2012=1860?

[Razgovory]

Why are you bothering arguing with Slargos?

[Ideologue]

Let's leave that for a moment. You noted earlier that "the Serbian population deserved to suffer" given that they were implicity complicit by virtue of paying taxes. Was this unfortunate hyperbole, or is it also a generally applicable rule?

Some hyperbole.  I should not have said "deserve to suffer."  I don't really think anyone deserves to suffer (although some people should die, I don't think inflicting pain for pain's sake is a moral thing to do).  However, suffering is a likely consequence of being a viable target in war.

[Ideologue]

Why are you bothering arguing with Slargos?

Why do I bother arguing with anyone?  You can count the number of people who've changed their minds on the Internet on one hand.  But it's fun.

[Slargos]

Why are you bothering arguing with Slargos?

Probably because he at least pretends to have a defensible position while you know that you don't, you little prick. 

[Slargos]

Let's leave that for a moment. You noted earlier that "the Serbian population deserved to suffer" given that they were implicity complicit by virtue of paying taxes. Was this unfortunate hyperbole, or is it also a generally applicable rule?

Some hyperbole.  I should not have said "deserve to suffer."  I don't really think anyone deserves to suffer (although some people should die, I don't think inflicting pain for pain's sake is a moral thing to do).  However, suffering is a likely consequence of being a viable target in war.

So they didn't deserve to suffer, but were a legitimate target on account of being part of a silent but supporting majority. Is this a correct description?

[Ideologue]

Let's leave that for a moment. You noted earlier that "the Serbian population deserved to suffer" given that they were implicity complicit by virtue of paying taxes. Was this unfortunate hyperbole, or is it also a generally applicable rule?

Some hyperbole.  I should not have said "deserve to suffer."  I don't really think anyone deserves to suffer (although some people should die, I don't think inflicting pain for pain's sake is a moral thing to do).  However, suffering is a likely consequence of being a viable target in war.

So they didn't deserve to suffer, but were a legitimate target on account of being part of a silent but supporting majority. Is this a correct description?

Yes.

My Spider-sense is tingling.

[Neil]

What do you think morality is, Slargos?

You're holding an entire people responsible for the actions of a minority, yet deploring me for doing the same. You tell me.

You've implied that mere lawfulness is morality, which is simply a bunch of people (in a democracy, or fewer in another form of government) deciding what they think is correct, either after consideration or in a fit of pique.

Regarding Serbia.  The Serbian government sponsored a campaign of repression in Kosovo, as they had in Bosnia.  The Serbian people either supported it directly or acquiesced and supported their government indirectly, through their labors and provision of taxes.  While I would not argue for something ridiculous, such as every person in the country be put on trial, during wartime they made themselves targets, and their pain does not trouble me much more than the pain they caused others seemed to trouble them, and no more than the far greater amount of pain the people of Dresden must have experienced.

It does move me to sympathy, but when you acquiesce to an illegitimate government and labor to bolster it, is it reasonable that you are permitted to hide behind civilian status while you abet murder?

So then the South was morally justified in their succession because of the brutal US repression of Indians?

I think we can all agree that the US government was illegitimate.

[Slargos]

Let's leave that for a moment. You noted earlier that "the Serbian population deserved to suffer" given that they were implicity complicit by virtue of paying taxes. Was this unfortunate hyperbole, or is it also a generally applicable rule?

Some hyperbole.  I should not have said "deserve to suffer."  I don't really think anyone deserves to suffer (although some people should die, I don't think inflicting pain for pain's sake is a moral thing to do).  However, suffering is a likely consequence of being a viable target in war.

So they didn't deserve to suffer, but were a legitimate target on account of being part of a silent but supporting majority. Is this a correct description?

Yes.

My Spider-sense is tingling.

And would this legitimacy extend to targeted reprisals, or just to coincidental attacks according to the established laws of warfare?

[Slargos]

What do you think morality is, Slargos?

You're holding an entire people responsible for the actions of a minority, yet deploring me for doing the same. You tell me.

You've implied that mere lawfulness is morality, which is simply a bunch of people (in a democracy, or fewer in another form of government) deciding what they think is correct, either after consideration or in a fit of pique.

Regarding Serbia.  The Serbian government sponsored a campaign of repression in Kosovo, as they had in Bosnia.  The Serbian people either supported it directly or acquiesced and supported their government indirectly, through their labors and provision of taxes.  While I would not argue for something ridiculous, such as every person in the country be put on trial, during wartime they made themselves targets, and their pain does not trouble me much more than the pain they caused others seemed to trouble them, and no more than the far greater amount of pain the people of Dresden must have experienced.

It does move me to sympathy, but when you acquiesce to an illegitimate government and labor to bolster it, is it reasonable that you are permitted to hide behind civilian status while you abet murder?

So then the South was morally justified in their succession because of the brutal US repression of Indians?

I think we can all agree that the US government was illegitimate.

Ye fucking premature ejaculator. 

[Ideologue]

What do you think morality is, Slargos?

You're holding an entire people responsible for the actions of a minority, yet deploring me for doing the same. You tell me.

You've implied that mere lawfulness is morality, which is simply a bunch of people (in a democracy, or fewer in another form of government) deciding what they think is correct, either after consideration or in a fit of pique.

Regarding Serbia.  The Serbian government sponsored a campaign of repression in Kosovo, as they had in Bosnia.  The Serbian people either supported it directly or acquiesced and supported their government indirectly, through their labors and provision of taxes.  While I would not argue for something ridiculous, such as every person in the country be put on trial, during wartime they made themselves targets, and their pain does not trouble me much more than the pain they caused others seemed to trouble them, and no more than the far greater amount of pain the people of Dresden must have experienced.

It does move me to sympathy, but when you acquiesce to an illegitimate government and labor to bolster it, is it reasonable that you are permitted to hide behind civilian status while you abet murder?

So then the South was morally justified in their succession because of the brutal US repression of Indians?

I think we can all agree that the US government was illegitimate.

Yes, although I thought it went without saying that the reason for secession must also be legitimate.  There is also the fact that even had the South seceded based on moral solidarity with the Indians, there would remain an element of abandonment involved, unless the South relatively soon thereafter attacked the United States and attempted to reform their Indian policy through force of arms.

It would still be stupid, because we're talking about a country with, what?  One third the industrial base?

And would this legitimacy extend to targeted reprisals, or just to coincidental attacks according to the established laws of warfare?

Population targeting has been a mainstay of U.S. and U.K. strategic warfare plans for generations, and I've always defended them.

[dps]

Which is a bit disturbing, given that you popularly claim to have invented modern democracy, yet have such a hatred for self-determination.

The Swedish monarchy meanwhile, or in American terms old world despotism, managed to settle a nationalist independence movement without a single shot fired.

Funny how things work out.

Even funnier how you also cheered on the Kosovo rebellion.

I guess as the old saying goes, everything is so big in America that double-standards simply aren't enough. You need tripple-standards. Preferably super-sized.

What you don't understand is that Americans have balls.  Something sadly lacking amongst European males.

Yeah, he seems to think that the Swedes recognized Norwegian independence without any blood being shed on the basis of some principle, when in fact the did so out of fear of getting their asses kicked.

[Ideologue]

Anyway, Slargos, I've been on record already saying the United States prior to at least 1920 was an illegitimate government that could justifiably be opposed with force.  How is that supposed to have trapped me?

It doesn't diminish my support for the U.S.A. over the C.S.A., or invalidate U.S. actions in that war.

[Slargos]

Population targeting has been a mainstay of U.S. and U.K. strategic warfare plans for generations, and I've always defended them.

And what is the justification for targeting the civilian population? You didn't fully answer my question, by the way. I asked whether reprisals, or if you will, attacks intended to specifically incite terror in the population or exact revenge for previous misdeeds, whether the population were explicitly involved or not, was legitimate.

[Slargos]

Which is a bit disturbing, given that you popularly claim to have invented modern democracy, yet have such a hatred for self-determination.

The Swedish monarchy meanwhile, or in American terms old world despotism, managed to settle a nationalist independence movement without a single shot fired.

Funny how things work out.

Even funnier how you also cheered on the Kosovo rebellion.

I guess as the old saying goes, everything is so big in America that double-standards simply aren't enough. You need tripple-standards. Preferably super-sized.

What you don't understand is that Americans have balls.  Something sadly lacking amongst European males.

Yeah, he seems to think that the Swedes recognized Norwegian independence without any blood being shed on the basis of some principle, when in fact the did so out of fear of getting their asses kicked.

You seem very well versed on the subject. Perhaps you could describe to me the process that preceded the dissolution of the Union. Short bullet points on the decision makers' motivations for continuing the dissolution without armed intervention will do.

[Neil]

Anyway, Slargos, I've been on record already saying the United States prior to at least 1920 was an illegitimate government that could justifiably be opposed with force.

See, and it's stuff like this that makes you difficult to take seriously.