kumquatq3

Chimps! What Chimps?!? Where??? :ph34r:

I am clearly missing something

American Pie in its entirety

Finding a funny word in the dictionary back in 7th grade or the like

I like the Werewolf section, that is all

What? They do?

Tell me, how do your pants always manage to stay on when everything else rips off? Again, he didn't get 54 years, he can get that in theory is what was said. He won't get 54 years.

Well, I've waited awhile and no one seems to be able to answer those two outstanding question, but it's sleepy time. I'm sure answers will be magically forthcoming once I leave.

I sorry, honestly, you lost me here. Can you break down that argument? Not kidding. I'm just missing it.

Can someone answer this one in the context of our debate? alanschu

I answered your question directly. Saying otherwise is just theatrics on your part. I asked about Post WW2 You told me about post WW1 If you can't answer it, just say so 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}>

Do not talk about the morally pure Indians like that.

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.