Is it slightly worrying

[Deleted]

Is it slightly worrying how quickly some peoples moral compass changes when acts of terrorism / war / conflict is involved? You'll see somebody condemn genocide until something like a brutal atrocity occurs then they're suddenly supporting genocidal actions against them.

[Daelak]

Is it slightly worrying how quickly some peoples moral compass changes when acts of terrorism / war / conflict is involved? You'll see somebody condemn genocide until something like a brutal atrocity occurs then they're suddenly supporting genocidal actions against them.

Yes which is why people in the US and Britain completely supported an invasion into Afghanistan and Iraq when there was literally no such thing as Al Qaeda, we made it up to charge Osama Bin Laden for RICO.

[Rukh]

Its hard to say. It's a standard part of humanity since forever. They end up having a lot more in common with the terrorists than they realize.

Terrorist leaders commit terrorist acts because they can count on these sort of knee-jerk reactions that polarize people. The polarization gives them support, because all humans react with knee-jerk desire for vengeance when violence is committed against things they care about.

[Kujako]

The only troubling part is when people don't separate their actions from those of the state. Take for example the classic "you're in a room with a terrorist whom you KNOW has information about an atomic bomb set to go off in the US, do you torture him to get the information that would save lives?" trope. My answer to that has always been "yes, and then I would demand to be punished by the state for my unconstitutional actions".

[gegalfo]

you dont need terrorism for this, just the slightest misdeed towards an animal, and the majority of people seem to think of torture as a good thing

[the game]

I was in basic training at Ft Leonardwood, MO on 9/11 when the towers fell. We were the training company that had the most seniority on post and they told us that there was a chance we would get deployed from training as infantry. That day was so crazy. One of the people in my platoon had an aunt that worked at the world trade center.

[Deleted]

Fighting back against ISIS would not be genocide.

[Rukh]

Fighting back against ISIS would not be genocide.

Is ISIS currently seiging a city you are in? You might want to take other steps besides posting on a chat forum.

[Nadiru]

Is ISIS currently seiging a city you are in? You might want to take other steps besides posting on a chat forum.

ISIS isn't an ethnicity, or I guess a genotype, so by definition even if you wiped out all ISIS members, it could never be genocide.

[Forgettable]

Eh, I've always believed that the ends justify the means.

[Bumbasta]

ellaborate/exmaples? Your topics always seem to come so... out of nowhere.

[Jokerfiend]

"I started a War; I'm just not doing the fighting." - Abraham Lincoln

War is terrible. What is worse? Letting it happen.

Every, single, person is to blame. Until we have no reason to fight.. which will be never. Conflict happens, and the victors write the history. So don't lose.

[Kuntantee]

mix misinformation, ignorance and primitive mind, this is what you get.

[Deleted]

Fighting back against ISIS would not be genocide.

No, but people saying NUKE EM or CARPET BOMB SYRIA is somewhat genocidal

[Kuntantee]

ellaborate/exmaples? Your topics always seem to come so... out of nowhere.

it's quite clear. read more posts in mmo-c genOT.

[Rukh]

ISIS isn't an ethnicity, or I guess a genotype, so by definition even if you wiped out all ISIS members, it could never be genocide.

Nobody is saying it would be genocide. Why do you bring this up?

[Nadiru]

Nobody is saying it would be genocide. Why do you bring this up?

Because it's the thread topic, and your reply was off-topic, so I brought it back on-topic.

[Kuntantee]

ISIS isn't an ethnicity, or I guess a genotype, so by definition even if you wiped out all ISIS members, it could never be genocide.

Nuking ISIS would kill more civilian than ISIS. Deliberately doing it is genocide.

[Rabblexthree]

Yes it is somewhat worrisome. I find it more worrisome that some people are already at that frame of mind.

The Golden Rule is lost in today's world by so many people and replaced with a you slap me, I'll shoot you mentality.

Something does need to be done about these terrorist because no actions is also a bad thing.

[Endus]

Is it slightly worrying how quickly some peoples moral compass changes when acts of terrorism / war / conflict is involved? You'll see somebody condemn genocide until something like a brutal atrocity occurs then they're suddenly supporting genocidal actions against them.

If your moral/ethical outlook changes based on events, then one of two things is true;

1> You didn't actually describe your real ethical outlook, beforehand; a lot of people think they're more moralistic than they actually are.
2> You're an Ethical Egoist or something, where the fundamental ethical principle is "if it's good for me, it's Right".

The entire point of ethical systems is precisely that they are not meant to change like that.

And before anyone brings up relativists; they'd make allowances for context at the outset, so changes in that context necessarily would affect their ethical stance. Saying "war is wrong" is a concrete, no-context statement; if you think become pro-THIS-war because your country was attacked, then you never really believed what you'd said. If you'd instead been saying "THAT war is wrong", based on context, it wouldn't be a shift in your outlook to say "THIS war is right" if that context is different in a critical way.