1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Manchester MEN Arena Incident

Discussion in 'Serious' started by Instagib, 22 May 2017.

  1. TheBlackSwordsMan

    TheBlackSwordsMan Over the Hills and Far Away

    Joined:
    16 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    4,102
    Likes Received:
    534
    At least we feel concerned enough to argue about it, if nothing else.
     
  2. Kronos

    Kronos Multimodder

    Joined:
    6 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    13,495
    Likes Received:
    618
    This is such a shame especially when it seems to be aimed at young lives.
     
  3. B1GBUD

    B1GBUD ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Accidentally Funny

    Joined:
    29 May 2008
    Posts:
    3,557
    Likes Received:
    558
    I have to agree, there have been a number of recent knee-jerk responses in the name of moderation, some of it appears to be very heavy handed.... you're not helping this community by swinging the ban-hammer. If anything, this is making BT look like a place that doesn't respect free speech or allows anyone to have or share their opinions.
     
  4. Risky

    Risky Modder

    Joined:
    10 Sep 2001
    Posts:
    4,515
    Likes Received:
    151
    I'd put it differently.

    In this sub-forum you need to give people time to argue against what may be objectionable views, but there is still a need to moderate when it gets too heated and repetitive.
     
  5. VipersGratitude

    VipersGratitude Multimodder

    Joined:
    4 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    3,535
    Likes Received:
    837
    Then you haven't been paying attention

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Iraqi_civilian_casualties

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan_(2001–2014)

    Don't be facetious. While I'm not claiming that the middle east is entirely innocent, it's plain to see that we bomb their countries multiple times per day - It's frankly naive not to consider our own culpability when that same conflict comes to our shores.
     
  6. Wakka

    Wakka Yo, eat this, ya?

    Joined:
    23 Feb 2017
    Posts:
    2,117
    Likes Received:
    673
    I think there's a line where "objectionable" doesn't quite cut it... Might just be me, but "nuke them all" crosses that line.
     
  7. goldstar0011

    goldstar0011 Multimodder

    Joined:
    2 Sep 2007
    Posts:
    3,668
    Likes Received:
    486
    But isn't that a knee jerk remark to a terrible situation? Haven't we all said done this at some point in our life?

    I've said some questionable things about a horrible situation I was in a while ago, stuff I'd clearly have regretted if I actually had the power to do so.
    Personally I think the remark was pointless in what have been a friendly heated discussion, maybe a warning.

    As for the ban for the defensive response, completely disagree and clearly a knee jerk reaction (see above comment)

    Anyway, I don't like see the BT family falling out, lets all go the pub and raise a drink in memory of those who are suffering (my colleagues cousin is missing still)
     
  8. modd1uk

    modd1uk Multimodder

    Joined:
    4 Sep 2006
    Posts:
    3,554
    Likes Received:
    447
  9. ajfsound

    ajfsound Minimodder

    Joined:
    16 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    151
    Likes Received:
    7
  10. Anfield

    Anfield Multimodder

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    7,059
    Likes Received:
    970
    Politicians will certainly see it that way as will significant parts of the population, unfortunately it wouldn't help as that kind of thing isn't effective.

    Zero tolerance towards religious kangaroo courts, very close monitoring of faith based schools, reversing cuts to the police etc would be more effective.
     
  11. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,731
    Likes Received:
    2,210
    Well, this is going well...

    I'm sure that the families of those dead civilians notice the difference. :worried:

    Yeah, because that worked so well with Afghanistan and Iraq. :thumb:

    Well that's how they are seeing it, and if you read your history going back well to the days of Empire, I'd say they have a point. Of course they often treat each other just as bad, but that doesn't exonerate the West, does it?

    See? We agree on some things. The great thing about freedom of speech is that it allows stupid and bad ideas to be exposed to the light of reason. When people say stupid/bad things on these forums, they will get challenged on it. As long as that happens in a civil fashion, that's free speech at work. If it gets nasty, the ban hammer is called for.
     
  12. Disequilibria

    Disequilibria Minimodder

    Joined:
    30 Sep 2015
    Posts:
    855
    Likes Received:
    16
    Add to that POSSIBLY the banning of money to religious organisations from foreign countries maybe targeted at Saudi, Qatar... You know the ones who fund all the salafists. Separation of Islamic ideology from general prison population. Possible expulsion of foreign born imams. Banning of consangiounous (cousin/uncle etc)marriage. Cracking Down on the fgm, forced marriage etc.

    Thats off the top of my head, all better than collecting huge amounts of data on all citizens with no profiling.
     
    Last edited: 23 May 2017
  13. Risky

    Risky Modder

    Joined:
    10 Sep 2001
    Posts:
    4,515
    Likes Received:
    151
    Glib line used before to avoid taking on this issue that there is a moral difference between the two actions. You could have said that to equate both sides in WW2 (and don't pull Godwin's, I 'm not comparing anyone to the Hiltler).


    We've agreed before on matters in "Serious" :thumb:
     
  14. TheBlackSwordsMan

    TheBlackSwordsMan Over the Hills and Far Away

    Joined:
    16 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    4,102
    Likes Received:
    534
    That wasn't meant to be funny, it was genuine sarcasm.

    The middle east has been a mess since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, sure the western countries did not help by messing with the left over but to blame us for everything is plain arrogance.
     
  15. TheBlackSwordsMan

    TheBlackSwordsMan Over the Hills and Far Away

    Joined:
    16 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    4,102
    Likes Received:
    534
    It doesn't exonerate us, however, they'd have a stronger case if they were not killing their own people. I've watched enough atrocities on liveleak to know that these guys (ISIS) do not give the slightest f*** about freedom for their people or building a better middle east for future generations. The only freedom they want is the freedom to kill, rape & destroy.
     
  16. Risky

    Risky Modder

    Joined:
    10 Sep 2001
    Posts:
    4,515
    Likes Received:
    151
    That people died in that war does not equate in any way to western foreign policy being to enslave anyone and kill the rest. Exactly who has been enslaved for a start, and what ethnic, religious or social group have the West attempted to genocide? Take down the hype level and make your point.
     
  17. Anfield

    Anfield Multimodder

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    7,059
    Likes Received:
    970
    Exactly.
     
  18. TheBlackSwordsMan

    TheBlackSwordsMan Over the Hills and Far Away

    Joined:
    16 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    4,102
    Likes Received:
    534
    I never said anything about the West attempting to enslave or commit genocide... However ISIS has been relentlessly targeting minorities such as Yazidis, Turkmens, Kurds, Shabaks and others. They kill men and women become sex slaves.
     
  19. Disequilibria

    Disequilibria Minimodder

    Joined:
    30 Sep 2015
    Posts:
    855
    Likes Received:
    16
    Oh and these f*ckos coming back from their rape and torture jaunts in Syria and Iraq can get tried for high treason and rot somewhere for the rest of their lives. Ideally capture British born international terrorists over there, rather than give them martyrdom give them a cage.
     
  20. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,731
    Likes Received:
    2,210
    I disagree. Let's unpack this.

    Morality is a social construct, concerning itself with conduct in a social context, i.e. affecting other beings. You cannot be (im)moral towards inanimate objects, or commit an (im)moral act if you're the only person on an uninhabited island. Another being has to be affected by your actions. From this follows that central to the morality of your actions are the consequences it has for others.

    Now you say that accidentally killing civilians in an attempt to kill terrorists is less bad than deliberately killing civilians, but there are two problems with that.

    First is that you argue that intentions matter. However intentions are internal to the person and have in themselves no social impact --intentions in themselves do not affect others; it is the actions that do. Intentions in themselves are mere ideas. When you argue that intentions have a moral weight, you are basically arguing that ideas have a moral weight, and you get into the domain of thought crime (and given how sloppily and emotively most people think... well, let's not go there).

    Moreover attributing some responsibility to the intention --which does not in itself have any impact on other beings-- takes away some responsibility from the action --which does very much have an impact on other beings. The danger is that you worry less about the very real consequences of your actions, than your intentions behind them, and that is a very egocentric and potentially dangerous thing to do.

    Basically, when you kill innocent civilians, you did a Bad Thing. It doesn't matter whether you meant to; whether you did it with the best of intentions; whether you did it out of hurt or grief. The result is the same. This is why we have the Hippocratic oath: First, do no harm. All doctors mean well, but intentions mean jack. What matters is that you don't actually harm the patient.

    Second, when you are saying that the killing of innocent civilians in an attempt to bomb terrorists is different from killing innocent civilians in a deliberate act to harm them, you are basically saying that there are different kinds of innocent civilian deaths, and therefore by implication, different kinds of innocent civilians. You get into categorical group-think: the deaths of one group is less unacceptable than the deaths of the other group. From there you easily slip into in-group (the same as us, and hence entitled to be treated according to the same rules) and out-group (different from us, and hence not entitled to be treated according to the same rules) dynamics (a.k.a. nationalism).

    That this thinking is fallacious is revealed when you consider the consequences from the point of view of the civilians and their families: dead is dead, grief is grief, anger is anger. When we start losing that perspective: that all civilians --all people, all lives-- are equal, and that therefore they are likely to experience things in similar ways and react to it in similar ways, we are playing into the philosophy of those we abhor.
     
    Last edited: 23 May 2017

Share This Page