Mass Murder is necessary. discuss - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Non-SMAC related
  Mass Murder is necessary. discuss

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Mass Murder is necessary. discuss

Famous Eccles posted 06-03-99 02:30 PM ET
Ok, not for dumbarse racial reasons, but for other reasons. I would slaughter all my political opponents, quickly.
If, say, Blacks (in any country, this is hypothetical!) were causing a large number of riots, and crime. Would you slaughter them, rather than risk any rebellion.
I would
Bwah bwah
Jack Boots
Jack Boots
Jack Boots (My new name)
Hugo Rune posted 06-03-99 02:41 PM ET
Why do I get the feeling that you're GEEVs evil roommate Bloodnok and not him? You just posted under the other name...
God Emperor Eccles V posted 06-03-99 05:33 PM ET
All right!
Bloodnok has admited to trying to blacken my good name.
I am both Famous Eccles and God Emperor
Eccles V
Major Bloodnok is a distinct, and different entity with different opinions.
He has promised not to use my name again, under pain of having his gonads electrocuted.
High Priest posted 06-03-99 06:12 PM ET
Uhhhh...
Yah,
"f-uck the n-iggers and spics."
Come on, mass murder of innocent people can never be justified.
High Priest
4Horses posted 06-03-99 09:39 PM ET
I agrees with Eccles to an extent. Before the Earth gets seriously overpopulated (and many feel that it already is), we need a mass genocide of say 50% of the entire population. Give the Earth a chance to re-group and wildlife a chance to thrive again. I volunteer to be in the 50% that goes.
Philip McCauley posted 06-03-99 10:42 PM ET
Ah, Machiavelli all over again. The question here is, does the end justify the means? The short answer is no. It is never just to use a person as a means to an end. I think Aristotle adresses this in Nichomachean Ethics, but it might be another work of his. (or Plato, or David Hume, for that matter. It has been a while since I went through my philosophy textbook.)
Koshko posted 06-03-99 11:46 PM ET
I guess if you were going to kill yourself, you might as well take a bunch of innocent bystanders with you.
MichaeltheGreat posted 06-03-99 11:58 PM ET
Philip - you slight Macchiavelli. The points in Il Principe, and more so in Discourses with Livy, is that the ends justify the means in situations where there is a greater common good and/or greater common harm at stake. Machiavelli frequently stresses the desirability of wise rule, and securing the common good of the principality or republic - quite good points in view of the fate of the Italian city states and the Papal states at that point in history, and some of the incredibly inept rulers they were saddled with.
A point often overlooked by critics of Macchiavelli is that he got on quite well with Leonardo daVinci, so if the greatest single mind in human history didn't find Macchiavelli and his views disagreeable, it says a lot about those views in their historical context.
1212 posted 06-04-99 12:22 AM ET
TO STOP OVER POPULATION DONT LET STUPID ABUSED SCREWED UP PEOPLE HAVE KIDS. STERILIZE THE STUPID ABUSED SCREWED UP PEOPLE. ANYONE AGAINST THIS THAT THINKS ITS A RIGHT TO HAVE CHILDREN IS WRONG. ITS A PRIVILEDGE.
High Priest posted 06-04-99 12:50 AM ET
Oh, dammit, you've convinced me.
I'll only take the complete extermination of the French race, nothing else.
High Priest
Death to the Frogs!!
Hugo Rune posted 06-04-99 03:10 AM ET
Actually, if you never consider the end justifying the means, human progress would still be way behind its current position. For example, this would rule out the validity of the American and French Revolutions...
Zekkei posted 06-04-99 06:49 AM ET
To make sure my rule was unopposed, I would slaughter everyone else, for as long as anyone else in the universe remains but I, there remains the chance they may rebel.
Philip McCauley posted 06-05-99 03:09 PM ET
When I said that it isn't right to use a person as a means to an end, I really meant 'use'. In the American and French revolutions, the fighters weren't slaves with a taskmaster at their backs, they were free-willed people choosing to fight. If someone chooses to die/get hurt/whatever for the common good, they're a hero. Force them to, and you're a villain. And yes, I was too general in my statement. The end frequently justifies the means, just not with human lives. I didn't intend to slight Machiavelli at all.
1212, you are the definition of a fascist.
High Priest...can we just kill individual French people if they irritate us? The French make good bread.
Zekki, but then you'd have to do any work yourself, removing the whole point of despotic rulership.
chola3 posted 06-06-99 11:15 AM ET
Is mass-murder/genocide necessary/correct? Tough question. Probably unNecessary/incorrect.
The easy question is, with the exponential growth in population in non-developed nations, will tactical genocides become common? I am sure it would be.
Also, the non-developed world will face mass starvation too, I think.
However, these tragedies will not be guided by a single person, as seen in Kosovo today. [I think Kosovo is the last ethnic conflict (mis)managed by the older pre-1960 generation.] It would be a spontaneous fire. Anyone remember Rwanda?
I wonder if any of you have any info on smaller (genocidal) incidents all over the world in the past 20 years.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Mass Murder is necessary. discuss
Famous Eccles	posted 06-03-99 02:30 PM ET Ok, not for dumbarse racial reasons, but for other reasons. I would slaughter all my political opponents, quickly. If, say, Blacks (in any country, this is hypothetical!) were causing a large number of riots, and crime. Would you slaughter them, rather than risk any rebellion. I would Bwah bwah Jack Boots Jack Boots Jack Boots (My new name)
Hugo Rune	posted 06-03-99 02:41 PM ET Why do I get the feeling that you're GEEVs evil roommate Bloodnok and not him? You just posted under the other name...
God Emperor Eccles V	posted 06-03-99 05:33 PM ET All right! Bloodnok has admited to trying to blacken my good name. I am both Famous Eccles and God Emperor Eccles V Major Bloodnok is a distinct, and different entity with different opinions. He has promised not to use my name again, under pain of having his gonads electrocuted.
High Priest	posted 06-03-99 06:12 PM ET Uhhhh... Yah, "f-uck the n-iggers and spics." Come on, mass murder of innocent people can never be justified. High Priest
4Horses	posted 06-03-99 09:39 PM ET I agrees with Eccles to an extent. Before the Earth gets seriously overpopulated (and many feel that it already is), we need a mass genocide of say 50% of the entire population. Give the Earth a chance to re-group and wildlife a chance to thrive again. I volunteer to be in the 50% that goes.
Philip McCauley	posted 06-03-99 10:42 PM ET Ah, Machiavelli all over again. The question here is, does the end justify the means? The short answer is no. It is never just to use a person as a means to an end. I think Aristotle adresses this in Nichomachean Ethics, but it might be another work of his. (or Plato, or David Hume, for that matter. It has been a while since I went through my philosophy textbook.)
Koshko	posted 06-03-99 11:46 PM ET I guess if you were going to kill yourself, you might as well take a bunch of innocent bystanders with you.
MichaeltheGreat	posted 06-03-99 11:58 PM ET Philip - you slight Macchiavelli. The points in Il Principe, and more so in Discourses with Livy, is that the ends justify the means in situations where there is a greater common good and/or greater common harm at stake. Machiavelli frequently stresses the desirability of wise rule, and securing the common good of the principality or republic - quite good points in view of the fate of the Italian city states and the Papal states at that point in history, and some of the incredibly inept rulers they were saddled with. A point often overlooked by critics of Macchiavelli is that he got on quite well with Leonardo daVinci, so if the greatest single mind in human history didn't find Macchiavelli and his views disagreeable, it says a lot about those views in their historical context.
1212	posted 06-04-99 12:22 AM ET TO STOP OVER POPULATION DONT LET STUPID ABUSED SCREWED UP PEOPLE HAVE KIDS. STERILIZE THE STUPID ABUSED SCREWED UP PEOPLE. ANYONE AGAINST THIS THAT THINKS ITS A RIGHT TO HAVE CHILDREN IS WRONG. ITS A PRIVILEDGE.
High Priest	posted 06-04-99 12:50 AM ET Oh, dammit, you've convinced me. I'll only take the complete extermination of the French race, nothing else. High Priest Death to the Frogs!!
Hugo Rune	posted 06-04-99 03:10 AM ET Actually, if you never consider the end justifying the means, human progress would still be way behind its current position. For example, this would rule out the validity of the American and French Revolutions...
Zekkei	posted 06-04-99 06:49 AM ET To make sure my rule was unopposed, I would slaughter everyone else, for as long as anyone else in the universe remains but I, there remains the chance they may rebel.
Philip McCauley	posted 06-05-99 03:09 PM ET When I said that it isn't right to use a person as a means to an end, I really meant 'use'. In the American and French revolutions, the fighters weren't slaves with a taskmaster at their backs, they were free-willed people choosing to fight. If someone chooses to die/get hurt/whatever for the common good, they're a hero. Force them to, and you're a villain. And yes, I was too general in my statement. The end frequently justifies the means, just not with human lives. I didn't intend to slight Machiavelli at all. 1212, you are the definition of a fascist. High Priest...can we just kill individual French people if they irritate us? The French make good bread. Zekki, but then you'd have to do any work yourself, removing the whole point of despotic rulership.
chola3	posted 06-06-99 11:15 AM ET Is mass-murder/genocide necessary/correct? Tough question. Probably unNecessary/incorrect. The easy question is, with the exponential growth in population in non-developed nations, will tactical genocides become common? I am sure it would be. Also, the non-developed world will face mass starvation too, I think. However, these tragedies will not be guided by a single person, as seen in Kosovo today. [I think Kosovo is the last ethnic conflict (mis)managed by the older pre-1960 generation.] It would be a spontaneous fire. Anyone remember Rwanda? I wonder if any of you have any info on smaller (genocidal) incidents all over the world in the past 20 years.