Actually, everyone is just piling on against Eco-Terrorists, as I predicted.
Quote from Desolation Angel »
AND TO ****ING RESTATE IT: Which is worse: bad methods with good intentions or good methods with bad intentions. The organizations that I associate with those two consepts are just for clairity and flavour. You seem to think that the means someone uses are more important then the cause they champion. Why is that?
In this case, it boiled down to that, in addition to the Eco-Terrorist's disordered ends. I could go into to detial, but I would no longer be mentioning terrorist and missionaries if I went further, the means vs ends (the only serious or non-obvious thing mentioned here) debate would become off-topic. If you wanted an Ends v Means debate, then you shouldn't have worded it with such a specific and somewhat inflammatory topic.
Quote from Desolation Angel »
Unlike some of the more dunderheaded indeviduals on this forum.
So I am just a little dunderheaded?;)
Anyway, I suggested closing up this thread due to the nature of the comparison and the pile on. The title seemed even offensive, depsite the fact that I despise most current(including Christianity) religions. I never attacked you, but you did attack me twice indirectly. I do realize that insultng a thread enough is an indirect attack, but given the nature of the thread, and the soft nature of my comment ("[yawn], apples and oranges"), I just don't see it that way. My comment would have been kinder if the thread had more depth.
As T2 said, put in more substance. Also, remove any hidden agendas, like Christianity bashing and insulting comparisons that can not spark true debate. Given all the Bush/Republican/Christian bashing (like oudalla's threads) as of late, most reasonable people are just tired of it, liberal or conservative.
It honestly didn't bother me at all this time, but please don't use "don't be a ____" phrases, as they are still insulting to most(or many) people. I was not singling you out or anything, just check the thread content.
Click here to visit my userpage at Wikipedia, where I am currently an administrator.:cool2:
"Your attack has been rendered quite harmless, it is however, quite pretty." -Saprazzan vizier
"It was probably a lowsy spell in the first place." -Ertai, wizer adept
"The duel was going badly for me and Zur thought I was finished. He boasted that he would eat my soul--but all he ate were his words." -Gustha Ebbasdotter
How can a missionary be worse than a terrorist? First off, missionaries do NOT harm anyone. I'm not a missionary, so I wouldn't know, but I do go on mission trips with my church. We have never tried to "force our religion" on other people.
Precisely. Modern day church activities are rather tame and not as actively hypocritical and aggrandizing as they were in the past. The brutality some early missionaries showed to Africa and Latin America is truly astounding.
Quote from GodoftheGrove »
I think Eco-terrorist is a bit of a misnomer, since they want to stop other people from terrorising the ecosystem. Which makes them anti-ecoterrorists really.
I agree that the term applied to them is rather...shall we say...carefully constructed, perhaps unfairly but these people are still idiots. And this is coming from a guy who does believe the environment is important, that global warming is indeed a valid concern, and that the artic wildlife refuge is something to protect. However, whatever acts these people commit it only incites the opposing side to resist farther or to simply dismiss their claims, both of which nullify any possible "ends" to their "means".
Do you think slashing the tires of an SUV will show people the error of their ways? NO, in fact it will further antagonize people against you and make your positiion seem more extreme. The destruction of property is also usually a big minus. There is no better way to ensure an unjust policy remains in place than to give them reason to uphold it.
P.S.-I don't mean to pick on you. I'm really addressing the "OMG, Christianity = Crusades and missionaries = monsters who hide in yoru clsoet at night" group.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I never allowed my schooling to interfere with my education" -Mark Twain
Quote from hybrid life »
The war is for oil..its one of the ways to make this huge operation worthwhile. People care more about lower gas prices than iraqis anyway.
What others say about me:
Quote from JayC »
You're obviously an ignorant conservative. I blame your hill-billy Mom and Dad.
What if a huge UFO would start scooping entire cites from the face of the earth? That would be bad, right. This is the same, but with fish instead of people. People are more valuable then fish in the opinion of people but still, that's bad right?
FYI: Fishing in the ocean is much like stabbing water. You can stab and stab, but it will just keep coming back. Please don't tell me you honestly believe that worlds population of fish are in a dangerously low number due to fishing.
Jace on the other hand gives you card advantage for no life cost. On the contrary, Jace can actually take some damage for you. I'd think that makes him better than Arena.
FYI: Fishing in the ocean is much like stabbing water. You can stab and stab, but it will just keep coming back. Please don't tell me you honestly believe that worlds population of fish are in a dangerously low number due to fishing.
It may not be yet, but with that attitude it's not out of reach. There is such a thing as overfishing, and if fishing is approached with the "stabbing water" attitude, it's much easier to cross the threshold.
It may not be yet, but with that attitude it's not out of reach. There is such a thing as overfishing, and if fishing is approached with the "stabbing water" attitude, it's much easier to cross the threshold.
Proof please. Can you show me an area that has been overfished?
Jace on the other hand gives you card advantage for no life cost. On the contrary, Jace can actually take some damage for you. I'd think that makes him better than Arena.
Proof please. Can you show me an area that has been overfished?
It took me seriously less than a minute to find the following article on the depleted reserves of cod near Newfoundland. Numbers so low, even strict policies have failed to compensate yet for it. It also compares it to the Tragedy of the Commons to boot. Overfishing is a widely recognized threat to marine life and economies around the world. The problem has not been whether or not it exists but how it should be fixed in itnernational waters, waters not owned by anybody.
Well, of course that is going to occur when you don't take any precautions in the matter. Of course some places will have decreased numbers if you overfish. But my point was that you can't really overfish an area withut being incredibly reckless about it; but in no way are the majority of fish species about to become extinct because of human fishing...especially seeing as how most countries try to cut down on it by periodically moving around, and giving time for a certain area to regrow, etc.
Jace on the other hand gives you card advantage for no life cost. On the contrary, Jace can actually take some damage for you. I'd think that makes him better than Arena.
So, we are seriously comparing people who commit violence to people whose objective is to change people's mind about something (in this case religion)?
So, using that logic, then people who try to change people's mind about politics are evil! EVIL! The people who go door to door trying to get you to vote for Bush/Kerry or whoever, trying to completely eradicate those beliefs that they don't agree with can be reasonably compared to terrorists.
Therefore, you are all evil, and can be compared to Terrorists!!!!!
Oh wait, that means that I can be compared to a terrorist, because I believe that my way, conservatism, is better then liberalism, and hope that people will agree with me!!!
I was thinking about whether having a bad method and a good goal or a good method and a bad goal is more morally correct.
On one side one you have a eco-terrorist organization who sinks fishing ships, sets fire to buildings and genrally tries to use violence and fear to effect social change (NOT OKAY). But they do it for the envirorment (A cause I strongly support).
On the other side you have christian missionarries who feed and educate pepole, build houses and use charity and good will to effect social change (AWESOME). But they only do it so that pepole will join there religion, with full intention to destroy the prior religons and idigenous cultures of the places they visit (a goal find discusting).
Which is better or worse and why?
This is a straightforward question.
Specifically, your question is poor. Here's why: I may not agree with you that a means (violence) or a goal (conversion) is bad or that a means (aid to the poor) is good or a goal (economic preservation) is good.
In this case, I break it down like this:
Eco-terrorist
means: bad
goals: neither
Missionary
means: good
goals: bad
Others will disagree with me, though.
As to the question in general, 'which is worse: a person with good goals but bad means or a person with good means but bad goals?' I would say neither is any better than the other.
The use of good means to bring about a bad goal leaves us with a negative state in the end.
For example, I may stay home from school to care for a family member in order to fail out of school. My goal in this case was failing and even though I did some good in the quest for that goal, I am still left with a negative reality: failure.
On the other hand, a piece of a good goal is sacrifice when attained in an improper manner.
For example, I may cheat on my grades in order to graduate. Now, the end result is good. However, the way in which I reached that goal diminishes the enjoyability of it.
This is a difficult question. I don't like the terrorists because they are dangerous and cause harm. The missionaries aren't very likeable, though, because they coerce people into joining their religion. It isn't the kind of coersion where they say "accept our religion or we will kill you" like missionaries did in the past, but it is more subtle. They have resources that the conversion targets don't have. They provide the resources to the people who are more likely to give in to please the missionaries to get more resources. I will keep thinking to try to decide on an answer.
As a note, Desolation Angel, I haven't seen a problem with any of your threads and am surprised that anyone would try to close them. It would likely be a good idea to try phrasing things to be less likely to offend someone though.
Well, of course that is going to occur when you don't take any precautions in the matter.
And if you approach it with the attitude of "There will always be fish in the sea" you're less likely to take precautions in the matter. That's what I was trying to say.
I'm sorry, but you are being smug. Instead of making a rude remark, make a real argument. As I look at the argument you made, I see fallacies.
Quote from kashmyr »
So, we are seriously comparing people who commit violence to people whose objective is to change people's mind about something (in this case religion)?
Straw man: You want us to reject his argument because Eco-terrorists -> violence -> bad stuff. The real argument is: "Eco-terrorists and missionaries are both bad as they use coercion to achieve a change in mindset."
Ad hominem I: You want us to reject Eco-terrorists because they are radical. This simultaneously commits a judgmental language fallacy.
Hasty Generalization: Without taking the positive environmental agenda into consideration, you paint the Eco-Terrorists as radicals and then offer that as your sole reason to reject the discussion.
Ad hominem II: You want us to reject this argument on the basis that you try to make it look stupid by using "we are seriously...?"
Appeal to belief: Because most people dislike radicalism, you want us to reject discussion.
Quote from kashmyr »
So, using that logic, then people who try to change people's mind about politics are evil! EVIL! The people who go door to door trying to get you to vote for Bush/Kerry or whoever, trying to completely eradicate those beliefs that they don't agree with can be reasonably compared to terrorists.
Therefore, you are all evil, and can be compared to Terrorists!!!!!
Premise: If changing minds is bad, then debate and politics is bad.
Non-sequitur: Your premise does not link to coercion, because debate is a sophist exercise, not a coercive exercise.
Appeal to consequences: You think this conclusion is rediculous, but that doesn't disprove the statement.
After the non-sequitur, you should have stopped writing. It would have saved you time, especially on the narrative.
Quote from kashmyr »
Oh wait, that means that I can be compared to a terrorist, because I believe that my way, conservatism, is better then liberalism, and hope that people will agree with me!!!
This is a narrative, and not a real argument.
Red Herring: Even if we are supposed to treat this as an impact argument, it merely serves to distract from the previous fallacies you've committed.
Appeal to Consequences: You want us to reject the argument because you paint it to look undesirable.
Non sequitur: Again, your non-linking premises fail to warrant your conclusion.
Burden of Proof: Your fallacies prevent you from meeting your burden to prove the argument that we should reject this discussion.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
Without taking the positive environmental agenda into consideration
There is no positive environmental agenda from Eco-Terrorists. While there may or may not be from the environmentalist movement, they are not commiting acts of vandalism at the minimum, and murder at the maximum.
Trying to paint people's whose entire mission is to cause financial, psychological, or physical harm as some sort of heroic cause is greatly unbelievable.
I won't be dragged into this discussion, however. This has to be the dumbest thread on Salvation. I think I will go back to the Type 2 forum, where Galvatron makes more sense.
FYI: Fishing in the ocean is much like stabbing water. You can stab and stab, but it will just keep coming back. Please don't tell me you honestly believe that worlds population of fish are in a dangerously low number due to fishing.
Actually in many places there are serious concerns about overfishing, for example in the maritime provinces of Canada. There's beeen restrictions placed on how much companies can fish in those areas. I'm surprised you've never heard about overfishing patterns, they're becoming a real problem.
I think I will go back to the Type 2 forum, where Galvatron makes more sense.
There is no positive environmental agenda from Eco-Terrorists. While there may or may not be from the environmentalist movement, they are not commiting acts of vandalism at the minimum, and murder at the maximum.
Where is your warrant?
Quote from kashmyr »
Trying to paint people's whose entire mission is to cause financial, psychological, or physical harm as some sort of heroic cause is greatly unbelievable.
Maybe not. I'll conceed that one. But before I go, surely you don't condemn any violent revolution? That would make the American Revolution impossible to reconcile. Keep such things in mind when making a blanket statement.
Quote from kashmyr »
I won't be dragged into this discussion, however. This has to be the dumbest thread on Salvation. I think I will go back to the Type 2 forum, where Galvatron makes more sense.
Well, that's because you dropped all of my arguments except the environmental agenda, which you offered merely an assertion for.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
Actually in many places there are serious concerns about overfishing, for example in the maritime provinces of Canada. There's beeen restrictions placed on how much companies can fish in those areas. I'm surprised you've never heard about overfishing patterns, they're becoming a real problem.
Too true. As someone who lives in the maritimes, I witnessed firsthand how overfishing completely ravaged our fishing industry. To the point that the bottom fell out of the industry and it collapsed completely, sending much of the region into an economic tailspin as so much of our population depended on the fishing industry. And it only took a decade. We still haven't recovered. We have to have fish hatcheries just to replace what little we can fish.
It helps to understand where Desolation Angel is coming from. Generally, he is shouted down and treated badly by people on the debate forums. (Frankly, I don't think many people here could hack it in a real debate such as policy debate, what with having to warrant arguments and such. And since rude behavior is a quick substitute for real arguments, it is a crutch that too many use.) For example, I find making fun of peoples' spelling and grammar to be rude and sophomoric. It shows a lack of civility uncharacteristic of legitimate, educational debate. I have seen rebuttals consisting of: "oops, you misspelled a word, ergo I win." Ad hominem attacks in debate, and rude treatment in general is a sad commentary of the state of the debate forum. I offer civility as the alternative.
Goatchunx, thank you for the support.
While I agree that civility is important, and I think that as I said before one says something they should consiter that persons emotions, there is a limit, and sometimes the civility in this forum can get out of control. Someone smarter then me said that "polite socioties are also the most repressed socioties and therefore the most violent". T2 reflexively attacked me mostly because he thought I was being rude to Voice of all (MTG). That same paragraph included the words "I respect you." We see later that my comment didn't really bother Voice of All (MTG), but he expresses a consern about the langauge I used. If I was at my local game shop among freinds (wich like it or not, I consiter most of you), then I could freely say "Don't be a dick" and not expect the ravenning reaction I recieved. Calm down pepole. We're not even talking about Magic in here for Christsakes.
I will try to follow that same standard and keep my tantrums to a minimum. I appologize to any offended parties (even T2 :)), and say in consolation that I was having a particularly pissy weekend.
Anyways, I think this is a prime opertunity to offer my own oppinion on the debate that I created. Some of y'all seem to believe that I created this thread as an excuse to bash Christians. If I did, it wasn't intentional. I trully do belive that if the missionaries achieve what thier goals it will be akin to cultural genocide. Now why dose not everyone agree with this veiw? I am so exited you asked! :tongue3: And look; it also ties directly into this debate! And here it is: whether someone else will see your goal as noble or just is highly subjective and unkowable. Ask Adolf Hitlar during his less lucid moments what the **** he was doing from -oh say- 1930 to 1945 and he might say "I was trying to make the world a better place." However, his idea of what "better" was, is, I hope, very different then yours or mine. Means, however, have clear and immedaite benifits or disadvantages that are more redily apparent. While ends matter only to you and all of your constituants, means matter to everyone. So what I learned by analizing the Misssonaries is that I wish everone who I see as having an abhorant or twisted agenda (and plenty who have good ones), tried to achieve those goals by feeding poor pepole.:halo:
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am petitioning for the removal of mythic rarity. Sig this to join the cause!
Famliy Guy Emperor Says,
"Something, something something, DARK SIDE!
Something, something, something COMPLETE!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHiUitciuJ8
:symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw: SPIKE GAYMER: not just a beatdown, a beatdown sung to the tune of "I Feel Pretty"!
While I agree that civility is important, and I think that as I said before one says something they should consiter that persons emotions, there is a limit, and sometimes the civility in this forum can get out of control.
When does civility get out of control?
Quote from Desolation Angel »
Someone smarter then me said that "polite socioties are also the most repressed socioties and therefore the most violent".
I would still ask those people where their warrants are. What empirical evidence tells me that polite societies are the most repressed? And where is the evidence that links repressed societies to violence in a cause and effect relationship?
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
I would still ask those people where their warrants are. What empirical evidence tells me that polite societies are the most repressed? And where is the evidence that links repressed societies to violence in a cause and effect relationship?
Civility is out of control when folks can't really communicate for fear of offending each other and the harsh backlash that entails. As far as historical evendence, take 200 years ago during the time of Jane Austin. They were so fussy about sex and proprioty that they changed the word for what goes in a turkey from "stuffing" to "dressing". And what did you do when someone said something particularly offensive at the local pub? You went outside, had a duel, and you shot each other to death.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am petitioning for the removal of mythic rarity. Sig this to join the cause!
Famliy Guy Emperor Says,
"Something, something something, DARK SIDE!
Something, something, something COMPLETE!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHiUitciuJ8
:symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw: SPIKE GAYMER: not just a beatdown, a beatdown sung to the tune of "I Feel Pretty"!
I was thinking about whether having a bad method and a good goal or a good method and a bad goal is more morally correct.
On one side one you have a eco-terrorist organization who sinks fishing ships, sets fire to buildings and genrally tries to use violence and fear to effect social change (NOT OKAY). But they do it for the envirorment (A cause I strongly support).
On the other side you have christian missionarries who feed and educate pepole, build houses and use charity and good will to effect social change (AWESOME). But they only do it so that pepole will join there religion, with full intention to destroy the prior religons and idigenous cultures of the places they visit (a goal find discusting).
Which is better or worse and why?
You seem to have a very cynical attitude about the motives of Christian missionaries.
I don't suppose you've ever encountered any, have you?
My aunt has been involved in the missionary field for a number of years. And I can strongly attest that her motive isn't to "destroy the native culture" (In fact, Christian missionaries often incorporate native cultures into their religious services). No, their motives are to save the souls of those who are willing to listen. That may or may not be possible, depending on whether you believe there is such a thing as a soul, but that's beside the point. Their motives are certainly pure, and I don't think many or their converts would argue that the consequences are negative, either.
And whether those they were sent to choose to listen or not, they'll be happy to serve the people around them, because that's the life they've been called by God to lead. Their selflessness and altruism are not cheapened simply because they are coupled with a desire to improve not only the physical health of others, but also their spiritual health.
Also, I'm a little curious why you find the alleged "destruction" of their culture such a terrible ill. Diversity is certainly a worthy goal, when it improves others' lives. But when people willingly choose to incorporate a new culture into their lives, of their own free will, where is the crime in that?
As for eco-terrorists, I approve of their cause, but not their methods or ideology. Their devaluation of human life is a much greater crime than anything that the Christian missionaries have been accused of (unfairly, in my opinion). One group acts out of a desire to serve mankind, and acts in the way they deem best, with kindness, sensitivity, and respect. The other sees humanity as an obstacle, that must be removed despite the cost.
To place them in the same category is...simply wrong. I know you're simply basing your opinion upon a caricature of who you think they are, but I can put a face and a name to these people, and they're not who you think they are.
the good old ends vs. the means, means vs. the ends question
Usually, people who are willing to resort to any means to achieve their goals are far more dangerous than those who support an unworthy cause, but show restraint in the way they try to advance it. History is rife with examples.
Quote from Goatchunx »
Straw man: You want us to reject his argument because Eco-terrorists -> violence -> bad stuff. The real argument is: "Eco-terrorists and missionaries are both bad as they use coercion to achieve a change in mindset."
Since Kashmyr has left the building, I'll continue the argument where he left off.
You seem to have a very, very loose definition of coercion. Could you explain exactly how Christian missionaries and eco-terrorists are in the same ball-park, no, the same planet, when it comes to their treatment of their fellow human beings?
Quote from Goatchunx »
Ad hominem I: You want us to reject Eco-terrorists because they are radical. This simultaneously commits a judgmental language fallacy.
Hasty Generalization: Without taking the positive environmental agenda into consideration, you paint the Eco-Terrorists as radicals and then offer that as your sole reason to reject the discussion.
Ad hominem II: You want us to reject this argument on the basis that you try to make it look stupid by using "we are seriously...?"
Appeal to belief: Because most people dislike radicalism, you want us to reject discussion.
I'm pretty sure that he was rejecting them on the basis that they approve of the use of violence to achieve their ends.
Quote from Goatchunx »
Premise: If changing minds is bad, then debate and politics is bad.
Non-sequitur: Your premise does not link to coercion, because debate is a sophist exercise, not a coercive exercise.
And where does missionary work cross the line from "sophistry" or debate, to coercion? His comparison to political recruiting sounds quite accurate, to me.
On the other side you have christian missionarries who feed and educate pepole, build houses and use charity and good will to effect social change (AWESOME). But they only do it so that pepole will join there religion, with full intention to destroy the prior religons and idigenous cultures of the places they visit (a goal find discusting).
Which is better or worse and why?
missionaries != conquistadores
Also, destroying false religions is not wrong. So missionaries spreading a true religion are not in the wrong.
Also, destroying false religions is not wrong. So missionaries spreading a true religion are not in the wrong.
Of course we all believe that our religion is false.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click here to visit my userpage at Wikipedia, where I am currently an administrator.:cool2:
"Your attack has been rendered quite harmless, it is however, quite pretty." -Saprazzan vizier
"It was probably a lowsy spell in the first place." -Ertai, wizer adept
"The duel was going badly for me and Zur thought I was finished. He boasted that he would eat my soul--but all he ate were his words." -Gustha Ebbasdotter
Since Kashmyr has left the building, I'll continue the argument where he left off.
You seem to have a very, very loose definition of coercion.Could you explain exactly how Christian missionaries and eco-terrorists are in the same ball-park, no, the same planet, when it comes to their treatment of their fellow human beings?
Argument I: I don't have to affirm his argument, I was just trying to keep Kashmyr honest, because the counterargument oversimplified the original argument.
Argument II: The inherent goal of missionaries is to perpetuate ethnocentrism by converting people with a different culture and religion to Judeo-Christian ways. Further, the impacts of abuse by missionaries is intolerable.
I'm pretty sure that he was rejecting them on the basis that they approve of the use of violence to achieve their ends.
But, violence has achieved good ends. Surely the American Revolutionary War wasn't a condemnable war. (Unless you're a pacifist.) What about the World Wars? Violence to achieve an end is not totally out of the cloth. Look to John Locke and his ideas which are in the Declaration of Independence about how revolution is a legitimate way of making government work the way the people want.
Quote from Azrael »
And where does missionary work cross the line from "sophistry" or debate, to coercion? His comparison to political recruiting sounds quite accurate, to me.
Debate, from American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition: n. A discussion involving opposing points
Coercion, from Princeton Universty, 2003: n. Using force to cause something.
Bright-line: The missionaries sometimes engage in more than just persuasion, and cross into the realm of coercion.
Also, destroying false religions is not wrong. So missionaries spreading a true religion are not in the wrong.
You have no authority to determine what true religion is. You offer no warrants, and I'm not going to take your word. Nor will I take "God says so" as a warrant. I have never seen or experienced the grace of God, so present some tangible evidence that Christianity or any other religion is the "true religion." Such evidence is ultimately inattainable. So, your argument now breaks down to "Destroying religions is not wrong." But how can that be true when destroying religions advances ethnocentrism which decreases cultural diversity and contributes to the otherization of people in other cultures.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
Of course we all believe that our opinions/viewpoints/determinations are false.
Ahh...religion is baseless unsupported, unprovable and contradicts many other religions.
Some things, like the Sciences, are WAY more solid and realiable than religion as per logic and probability.
If you want to argue that logic and probability are just opinions, then there are no tools to argue with and I will not even bother to reply.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click here to visit my userpage at Wikipedia, where I am currently an administrator.:cool2:
"Your attack has been rendered quite harmless, it is however, quite pretty." -Saprazzan vizier
"It was probably a lowsy spell in the first place." -Ertai, wizer adept
"The duel was going badly for me and Zur thought I was finished. He boasted that he would eat my soul--but all he ate were his words." -Gustha Ebbasdotter
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Thanks :).
Actually, everyone is just piling on against Eco-Terrorists, as I predicted.
In this case, it boiled down to that, in addition to the Eco-Terrorist's disordered ends. I could go into to detial, but I would no longer be mentioning terrorist and missionaries if I went further, the means vs ends (the only serious or non-obvious thing mentioned here) debate would become off-topic. If you wanted an Ends v Means debate, then you shouldn't have worded it with such a specific and somewhat inflammatory topic.
So I am just a little dunderheaded?;)
Anyway, I suggested closing up this thread due to the nature of the comparison and the pile on. The title seemed even offensive, depsite the fact that I despise most current(including Christianity) religions. I never attacked you, but you did attack me twice indirectly. I do realize that insultng a thread enough is an indirect attack, but given the nature of the thread, and the soft nature of my comment ("[yawn], apples and oranges"), I just don't see it that way. My comment would have been kinder if the thread had more depth.
As T2 said, put in more substance. Also, remove any hidden agendas, like Christianity bashing and insulting comparisons that can not spark true debate. Given all the Bush/Republican/Christian bashing (like oudalla's threads) as of late, most reasonable people are just tired of it, liberal or conservative.
It honestly didn't bother me at all this time, but please don't use "don't be a ____" phrases, as they are still insulting to most(or many) people. I was not singling you out or anything, just check the thread content.
"Your attack has been rendered quite harmless, it is however, quite pretty." -Saprazzan vizier
"It was probably a lowsy spell in the first place." -Ertai, wizer adept
"The duel was going badly for me and Zur thought I was finished. He boasted that he would eat my soul--but all he ate were his words." -Gustha Ebbasdotter
Precisely. Modern day church activities are rather tame and not as actively hypocritical and aggrandizing as they were in the past. The brutality some early missionaries showed to Africa and Latin America is truly astounding.
I agree that the term applied to them is rather...shall we say...carefully constructed, perhaps unfairly but these people are still idiots. And this is coming from a guy who does believe the environment is important, that global warming is indeed a valid concern, and that the artic wildlife refuge is something to protect. However, whatever acts these people commit it only incites the opposing side to resist farther or to simply dismiss their claims, both of which nullify any possible "ends" to their "means".
Do you think slashing the tires of an SUV will show people the error of their ways? NO, in fact it will further antagonize people against you and make your positiion seem more extreme. The destruction of property is also usually a big minus. There is no better way to ensure an unjust policy remains in place than to give them reason to uphold it.
P.S.-I don't mean to pick on you. I'm really addressing the "OMG, Christianity = Crusades and missionaries = monsters who hide in yoru clsoet at night" group.
What others say about me:
Sven Dostei
Unofficial Official arrogant teenage elitist of The Ivory Tower
FYI: Fishing in the ocean is much like stabbing water. You can stab and stab, but it will just keep coming back. Please don't tell me you honestly believe that worlds population of fish are in a dangerously low number due to fishing.
It may not be yet, but with that attitude it's not out of reach. There is such a thing as overfishing, and if fishing is approached with the "stabbing water" attitude, it's much easier to cross the threshold.
Proof please. Can you show me an area that has been overfished?
It took me seriously less than a minute to find the following article on the depleted reserves of cod near Newfoundland. Numbers so low, even strict policies have failed to compensate yet for it. It also compares it to the Tragedy of the Commons to boot. Overfishing is a widely recognized threat to marine life and economies around the world. The problem has not been whether or not it exists but how it should be fixed in itnernational waters, waters not owned by anybody.
http://egj.lib.uidaho.edu/egj17/mason1.html
What others say about me:
Sven Dostei
Unofficial Official arrogant teenage elitist of The Ivory Tower
So, using that logic, then people who try to change people's mind about politics are evil! EVIL! The people who go door to door trying to get you to vote for Bush/Kerry or whoever, trying to completely eradicate those beliefs that they don't agree with can be reasonably compared to terrorists.
Therefore, you are all evil, and can be compared to Terrorists!!!!!
Oh wait, that means that I can be compared to a terrorist, because I believe that my way, conservatism, is better then liberalism, and hope that people will agree with me!!!
What an asinine topic.
Northern Ohio Gamers Forums
Specifically, your question is poor. Here's why: I may not agree with you that a means (violence) or a goal (conversion) is bad or that a means (aid to the poor) is good or a goal (economic preservation) is good.
In this case, I break it down like this:
Eco-terrorist
means: bad
goals: neither
Missionary
means: good
goals: bad
Others will disagree with me, though.
As to the question in general, 'which is worse: a person with good goals but bad means or a person with good means but bad goals?' I would say neither is any better than the other.
The use of good means to bring about a bad goal leaves us with a negative state in the end.
For example, I may stay home from school to care for a family member in order to fail out of school. My goal in this case was failing and even though I did some good in the quest for that goal, I am still left with a negative reality: failure.
On the other hand, a piece of a good goal is sacrifice when attained in an improper manner.
For example, I may cheat on my grades in order to graduate. Now, the end result is good. However, the way in which I reached that goal diminishes the enjoyability of it.
As a note, Desolation Angel, I haven't seen a problem with any of your threads and am surprised that anyone would try to close them. It would likely be a good idea to try phrasing things to be less likely to offend someone though.
And if you approach it with the attitude of "There will always be fish in the sea" you're less likely to take precautions in the matter. That's what I was trying to say.
I'm sorry, but you are being smug. Instead of making a rude remark, make a real argument. As I look at the argument you made, I see fallacies.
Straw man: You want us to reject his argument because Eco-terrorists -> violence -> bad stuff. The real argument is: "Eco-terrorists and missionaries are both bad as they use coercion to achieve a change in mindset."
Ad hominem I: You want us to reject Eco-terrorists because they are radical. This simultaneously commits a judgmental language fallacy.
Hasty Generalization: Without taking the positive environmental agenda into consideration, you paint the Eco-Terrorists as radicals and then offer that as your sole reason to reject the discussion.
Ad hominem II: You want us to reject this argument on the basis that you try to make it look stupid by using "we are seriously...?"
Appeal to belief: Because most people dislike radicalism, you want us to reject discussion.
Premise: If changing minds is bad, then debate and politics is bad.
Non-sequitur: Your premise does not link to coercion, because debate is a sophist exercise, not a coercive exercise.
Appeal to consequences: You think this conclusion is rediculous, but that doesn't disprove the statement.
After the non-sequitur, you should have stopped writing. It would have saved you time, especially on the narrative.
This is a narrative, and not a real argument.
Red Herring: Even if we are supposed to treat this as an impact argument, it merely serves to distract from the previous fallacies you've committed.
Appeal to Consequences: You want us to reject the argument because you paint it to look undesirable.
Non sequitur: Again, your non-linking premises fail to warrant your conclusion.
Burden of Proof: Your fallacies prevent you from meeting your burden to prove the argument that we should reject this discussion.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
There is no positive environmental agenda from Eco-Terrorists. While there may or may not be from the environmentalist movement, they are not commiting acts of vandalism at the minimum, and murder at the maximum.
Trying to paint people's whose entire mission is to cause financial, psychological, or physical harm as some sort of heroic cause is greatly unbelievable.
I won't be dragged into this discussion, however. This has to be the dumbest thread on Salvation. I think I will go back to the Type 2 forum, where Galvatron makes more sense.
Northern Ohio Gamers Forums
Actually in many places there are serious concerns about overfishing, for example in the maritime provinces of Canada. There's beeen restrictions placed on how much companies can fish in those areas. I'm surprised you've never heard about overfishing patterns, they're becoming a real problem.
BURN!!
Where is your warrant?
Maybe not. I'll conceed that one. But before I go, surely you don't condemn any violent revolution? That would make the American Revolution impossible to reconcile. Keep such things in mind when making a blanket statement.
Well, that's because you dropped all of my arguments except the environmental agenda, which you offered merely an assertion for.
Nonsense. He debated poorly.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
Too true. As someone who lives in the maritimes, I witnessed firsthand how overfishing completely ravaged our fishing industry. To the point that the bottom fell out of the industry and it collapsed completely, sending much of the region into an economic tailspin as so much of our population depended on the fishing industry. And it only took a decade. We still haven't recovered. We have to have fish hatcheries just to replace what little we can fish.
Overfishing is a major issue.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Goatchunx, thank you for the support.
While I agree that civility is important, and I think that as I said before one says something they should consiter that persons emotions, there is a limit, and sometimes the civility in this forum can get out of control. Someone smarter then me said that "polite socioties are also the most repressed socioties and therefore the most violent". T2 reflexively attacked me mostly because he thought I was being rude to Voice of all (MTG). That same paragraph included the words "I respect you." We see later that my comment didn't really bother Voice of All (MTG), but he expresses a consern about the langauge I used. If I was at my local game shop among freinds (wich like it or not, I consiter most of you), then I could freely say "Don't be a dick" and not expect the ravenning reaction I recieved. Calm down pepole. We're not even talking about Magic in here for Christsakes.
I will try to follow that same standard and keep my tantrums to a minimum. I appologize to any offended parties (even T2 :)), and say in consolation that I was having a particularly pissy weekend.
Anyways, I think this is a prime opertunity to offer my own oppinion on the debate that I created. Some of y'all seem to believe that I created this thread as an excuse to bash Christians. If I did, it wasn't intentional. I trully do belive that if the missionaries achieve what thier goals it will be akin to cultural genocide. Now why dose not everyone agree with this veiw? I am so exited you asked! :tongue3: And look; it also ties directly into this debate! And here it is: whether someone else will see your goal as noble or just is highly subjective and unkowable. Ask Adolf Hitlar during his less lucid moments what the **** he was doing from -oh say- 1930 to 1945 and he might say "I was trying to make the world a better place." However, his idea of what "better" was, is, I hope, very different then yours or mine. Means, however, have clear and immedaite benifits or disadvantages that are more redily apparent. While ends matter only to you and all of your constituants, means matter to everyone. So what I learned by analizing the Misssonaries is that I wish everone who I see as having an abhorant or twisted agenda (and plenty who have good ones), tried to achieve those goals by feeding poor pepole.:halo:
Famliy Guy Emperor Says,
"Something, something something, DARK SIDE!
Something, something, something COMPLETE!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHiUitciuJ8
:symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw:
SPIKE GAYMER: not just a beatdown, a beatdown sung to the tune of "I Feel Pretty"!
When does civility get out of control?
I would still ask those people where their warrants are. What empirical evidence tells me that polite societies are the most repressed? And where is the evidence that links repressed societies to violence in a cause and effect relationship?
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
Civility is out of control when folks can't really communicate for fear of offending each other and the harsh backlash that entails. As far as historical evendence, take 200 years ago during the time of Jane Austin. They were so fussy about sex and proprioty that they changed the word for what goes in a turkey from "stuffing" to "dressing". And what did you do when someone said something particularly offensive at the local pub? You went outside, had a duel, and you shot each other to death.
Famliy Guy Emperor Says,
"Something, something something, DARK SIDE!
Something, something, something COMPLETE!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHiUitciuJ8
:symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw:
SPIKE GAYMER: not just a beatdown, a beatdown sung to the tune of "I Feel Pretty"!
You seem to have a very cynical attitude about the motives of Christian missionaries.
I don't suppose you've ever encountered any, have you?
My aunt has been involved in the missionary field for a number of years. And I can strongly attest that her motive isn't to "destroy the native culture" (In fact, Christian missionaries often incorporate native cultures into their religious services). No, their motives are to save the souls of those who are willing to listen. That may or may not be possible, depending on whether you believe there is such a thing as a soul, but that's beside the point. Their motives are certainly pure, and I don't think many or their converts would argue that the consequences are negative, either.
And whether those they were sent to choose to listen or not, they'll be happy to serve the people around them, because that's the life they've been called by God to lead. Their selflessness and altruism are not cheapened simply because they are coupled with a desire to improve not only the physical health of others, but also their spiritual health.
Also, I'm a little curious why you find the alleged "destruction" of their culture such a terrible ill. Diversity is certainly a worthy goal, when it improves others' lives. But when people willingly choose to incorporate a new culture into their lives, of their own free will, where is the crime in that?
As for eco-terrorists, I approve of their cause, but not their methods or ideology. Their devaluation of human life is a much greater crime than anything that the Christian missionaries have been accused of (unfairly, in my opinion). One group acts out of a desire to serve mankind, and acts in the way they deem best, with kindness, sensitivity, and respect. The other sees humanity as an obstacle, that must be removed despite the cost.
To place them in the same category is...simply wrong. I know you're simply basing your opinion upon a caricature of who you think they are, but I can put a face and a name to these people, and they're not who you think they are.
Usually, people who are willing to resort to any means to achieve their goals are far more dangerous than those who support an unworthy cause, but show restraint in the way they try to advance it. History is rife with examples.
Since Kashmyr has left the building, I'll continue the argument where he left off.
You seem to have a very, very loose definition of coercion. Could you explain exactly how Christian missionaries and eco-terrorists are in the same ball-park, no, the same planet, when it comes to their treatment of their fellow human beings?
I'm pretty sure that he was rejecting them on the basis that they approve of the use of violence to achieve their ends.
And where does missionary work cross the line from "sophistry" or debate, to coercion? His comparison to political recruiting sounds quite accurate, to me.
missionaries != conquistadores
Also, destroying false religions is not wrong. So missionaries spreading a true religion are not in the wrong.
Of course we all believe that our religion is false.
"Your attack has been rendered quite harmless, it is however, quite pretty." -Saprazzan vizier
"It was probably a lowsy spell in the first place." -Ertai, wizer adept
"The duel was going badly for me and Zur thought I was finished. He boasted that he would eat my soul--but all he ate were his words." -Gustha Ebbasdotter
Of course we all believe that our opinions/viewpoints/determinations are false.
Argument II: The inherent goal of missionaries is to perpetuate ethnocentrism by converting people with a different culture and religion to Judeo-Christian ways. Further, the impacts of abuse by missionaries is intolerable.
"Missionaries abuse India’s tolerant nature for conversion. Instead of peaceful co-existing with other religions as millions in India already do, instead they attempt to decimate all other religions through by conversion... In addition, Missionaries funded by Western churches and nations often bribe local officials to cover up their activities. For example, Revered Joseph Cooper of the United States carried out missionary activities for 11 years before he was expelled after raping a 12 year old Hindu girl. India is a poor nation – Missionaries operate in India under the guise of “charity” efforts when in fact they are simply “buying” converts through gifts and material items. In addition, by selecting a poor nation such as India, they can raise funding from unsuspecting people in other nations who believe they are donating to a genuine charity."
But, violence has achieved good ends. Surely the American Revolutionary War wasn't a condemnable war. (Unless you're a pacifist.) What about the World Wars? Violence to achieve an end is not totally out of the cloth. Look to John Locke and his ideas which are in the Declaration of Independence about how revolution is a legitimate way of making government work the way the people want.
Debate, from American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition: n. A discussion involving opposing points
Coercion, from Princeton Universty, 2003: n. Using force to cause something.
Bright-line: The missionaries sometimes engage in more than just persuasion, and cross into the realm of coercion.
"The role of a missionary is to infiltrate a tribe, and convince or coerce them into rejecting their own indigenous spiritual beliefs in favour of the christian church."
Impact: Missionaries destroy diversity of culture.
"Meanwhile in the Philippines, one of the countries where NTM [New Tribes Mission] is most active, Stefan Keulig of Friends of People Close to Nature found on a return visit last year that "...the last group of people on the island who had lived untouched for millennia, have now almost lost their culture, the Taut Batu. Only years ago a large part of the group lived their traditional way in their caves in the southern part of [the island of] Palawan. But the efforts of the American-Christian Mission " New Tribal Mission" had the result that the groups were forced into settlements, they were taught to build houses, to practice kaingin [slash-and-burn agriculture] and to work. Today most of those independent "Cave-people" have to earn their living through the producation of mats made of rattan to be able to participate in the 'blessings' of civilisation like clothing, industrial sugar and industrial white rice."
So, no it's not really a legitimate comparison.
You have no authority to determine what true religion is. You offer no warrants, and I'm not going to take your word. Nor will I take "God says so" as a warrant. I have never seen or experienced the grace of God, so present some tangible evidence that Christianity or any other religion is the "true religion." Such evidence is ultimately inattainable. So, your argument now breaks down to "Destroying religions is not wrong." But how can that be true when destroying religions advances ethnocentrism which decreases cultural diversity and contributes to the otherization of people in other cultures.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
Ahh...religion is baseless unsupported, unprovable and contradicts many other religions.
Some things, like the Sciences, are WAY more solid and realiable than religion as per logic and probability.
If you want to argue that logic and probability are just opinions, then there are no tools to argue with and I will not even bother to reply.
"Your attack has been rendered quite harmless, it is however, quite pretty." -Saprazzan vizier
"It was probably a lowsy spell in the first place." -Ertai, wizer adept
"The duel was going badly for me and Zur thought I was finished. He boasted that he would eat my soul--but all he ate were his words." -Gustha Ebbasdotter