Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 Lost in space

Lost in space

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4009 posts

Posted 23 February 2008 - 05:33 PM

Which circumstances would it be RIGHT to go to war.

Who can say they would be 100% pacifist in any situation.

But lets avoid WW111
  • 0

#2 Ploper

Ploper

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 579 posts

Posted 24 February 2008 - 01:33 AM

Which circumstances would it be RIGHT to go to war.

Imagine there were a madman with an army at his feet
he murdered, enslaved, and brutally tortured nearly a billion people
wouldn't you stop him?
sure, there will be casualties in war
but they would be far less than casualties without war
so would that be considered the right thing to do?

Edited by Martini, 24 February 2008 - 02:20 AM.

  • 0

#3 Lost in space

Lost in space

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4009 posts

Posted 24 February 2008 - 05:09 PM

Imagine there were a madman with an army at his feet
he murdered, enslaved, and brutally tortured nearly a billion people
wouldn't you stop him?
sure, there will be casualties in war
but they would be far less than casualties without war
so would that be considered the right thing to do?


Do I have more weapons/support than this individual (refraining from your use of words in case it upsets him) , am I an individual or leader/statesman in this plot! Define my roll please.

I have a few gambits to offer.
  • 0

#4 Ploper

Ploper

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 579 posts

Posted 24 February 2008 - 07:24 PM

to employ unreality's use of thinking of it as an investment
you are a military leader, and you aren't sure if you are more powerfull or if they are
you can try to stop this individual, but you could lose the battle
would you do it?
  • 0

#5 Lost in space

Lost in space

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4009 posts

Posted 24 February 2008 - 10:06 PM

to employ unreality's use of thinking of it as an investment
you are a military leader, and you aren't sure if you are more powerfull or if they are
you can try to stop this individual, but you could lose the battle
would you do it?


Hmmm? Don't see me as a milatry leader, though Royalty/President etc trumps the actual milatry, if that is what you mean.(looks like you are using Unreality as a pun. Looks unreal to me)

However while i think of my strategies, maybe you will mull this over.

Hitler and other advises committed or had others commit many atrocities in WW11. He was considered an enemy to some and an ally to others. France was occupied Netherlands was occupied in absentia both had resistance movements, probably all countries had their share of spies within,

This was a foreseeable event with regards to information available at he time in a similar way that many countries are in an arms race today. By arms I mean “conventional” (if that word for such a thing)., nuclear, bacterial/germ you name it intelligence resources knows about it (still think WMD was a cover up as it hasn’t been proven yet. The point is proactive measures need to be taken earlier and reduce the reactive scenario which leaves you guessing blindly. Easy to say/write but if you and I were world leaders weather poles apart or of separate religions, then why is it not possible to mediate for a world solution long before embargo threats, escalation of arms production or purchasing them.

Look at the situation NOW and tell me that you would not subscribe to the view of none production of weapons,, unilateral disarmament, sharing of wealth and assistance at all times by ALL. Would this not suite anybody? (bit open I know but take it on board and work out later if you can still afford to go out after paying less tax for such weapons against giving aid/assistance) Assume we are all on board the nest day and it runs along smoothly for a decade or so.

Bring in the MADMAN and see how far he can get in these circumstances, where will his support come from with no weapons available, no resources? What possible chance does this individual have to threaten anybody to start with?

It obviously requires more than agreement on disarming. It requires a code for education, health goodwill brotherhood and free therapy too perhaps. We are creating a world of greed, selfishness and indoctrination. It could be my idealistic point of view. How does it work in reality? My point is that no one really tries to make it viable. People will agree on common ground,. Start from there and find more common ground, diffuse escalating differences with validation, understanding and stay sitting round the table - don’t walk away from a debate but mediate until a solution is reached. Can different religions find it IMPOSSIBLE for not being confrontational over differences large or small. Are we to continue a violent or aggressive attitude to people with different beliefs/ideals/way of life.

At some point the MADMAN pops up again and we would need to deal with the situation. Suppose it was your mentor in life that has never guided you wrong but suddenly out of nowhere has a new idea - and boy is it a bad one. I think more people are likely to avoid these characters than join them as long as the CODE (yet to be defined) works for all then these things just can’t get off the ground.

I’m not talking about a CODE for oppression but for a good common practice/ best practice which is available and wanted by all.

Noe there is a thought CODE new thread
  • 0

#6 Ploper

Ploper

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 579 posts

Posted 25 February 2008 - 02:13 AM

I think more people are likely to avoid these characters than join them

wouldn't you be likely to not avoid hitler

ally to others

perhaps these allies helped this hypothetical madman achieve power
or he could have put on a sane front and managed to land himself a position of power
then he would be powerful enough for people to join him out of fear
and thus, his army grows

Hmmm? Don't see me as a milatry leader, though Royalty/President etc trumps the actual milatry, if that is what you mean.(looks like you are using Unreality as a pun. Looks unreal to me)

fine then, you're the president of Shmaliamaland
now answer the real question
and don't ask me what that question is
it is on my first post

Easy to say/write but if you and I were world leaders weather poles apart or of separate religions, then why is it not possible to mediate for a world solution long before embargo threats, escalation of arms production or purchasing them.

it is perfectly possible and reasonable
for you and I
but there will always be those who are power hungry, or not sound of mind
both people have to agree for there to be an agreement (obviously)
but there will always be those that do not agree to peace
that's why I don't believe there will ever be world peace

Look at the situation NOW and tell me that you would not subscribe to the view of none production of weapons,, unilateral disarmament, sharing of wealth and assistance at all times by ALL. Would this not suite anybody?

because, once again, there are people who will want more
they'll want to achieve, let's just say, world domination
and they think violence is the only way to get it
it's not right
but it's the truth
  • 0

#7 Lost in space

Lost in space

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4009 posts

Posted 25 February 2008 - 10:29 PM

wouldn't you be likely to not avoid hitler - Sorry Ploper I am missing your point here. spell it out if you want.

perhaps these allies helped this hypothetical madman achieve power
or he could have put on a sane front and managed to land himself a position of power
then he would be powerful enough for people to join him out of fear
and thus, his army grows
Perhaps / what if. May be this maybe that... Aplly to every day situations and ALL scenarios..Are playing devils advocate Ploper?


fine then, you're the president of Shmaliamaland
now answer the real question
and don't ask me what that question is
it is on my first post
1 - It does not exist, like the rest of your Roll play game it's fantasy Maybe for fun I'll see it through 2 - I have a choice to participate, are you miffed at something, someone (me)? 3 - Why do you assume I will ask or might (back to miffed) If have an issue with me then sat so one way or another.



but there will always be those who are power hungry, or not sound of mind
both people have to agree for there to be an agreement (obviously)
but there will always be those that do not agree to peace
that's why I don't believe there will ever be world peace I agree with all your points, HOWEVER, I am going to try for peace over abomination - have to pressume their is some middle ground along the way. It is like too large a grey area too diminish but no attempt means no result and as i don't prey/believe in an omnipresent entity, then I will continue to hopefully spread good karma. It amy not happen in my life time though. It may not last either.


because, once again, there are people who will want more
they'll want to achieve, let's just say, world domination
and they think violence is the only way to get it
it's not right
but it's the truth -
For now yes Ploper. Do you not want to suggest to THEM a soloution? Do you have anything to offer or is apathy a soloution? You have choices. Mine is to not wait for others to do it all wrong in my name.


I think voting or by inactivively letting someone come to power that is supposed to act on our behalf (and get paid for it - perhaps volunteers would work better), without adding further input ourselves, we are authorising (giving ablank cheque) a few people to work out soloutions that clearly they can't handle Poor agrrements/laws and poor application of such need addressiing.
i see nothing wrong with letting a think tank have their input. Maybe each law needs a referendom and has to be rewritten several times before it's passed. Yes it's complicated. I think many big issues can be resolved with full disclosure - expect a lot of shock/horror reaction at the findings. Some upsets but it will all settle down. I have found that it works for me when you have to prove your reasoning - it keeps me honest. Obviously full disclosure is regarding the goverments/powers/authorities etc that ShOULD account for their (our) actions! It's easy for me to say cos I'm used to it - maybe it will require nerve to change - make it law??????
Have more to add but running out of time.
  • 0

#8 Ploper

Ploper

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 579 posts

Posted 25 February 2008 - 10:47 PM

Sorry Ploper I am missing your point here. spell it out if you want.

you said that you'd be likely to avoid this madman
well hitler was a madman, yet not everyone avoided him, now did they?

Perhaps / what if. May be this maybe that... Aplly to every day situations and ALL scenarios..Are playing devils advocate Ploper?

now now, I'm responding to the original post.
you asked under what circumstances it would be right to go to war
then you challenged my idea and I added to it to support how the man achieved power
you said "Which circumstances would it be RIGHT to go to war." not "find a reason that it is okay to go to war that would fit any and all war scenarios and happen all the time"
you asked when it would be right to go to war. but this post is saying something quite different
apply to every day situation and ALL scenarios

1 - It does not exist, like the rest of your Roll play game it's fantasy Maybe for fun I'll see it through 2 - I have a choice to participate, are you miffed at something, someone (me)? 3 - Why do you assume I will ask or might (back to miffed) If have an issue with me then sat so one way or another.

are... are you serious?
DUH! of course shlamalamaland or whatever I called it doesn't exist
neither does the insane madman intent on genocide.
I'm just creating a freakin situation and you're taking everything I'm saying to be based on reality
and yes, I am getting "miffed"
because every time I say something, no matter how simple I make it, you don't seem to understand
and you take everything to be so literal
it's getting quite annoying
I can't really debate with someone who isn't understanding simple concepts

For now yes Ploper. Do you not want to suggest to THEM a soloution? Do you have anything to offer or is apathy a soloution? You have choices. Mine is to not wait for others to do it all wrong in my name.

nah, I don't feel like it
how about you suggest to them a solution so I can poke holes in it for you?

I think voting or by inactivively letting someone come to power that is supposed to act on our behalf (and get paid for it - perhaps volunteers would work better), without adding further input ourselves, we are authorising (giving ablank cheque) a few people to work out soloutions that clearly they can't handle Poor agrrements/laws and poor application of such need addressiing.
i see nothing wrong with letting a think tank have their input. Maybe each law needs a referendom and has to be rewritten several times before it's passed. Yes it's complicated. I think many big issues can be resolved with full disclosure - expect a lot of shock/horror reaction at the findings. Some upsets but it will all settle down. I have found that it works for me when you have to prove your reasoning - it keeps me honest. Obviously full disclosure is regarding the goverments/powers/authorities etc that ShOULD account for their (our) actions! It's easy for me to say cos I'm used to it - maybe it will require nerve to change - make it law??????
Have more to add but running out of time.

I'm looking for relevence here
yet I'm not findig any
hmm.



and once again, you avoid answering my initial question
don't go into some theorizing that doesn't make any sense
it's a yes or no question, with a yes or no answer
  • 0

#9 Lost in space

Lost in space

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4009 posts

Posted 25 February 2008 - 11:53 PM

nah, I don't feel like it
how about you suggest to them a solution so I can poke holes in it for you?

Saysitall!
  • 0

#10 Ploper

Ploper

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 579 posts

Posted 26 February 2008 - 02:30 AM

well who's to say they'll listen anyways, huh?

damn, there's TWO things you are avoiding
first, you avoid my original question for about the fourth time
then, you don't answer when I tell you to suggest a solution for them

let me know when you're actually ready to debate, okay?
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users