John Oliver on Donald Trump

Valette-Serafina · Mar 26, 2016

Vanathor said:
Rome was brought down ~800 years later from internal issues, not externalties. So yeah, it kind of did.

No. Don't twist subjects.

Unfortunate, but necessary. Ghengis Khan taught the Middle East a very effective lesson, and its time to give them a reminder.

You said something about rabid dogs who destroy civilisation, and then you take lessons from one.

If the rest of the world is willing to end the world to try, I guess. Fortunately the US has more nukes then every other power on earth (sans russia) combined.

You're scum. You're rather see the world end than see it embrace ideals you don't share.
Something you and ISIS have in common, according to you.

International law isn't worth jackshit if you don't have the power to enforce it.

And you discard any moral high ground you ever had. Don't shit talk terrorists if you're happy to be one.

Nor is it the defining trait of civilization.

You're not civilised, rabid dog. Your words don't have weight.

Vanathor · Mar 26, 2016

Valette-Serafina said:
No. Don't twist subjects.

You're the one brought up the tangent, not me - and was incorrect about it to boot.

Valette-Serafina said:
You said something about rabid dogs who destroy civilization, and then you take lessons from one.

The Middle East isn't civilized. Its a bunch of tribal shit holes that really don't have any defining virtues for existing, outside of basically Jordan, Iran, and Morocco. The world is better off without them.

Valette-Serafina said:
You're scum. You're rather see the world end than see it embrace ideals you don't share.
Something you and ISIS have in common, according to you.

No, I am pointing out that by virtue of the world wanting to live, they wouldn't dare try. Daesh wants to end the world. My America is just willing to fire back if the rest of the world gets too big for its britches.

Valette-Serafina said:
And you discard any moral high ground you ever had. Don't shit talk terrorists if you're happy to be one.

It's not a matter of "moral high ground" or "ethics" as I have said at length. It's about putting down threats. Never mind that by definition a standing army of a recognized sovereign government cannot be a terrorist - terrorists are by definition non-state actors.

Valette-Serafina said:
You're not civilized, rabid dog. Your words don't have weight.

I'm sorry if you cannot into English.

Valette-Serafina · Mar 26, 2016

Vanathor said:
You're the one brought up the tangent, not me - and was incorrect about it to boot.

Learn to read.

The Middle East isn't civilized. Its a bunch of tribal shit holes that really don't have any defining virtues for existing, outside of basically Jordan, Iran, and Morocco. The world is better off without them.

Learn basic human empathy.

No, I am pointing out that by virtue of the world wanting to live, they wouldn't dare try. Daesh wants to end the world. My America is just willing to fire back if the rest of the world gets too big for its britches.

Learn basic human empathy, you genocidal maniac.

It's not a matter of "moral high ground" or "ethics" as I have said at length. It's about putting down threats. Never mind that by definition a standing army of a recognized sovereign government cannot be a terrorist - terrorists are by definition non-state actors.

No, it's not about putting down threats. It's about you being willing to murder people who've never done anything wrong because they're related to a maybe threat. You're not satisfied with putting a bullet in your actual target, so you're happy to murder their children, their siblings, their parents.

You're a monster pretending to be a person, and an enemy of every American ideal.

I'm sorry if you cannot into English.

I speak English better than you.

Vanathor · Mar 26, 2016

Valette-Serafina said:
Learn basic human empathy.

I have empathy - for people. Even shitty, terrible people. Daesh and the individuals that support them, aren't.

Valette-Serafina said:
You're a monster pretending to be a person, and an enemy of every American ideal.

About half the country supports my positions - and I have a Presidential Candidate to be with a shot at the whitehouse likewise

Valette-Serafina said:
I speak English better than you.

Given you use made up words like 'Ze' and 'Zeir' to refer to yourself, I somehow doubt that.

Valette-Serafina · Mar 26, 2016

Vanathor said:
I have empathy - for people. Even shitty, terrible people. Daesh and the individuals that support them, aren't.

They're people, monster. You're not.

About half the country supports my positions - and I have a Presidential Candidate to be with a shot at the whitehouse likewise

If Trump is elected and he destroys your nation, all the suffering of the many people who don't deserve it will outweigh the justice that is your suffering as everything you take pride in turns to ash. The man's got a long list of companies he's driven into the ground after being allowed to do more than slap his name on them.

Given you use made up words like 'Ze' and 'Zeir' to refer to yourself, I somehow doubt that.

You really don't have a clue about the way English works.

kinglugia · Mar 26, 2016

Why the hell is this place so edgy here.

CrossyCross · Mar 27, 2016

I'm kinda with Vanathor here. The Middle East is full of shitheads who horrible shitty things and are actively joining armies that perpetrate war crimes.

Why the fuck I care a whit about them? And not cheer if America declares "we are going to kill the bastards!"?

I...I just don't understand why this is even an argument. This feels like not calling out the nazis on their bullshit.

Megaolix · Mar 27, 2016

Guys, guys. This is not the Rant area, remember. Civility is required.

Lykaia · Mar 27, 2016

CrossyCross said:
I'm kinda with Vanathor here. The Middle East is full of shitheads who horrible shitty things and are actively joining armies that perpetrate war crimes.

Why the fuck I care a whit about them? And not cheer if America declares "we are going to kill the bastards!"?

I...I just don't understand why this is even an argument. This feels like not calling out the nazis on their bullshit.

Same, sure it'd be regrettable but it's not like this hasn't been done before and I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. It'd be like the firebombings done to Japan in WW2 to destroy their capability to wage war where they targeted not only the aircraft facilities but the urban areas as well.

mizzet · Mar 27, 2016

I'm just here to say that I agree with Valette-Serafina.

Ohdat · Mar 27, 2016

Malkavian said:
Same, sure it'd be regrettable but it's not like this hasn't been done before and I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. It'd be like the firebombings done to Japan in WW2 to destroy their capability to wage war where they targeted not only the aircraft facilities but the urban areas as well.

Unfortunately, we're not fighting a state actor. There are no useful factories to bomb, there are no trade lanes to blockade that hurt the fighting portion of the populace enough to get them to stop, there is no will, and after 15 years of war not enough treasure to occupy and remake the Middle East like we did Japan.

We're fighting an idea, America is evil. America wants to kill your children. America wants to take your God. You can't shoot an idea. Shooting at this idea only makes it stronger. This is literally the situation where turning the other cheek and offering your hand is the right answer, as they'll only stop when their families are our friend or when they're all dead.

Trying to apply a 18-19th century solution to a 21st century problem may seem like the easy answer but the rest of the world won't agree.

TehChron · Mar 27, 2016

this will sound truly horrible of me to say

but if turning the other cheeks costs me the lives of my countrymen in the hopes that they'll eventually wise up and learn that they're deluded then I'm afraid i'd say the cost of that approach is too high

because if there's one thing people hate above all else, it's admitting that they're wrong.

any idea of an eventual peace that relies on such a miracle occurring en masse is simply horribly unrealistic

Reinhard Von Lohengramm · Mar 27, 2016

Wootius said:
when they're all dead.

So, what are your opinions on the principle that "aggressors and their civilians are entitled to nothing but death"?

When the Nazis invaded Russia and were pushed back, as the Red Army marched onto Berlin, horrible, terrible deeds were committed on the German civilian population, but they are of little moral value to this day, because in the eyes of many (not myself, I am merely quoting), the Germans, as enablers, had it coming. That and an intense process of denazification imbibed collective shame and guilt on the German population and Germany has never started a world war to this date again.

Similarly here, in public perception (again, not my perception), it was Muslim terrorists that started their imagined "clash of civilizations" on 9/11.

"They started it." It cannot be denied that this phrase resonates in the hearts of so many bitter, vengeful and angry people.

Applying the same principle on the side of "The West", absolving themselves of moral responsibility, escalating the war on terror doesn't seem very significant.

If this principle is extended to the war on terror, basically "you-started-it-so-I-have-the-right-to-kill-you-and-all-your-friends-and-family", would it be so horrible that it would be necessary to condemn it as evil?

I am truly morbidly interested of a scenario where more terrorist attacks happen, of greater and harsher scale, causing greater and harsher bitterness, driving the voting populace to extremism and imagined righteous indignation.

I'm not taking a political position here. I just wonder what the world would look like if it escalated into a Gundam Seed-style war of intense mutual hatred where accusations of "you started it" are thrown at each other in order to justify a long list of horrible acts.

Now imagine if a terrorist attack tens of times worse than 9/11 occurred, around the mark of 10000 casualties. Would a nuclear response, "nuclear retribution", be plausible?

Van Ropen · Mar 27, 2016

CrossyCross said:
I'm kinda with Vanathor here. The Middle East is full of shitheads who horrible shitty things and are actively joining armies that perpetrate war crimes.

Why the fuck I care a whit about them? And not cheer if America declares "we are going to kill the bastards!"?

I...I just don't understand why this is even an argument. This feels like not calling out the nazis on their bullshit.

Hmm.

"Kill people who commit war crimes, but don't commit war crimes to kill people who commit war crimes" feels like not calling out the nazis on their bullshit?

TehChron · Mar 27, 2016

Van Ropen said:
Hmm.

"Kill people who commit war crimes, but don't commit war crimes to kill people who commit war crimes" feels like not calling out the nazis on their bullshit?

That depends on whether or not you care about having the moral high ground more than you care about solving the problem

A government's responsibility lies with it's citizens, not their enemies.

Van Ropen · Mar 27, 2016

TehChron said:
That depends on whether or not you care about having the moral high ground more than you care about solving the problem

A government's responsibility lies with it's citizens, not their enemies.

You're entitled to that opinion - that mass murder is the most effective method of solving the problem, that morals are irrelevant, and that that the millions of lost lives mean comparatively little in the face of our lives.

You don't get to compare it to "not calling out the nazis on their bullshit" as CrossyCross just did.

TehChron · Mar 27, 2016

Van Ropen said:
You're entitled to that opinion - that mass murder is the most effective method of solving the problem, that morals are irrelevant, and that that the millions of lost lives mean comparatively little in the face of our lives.

You don't get to compare it to "not calling out the nazis on their bullshit" as CrossyCross just did.

I never did.

But do keep in mind that the Nazis were only brought to account after the largest full scale war in world history.

When one side decides to use violence and death as their modus operandi, hand wringing over escalation is rather presumptuous, don't you think?

pepperjack · Mar 27, 2016

TehChron said:
I never did.

Not directly, but in response to the question, you did say "it depends on whether you care about" a factor that you proceeded to imply you didn't care about.

Van Ropen · Mar 27, 2016

TehChron said:
I never did.

You responded to my response to Crossy, which was quite specifically about that. So...

If we are speaking more generally, however:

But do keep in mind that the Nazis were only brought to account after the largest full scale war in world history.

When one side decides to use violence and death as their modus operandi, hand wringing over escalation is rather presumptuous, don't you think?

This isn't even about the proposal of the largest full scale war in world history. It's about proposing genocide. I think hand wringing over genocide is always appropriate.

TehChron · Mar 27, 2016

pepperjack said:
Not directly, but in response to the question, you did say "it depends on whether you care about" a factor that you proceeded to imply you didn't care about.

In response to:

Van Ropen said:
You don't get to compare it to "not calling out the nazis on their bullshit" as CrossyCross just did

Please don't put words in my mouth, lord knows I dont need the assistance to take ownership of opinions some people find distasteful

TehChron · Mar 27, 2016

Van Ropen said:
You responded to my response to Crossy, which was quite specifically about that. So...

If we are speaking more generally, however:

This isn't even about the proposal of the largest full scale war in world history. It's about proposing genocide. I think hand wringing over genocide is always appropriate.

And that's fine.

But when you make warfare a cultural thing and the cause of blood feuds, then whether or not it's genocide is openly debatable.

Because then the hammerblow doesn't fall based on ethnic or political lines, but based purely on the demographic lines of "These people are the families of those who would gleefully slaughter innocents and aided and abetted those monsters every step of the way"

So while their innocence is questionable let's not confuse the matter for the mass witch hunts which truly despotic regimes employed against the innocent for the sake of fearfully consolidating power. Such an approach to end acts of terrorism against innocent civilians fought on cultural grounds isn't really equitable to Stalin's Purges, Hitler's Camps, The Moulin Rouge, Imperial Japan's atrocities, or your average Tuesday over in war-torn parts of Africa.

To compare such a hypothetical as being even remotely equal in scale to those crimes against humanity cheapens the word "genocide".

So please.

Lay off the buzzwords.

skaro · Mar 27, 2016

I see ISIS as old time tribe war here,they have code to conduct pillage and spoil of wealth &slave.

Form faith and indoctrinatiob perspective,Old time Mongol horde kill every male who taller than sword after win war against other tribe.

I just think we look at war form different perspective form ISIS. The question is how modern rule of war can apply to tribal warfare rule of war.

Modern state has function of government and kind of has many religion in country,religion is one thing among many,but for ISIS religious is everything and see themselves as traditionalism.

That mean everything we consider war crime by modern standard is approve by the code.

The problem is how modern state deal with tribal culture?.

Vanathor · Mar 27, 2016

skaro said:
The problem is how modern state deal with tribal culture?.

By killing everyone who subscribes to their culture.

TehChron · Mar 27, 2016

skaro said:
I see ISIS as old time tribe war here,they have code to conduct pillage and spoil of wealth &slave.

Form faith and indoctrinatiob perspective,Old time Mongol horde kill every male who taller than sword after win war against other tribe.

I just think we look at war form different perspective form ISIS. The question is how modern rule of war can apply to tribal warfare rule of war.

Modern state has function of government and kind of has many religion in country,religion is one thing among many,but for ISIS religious is everything and see themselves as traditionalism.

That mean everything we consider war crime by modern standard is approve by the code.

The problem is how modern state deal with tribal culture?.

Same way the imperialists did

Drag it into the modern age kicking and screaming. Now before anyone complains about the whole civil wars in africa thing, keep in mind that that's the result of Imperialists backing out and letting them settle it amongst themselves.

South Africa seems to be doing quite alright. As amazing as Nelson Mandela and Ghandi were during their lives, the rise of people who fill that role is an inevitable part of Imperialism as well, and inevitably far more peaceful so long as it's allowed to occur naturally.

TehChron · Mar 27, 2016

Vanathor said:
By killing everyone who subscribes to their culture.

that's stupid

it's also thought crime.

which makes it doubleplusmoronic

Van Ropen · Mar 27, 2016

TehChron said:
In response to:

Please don't put words in my mouth, lord knows I dont need the assistance to take ownership of opinions some people find distasteful

Would you prefer I edited to "One doesn't get to compare it..." ?

TehChron said:
And that's fine.

But when you make warfare a cultural thing and the cause of blood feuds, then whether or not it's genocide is openly debatable.

No, it isn't. By definition

Because then the hammerblow doesn't fall based on ethnic or political lines, but based purely on the demographic lines of "These people are the families of those who would gleefully slaughter innocents and aided and abetted those monsters every step of the way"

No, it does not. It falls on those you refer to as having questionable innocence and the innocent, before we talk about how questionable the innocence of the first group is.

So while their innocence is questionable let's not confuse the matter for the mass witch hunts which truly despotic regimes employed against the innocent for the sake of fearfully consolidating power. Such an approach to end acts of terrorism against innocent civilians fought on cultural grounds isn't really equitable to Stalin's Purges, Hitler's Camps, The Moulin Rouge, Imperial Japan's atrocities, or your average Tuesday over in war-torn parts of Africa.

To compare such a hypothetical as being even remotely equal in scale to those crimes against humanity cheapens the word "genocide".

So please.

Lay off the buzzwords.

You are explicitly incorrect.

We are talking about proposed "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". We are talking about genocide. If one feels it is most effective that is their right, but they shouldn't use "buzzword" and "hand wringing" as ways to dismiss those speaking to them because they don't want to stand by their convictions.

Nor am I really willing to discuss scale of mass murder as particularly relevant in dismissing something as heinous, though I'm not sure we actually are talking about something significantly smaller in scope than the Khmer Rouge or Armenian Genocide.

Also, er - Khmer Rouge. Not Moulin Rouge, musicals haven't become that deadly just yet

pepperjack · Mar 27, 2016

Van Ropen said:
Hmm.

"Kill people who commit war crimes, but don't commit war crimes to kill people who commit war crimes" feels like not calling out the nazis on their bullshit?

TehChron said:

That depends on whether or not you care about having the moral high ground more than you care about solving the problem

A government's responsibility lies with it's citizens, not their enemies.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

TehChron, unless you're saying you do care more about "having the moral high ground" than you care about "solving the problem," I'm not sure how I'm putting words in your mouth.

Help me understand what you meant?

skaro · Mar 27, 2016

TehChron said:
Same way the imperialists did

Drag it into the modern age kicking and screaming. Now before anyone complains about the whole civil wars in africa thing, keep in mind that that's the result of Imperialists backing out and letting them settle it amongst themselves.

South Africa seems to be doing quite alright. As amazing as Nelson Mandela and Ghandi were during their lives, the rise of people who fill that role is an inevitable part of Imperialism as well, and inevitably far more peaceful so long as it's allowed to occur naturally.

That mean you need to spend time and resource to modernize,I don't think western world will approve of that policy.

In my opinion that the western world need to arrest all of their leader and destroy their society then the attack will stop.

But as long as ideology still live on then tribal warfare will continue.

TehChron · Mar 27, 2016

Van Ropen said:
No, it isn't. By definition

Quote the definition, then.

Ah, preferably the one used during Nuremburg when they tried the Nazi officers. It's the trendsetter, after all.

Van Ropen said:
No, it does not. It falls on those you refer to as having questionable innocence and the innocent, before we talk about how questionable the innocence of the first group is.

That's generic oppression.

Not genocide.

Please don't conflate the terms. Knee jerk reactionism is wrong no matter which end of the political spectrum you masturbate furiously to.

Van Ropen said:
You are explicitly incorrect.

We are talking about proposed "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".

"People who sponsor, aid, and abette acts of terrorism and genocide" are not a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.

Unless you're saying all Syrians wish to blow up white people with bombs?

How remarkably progressive of you.

Van Ropen said:
We are talking about genocide

Yes, as fever mad zealots attempt to commit it and fail rather badly in so doing.

Van Ropen said:
If one feels it is most effective that is their right, but they shouldn't use "buzzword" and "hand wringing" as ways to dismiss those speaking to them because they don't want to stand by their convictions.

Ah, I apologize.

I was under the impression that I was joined with my opinions at the hip, rather than letting you redefine the meaning of words in some ill mannered attempt to obtain the moral high ground.

Brav-o. How impressive, false equivalence and strawmanning at the same time. Most soundbiters are content with just one in any given argument.

Van Ropen said:
Nor am I really willing to discuss scale of mass murder as particularly relevant in dismissing something as heinous, though I'm not sure we actually are talking about something significantly smaller in scope than the Khmer Rouge or Armenian Genocide.

My point still stands regardless.

Now who's refusing to stand by their, ahem, "convictions"?

Van Ropen said:
Also, er - Khmer Rouge. Not Moulin Rouge, musicals haven't become that deadly just yet

A sign of the sheer number of actual examples of genocide, and why conflating terms does a disservice to all such victims of them.

Not that I didn't do such a massive disservice to them either, but my point still stands.

TehChron · Mar 27, 2016

pepperjack said:
TehChron, unless you're saying you do care more about "having the moral high ground" than you care about "solving the problem," I'm not sure how I'm putting words in your mouth.

Help me understand what you meant?

Then I misunderstood you.

I thought you were doing a rather poor attempt to stick me in the same idealogical corner as Vanathor or Crossycross, when I can assure you that is not the case.

I favor a more systematic approach for the same reason I applauded Truman's use of the atom bomb in lieu of a ground invasion of Japan.

Pure pragmatism in terms of lives being saved.

John Oliver on Donald Trump

Shameless Shadow

『Back In Black』

Shameless Shadow

『Back In Black』

Shameless Shadow

A Randy Avian

LADY OF LOVE

Well worn.

Connoisseur.

I trust you know where the happy button is?

Experienced.

Con Tý

Experienced.

Experienced.

Experienced.

Experienced.

A Variety of Cheese

Experienced.

Experienced.

Experienced.

Well worn.

『Back In Black』

Experienced.

Experienced.

Experienced.

A Variety of Cheese

Well worn.

Experienced.

Experienced.

Users who are viewing this thread