Comfort Women

[thebomb]

The point was not in the response to the snake biting you. The point was in the labelling of the snake. Do you judge a snake for its natural tendacies or in spite of them?

The snake can't choose to refrain from biting someone, it must follow its instincts.

A state however can choose to attack a weaker country or it can choose to cooperate. The difference comes down to the kind of world we want to live in: One in which the strong prey on the weak or the one in which the weak are protected by the strong. I believe the latter is superior to the former.

 

[cybrsage]

The snake can't choose to refrain from biting someone, it must follow its instincts.

Correct, which is why it is smart to judge it. Humans, though, they ARE able to override their desires and instincts. It is one of the things which makes up human.

 

[Dari]

Yes. If I see a Rattlesnake in my house I am going to judge him and act accordingly. I will make the judgement that he will attempt to poison me at some point so I will move to kill him now.

Some may instead make the move to have the snake safely removed from all human contact, forcing it to be away from civilization instead. Same basic result, judging based on the known tendancies of the snake.

I would do the same with a black widow spider. I would also act to ensure a convicted child molester stays away from children.

Right. So if you judge it for its natural tendancies then you should not be surprised by its actions or intentions.

The snake can't choose to refrain from biting someone, it must follow its instincts.

A state however can choose to attack a weaker country or it can choose to cooperate. The difference comes down to the kind of world we want to live in: One in which the strong prey on the weak or the one in which the weak are protected by the strong. I believe the latter is superior to the former.

The world we live in is upheld by the strong. Whatever morals the strong possesses is what has to be abided by. A world in which the weak are allowed to stay weak multiply is not a good one. They only bring down the rest of civilization. What benefit do you see in a begger or a thief or a chronic addict?

Correct, which is why it is smart to judge it. Humans, though, they ARE able to override their desires and instincts. It is one of the things which makes up human.

That is false. As with the animal world, it all has to do with a cost-benefit analysis. It's a judgement call that determines whether or not we pursue something now or later...

 

[thebomb]

The world we live in is upheld by the strong. Whatever morals the strong possesses is what has to be abided by.

It is true that the morals of the strong are "right" insofar as they can be enforced. However, it is possible for the strong to have an objectively wrong moral system.

A world in which the weak are allowed to stay weak multiply is not a good one. They only bring down the rest of civilization.

I don't see any reason to believe that your world is better off than mine. In fact, the world in which the weak are culled is worse than the one we live in or the one I advocate.

What benefit do you see in a begger or a thieve or a chronic addict?

This question has a meaningful answer only in a world that has more aggregate suffering than the current one.

 

[CitizenKain]

The world we live in is upheld by the strong. Whatever morals the strong possesses is what has to be abided by. A world in which the weak are allowed to stay weak multiply is not a good one. They only bring down the rest of civilization. What benefit do you see in a begger or a thief or a chronic addict?

Hahahahahahaahhaha. Little soldier deskjockey thinking he's one of the strong, oh man.