FileFront Forums - Genocide as a viable alternative solution to world problems

FileFront Forums (http://forums.filefront.com/)

- The Pub (http://forums.filefront.com/pub-578/)

- - Genocide as a viable alternative solution to world problems (http://forums.filefront.com/pub/335589-genocide-viable-alternative-solution-world-problems.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrFancypants (Post 3997343)

That's not what I said, my argument was only that someone who is willing to kill countless of people to prevent a relatively small threat to his own people must think that his own people are in some way superior or more valuable than others.

Or he might just think that all humans lack any innate worth, that worth is something earned rather than given.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrFancypants (Post 3997343)

Equality seems to be a good reason not to kill others for most people though, as far as I know murder is illegal in most countries.

In most western societies where murder is illegal it is also legal to commit abortion as a simple matter of convenience. Laws on murder have little to do with the value of human life and much to do with the value of social integration and practicality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrFancypants (Post 3997343)

You can't really compare self-defence or punishment of criminals with slaughter of countless of innocents.

I just did. ;) My point being that the value of human life is a variable rather than a constant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzH (Post 3997428)

At the minute they're not fights for survival, but they will get that way if we do not do something about it. Our very way of life is being threatened and we, in our politically correct induced madness either stand by and watch or actually aid in it's destruction. Look at the immigration problems facing the developed world. In the US, Mexicans pour north in their millions. In Europe the opening of the eastern states has lead to an influx of immigrants invading the towns and cities of our nations. The war is being fought each day, and not through conventional means either. Here's a great example of what I am talking about:

I guess it depends which conflict exactly you're talking about. I don't think the Kurds will ever be able to seriously threaten Turkey, just as insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan will never be able to invade the US.
Israel is a bit different as their defense against terrorism can trigger a reaction from countries in their region that could be a serious problem - but since they have so much support from the US their survival is probably assured for a while.

As for immigration, I agree that this can be a problem if it's not handled correctly (look at France), but it can also be the solution to other problems (birth rates in Germany, for example).

Quote:

Chinese Taking Over Russian Land

The chinese could essentially win this undeclared war through the power of mass migration. How many ethnic Chinese are there in Europe or the USA? Just the same as the Chinese in Russia you have the Mexicans in California, the asians in Great Britain, Albanians in Berlin. The list goes on. I'm sure every European on these forums can give you an example of immigrants in cities or towns close to them who refuse to integrate. We're being forced out of our homes through the migration of the same people that in less 'civilised' (and I use that word so very loosely) times would have been our enemies and victims of aggression against them. We're soft and we're losing.

Well I don't know any immigrants who refuse to integrate, I know a lot of immigrants who have trouble integrating because they don't have the necessary means and I know a few Germans who make the whole thing even more difficult by being rather hostile towards immigrants.

As far as I'm concerned immigrants should be required to integrate themselves to an extent, that is happening here now through language tests. But apart from that they are welcome to practice whatever cultural habits they brought along as long as it's not bothering me - that's their right in a democracy.

Quote:

Now, of the three examples I pulled out of the air, this only really applies to the Israel one. Simple demographics mean that eventually the Israelis will lose. The Pals will simply out-breed them, and there is not a lot you can do about that. Some guy in a shack in Palestinianville has 15 or 16 kids to three wives. His Jewish counterpart has one, maybe two? It's simple maths. The Palestinians will win this fight in the end.

Israel is rather wealthy and receives the (almost) latest in military technology, so I don't think they will lose any time soon.

Having more children doesn't help against Israel. Human wave attacks simply don't work very well in a desert.

Quote:

Unless the Israelis opt for genocide (which ironically would not sit too good with the Jews, would it?).

There are alternative ways to deal with terrorists. Look at Ireland - it took quite a while but after all it has been better to convince the IRA with conventional means instead of dropping some nukes.

Quote:

It's a case of looking at the motive of the suicide bomber. He/she is not out to kill as many people as possible - okay, he is, but that's not the primary motivation. The suicide bomber is a weapon of terror. An arab blows up a bus full of Israelis, the Israelis are fearful and do not use the buses, business is affected, etc etc etc. The families of the victims of the suicide bomber are the real victims as opposed to those killed. They have to live with that loss for the rest of their lives. Knowing that the death was a futile death. That is the true purpose of terror.

The solution offered here is the eradication of the group/race/class whatever responsible for this. If you kill them all nobody but a few bleeding heart liberals would care. Of course in these days of instant communication the entire world would know about what you did and there would be some questions to answer. But if you're ensuring the survival of your way of life and the way of life of your children and your children's children, what's the big deal with explaining a little blood on your hands?

I'm sure a lot of people would care because this solution involves killing a large number of completly innocent people. As genocide is against international law it is also likely that the person responsible would end up in jail or be executed.

Using genocide to secure a way of life that is based on principles of enlightenment seems contraproductive anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemmerle (Post 3997570)

Or he might just think that all humans lack any innate worth, that worth is something earned rather than given.

Which would be equally bad.

Quote:

No, in most societies murder is actually considered morally wrong. It is true that it's also practical that people aren't allowed to kill others whenever they feel like it, but as you can deduce from most constitutions that is not the primary reason for such laws.

Quote:

I just did. ;) My point being that the value of human life is a variable rather than a constant.

Human life is as valuable as we consider it to be. My point is that considering human life as constant value is generally better as it reduces the chances that someone gets funny ideas and starts killing those he considers to be worthless.

Is he serious? Really?

Genocide to solve the world's problems. Good one.

I wouldn't even bother going through the entire economic hardships that would be caused by nuking (primarily) our oil sources, or the difficulty of acquiring raw minerals, or of radiation spreading...

Not to mention the whole ethical issue, and the question of who is an "annoyance" that deserves to be vapourized.

I remember a month or two ago someone posted a thread about some guy theorizing that the only way to maintain constant stability on Earth is an almost complete removal of human beings. And people said stuff like

"OH NOES THAT WOULD INCLUDE MY COUNTRY WTF DID WE EVER DO!!!!"

I can't believe anyone would EVER suggest selective genocide. You say you're not like Hitler, but selective genocide IS WHAT HE DID. He isolated several minority groups who he thought were the basis of Germany's (and Europe's) source of all problems, and exterminated them. And you consolation is that it will be more or less painless???? (Which is not true, because most would die of radiation poisoning.)

Nice. Good one.

Quote:

No, this is not about racial superiority, it is about the removal of one society/race/nation/culture/system to ensure the continued survival and dominance of another society/race/nation/culture/system.

This always creates problems. Humans, do have a sort of inherent morality, yet a morality that can be easily walked around.
Would you murder someone you would see as an equal? Or would you gladly destroy someone who you believe to be under you? This excuse always comes to being.

Everyone deserves a chance. As towards what could harm a "way of life"changes depending on who you are, because everyone has a different way of living. Southern Plantation owners had a "way of life" that included slavery with the excuse of racial "superiority" which was simply a way of justifying what they were doing in their own minds to negate their conscience. If you eliminate all people who don't agree with you, then how much better are you than them, if not worse. Such a solution only resolves potential incident, it in itself is the action that it attempts to resolve.

Its simple to say you want to kill a whole race of peole from one country, have you ever met these people? I dont know if you know this but war is not a game its a human fighting a human, each with personailitys and a story to tell

Quote:

It should be a rule, in war that the man should get to know his fellow man before he shoots him.

Think about that, would you kill your best friend because he/she is from Iraq or looks abit different? Why dont we kill all Americans! I mean it was only a bunch of stupid politions that caused a war, but who cares, just because of there actions the whole American race needs to die.

Why don't we all just detonate all nuclear bombs and nuclear power plants, everyone is equal then, we all die

technically, we caused a war, but it has had good results, not that anyone notices

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chemix2 (Post 3998153)

I smell irony!

Genocide...Hmm...

Interesting thought.

You have to remember that while it does have an element of sacrifice in it, if the USA drops some hydrogen bombs on these problematic areas I believe the gains of future generations would definetely outweigh the risks for this generation.

It might cause global war because of this, but other nations have to remember this: "Democracy" "Freedom" and "Peace" are matters of opinion, are relative, or are undefinable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Star Wars: Sacrifice

It was chaos, pure and simple. It was a glorious word to justify abdication of responsibility by those who could, if they were prepared to make the effort, create a better world for the vast majority. It was a word for finding someone else to blame.
Democracy, freedom, and peace. They were all tricks, like words used to train dogs to come to heel or attack. They were sounds with no real meaning, nothing definable, just triggers that everyone had been conditioned to think were desirable, tangible things. Peace-well, Jacen could define that.
But democracy? Freedom? Whose freedom, and to do what?
Freedom was a pretty nebulous concept when all most beings wanted was an absence of disorder, a full stomach, and some hope that their offspring would have a more comfortable life than they had.

If someone has the guts to stand up and slaughter those who are responsible instead of puttering around because of "endangerment of civilians" and "political incorrectness", it would solve almost every problem.

The only thing wrong with this course of action is the retaliation from other factions. They'll just fly back to the old "You killed innocent civilians to get one deadly terrorist!" And the whole thing starts all over again.

Imagine this. A terrorist has a bomb strapped to his back, and over the bomb he has a man named John. He also has a gun, and is standing in a crowd of people.

If you had the power to instantly do so, would you detonate that bomb?

Sure, John's family and friends might be unhappy, but so is the family and friends of just about anyone else who dies. John dies, the terrorist dies, and maybe a few civilians in the crowd.

You waste time trying to get the civilians out of the way? The terrorist will start shooting up the crowd while you try to "get them out of the way". By not taking swift, decisive, powerful, firm, lethal action you will lose countless more lives. Two lives, quickly and painlessly gone, instead of a hundred dying of blood loss? Which way would you want to die? Which way would benefit those around you more?

The only possible way to attain world peace would be for a nation to be so powerful it DID/WOULD wipe out everything in the world except its own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrFancypants (Post 3997068)

What is the point of world peace if attaining it causes more misery than the present conflicts?

What is the point of trying to attain world peace when the very idea is fundamentally against human nature?