kumquatq3

The Allies certainly thought so; that's why they demilitarized Germany and outlawed any hints of Nazism. But compared to most other nations of the world, Germany didn't have it all that bad. The Allies did rebuild the country and integrated it within the larger world economy, thus addressing one of the major grievances of a defeated nation. If every developing nation could have it as good as Germany from the West, I doubt there'd be any terrorists looking to bring down tall buildings. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Again, not my question EDIT: Do I have to ask it in Latin? Sorry had too!

Hmm. You do know of the defeat of Prussia in WW1 and subsequent exacting measures taken against them by their subjugators? Well this was one of many pretexts for the rise of Nazism and the Third Reich. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not my question, you stated an absolute here: The context you gave was in a war-like fashion

O the irony via ironia Guess what! My high school offered Latin too!

If morality is subjective then it doesn't matter, as you're essentially defining the question away - "it's all a matter of perspective." But that's unacceptable. Moral relativism leads to dead-end arguments like "it's just as valid to kill a person as it is to hug him." For a moral system to be legitimate, it must claim to be - at least for the most part - objective. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Claim to be? I claim to have a Lotus in my driveway, that doesn't make it so. Neither does declaring something unacceptable make it untrue. The only way for morality to have a base is for it to be agreed apon by a group with the ability to enforce it. It's still subjective, however.

That is a contradiction in terms. History is essentially the catalogue of actions perpetuated by individuals / groups of individuals/ nations in the past. In the past, correct. I was pointing out that the statement could not be correct and as far as I can tell, you seem to agree. While history may influence the present, it does not do so nearly to the point of eliminating free will. Is Germany going to come after the Allies anytime soon because they lost WW2?

For the sake of argument, whose says a moral system needs to "satisfy the conditions of both conqueror and conquered" to be moral as morality is subjective? It's a circular argument.

also, will this board learn that dropping Latin phrases does not automatically win an argument or make you smart?

Morality is baseless, as it is subjective! Hence the majority "rule" on it, as you have been saying. Since you are imperfect, just by being human, you technically can never never be sure your morals are correct. Hence it falls to the groups to define right and wrong.

You know what, it's agree to disagree time, except to say that "history" does not "define that people and their identity". Their actions do. I suppose the break is right there.

Am I gonna have to hold your hand and walk you through it? No, those people must first want to be a nation. Everything else is secondary and meaningless without the people behind the nation. Land, laws, etc etc, It's all nothing without the people behind it. EDIT: Land isn't even necessary. There are plenty of so called "nations" that arn't tied to a body of land.

I don't agree and I've made the argument as to why elsewhere. It's reductio ad absurdum to assert that nations are just bodies of people. That just about ignores everything one should know about a nation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I couldn't disagree more. It always comes back to the people.

It's not hypocrisy, because the people have changed, the people make the government. So if the people that are objecting are innocent of such actions, they can't be hypocritical

You, as a person, can't. Your nation, however, can. The intersection with you lies in nationalism. If you're a nationalist, which means that you identify with your nation, then you can (and indeed I argue it's your obligation) to feel guilt over your nation's deeds. If not, then there's no connection. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A nation is, however, a body of people. If three generations on you assign guilt to a nation, you assign guilt to it's people.

How can you feel shame over what you didn't commit? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I feel shameful that the US put Japanese-Americans in interment camps. I didn't do it tho. neither did my ancestors (first generation). The real question is, how can you be guilty over something you had no hand in?

No, because that murder will be tried by the courts. It ends the horrible cycle of violence you are suggesting. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So who runs the courts of nations? Again, might makes right. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Better than the alternative.

Acknowledgement, regret, and thereby progress? Better than the alternative. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's shame, as I said. However, that's not guilt. and I agree it's better than the alternative

No, because that murder will be tried by the courts. It ends the horrible cycle of violence you are suggesting.

by the time they finish the game will be pretty old. It just a reality that the fan base will be pretty small by then

Those that committed the crimes. The only moral impasse occurs when you use your logic, because all nations on the earth would be guilty of something despicable. What happens then?

Hypocrisy, in this case, does not lie with the individuals, but with the nation. A nation is not absolved of guilt merely because a generation passes for its citizens. I'm not sure it ever is. Absolved of shame? No Guilt? Yes. You can't hold individuals that did not participate responsible. So they are no more guilty as a collective. To think otherwise only creates other negative situations

Does any team in the NFC want the wild card, damn

Run Champ Bailey! Run!

Sig worthy, but too long

Nah, they would have lost several games. Apparently you havn't watched Vicky much this season if you think he isn't over-rated. They guy has had a few 3 and 4 turnover games himself. He will never lead a serious super-bowl team, that as you might say, doesn't win in spite of him. Vick is, and always will be, less the sum of his parts. However, Ron Mexico is still a little funny. As I have expressed before, which is why I think your upset and brought out the Grossman calls, the only other "Gross-ly" over-rated QB in the league is Eli. When Grossman was "over-rated" he was putting up HUGE numbers, considering he didn't have much of a history, it would be hard to say at the time he was over-rated. Clearly time has proven that tho. Like Grossman, Eli is extremely spotty and goes from great games to horrible ones.

That's kind of it. Vick is a side show, not a quarterback. I'd take San Fran over them. Take a look at who they have beaten, most are ****ty teams. The exceptions are teams that have injuries at the time (Steve Smith) or and the Bengals before they got it turned around. Then they lose to Detroit and Cleveland. Vick = OVER-RATED PATSY