Jump to content

Outrider

Senior Members
  • Posts

    295
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Outrider

  1. 14 hours ago, Kurious12 said:

    Isn't giving the universe an age based on the limit of our technology the same thing as standing on a beach back in 1300 AD, looking out on the horizon and saying the earth is flat because that's all we can see?

    Others have done a good job addressing some of your misconceptions. You have a lot of reading to do if you really want to understand the mountain of evidence we have on the age of the universe. I suggest "pale blue dot" by Carl Sagan. It's a bit dated but still a great starting point to a wonderful journey should you take it.

     

    So whats the difference you asked. Well the person on the beach didn't go look. We (as a species) have. Billions have been spent and many very smart individuals have spent their whole lives investigating the age of the universe question. 

    The person on the beach could have found a way to travel in a straight line till they arrived back at the beach. Then would have known the earth isn't flat.

    Or they could have used some sticks and shadows like Eratosthenes did over 2,000 years ago.

     

    https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200606/history.cfm#:~:text=By around 500 B.C.%2C most,method of estimating its circumference.

  2. 1 hour ago, MigL said:

    My opinion ...
    Recreational sports should allow playing by males, females, trans, and whatever other gender classifications you wish to come up with.
    It has nothing to do with size or strength because until they reach puberty they are arguably equally strong ( and girls might actually be larger, on average ), but mostly with the fact that it is recreational.
    ( and I don't understand why your government would have legislation preventing this )

    Girls can play in the more competitive male leagues. Boys cannot play in the less competitive female leagues. That is the system in the USA. I don't see any need to change it. In 2018 we had 2,404 girls playing high scool football. 

    1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

    There, I can't really agree. I don't see parenting as gender-specific.

    Missed this earlier. This is the only thing in your post I disagree with. I won't go into it. To far off topic.

    1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

    All children need to be respected, encouraged, assisted and accepted - as well as disciplined, instructed and corrected.

    Agreed.

     

    1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

    misplaced post

    There, I can't really agree. I don't see parenting as gender-specific. All children need to be respected, encouraged, assisted and accepted - as well as disciplined, instructed and corrected. There are statistical differences in how boys and girls behave at a given age - but nobody's raising statistics; we're raising individuals - every child a singularity. Our daughter was headstrong, impulsive and temperamental. Our son was clever, subtle and manipulative. They needed quite different handling - because of their character, not their sex.

    Of course. But generally with boys the emphasis is in teaching them not to be a predator. In girls not to be prey. But if you get something else then you have to do something else.

  3. 18 minutes ago, CharonY said:

    Going through the thread I think the common theme is that we need to provide options. This might include opportunities to contact or non-contact sports and potentially (there might some disagreement here) less inhibition in terms of what kids choose to play. I think to a certain degree one can apply common sense without necessary planning for every possible contingency here

    Maybe big schools could have a less competitive league or something. My son's graduating was less than 80. In high school you really need 30 to 40 kids to be competitive in football. We struggled to keep 30 or more on the team. Not really seeing any options in that sport for small schools. I relate everything to football because my son dropped all other sports in junior high. Both the girl and the boy played many different sports in we elementary. She stayed in softball awhile but finally dropped everything but cheerleading when she entered high school. 

    7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

    If a pair of 15-year-olds want to be together, I'm sure could a better place to play show-and-tell than a public toilet. Besides, they have cubicles, with doors.

    One 15 year old creeping on another is not the same thing.

  4. 6 minutes ago, CharonY said:

    Especially on the recreational level participants together with coaches could figure out how "hard" they want to go into. From my experience at least it worked reasonably well.  For example, we had one boy who was developing much faster than the rest of us but was asked to hold back a bit when playing against girls (and I wished he had held back against me, too).

    I'm glad that was your experience. It wasn't mine at all. My boy started football at 5 years old. 60 kids on that team. Not what you want as a coach. 20 to 25 is ideal at that age. Ranging in age from 4 to 6. The first game maybe half of them played including my son was usually the biggest kid around. After the game I asked the coaches were they gonna play the other kids in the next game. I got blank stares and was asked did I not want to win. 25 years later there are still those who dislike me. The number of parents who did not care to win at any cost out numbered the ones that did and we were able to get all the kids significant playing time. So for 13 years I sat with parents who hated me and cheered on our team.

  5. 50 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    Kind of like making someone use the bathroom that corresponds to the sex listed on your birth certificate. 

    Ahh this whole other thread but with apologies to the op it needs answered. I wouldn't have wanted a 15 year old boy in the bathroom with my daughter when she was that age. I think the final answer to this is to make all restrooms gender neutral. 

  6. 7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    No. It is not just 'nurture'. 'Nature' is involved too. 

     

    You are using outdated stereotypes to make your point.

    Still doesn't address iNow's point of this thread being about Secondary school.

    Sorry Zapatos, iNow, board. I totally missed that this topic is restricted to secondary schools. High schools is a more popular term round these parts. I'll try to do better. 

    This makes things a lot more simple. Lets just keep the current system. If a girl desires to compete in the male league that is fine. Not so the other way around. If the quarterback prefers to go to the prom in a dress that is their prerogative. Swimming on the female team is not.

    Gender divisions were created for a reason and that reason has not changed. Taking some pills does not change your gender it just puts you on that path.

    And if you have an 18 year old who has successfully transitioned into a female. IMO you have over sexualized that child somewhere along the way. But sure let her swim with the gals.

     

    1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

    That's how boys have been expected to play. If you've had much to do with them, you know that children try to live up to adults' expectation of them. And I know this from experience: If a boy has been told all his life to "man up" "Stop being a wuss!" "You're such a loooooserrr!" etc, he will be more aggressive, whether it comes naturally to him or not. If a girl has been told all her life to smile, be polite, be pretty, nobody likes a tomboy, she will be less competitive.  If they've only ever been allowed to rough-house with other boys or play house with other girls, they won't learn how to play together. What has been the norm doesn't necessarily have to stay the norm forever.

    But surely there is some middle ground somewhere. I have two children. I raised the boy to be a man. He is. Yesterday I saw his newborn sleeping on his chest and him being as nurturing as any person could be. I cried like a girl I guess you could say. I felt no shame in it. I guess different fathers have different concepts of what being a man is. I raised the girl to be a lady and so she is. She lives alone and changes her flat tires, fixes her leaky toilet, etc. And then she goes to school and gently teaches 3 and 4 year olds.

    40 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    No. It is not just 'nurture'. 'Nature' is involved too.

    And I think the jury is still very much out on which holds more sway.

    I also think we agree that girls need different things from their dads then what boys need.

     

  7. 5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    Many Christian schools. This is from an older article but is still an example.

    These are private schools. Nothing I can do about that. If you want me to say it, fine. Generally females are allowed to compete in male leagues. If a female in a private school wishes to compete against males she does have the option of enrolling in a public school.

    My point stands.

  8. 17 hours ago, iNow said:

    So, what might be the best approach assuming inclusion of trans kids in sports is the desired outcome?

    IMO you really need to come up with a more specific example.

    In regards to what I posted earlier "at 21 years and older anything goes" I'd like to retract that. I was wrong. Reading some of Lia Thompson's story made me realize that.

    https://www.foxnews.com/sports/penn-swimmer-lia-thomas-olympics-trans-women-not-threat-womens-sports

    Quote

    Thomas, 23, addressed concerns that despite going through a year of hormone therapy, she still had a physical advantage over other female swimmers.

    So what? He took pills for a year and that made him a female? I think not. If Lia would like to be addressed as she then that should be respected. But I think the key word here is "transitioning". Until the transformation is complete Lia should compete in the male class.

    My opinion of course. 

    Also, of course, this is under the current system. I'm still chewing on the whole "let's dissolve gender classifications" thing. All of my emotions cry no, no, no. Which is why I should think on it some more.

    19 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

    You don't think a culture like that needs a reset?

    What made you think that? Yes we need to change many things. 

    24 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

    Anyway, I'm willing to put up with the unfair advantage of children whose parents are rich and ruthless enough to find a surgical facility corrupt enough to perform that procedure; I imagine those kids will go to private school where they're no threat to normal people, and the parents will die accidentally by own firearms.  

    Now thats the Peterkin I know and love.

  9. 3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

    Nobody's going to replace their child's normal feet with robotic ones, just to win at football. 

    Again sorry inow but this also needs addressed. How unusual for you Peterkin. Giving humanity to much credit. Every spring 12 and 13 year old boys are dressed up in garbage bags and made, by their fathers, to run and/or sit in vehicles on hot days with heater on full blast. This is to cheat the weight limit rule. To give their boy another year in less competitive football league. 

    Trust me theres a few fathers out there willing to mutilate their kids in order to bring them athletic success. Prob a mom or two as well.

    14 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    I'll assume you meant that "generally", because it is certainly not true in "any and all leagues".

    I'll bite. Which league are they excluded by regulation from?

    Maybe you can find me an example we will see. But my main thrust was to clear up Clint Eastwood's misconception about American football. 

    A collegiate basketball coach may not give a lady the "look" she deserves but that's her/his/their prejudice not regulation. 

    Back to topic. 

    What do you think of my proposal?

    14 hours ago, zapatos said:

    In grammar school, trans girls should compete with cis girls, and trans boys should compete with cis boys. While I suppose there will be exceptions, this should be the general rule.

    In secondary school this general rule will continue except at the varsity level. Varsity level is where winning or losing could potentially have a significant impact on a person's life, such as being drafted in some sports, winning scholarships, etc. 

    At the varsity level there should be additional rules such as handicapping, rules regarding level of transition attained, particular sports it applies to, etc. I am purposely not adding detail here because it is not my area of expertise and therefore would not be meaningful.

    The two general guidelines I am following are:

    1. Transgendered students must have reasonable opportunities just as cisgendered students do.

    2. Not everyone gets to do everything. Just like Title IX doesn't guarantee women will have the exact same sporting opportunities the men have, it does ensure a reasonable amount/type of opportunities.

    I am no expert and this is likely not my final thoughts on the matter. It does however seem like a reasonable possibility and a reasonable place to start.

    Since I asked you to weigh my proposal I thought it only fair I took a closer look at yours.

    I find I'm in total agreement with what you had to say. Bravo!

    I can only add what I have already stated. If you are that one in ever how many girls that can compete with boys and you have that desire well then have at it. I think the current system in the USA accommodates this.

  10. 13 hours ago, MigL said:

    Why not pressure your government , federal or state level, that it has no business legislating kid's recreational activities ?
    Doesn't your Government have better things to do ? Like legislating abortion rights, and gun laws ?
    In Canada girls can play hockey with boys, if they can make the cut. And many do.
    Girls are even allowed to join the boy scouts.

    Why must the US always do things the hard way ?

    Long time lurker here and as some of you know I pop up from time to time. So sorry inow. I know this isn't the topic but this misconception needs to be addressed. Girls are allowed to play American football in any and all leagues. Straight up to and including NFL. 

    https://www.wunc.org/sports/2021-10-21/chapel-hill-brooklyn-harker-more-girls-playing-tackle-football-tigers-marsh

    Quote

    In 2018, 2,404 girls played high school tackle football, compared to just about 500 girls playing in 2008, according a study by the National Football League. That’s a fivefold increase in the number of girls playing football in the last decade. From 2008 to 2018, 47 of 50 states saw an increase in the percentage of girls who play full-contact high school football, according to the NFL’s study.

    My son started at age 5. There were 10 girls on the sixty person squad. The last female dropped out in junior high. She may have felt some societal pressure but she was not excluded by any regulation. 

    ASFASIK ladies are allowed to play in mens leagues period. And, for me, as it should be. But the reverse is not true. Again I think thats fair.

     

    Back to topic. Here is my simple solution. Up to the age of 21 you play as the sex you were born with under the current system. Girls can play in male leagues but not visa versa. After that anything goes. 

    Be a mess for Olympic committee I guess but they will sort it out. 21 and under games and over 21 games maybe.

    We can quibble over the age I guess. Any cut off will of course be arbitrary. It's a messy world. We just do the best we can.

  11. This is a simulation not an animation. In my opinion it is awesome. 

     

    Before scientists had to chose between long, large scale simulations with little detail or short, fine detail simulations.  But with the  Hazel Hen supercomputer in Stuttgart, with16,000 cores running for over a year. A simulation of a cube of space measuring more than 230 million light-years in diameter and has 20 billion particles representing dark matter, stars, cosmic gas, magnetic fields, and supermassive black holes has been generated. The team was led by  Dr. Annalisa Pillepich of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, and Dr. Dylan Nelson of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics. 

    Two papers have been published and I will link those at the end.

    I read about this here.

     https://www.universetoday.com/143977/watch-a-simulation-of-a-galaxy-from-the-big-bang-until-the-present-day/

     

    The papers are on the monthly notices of the Royal Astronomy Society and are linked below.

    https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/490/3/3234/5556547

    And.

     

    https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/490/3/3196/5566345 

    Enjoy!

    I have only watched on my phone but am looking forward to watching on tv in just a bit.

    P.S.

    I hate that I never get on here to post anymore but I do read very interesting content almost daily.

    Keep up the good work!

  12. 59 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    Again, you can infer that she did that, and maybe it is true, but it was not clearly stated. She said "I was educated about tropes, I don't want to offend anyone, I am sorry". A perfect example of how to apologize  without actually admitting guilt.

     

    1 hour ago, zapatos said:

    It looked to me like she apologized because she was pressured to do so. Saying she was taught about anti-Semitic tropes could have been a way to make her apology more palatable to others. 

    The fact that she ended her apology with a reiteration of her concern but in softer tones makes me think she is sorry about nothing but getting called out.

    To me the apology seemed 'well crafted' more than a sincere belief she did something wrong.

    I agree with all that.

    1 hour ago, zapatos said:

    I agree that she knew what she was doing. I think the difference in our opinions is that you feel she was slurring Jews, and I feel she was probably just criticizing both the use of money by this group to influence politicians, and politicians who are influenced by money

    I have been misunderstanding you quite a bit. Sorry about that.

    I think she used a slur to criticize policy and did it on purpose. 

    AIPAC is a political action committee (PAC) which basically means they legally bribe politicians to vote in their interest. I am very much against PAC's on principle. In particular AIPAC is a bad one because the money comes from Israel. So we have other countrys bribing our politicians to influence our foreign policy with them. Ain't  America great. 

    So Omar has every right to criticize them. But Omar wasn't criticizing PAC's in general or even PAC's funded with foreign money. She was criticizing a Jewish sympathetic PAC and using an anti-Semitic trope to do it.

    1 hour ago, zapatos said:

    But as I said before, I may be wrong about her words, as subtle attacks on Jews is not as clear to me as subtle attacks on some other groups.

    I think the hatred on the Muslim side comes from them both regarding Jerusalem as holy land. And fighting over it.

    On the Christian side is quite a bit more complicated.  Short version is Shakespeare wrote "neither a borrower nor a lender be" in one of his plays and somehow that got attributed to the Bible. So many Jews ended controlling the banks. I think there are still parts of the world where Christians think it is sin to lend money.

    Why so many American Christians hate them I have no idea but I grew up in the middle of KKK country and both them and the skinheads do hate Jews.

    But then again they hate pretty much everybody. 

  13. The question can war be moral is philosophical. But the question should it be avoided if it is all possible is a practical one and the more important of the two. And on that we all agree. So here is a very hopeful 6 minute Kurzgesagt (german for "in a nutshell") video about how war may becoming (mostly) a thing of the past.

     

    5 minutes ago, beecee said:

    Exactly!! No one knows the answer, particularly in the circumstance someone used re children being marched in front of advancing troops. How could any reasonable decent Soldier handle that! I can thank my lucky stars that I was born at the end of WW2, obviously too young for the Korean war, just missed out on conscription for the Vietnam war, and was too old for any participation in the Iraqy war. Truthfully, I don't know how I would act with bombs and bullets flying around me...I hope responsibly and if necessarilly, heroically, but I just don't know. 

    Yeah I was lucky that way myself. I fell between Nam and Iraq. My grandaddy was on Omaha Beach on D-Day and somehow survived. Two uncles I never knew died in Vietnam while my dad served as a conscientious objector. I served during peacetime and my son son took part in the so called war on terror as an MP moving prisoners around.

    I would go, beecee if I felt my country needed me but how I would react I don't know. I don't think anybody that hasn't been does.

    27 minutes ago, beecee said:

    Two points, most all wars are immoral and wrong, and with regards to WW2 the Allies really had no alternative with Hitler, Mussolini and Japan, other then to do what they did. The only question I would raise is the dropping of the Atomic bombs...just questioning though.

    I think us participating in WII was a good moral decision but dropping the bomb on Nagasaki was a horrible immoral decision. But in between that is the first bomb dropped on Hiroshima. I have struggled with that my whole life and I just don't have an answer for it. I am heavily emotionally invested in the answer to that question.  Grandaddy was on a commandeered German luxury liner headed for Japan when they dropped it. I would have possibly never met him had they not dropped it.

    29 minutes ago, beecee said:

    The worrying thing for me is how close the Allies [Europe and the British Empire] came to losing the war....if the Brits had not invented radar, if Hitler had not invaded the USSR, if Japan had not bombed Pearl Harbour, if Hitler or Japan had of perfected the bomb first, if the Japanese had not been stopped on the Kokoda trail...the list goes on and on. 

    Yes it does indeed. Read up on the Navajo code talkers if you haven't heard of them.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_talker

  14. 5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    Why else would she bring what up? The apology?

    Why else would she bring up the fact that what she said is a fairly well known anti-Semitic trope? I would think if she really had not known she would have just apologized for offending people.

     

    53 minutes ago, Outrider said:

    painful history of anti-Semitic tropes,"

    That is the part of her quote I'm referring to. To me she acknowledges she used one.

    15 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    I don't see it, but that may be my lack of exposure. I have in the past been rather ignorant about what women and minorities have to put up with.

    It looked to me like she was saying people are unduly influenced by money. If she'd said it about people taking gun money or oil money I don't think anyone would have batted an eye. But because it is related to Israel a lot of people immediately took issue.

    I attribute "all about the benjamins" to her age.

    But similarly to my position on the 'stupid woman' thread, I feel it is a good idea to avoid certain language if you know people might be offended by it.

    You are one of the most moderate posters on this forum and I respect your opinion. 

    But we have:

    She has used blatantly anti-Semitic rhetoric in the past.

    She used a word for word anti-Semitic trope in this case.

    Leaders of the Jewish community met with her just last year about this very kind of thing.

    This leads me to believe she knew what she was doing when she did.

  15. 1 hour ago, Nod2003 said:

    So how is this wall/fence/barrier more or less immoral then any other wall/fence/barrier?

    Yeah pretty much what Charon said plus our funds are finite and Trump's pet project takes away from other worthy pursuits. 

    A wall is an inanimate object and as such can be neither moral or immoral. 

    OTOH China built one 2000 years ago and they have absolutely no problem with immigrants from Mexico. No, no thats a joke please don't take that seriously. 

  16. 12 minutes ago, CharonY said:

    I am not pretending that I actually know the answer to this question and in many cases I think that the outcome is better. However that would be in the end an utilitarian way to sort out morals. Certainly not wrong but also not trivially correct. As I mentioned, there are several frameworks out there (most of which I am not familiar with) to even start analyzing the morality of wars. I do have found a review on some of the discussions on just wars: Lazar, Annual Review of Political Science 20:27-54 2017, which is a nice compact read.

    Thanks Charon!

    I hope I am not coming across as thinking I know all the answers either because I certainly don't.

    I am interested in this in an intellectual way. But it is also an emotional issue for me because I know that most of the men and women doing the fighting would rather be doing anything else in the world. I hope I have mostly kept the emotion out of my replies and apologize if I haven't. 

  17. 6 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    I guess I don't understand English as well as I thought I did because I still fail to see how that statement is an acknowledgement that her controversial statement was an anti-semitic trope.

    Maybe it's me but why else would she bring it up?

    8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    Yes, we can agree that she made anti-Semitic comments in the past.

    Can we accept that as evidence that "it's all about the benjamins" was referencing an anti-Semitic trope?

    I say yes we can.

    Keep in mind the exact words are used by some in describing Jews. As in "they are all about the benjamins". 

  18. On 1/14/2019 at 1:36 PM, John Cuthber said:

    It would be really nice to be able to say something like

    "I think the question is meaningless.

    The medical schools and army recruitment offices don't measure IQ (or, at least, I hope they don't) because it's not a measure of anything these employers are interested in.

    IQ only measures how well you do in IQ tests.

    No war was ever won, nor any patient cured by some soldier or doctor doing an IQ test."
    But...

    They do have a proxy measure for IQ, and they have  limits based on it.

    https://www.quora.com/Does-the-U-S-military-have-a-minimum-IQ-requirement-for-entry

    But, even that doesn't actually exclude any individual from joining- regardless of IQ

     

    Well I served as a tele-type repairman and I took no such tests as mentioned on your quora link. I'll have to have something better than quora before I accept my memory is that bad.

    This was in 1986. I remember physical tests, physical examinations and a physc test. Also you had to tell the doctor what kinds and how much of certain drugs you had ingested in the past. 

    Boy was he surprised. 

  19. 6 minutes ago, beecee said:

    When the Vietnam war concluded, and Australian troops came home, they were treated like lepers, so great was the anti war attitude in this country. Thank Christ though, that since those times, that treatment of Vietnam Veterans has disappeared, and on Anzac Day [held on 25th April every year in our country, actually to commemorate our greatest defeat in WW1 at Gallipolli ] they march proudly with what is left of their units and are applauded like any return servicemen.

    I did know that Australia participated but I did not know that your returning soldiers got the same treatment ours did.

  20. 9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    Sorry if I'm being dense, but can you please quote the part of her statement that indicated her own statement was an anti-semitic trope?

     

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem-rep-omar-apologizes-for-israel-comments-calls-out-problematic-role-of-aipac-other-lobbyists

    Quote

    "Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes," Omar wrote in a statement posted to Twitter. "

    Thing is she was educated last year.

  21. 7 minutes ago, CharonY said:

    I am not referring to war crimes. In the "just war" framework of morality there are two elements: jus ad bellum (i.e. the right to engage in war) and "jus in bello" (i.e. the conduct in war). If both are followed, it can be considered a just war. This explicitly includes killing of opposition fighters (which, on the individual moral level would not justified) but implicitly also collateral deaths in civilians. Some argue that this makes the jus in bello a rather murky proposal.

    I just don't see the alternative. I agree that some situations can be murky even for impartial observers. But in the Korean War situation I gave it seems pretty plain to me. Your choices are kill innocent children or give ground and power to those who have no problem killing innocents or otherwise using them in any way that pops into their head. Which is the moral choice?

     

    Is the world a better place with a divided Korea or would it be better if Kim had control over more people?

    15 minutes ago, CharonY said:

    I can dig out some literature, though my philosophy reading days are long over and I am not sure which books would be the right sources. The peace movement did indeed chip on the "just war" paradigm, but it has remained remarkably intact (and of course, quite a few vets joined the antiwar movement). It has been for example been used to justify the Iraq war(s).

    I can research it myself. I just thought you might have some online sources on hand.

    What is the alternative to the "just war" paradigm?

    Veterans did join the antiwar movement but I seriously doubt they ever questioned the morality of those doing the fighting except in the case of war crimes.

    22 minutes ago, CharonY said:

    My fear is that it would rather depend on where you are when a conflict escalates

    Many times this is true but not always.

    When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor what choice did the U.S. have?

    12 minutes ago, beecee said:

    I totally agree...I mean the world is full of ratbags, and the apologists for ratbags, and if one just happens to become a leader and proceed with  immoral and unjust actions, something needs to be done, once negotiations and agreements fail.

    Agree. Wholeheartedly. 

    12 minutes ago, beecee said:

    When all options have been implemented and the belligerence continues [as per Hitler in WW2] then yes, certainly humanity needs to act. Standing by, doing nothing and letting some ratbag bully such as Hitler have his way, is immoral. 

    Agree.

    13 minutes ago, beecee said:

    Wars that are morally unjust, will in general, have a barrier of some opposition. The Vietnam war as an example and Australia's participation in it was unjust and many moritorium marches took place in my country, of which I participated in one. 

    I mostly agree but I do think our leaders had good intentions when we first got involved in Vietnam. But decisions were made, for political reasons, knowing more human suffering would result. 

     

  22. On 2/3/2019 at 5:30 PM, CharonY said:

    1)The removing the morality of individual actions part is based on the framework used to establish the "just war" argument. A war is considered an act between nations, and that is were the just war argument shifts the morality. A person killing another person on the individual level is generally judged by factors such as motivation. E.g. killing in self-defence. However, even then killing is considered an extreme action.

    2)In a war, however, it becomes an accepted element. I.e. soldiers do not kill to defend themselves per se, but they are following orders. In the just war doctrine, the soldier is therefore blameless, and the war as a whole is judged based on two main aspects that I mentioned before. A) the justification of the war and B) following conduct of war. However, there are (as usual) quite a few problems with this framework for morality.  A fundamental one is the issue that this framework eliminates the morality of individual actions (as mentioned). Other issues exist when dealing with situations outside of two accepted nations. On top of that is the quasi legal framework that governs the right to go to war as well as conduct. The US, for example is not part of the international criminal court and as such undermines the very same framework that would ensure that point B would be followed within a just war doctrine. 

    3)As in the example I mentioned earlier, there is often also no objective measure to determine justification unless some legal system is applied. However even that is problematic as the case in disputed areas, for example. Some views are therefore shifting away from the just war framework and are looking into alternative moral theories, including shifting to individual actions again. But as a whole, it is quite a conundrum and I am sure one can spend year (as some have done) to explore this issue.

    4)Either way, it is a deeply worrying system in which individual actions are freed from moral constraints and collateral damage is an expected outcome. I do find it dangerous to think oneself in a position of moral superiority while engaging these actions, as it makes the loss of human life trivial. In my mind, war even engaged out of necessity or considered just should be conducted with extreme regret.

    Sorry for the very late reply to a well thought out post.

    1) Thanks for clarifying and I do agree.

    2) First soldiers are not authorized to do just anything they feel justified in doing. Although prosecutions are few and far between there have been some cases where charges have been leveled against rank and file soldiers. 

    Second you seem to be suggesting that soldiers commit acts of terror and violence against civilians because they feel they are fighting a moral war. I have always thought they do these things because they are put in a hellish situation. The North Koreans marched children in front of their assaults to force the Americans to shoot them first. You go through that a few times and all kinds of lines can get really blurry. I think this also explains the paucity of convictions for soldiers obviously guilty of war crimes. It is simply not fair what we ask them to do. But there are situations were I see no alternative. 

    Do you know of any studies done of why soldiers commit war crimes.

    3) Can you point me to any literature on this? I agree it is quite a conundrum. 

    But didn't we try this with Vietnam already? Didn't we tell them how gulity they were when they returned home? Remember that most of these men were drafted. They got to choose between baby killer or deserter of ones country.

    No really not fair at all.

    4) I agree with all this and in particular your last sentence.

    It is dangerous ground for a soldier to think he has the moral high ground and thats not the way I was trained. I was taught to leave the morality up to others. I was simply there to do a job. 

    The very best soldiers do the job with extreme regret confident that those who's job it is to decide these things were sure there was no alternative. This describes the vast majority of our fighting men and women of today.

    You will never see these on the front page of your newspaper. That is reserved for those who crack or are using the situation to engage in dark desires they already had.

    I agree the only way a war could be considered moral is if it was conducted out of absolute necessity.  I think it does happen that way some times. I think we both know it when we see it.

    On 2/8/2019 at 2:41 PM, beecee said:

    But situations do exist when one has no choice in the matter, and any moral concern need to be put in incubation for a period.

    I respect your opinion beecee but I just can't agree with this. I don't see morality as something that can be put on hold.

    When you get to the point of where violence is the only means of protecting yourself or others then violence becomes moral. IMO

     

  23. 3 hours ago, iNow said:

    The challenge, of course, is that you have no way of validating what was in her heart.

    True that. But there is some back history to suggest that "It's all about the benjamins" was meant to be anti-Semitic. 

    2 hours ago, zapatos said:

    However, I still see nothing that was anti-semitic, and I'm unsure in what other way she could have made that same criticism of US lawmakers.

    Zap she has made blatantly anti-Semitic comments in the past. So much so that Jewish leaders met with her before she took office in hopes of educating her.

    I hope you will read the article below.

    https://www-twincities-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.twincities.com/2019/02/12/mn-jewish-leaders-talked-with-ilhan-omar-about-anti-semitism-last-year-why-they-remain-frustrated/amp/?usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D&amp_js_v=0.1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.twincities.com%2F2019%2F02%2F12%2Fmn-jewish-leaders-talked-with-ilhan-omar-about-anti-semitism-last-year-why-they-remain-frustrated%2F

    Quote

    Among their concerns was a 2012 tweet in which Omar wrote: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.” The language evokes an anti-Semitic trope of Jews as practicers of some type of sorcery that allows them to control others. 

    Quote

    Last year, state Sen. Ron Latz, a St. Louis Park Democrat who has served in the Legislature since 2002, invited Omar to his house, where a number of Jewish leaders had gathered. It wasn’t an ambush; Omar knew that group was there, and their purpose was to enlighten her.

    Back to Ten oz original question "should she be punished"?  I agree with J. C.

    Not legally but yes politically. It has been explained to her why these types of comments are hurtful for some people but she continues to make them. Good for her to apologize but she should still pay a price.

  24. 1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

    From Stephen Colbert to Bill Maher audiences on the left make the mistake of confusing entertainers with actual political commentators (my opinion).

    That was my original point so we agree it seems on that at least.

    But it's not only on the left. From Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to SNL I think many Americans get their political commentary from the worst places.

    I know RL and GB are not comedians but to me they act more like comics than pundits. 

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.