President Assad gasses and Donald fiddles

[Rubashov]

I believe flame throwers are now illegal.

 

[Gameface]

So you support Trump's action? Just curious.

I don't support it or not support it. I'm looking on from afar just like most everyone else.

But just on basic principal, I would have liked to see a consensus with at a minimum our NATO allies and a joint strike instead of the U.S. going it alone with a strike two days after the attack.

I'm very curious as to why Assad would launch the only kind of attack that could possibly get the U.S. involved?

 

[DutchJazzer]

I believe flame throwers are now illegal.

actually you will be suprised

 

[The Midnight]

I don't support it or not support it. I'm looking on from afar just like most everyone else.

But just on basic principal, I would have liked to see a consensus with at a minimum our NATO allies and a joint strike instead of the U.S. going it alone with a strike two days after the attack.

I'm very curious as to why Assad would launch the only kind of attack that could possibly get the U.S. involved?

I thought Assad had used chemical weapons before, no? I don't know much about weapons and such, but I would imagine chemical weapons would be one of the cheapest weapons to launch, as well as most cost effective from the bang-for-your-buck point of view.

 

[Rubashov]

I thought Assad had used chemical weapons before, no? I don't know much about weapons and such, but I would imagine chemical weapons would be one of the cheapest weapons to launch, as well as most cost effective from the bang-for-your-buck point of view.

They're not massively effective against professional soldiers. When they were first used against Europeans, (I believe they were first used in North Africa by European colonialists.) they had initial success because they created panic but their effectiveness diminished as the war went on. Realistically they will likely only be used as terror weapons against civilians.

 

[DutchJazzer]

I thought Assad had used chemical weapons before, no? I don't know much about weapons and such, but I would imagine chemical weapons would be one of the cheapest weapons to launch, as well as most cost effective from the bang-for-your-buck point of view.

i remember him doing it before, thereby stepping and ****ting all over obamas red line for the umpteenth time.

and the most ACCURATE ONE:

 

[♪alt13]

So logic plays no role in morality? It's just what feels right or wrong? How can you tell others not to do something then? On what basis? Bizarre.

Where does your logic start? When do you start to apply it? I bet it's long after you have established a set of rules based on your feelings. Long after you have already established a good and an evil not based on logic. What is logically good/bad?

Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses

 

[DutchJazzer]

Where does your logic start? When do you start to apply it? I bet it's long after you have established a set of rules based on your feelings. Long after you have already established a good and an evil not based on logic. Shouldn't logic lead us to perfectly rational conclusions like sterilization of the weak, the ill, and the mentally handicapped?

exactly! that's why we should distinguish killing from murder then the logic slowly but surely falls in place!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Siro]

Where does your logic start? When do you start to apply it? I bet it's long after you have established a set of rules based on your feelings. Long after you have already established a good and an evil not based on logic. What is logically good/bad?

You make it sound like basing morals on feelings is the same as making them up randomly. Morals require both emotions and logic. The objective is ultimately emotional. First, we agree on the axiom that suffering is undesirable? We agree that the aversion to suffering is emotionally based (we don't want to suffer or see others suffer)? We can build upon that principle LOGICALLY to establish moral rules that achieve our objective. I mean, obviously! How else would we have a conversation about anything?

I wanna watch the game, but my point is, if you agree that causing humans to suffer is immoral, then you are making objective statements about a subjective experience. And that experience can be applied to non-human things, as otherwise your moral is not emotional, but arbitrary.

 

[♪alt13]

You make it sound like basing morals on feelings is the same as making them up randomly. Morals require both emotions and logic. The objective is ultimately emotional. First, we agree on the axiom that suffering is undesirable? We agree that the aversion to suffering is emotionally based (we don't want to suffer or see others suffer)? We can build upon that principle LOGICALLY to establish moral rules that achieve our objective. I mean, obviously! How else would we have a conversation about anything?

I wanna watch the game, but my point is, if you agree that causing humans to suffer is immoral, then you are making objective statements about a subjective experience. And that experience can be applied to non-human things, as otherwise your moral is not emotional, but arbitrary.

We didn't agree on that. Just human suffering. On that we feel the same way. Enjoy the game.

 

[Siro]

We didn't agree on that. Just human suffering. On that we feel the same way. Enjoy the game.

What makes human suffering unique? If you got no answer besides what you said about wanting it that way, then I'll note that you're the kind of person who doesn't think moral values need to be defensible, and bow out.

 

[LogGrad98]

What makes human suffering unique? If you got no answer besides what you said about wanting it that way, then I'll note that you're the kind of person who doesn't think moral values need to be defensible, and bow out.

Sentience

Curious, where do you draw the line? Is a chicken different from say a rat? Is the suffering of feral animals, like the exploding feral cat population or selective breeding for pets that creates meant animals with small miserable lifespans different than other man-made problems like killing chickens? What about fish? Or termites? Is killing an entire colony of termites through gassing a house the same? If all suffering is equal where do you draw the line?