for the country they wouldnt be giving so many tax breaks to the wealthy and they would be trying to help the working poor...people who bust their fucking ass so that some rich guy can sit in his air conditioned office and fuck some slut seceretary....there is too much of a seperation between rich and poor in the world...you have people that can barely keep their families fed worked 3 jobs...and then you have people who play sports and have millions...enough to feed hundreds of families...and no one seems to have a problem with the way things are going.....oh well...who fucking cares

I think you are severley deluded as to how the world works. The only reason that there are jobs for these families to work for is because a bunch of bureaucrats make sure everything runs smoothly. Some manager may fuck his secretary, but that's not what he gets paid for, most of the time he is doing administrative tasks that are critical to the success of a company. I don't know if you've ever had a job, but if you have, try to think, how did all this come together. Did all of the supplies and equipment just magically pop up. Do they stay fixed through divine intervention. How do the deliveries of supplies show up at just the right time.

People don't get paid for fucking around. People get paid for doing good work. Governmment intervention always ends up screwing the working class anyway. I worked in fast food for several years. There is a law in my state that forces employers to pay 1.5 time after 40 hours. Instead of being bonuses in the pockets of the employees who work there, it just means that they can't work for more than 40 hours. Several people there worked at 3 different resturaunts of the same franchise because of this "beneficial" legislation.

I think the death penalty doesn't work. (Places that have it do not have a lower crime reate than places without it), and prisons systems aren't perfect either.
These criminals are supposed to be paying a debt to society, and they aren't doing it by sitting in a cell.
They should be out there mining, or building something, or doing work that benefits the rest of us and helps to pay for their free ride through the judicial system.

At 1/5/03 02:34 PM, Ted_Easton wrote:

These criminals are supposed to be paying a debt to society, and they aren't doing it by sitting in a cell.

exactly what debt are they repaying?