@ Batlord

I would argue it's not just an empathy problem. We actually have more empathy for countries we're at war with than we did previously.

But it's easy to oppose something you see as egregious when the consequences for your opposition are nil. It's easy to oppose interventionist wars that you view as having a negative affect on us anyway. It's not so easy to ignore Hitler when you fear you will have to deal with his empire in the post war environment.

Which brings us back the conversation on collateral damage. You say if we went to war with another serious world power like China, we would go back to the strategy of total war; maximum chaos and destruction.

In a post 1945 world, that would mean nuclear war. Which risks destroying the planet for humans. Hence why we didn't end up going to war with the Soviets. Where as historically, when the stakes were large, the cold war would've almost certainly turned hot.

Which brings us back to the global US empire. If the stakes of abandoning it are that we live under the heel of China or anyone else, I sorta prefer the current set up. And I think most Americans would feel the same.

Most citizens of any country would probably rather be on the winning side of that sort of arrangement. So that's why the pragmatic concerns are inescapable. Because the alternative could have an actual impact on us that most of us would rather avoid.

Half a world away?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45442596

I'm honestly curious what Hong Kong protesters think they're going to accomplish. I'm sure they know a million times better than I do the situation they're in and the date of Hong Kong becoming 100% under Chinese law so what do they think the government that ran over protesters with tanks will do to accommodate them?

That's similar to asking what did the people in tiananmen square expect to accomplish

When you are faced with an impending tyranny there's only 2 options: resist and risk it all or bend over like a bitch

First time I went to Hong Kong it was still under British rule.
Stayed at this place. Pool was on a roof of one level and topless
was totally cool at that time.

https://newworldmillenniumhotel.com/...kaAuPAEALw_wcB

Oh, and it was like 120 degrees with 110% humidity the whole 3 days. Like dangerous stuff.

But when you have the example of Tienanmen Square to work off of what do you think is going to happen differently? I mean either you think the Chinese government has changed, you think you have something to bargain with that can't be run over, or you start picking up weapons. I haven't seen anything to make me think that the Hong Kongers aren't just assuming that because their rules are different right now that they'll always be different for no smart reason.

https://i.imgur.com/XfBbMLk.gif

them umbrellas aint it son.... gotta upgrade to offense!

It's even more cynical than that

The people in tiananmen square likely also knew the risk they were taking

But compliance only buys you some time... chances are unless you completely embrace the regime and defend them against all attacks, they will ultimately take you down.

I imagine the people in Tienanmen Square did not actually realize the level of reprisals they would face. Or if they did they thought the rest of the country would rise up with them in horror and start a chain reaction. That did not happen. So what are the Hong Kongers banking on? I mean if this is all "**** you kill us we don't care we're sick of you" then hell ****ing yeah but I don't think most people are as nihilistic as that.

You just wish life felt as real as living in Hong Kong. Life in America doesn't even feel real.

given the history of the Chinese regime, I'm guessing they were well aware of the risks.

Especially since they just stood there as a tank was approaching

But to what end? And to what end now? Are people protesting just to be heard and aren't willing to imagine that they won't be? I don't think most people who do this **** honestly are sacrificing themselves, they probably just aren't willing to admit that they won't be heard.

I thought that was just N. Korea.

I think you need a "re-edication" camp yourself. Hopefully they have an English class.

Not really because 'harm' and 'help' in the context of humanity is more complicated than you make it to be. I'm not willing to die on the hill of those two things being the only things but you really have done a **** job of convincing me otherwise. Really, I'm just rejecting the idea that morality is a purely subjective idea built by culture when I think it's more than just what we've been taught.

Just remember he's trying to bring this back to a traditionalist American view where it's okay to be a neoliberal watching CNN on TV. He hates Hillary Clinton but he really is Hillary Clinton.

JWB killed Epstein?

I'm sure he'd justify it while never having the balls to do it himself.

^ I think that was true in the era of Chairman Mau, but things have changed a lot since then haven't they? TBH, my knowledge of life in China is very outdated; basically, it stops where this amazing book stops, with 1992:-

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...qhVomT2QPJ8A&s
__________________________________________________ ________________________

As well as being a joke at Trump's expense, this is a feel-good story about how democracy still works. Ordinary people for the win :tramp:

Virginia Elects Woman Who Gave President The Finger: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50315490

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...lMVjkvm9bk6A&s

Wild Swans is great read. Insanely engrossing.

From what I’ve been reading the Chinese government is just as brutal today though. It’s not as chaotic but you better not make a squeak or they’ll go after your whole family. They got cameras and drones everywhere and they give you a public rating number. They got Big Brother, Hitler (Uighurs), and Stalin rolling at the same time.

The world is in a very bad time. Everybody who predicts the end is wrong. Except the last guy. We’re gettting there, hopefully. I’d rather we had a new global common persons revolution though. Probably the best play is mostly pacifistic with targeted assassinations and executions on billionaires and politicians. I want to call it the Anarchist Hope Brigade.

I don't think they're banking on anything, other than maybe trying to invoke the US/ international community to intervene. Which isn't going to happen. They're doing the only thing they can that has the slightest chance of working visa resistance.

It's like asking what are the people in Palestine banking on by attacking Israel. They have to know they're out matched. But what else is there to do?

Extreme scenarios like this will bring out an extreme amount of resilience in human beings that you and I can't even begin to comprehend.

Live peacefully in the more than generous territory they’ve been given and stop blowing up busses and markets and constantly aggressively trying to expand and inflict genocide on Israel.

The American government has been more than generous with you. You have access to food, water, shelter, healthcare, and you have the audacity to spit on them just cause you're too big of a nutjob to take advantage of everything that's been provided for you.

That’s cute.

I thought so.

Why do you think anti semitism is ok?

you aren't looking to be convinced. All you've done is dodge points, try to muddy the waters, and try to hide behind vauge allusions that suffering or harm are 'more nuaced' I.e. trying to expand the definition of those words to include whatever is needed to maintain your framework.

Have you ever read Bentham? This is not exactly a new topic/idea.

Nah, Hillary is more hawkish than I am. Just because I think we're better off being the top super power doesn't mean every war is worth it. There have been plenty of blunders we could've avoided with little consequence.

No, I actually haven't. I've completely explained everything and you just reject it in an attempt to over simplify things because nuance is something you can't seem to grasp.

You did the same exact **** with the IQ test debate.

Let me clarify. I would not kill a homeless person if I knew it'd cause less suffering than it prevented if they had the ability to do it because robbing him of a choice is a cause of human suffering that isn't necessary. Me not killing him doesn't make me responsible what so ever for his continued suffering because I didn't cause it and he is not dependent on my choice to end his own suffering. In the event where he would be dependent on me, such as assisted suicide or euthanasia, I would because at that point I'd be directly responsible for his prolonged suffering.

I've already said this but for ****s sake you're stubborn in wanting to hear it.

Also, as I've already explained but you don't want to listen, it's different than the kill a child to save 100 scenario because in that instance I know that they are dependent on my choice.

Nothing muddied, clear as day.

-_-

Do you see a problem here?

There is none, you just have a hard time understanding as usual.

This is where we're having a fundamental disconnect

the premise is that killing him will definitely lead to less suffering. So saying you will cause unnecessary suffering as the reason not to do it is going back on the premise once again.

1) Cool. Me neither.
2) Can you quantify 'prevented'? Prevented what? More suffering? How much more? What kind? Bullet to the brain or death by 1,000 cuts?
3) Ability to kill themselves?
4) I robbed my kid of the choice of running into the street. Did they suffer?

It's not going back on the premise because you're ignoring the part where I said I would if they were dependent on my choice.

2) Read the scenario JWB cooked up and you'll get it.

3) Yes.

4) But that's different because your child's lack of awareness makes them dependent on you. Euthanasia would also be robbing somebody of choice but that person lacks the ability to decide there for they are dependent on me to decide for them and I already support that.

It is going back on the premise, because you're still insisting it will cause more suffering when the entire premise is predicated on the fact that it won't.

I have to be honest, I'm beyond bored of this argument at this point. I wish some good Samaritan would come along and kill me right about now.