Staying Neutral actually worse than being on a side?!?!

[Deleted]

My grandfather used to rescue Jews and refugees by boat in northern Germany, and by the cover of night take them back to Sweden. The swedish nation was neutral, but the people joined both the Nazi empire, Norwegian rebels, or the Alliance

[Deleted]

On moral issues, I think it is definitely important to take a side, and I have more respect for someone who chooses the wrong side over no side at all in those situations because they at least show sincerity in what they claim to believe. Obviously, if their beliefs/actions are incompatible with modern civilisation, they'll have to be put down.

I agree with what Orwell said of neutrality, specifically Pacifism concerning World War 2 at the time, "Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist.". I think he basically meant that not actively resisting "evil" is pretty much the same as committing evil yourself. It is said that he took back what he said later, which saddens me if it's true.

Neutrality in petty conflicts is understandable (and advisable, as far as I'm concerned), but if it means not helping oppressed or persecuted people, I think it's despicable.

I disagree. Let's think a bit, you have Switzerland and Sweden, two major neutral countries in WW2. Hitler didn't invade either due to problems with each, Sweden is too large and he thought it's more profitable if he lets them go so they can sell him their iron instead of conquering them and then them trying to sabotage the iron shipments. Switzerland was a mountanous country,and even if small, it would have been annoying.

However, let's look from Sweden and Switzerland's point of view. You are weak countries military, surrounded by a strong country that would wreck you to pieces. So, your choices are simple: stay neutral, join the Axis (and thus join a genocidal maniac) or fight the Axis (thus fight the country who conquered France in 2 months). Don't forget that, at that time, there were a few jewish people in Switzerland, and Switzerland kind of has a border with Nazi Germany as well as a german minority. By staying neutral these countries assured an escape route for thousands of people, while if they had joined the war against the Axis they'd have had tens of thousands of their people dead, and if they'd have joined the Axis now we'd speak of how evil they were, as well as them having to kill thousands of people on their lands. So no, being neutral here is good.

[Deleted]

I disagree. Let's think a bit, you have Switzerland and Sweden, two major neutral countries in WW2. Hitler didn't invade either due to problems with each, Sweden is too large and he thought it's more profitable if he lets them go so they can sell him their iron instead of conquering them and then them trying to sabotage the iron shipments. Switzerland was a mountanous country,and even if small, it would have been annoying.

However, let's look from Sweden and Switzerland's point of view. You are weak countries military, surrounded by a strong country that would wreck you to pieces. So, your choices are simple: stay neutral, join the Axis (and thus join a genocidal maniac) or fight the Axis (thus fight the country who conquered France in 2 months). Don't forget that, at that time, there were a few jewish people in Switzerland, and Switzerland kind of has a border with Nazi Germany as well as a german minority. By staying neutral these countries assured an escape route for thousands of people, while if they had joined the war against the Axis they'd have had tens of thousands of their people dead, and if they'd have joined the Axis now we'd speak of how evil they were, as well as them having to kill thousands of people on their lands. So no, being neutral here is good.

A valid argument. One I'd have to agree with. I suppose neutrality is favourable over annihilation or inevitable assimilation and annexation, especially if, as you pointed out with Switzerland, your neutrality can help the more 'moral' side in a conflict (Switzerland would certainly be my exception to the rule in the case of WW2). Still, I think if a group or an individual are in a position where they are able to help in a conflict, but choose not to, it is most reprehensible.

[Powerogue]

They don't want you to pick a side, they want you to pick their side.

Now does it make more sense?

[Llunai]

Just a wasted vote when you have a 2 party winner takes it all system, I can see a point in it if you have election systems like in France where you MUST get over 50% of the vote to be elected and if you have 48 43 6 percent cast on 3 candidates you get a runoff election between #1 and #2 but lacking that or a relative democracy where you gain seats in congress based on votes your party have gained it is useless and a waste of your vote.

And it infact just acts as a vote infavor of what you hate the most. That is regardless if you hate liberals or conservatives with a passion it is just a vote in favor of who you hate the most.

*Sigh*

The point went right over your head. Baaaa

[Archaeon]

I got a lot of shit from my friends during the last elections here in Greece. I voted blank but they're all like "well if you don't vote for x, and y wins, it means you basically voted for y, because your blank vote doesn't alter the % at all". Stupid fucking logic. If my options are between a turd sandwich, a vomit milkshake, and piss soup, excuse me for not picking one. I'm not going to pick the lesser evil just because it's "not as bad" as the alternative.