Spin off topic, anyone you wouldn't save their life if you could.

[Ninjacore]

Gaddafi isn't the monster the news is painting him as, he has done alot of great things for Libya, womens rights, irrigation, and other great improvements.

Wow, women's rights AND irrigation? There's something you'd never find in liberal democratic countries, so I guess that justifies decades of oppressive military dictatorship.

Back when the Libyan situation was kicking off a few month ago, I watch Gaddafi give his grand hour-long speech to a crowd numbered in the dozens, directly translated by Al Jazeera English. He spent about 10 minutes reading crimes from his little green book all of which ended with "...the punishment for which is death!" You disagree with the intervention in Libya? That's fine, nothing wrong with that. Trying to pass off Gaddafi as anything other than a power-mad dictator? That's absurdity.

As for the original question... I would not stand back and allow someone that had personally wronged me, or caused me to suffer, to die. I'm a strong enough person, just about, to be able to live with that pain and would not use it as justification for such an act. But there are people in this world that destroy lives, kill people by the thousand, and if I was in a position to save one of those people I would find it harder to justify saving them than allowing them to die. I wouldn't pull a trigger to kill them, but I wouldn't save them from drowning.

As a woman I feel any arab or african leader that allows women to have real jobs to be a better leader then many, the tnc council will have women forced out of schools, beaten and raped with no legal consequence, just keep watching, libya will be a very harsh place for women in the years ahead.

 

[TheGodBen]

As a human being, I think that anyone who uses a military to crush the legitimate will of the people is a criminal and they need to be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court. Whether the TNC are good guys or not doesn't make Gaddafi any less of a bad guy.

 

[Ninjacore]

As a human being, I think that anyone who uses a military to crush the legitimate will of the people is a criminal and they need to be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court. Whether the TNC are good guys or not doesn't make Gaddafi any less of a bad guy.

If they were the legitimate will of the people they would not need natos bombing help just to take a few towns.

 

[SiorX]

Assuming we are not talking about a situation where there is risk to myself, I would do whatever I could for whoever required it.

I can't even imagine the kind of hatred you'd have to carry inside you to stand back and watch somebody die when you could have done something about it. That's not much better than killing them yourself IMO.

I do agree that letting somebody die makes you morally culpable, but if you save somebody who then goes on to do awful things - and you knew them well enough to know that they would - would you end up carrying around guilt that if you hadn't been there, they wouldn't still be around?

It's rather an ugly secret but there was a time when I really struggled with this. Without getting too specific, somebody I love was in a hideously abusive relationship. She couldn't get out and was falling apart, we were helpless and terrified.

Every so often the abusive partner would threaten or attempt suicide. One evening I realised that if he tried to off himself in front of me I wasn't honestly sure I'd stop him. Or that if I did stop him that I wouldn't feel more guilty in the end for anything he might go on to do than I would have about letting him die. It was not a nice thing to realise about myself, but there it is.

 

[Ninjacore]

Assuming we are not talking about a situation where there is risk to myself, I would do whatever I could for whoever required it.

I can't even imagine the kind of hatred you'd have to carry inside you to stand back and watch somebody die when you could have done something about it. That's not much better than killing them yourself IMO.

I do agree that letting somebody die makes you morally culpable, but if you save somebody who then goes on to do awful things - and you knew them well enough to know that they would - would you end up carrying around guilt that if you hadn't been there, they wouldn't still be around?

It's rather an ugly secret but there was a time when I really struggled with this. Without getting too specific, somebody I love was in a hideously abusive relationship. She couldn't get out and was falling apart, we were helpless and terrified.

Every so often the abusive partner would threaten or attempt suicide. One evening I realised that if he tried to off himself in front of me I wasn't honestly sure I'd stop him. Or that if I did stop him that I wouldn't feel more guilty in the end for anything he might go on to do than I would have about letting him die. It was not a nice thing to realise about myself, but there it is.

Human life holds no real value, letting a poor excuse of a human die is the same as not saving a cockroach from a spiders web.

 

[TheGodBen]

If they were the legitimate will of the people they would not need natos bombing help just to take a few towns.

Ah yes, the old "might makes right" moral philosophy. Because Gaddafi spent decades maintaining a loyal military force while siphoning off billions of dollars of the country's money so that he could live like a king, he must be more righteous than the poor people that were struggling with rising food prices and that had no weapons or training?

Spoiler alert:

Spoiler: war

Sometimes the bad guys win.

 

[Ninjacore]

If they were the legitimate will of the people they would not need natos bombing help just to take a few towns.

Ah yes, the old "might makes right" moral philosophy. Because Gaddafi spent decades maintaining a loyal military force while siphoning off billions of dollars of the country's money so that he could live like a king, he must be more righteous than the poor people that were struggling with rising food prices and that had no weapons or training?

Spoiler alert:

Spoiler: war

Sometimes the bad guys win.

Loyal military, he ignored and weakened the libyan army greatly, his state military was/is weak and rotten, now he does have some private armies that are run by his sons, but if popular support was really there, the "oppressed masses" would have easily won by now, face it they are violent islamists who have factions that have fought and possibly killed american and other nato soldiers in Iraq and afghanistan, yet you expect me to support them in their fight to overthorw a leader who still has popular support in his country, not gonna happen.

 

[TheGodBen]

but if popular support was really there, the "oppressed masses" would have easily won by now

In Fantasyland, sure. But in the real world, a well-equipped, well-trained military force can easily beat back a bunch of guys in pick-up trucks that are so disorganised they shoot down their own planes. By your logic, the uprising in Syria isn't legitimate either because they're not succeeding. And the uprising in Bahrain should have been able to overcome the Saudi intervention, because genuine popular uprisings always succeed (except all those times when they don't).

yet you expect me to support them in their fight to overthorw a leader who still has popular support in his country, not gonna happen.

I expect you not to call Gaddafi anything other than an utter cunt.

 

[Ninjacore]

but if popular support was really there, the "oppressed masses" would have easily won by now

In Fantasyland, sure. But in the real world, a well-equipped, well-trained military force can easily beat back a bunch of guys in pick-up trucks that are so disorganised they shoot down their own planes. By your logic, the uprising in Syria isn't legitimate either because they're not succeeding. And the uprising in Bahrain should have been able to overcome the Saudi intervention, because genuine popular uprisings always succeed (except all those times when they don't).

yet you expect me to support them in their fight to overthorw a leader who still has popular support in his country, not gonna happen.

I expect you not to call Gaddafi anything other than an utter cunt.

Gaddafi is a tin pot dictator, but nonetheless he is still the valid leader of Libya, America won against the British, the French overthrew their government, these rebels suffered blood, sweat and tears, and did so by and large by themselves, not with advanced air power assistance, you need to accept it, the NTC is not supported by over half of the country and thats being positive for the NTC, this is a tribal civil war not a war of the oppressed...Gaddafis military is not well armed either, they are better trained then the rebels, but don't confuse the Libyan military with a powerful military.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Unless they're Ra's al Ghul. Then the distinction matters for some reason.

What about those goddamn annoying Jehovah's Witnesses?

Are you seriously saying that just because someone is annoying (to you), you'd let them die/not save them if you had the opportunity to do so?

Really? REALLY?

Random aside: since when has it been permissible around here for any religious group to be referred to as "goddamn"ed ?

It's nice to see you around again, doubleoh, but you seem to be carrying a lot of hostility these days. Can you tone it down a bit, please?

 

[Lonemagpie]

Hell, yeah, lots of people I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire...

 

[Kommander]

Just simply refusing to save someone's life, I wouldn't do. Even people I don't particularly like, including those I would describe my feelings toward as "hatred" or "loathing," I can usually still see some good in them. Even the rare person that I don't see any good in, I still have somewhat of an understanding of why they are the way they are.

Random aside: since when has it been permissible around here for any religious group to be referred to as “goddamn”ed ?

Firstly, I disagree. Secondly, I was referring to what I seem to recall as board policy protecting religious groups, particularly in Misc. I don't care how fringe the religion is, referring to any in such a manner is uncouth and insulting.

Can Scientology be an exception to this? Because fuck those guys. They killed my dog.

I do agree that letting somebody die makes you morally culpable, but if you save somebody who then goes on to do awful things - and you knew them well enough to know that they would - would you end up carrying around guilt that if you hadn't been there, they wouldn't still be around?

I generally don't struggle with questions of morality, and this is no exception. No, I would not feel guilty. I am not responsible for the actions of other people.

As for the Time Traveling Hitler Assassin thought experiment, I'm the only person I know of that answers "No, I would not." The reason is because I do not know what the consequences of my actions would be. Sure, it could have saved lives, but history could also change for the worse. Hitler didn't act alone. Had he been assassinated, he may have been martyred, polarizing the Nazi War effort and making things worse for everyone. Even if it was done early in his life, someone worse could have risen to power. World War II was pretty horrific, but a lot of lessons were learned as well. I would be robbing humanity of something if I changed things, no matter what the result.

My answer would be "no" for any alteration of history, not even my own. Sure, if I had the opportunity to go back and change some of my past mistakes, it would be tempting, but I wouldn't do it. Even the worst parts of my life still play a role in who I am today. I've earned every mistake I've made, and I'll be damned if I or anyone else takes them away from me.

 

[doubleohfive]

What about those goddamn annoying Jehovah's Witnesses?

Are you seriously saying that just because someone is annoying (to you), you'd let them die/not save them if you had the opportunity to do so?

Really? REALLY?

Random aside: since when has it been permissible around here for any religious group to be referred to as "goddamn"ed ?

It's nice to see you around again, doubleoh, but you seem to be carrying a lot of hostility these days. Can you tone it down a bit, please?

I will happily do so. Apologies for any trouble I may have caused, again.

 

[HaventGotALife]

John Boehner comes to mind.

 

[Shatnertage]

Only if it's a....Romulan. [/Worf]

(I just love the way Worf says "Romulan.")

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

This is really crass, to say the least. I will admit there are people I think some mean thoughts about...doesn't mean it's good, but I do. It's especially not good since I don't consider it an ideal to want revenge.

But I don't think it's polite to name those people, or to dwell on it, because it festers like an illness in one's own soul.

 

[TheGodBen]

Gaddafi is a tin pot dictator, but nonetheless he is still the valid leader of Libya, America won against the British, the French overthrew their government, these rebels suffered blood, sweat and tears, and did so by and large by themselves, not with advanced air power assistance...

You're right, the Americans didn't have the assistance of foreign air-power, but only because the French hadn't invented the airplane or the helicopter. They did invent the hot-air balloon, but it was too late for their famous balloon bombers to have an impact on the war.

you need to accept it, the NTC is not supported by over half of the country and thats being positive for the NTC

And where did you learn this little fact, because I'm guessing that it comes from the general vicinity of your anus.


You know what annoys me about you? When we were protesting against the Iraq War, we really could have done without the idiots on our side of the argument that were trying to make Saddam Hussein out to be some sort of anti-imperialist hero, it gave the other side something to tar us all with. We had legitimate reasons to oppose that war, just like there are legitimate reasons to oppose NATO's involvement in Libya, but trying to make a brutal dictator out to be the good guy just makes the whole anti-war movement look bad. The enemy of your enemy is not your friend, it's that sort of thinking that helped lead the world to the screwed up state it's in.

 

[Ninjacore]

Gaddafi is a tin pot dictator, but nonetheless he is still the valid leader of Libya, America won against the British, the French overthrew their government, these rebels suffered blood, sweat and tears, and did so by and large by themselves, not with advanced air power assistance...

You're right, the Americans didn't have the assistance of foreign air-power, but only because the French hadn't invented the airplane or the helicopter. They did invent the hot-air balloon, but it was too late for their famous balloon bombers to have an impact on the war.

you need to accept it, the NTC is not supported by over half of the country and thats being positive for the NTC

And where did you learn this little fact, because I'm guessing that it comes from the general vicinity of your anus.


You know what annoys me about you? When we were protesting against the Iraq War, we really could have done without the idiots on our side of the argument that were trying to make Saddam Hussein out to be some sort of anti-imperialist hero, it gave the other side something to tar us all with. We had legitimate reasons to oppose that war, just like there are legitimate reasons to oppose NATO's involvement in Libya, but trying to make a brutal dictator out to be the good guy just makes the whole anti-war movement look bad. The enemy of your enemy is not your friend, it's that sort of thinking that helped lead the world to the screwed up state it's in.

No I got the information from the news, I read the news, I look for the articles that the mainstream news try to censor and ignore...NATO has no legitimate use since the USSR fell, its like a great lumbering beast that refuses to die...

I never said that about Suddam, I was to young to vote when that started and frankly I did not care at that time...

 

[RJDiogenes]

I will happily do so. Apologies for any trouble I may have caused, again.

Thanks. I appreciate it.

And where did you learn this little fact, because I'm guessing that it comes from the general vicinity of your anus.

Getting a little carried away there....

 

[scotpens]

Unless we're talking about someone like Gaddifi or Kim Jong-il, than absolutely not. I can't even imagine hating someone so much that you would want them to die.

Gaddafi isn't the monster the news is painting him as, he has done alot of great things for Libya, womens rights, irrigation, and other great improvements. It's mostly propaganda used to justify the illegal war Nato is having.

And he made the trains run on time. Oh, wait — Libya doesn’t have any friggin’ trains.

. . . Back when the Libyan situation was kicking off a few month ago, I watch Gaddafi give his grand hour-long speech to a crowd numbered in the dozens, directly translated by Al Jazeera English. He spent about 10 minutes reading crimes from his little green book all of which ended with “...the punishment for which is death!”

Has he required all citizens to change their underwear every half hour?

. . . It’s quite acceptable to refer to any group, religious or otherwise, as “goddamned” if you really, really don’t like them.

Firstly, I disagree. Secondly, I was referring to what I seem to recall as board policy protecting religious groups, particularly in Misc. I don't care how fringe the religion is, referring to any in such a manner is uncouth and insulting.

So . . how do you feel about Scientology?

EDIT: I see Kommander beat me to that one.

In any case, “goddamn(ed)” in its usual sense is simply a general adjective of contempt — and not even a particularly strong one by today’s standards. I mean, it’s not as if I literally wish God to condemn anyone to hell, especially since I believe in neither.