Mladić should burn in hell - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Crime and prevention thereof. Loopholes, grey areas and the letter of the law.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Andropov
#13733020
So we should kill all non-Han Chinese to permanently stop ethnic conflicts in the world?
User avatar
By Dave
#13733081
Do the ethnic conflicts within the PRC pose any threat to global stability and peace?

The answer is of course no.

Even if they did, the solution implied by my post would either be a continuation of China's existing policies (which will eventually result in assimilation) or separation/independence.

But yes, killing all ethnic minorities in China would end ethnic conflict in China, to no one's surprise.
By Andropov
#13733088
I meant killing all minorities period. The Han would then proceed to re-populate the affected areas.
User avatar
By Dave
#13733089
I understood, and yes that would obviously eliminate ethnic conflicts in the PRC.
By Andropov
#13733202
So would you support such a measure on the basis of a net decrease in ethnic strife?
User avatar
By Dave
#13733563
No, because I would like to see ethnic strife in the PRC increase. Ideally ethnic minorities in China would take up armed rebellion and terrorism against the PRC.

If I were a PRC supporter I would not either, as the present policy is basically working for China.
By Andropov
#13733661
Is this because you are an American and thus would like to see China weaken? Then what about murdering all non-whites in the United States? That would end or at least severely decrease ethnic strife in that country.
User avatar
By Dave
#13733664
Andropov wrote:Is this because you are an American and thus would like to see China weaken?

Yes.

Andropov wrote: Then what about murdering all non-whites in the United States? That would end or at least severely decrease ethnic strife in that country.

Indeed it would. But what would the other consequences be? Widespread political instability and violence as many people would not accept the policy domestically, international isolation abroad. Those of us who look at the world in amoral fashion think we can use ruthless force to rationally solve problems, but the trouble is if you don't take the dominant structure of morality into account you will face widespread condemnation and resistance.

On the other hand, if the country held together and the genocidal regime were replaced with an apologetic one there would be a long-term pay off. Eastern Europe is basically stable today because of the genocides and ethnic cleansing that took place in the region during and after World War 2.
By Andropov
#13733667
From what I've understood from your posts, your goal is solely to further the interests of the United States regardless of how that affects anyone else. I don't understand this. Do you not have any moral framework through which you view things? Why the United States and not the world as a whole? The people who run the United States don't have your best interests at heart; if you lived in the Soviet Union, would you support it with equal vigor? What about North Korea?
User avatar
By Dave
#13733671
I would say that is my primary (geopolitical) interest, but I do modify it with other concerns--primarily sentimental and aesthetic rather than moral.

I do not have a moral framework for my political views, no. I tend to think that morality in such spheres is misplaced and consider myself a neo-Machiavellian.

I care about the world as a whole to the extent that it affects us. The global environment is very important, as is global stability (to an extent). But the health of the Central African Republic? Who cares?

If I had lived in the USSR I suspect I would be like Solzhenitsyn--a political dissident (I consider myself a dissident here) but an ethnic nationalist. If in the DPRK, I would probably support the RoK which clearly does a better job representing Korean interests.
By Andropov
#13733696
You have no moral qualms about killing all non-whites in the USA, millions of people, as long as it forwards your country's interests? Is murder immoral? Is anything immoral? If you saw an attractive woman alone by herself and knew you could rape her without being identified and caught, would there be anything unethical about raping her?

Who is "us"? The United States is not some sort of autonomous sentience; it's an assortment of millions of people, each with their own individual interests. Why are you not an Illinoisan or a Chicagoan separatist? Why do you care more about a retarded American serial killer than a Ghanian doctor or an Indian biologist? Countries aren't entities; they don't have interests in and of themselves. People do, and what most people want is to be able to eat and not be raped by some warlord. Sometimes these interests line up and people create communities. A village may have clearly defined interests, but not a nation of millions of people. Is it really in "the interests of the USA" to support Israel, for example? I suppose so, but this does not affect individual Americans whatsoever. Is this is a personal thing and you are concerned with benefiting yourself, and do so by proxy through supporting the United States, which you are a part of? Your ideology has no basis.
User avatar
By Dave
#13733710
Andropov wrote:You have no moral qualms about killing all non-whites in the USA, millions of people, as long as it forwards your country's interests? Is murder immoral? Is anything immoral? If you saw an attractive woman alone by herself and knew you could rape her without being identified and caught, would there be anything unethical about raping her?

You are making the fallacy of composition, in reverse. I am a neo-Machiavellian, not a psychopath. In my personal life, while like everyone else my ethics can flex, I not only behave with some measure of moral decency but feel morality emotionally. I simply do not see any rational reason to apply morality to politics, which of course is an extension of war, except to the extent that it produces real benefits.

Andropov wrote:Who is "us"? The United States is not some sort of autonomous sentience; it's an assortment of millions of people, each with their own individual interests. Why are you not an Illinoisan or a Chicagoan separatist? Why do you care more about a retarded American serial killer than a Ghanian doctor or an Indian biologist? Countries aren't entities; they don't have interests in and of themselves. People do, and what most people want is to be able to eat and not be raped by some warlord. Sometimes these interests line up and people create communities. A village may have clearly defined interests, but not a nation of millions of people. Is it really in "the interests of the USA" to support Israel, for example? I suppose so, but this does not affect individual Americans whatsoever. Is this is a personal thing and you are concerned with benefiting yourself, and do so by proxy through supporting the United States, which you are a part of? Your ideology has no basis.

What are you, a libertarian? Individuals, by themselves, are practically meaningless. Our entire existence is derived socially. You raise a good point as where the appropriate group boundary is, but I myself and Americans in general tend to possess strong feeling for America. Feeling for states is not very strong anymore outside of Texas.

I do not agree that it is in American interests to support Israel, and in fact our support for Israel does affect "individual Americans". Aside from the obvious fact that our moneys are taxed to support Israel, geopolitically this has consequences. An obvious example is that anti-American Islamic terrorism is, to some degree, fueled by our support for Israel.
User avatar
By Dave
#13733764
Morality evolved to allow us to negotiate in-group relations, and for that matter moral standards evolve. The world we live in today is evolutionary novel, and relying on morality to negotiate these situations leads to suboptimal results. As you yourself said, right and wrong don't have inherent meaning and are simply the product of our evolution and of current social standards.

If humans wish to engineer and "intelligentl[…]

It's on the front pages here. Actually the med[…]

Israelis nervous about BDS

https://twitter.com/stevesalaita/status/1196600264[…]

Fiction

Interesting thread title but not surprising with t[…]