Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliantha
it's such a shame people have to have a gun to feel free.
it's such a shame people have to have a gun to feel safe.
it's such a shame UG thinks he's a great philosopher on the virtues of guns and it's a shame that he thinks people have to be pro gun to be anti genocide. That is just the most stupid thing I've seen on this place all day.
|
No, Aliantha; there is no shame in this, and I am a philosopher if I am nothing else. Human history proves beyond any reasonable doubt that mine is the correct view, and the correct view would be the one taken by intelligent people. We cannot see eye to eye on this until you undergo some sort of epiphany. For your sake I pray it will not be traumatic. After all, I did not have to be traumatized to get it. The same road is open to you.
Correct does not necessarily mean "nice" or "pleasant." There is sorrow in this correctness. But it's the people who don't expect the genocide that get devoured by it. Genocides ambush populations; always they begin in deception, in concealment.
History tells us, well, what can be summed up in very few words: People Ruin Everything. There are times when mankind is not kind at all, but behaves like a monster. If you do not wish nor deserve to be devoured by monsters, just what do you do? It seems your choices would be essentially three: die, flee, or prevail over them regardless of anything.
I like option three.
Freedom is never a thing of shame, therefore killing tools used as instruments of freedom are not things of shame either, but are instead ennobled.
It
is rather a pity that you got so worked up by your misunderstanding of what is good and moral that you forgot to capitalize, if you're looking around for things of shame.
[Edit] I would go so far as to add, Aliantha, that there is no argument you could make that would carry the day for your point of view -- not against those who understand crime and genocide, how genocides begin, on what groundwork, and how vulnerable the genocidal groundwork is to being undone by eliminating one of its three preconditions: that of disarmament by law or in fact. Discountenance that, and genocide stops, or at the very least becomes so immensely difficult that it may instead consume the ones who start it. And where's the big loss in that, I ask you?