Even Al-Qaeda thinks the ISIS is fucking insane [NSFW in source]

[Big D Duchovny]

[QUOTE=NoDachi;45101447]I'm a lot more linguistically correct than you.[/QUOTE]

I added something to my post, arguing why I think the term "evil" would still apply at least to some extent. If we're simply taking a linguistic approach, "evil" can simply mean "to harm", which is most certainly something these people are engaging in.

[NoDachi]

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;45101483]I added something to my post, arguing why I think the term "evil" would still apply at least to some extent. If we're simply taking a linguistic approach, "evil" can simply mean "to harm", which is most certainly something these people are engaging in.[/QUOTE]

so when people are calling for us to bomb them we are also 'evil'?

This is why you shouldn't reduce rationale to 'evil' because it doesn't work lol

[Big D Duchovny]

[QUOTE=NoDachi;45101488]so when people are calling for us to bomb them we are also 'evil'?

This is why you shouldn't reduce rationale to 'evil' because it doesn't work lol[/QUOTE]

I suppose we are from their view point, so I guess you got me there - it wasn't my main argument, though. If you'd read my other post, I'd be delighted.

[LVL FACTORY]

[QUOTE=joes33431;45095553]kill the father, three sons step up to the plate.

there are no good solutions to this problem.[/QUOTE]

Then continue until nobody else can continue

[booster]

[QUOTE=NoDachi;45101488]so when people are calling for us to bomb them we are also 'evil'?

This is why you shouldn't reduce rationale to 'evil' because it doesn't work lol[/QUOTE]

The lesser of two evils I suppose.

[carcarcargo]

So does ISIS now have abrams tanks? If so I have to say that the US's Iraq intervention couldn't have gone any worse.

[NoDachi]

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;45101496]I suppose we are from their view point, so I guess you got me there - it wasn't my main argument, though. If you'd read my other post, I'd be delighted.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;45101443]I don't believe these people kill other people because they think it's morally correct, I think they've simply dehumanized their enemies to the point where morals don't apply to them.[/QUOTE]

But you're wrong again. They are killing people [I]because[/I] of their morals. The act of these killings is their morals in action. Their very principles of what is right and wrong - is that these are bad people - traitors, infidels, collaborators, nonbelievers, resistors - they're killing who stand between them and the Islamist state they deserve.

[editline]14th June 2014[/editline]

[QUOTE=booster;45101530]The lesser of two evils I suppose.[/QUOTE]

so if both sides can be described as 'evil' we really need to stop using it as a term because it makes no distinction lol

[Lonestriper]

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;45101536]So does ISIS now have abrams tanks? If so I have to say that the US's Iraq intervention couldn't have gone any worse.[/QUOTE]

They have a couple of heavy vehicles and helicopters, but I doubt they have a sufficient amount of trained people to make any use of them.

[BusterBluth]

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;45101536]So does ISIS now have abrams tanks? If so I have to say that the US's Iraq intervention couldn't have gone any worse.[/QUOTE]

Even if they do, its only so useful without trained people to use them.

[booster]

[QUOTE=NoDachi;45101547]
[editline]14th June 2014[/editline]

so if both sides can be described as 'evil' we really need to stop using it as a term because it makes no distinction lol[/QUOTE]

Eh, I wouldn't personally call the UK / US army "evil". Only hippies do that.

But I think most people could call ISIS evil without flinching.

[NoDachi]

[QUOTE=booster;45101591]Eh, I wouldn't personally call the UK / US army "evil". Only hippies do that.

But I think most people could call ISIS evil without flinching.[/QUOTE]

you literally said that we are the lesser of two evils, implying we're still evil

[Pilot1215]

Essentially they are killing because in their mind they think it is the right thing to do. To any reasonable person, nothing ISIS is doing is right, but to a radical, it's all ok. Also, really shouldn't be worried about them getting tanks, probably have no clue how to use them.

[booster]

[QUOTE=NoDachi;45101594]you literally said that we are the lesser of two evils, implying we're still evil[/QUOTE]

I was talking from your point of view.

[NoDachi]

[QUOTE=booster;45101629]I was talking from your point of view.[/QUOTE]

my point of view that we should avoid using the term 'evil'?

[Big D Duchovny]

[QUOTE=NoDachi;45101547]But you're wrong again. They are killing people [I]because[/I] of their morals. The act of these killings is their morals in action. Their very principles of what is right and wrong - is that these are bad people - traitors, infidels, collaborators, nonbelievers, resistors - they're killing who stand between them and the Islamist state they deserve.
[/quote]

Do you really think they see these people as, well, people when they put them on crosses and execute them in the middle of the street? Or do they think of them as sub-humans?

[quote]
so if both sides can be described as 'evil' we really need to stop using it as a term because it makes no distinction lol[/QUOTE]

You make choices between evil and lesser all the time, and the utilitarian principle is probably something you use every day. If the "net amount" of evil is lower than it would be otherwise, the action is morally good. Thus bombing these people, while hurtful to them, would lead to less suffering overall, and thus the action is good. If we accept that bombing these people would actually stop this, of course.

[NoDachi]

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;45101641]Do you really think they see these people as, well, people when they put them on crosses and execute them in the middle of the street? Or do they think of them as sub-humans?[/QUOTE]

how would this change what I said either way?

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;45101641]You make choices between evil and lesser all the time, and the utilitarian principle is probably something you use every day. If the "net amount" of evil is lower than it would be otherwise, the action is morally good.[/QUOTE]

So the same thought process the ISIS goes through.

[Big D Duchovny]

[QUOTE=NoDachi;45101660]how would this change what I said either way?[/QUOTE]

We agree that evil is something that is morally reprehensible. I'm arguing that these people probably have some of the same morals as us - that you shouldn't kill people "just because" and so on. These morals don't apply, because they think of other people as sub-humans. The fact of the matter is that these people aren't sub-humans, and thus their actions aren't justified by their morals, but rather the dehumanization of these people. As such, their actions are in conflict with even their own morals, and as such their acts can be seen as evil.

You might call it mental gymnastics, but I like to call it arguing on a forum about something that really isn't all that important.

I agree that we shouldn't just call these people "evil" and call it a day (because obviously they're more complex than that), but I'd argue that the word is with meaning in this case. Especially if you just go by the utilitarian way of things.

[NoDachi]

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;45101709]We agree that evil is something that is morally reprehensible. I'm arguing that these people probably have some of the same morals as us - that you shouldn't kill people "just because" and so on. These morals don't apply, because they think of other people as sub-humans. The fact of the matter is that these people aren't sub-humans, and thus their actions aren't justified by their morals, but rather the dehumanization of these people. As such, their actions are in conflict with even their own morals, and as such their acts can be seen as evil.

You might call it mental gymnastics, but I like to call it arguing on a forum about something that really isn't all that important.[/QUOTE]

It is mental gymnastics because you say they're not killing people out of morals, yet they're killing people who breach their strict Islamist moral code. Such as drinking alcohol.

And linguistics, semiotics and all the study of languages and how people use them is always important. Because it shows so much with how people think and view the world.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;45101709]but I'd argue that the word is with meaning in this case. Especially if you just go by the utilitarian way of things.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't argue that evil and utilitarianism have anything to do with each other at all. Since when you look at things from a strictly utilitarian manner, its completely ~beyond good or evil~.

[Skunky]

[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;45095481]That Saleel Sawarim video was enough to convince me that they're pigs.

[URL="http://ia801509.us.archive.org/18/items/al_saleel_4/SaleelSawarim.mp4"][B][I]NSFW AS FUCK[/I][/B][/URL][/QUOTE]

Wow. Holy shit.

[smidge146]

Is obama going to decide if he wants to fuck them up?

[NoDachi]

[QUOTE=smidge146;45101771]Is obama going to decide if he wants to fuck them up?[/QUOTE]

In several days

[smidge146]

Maybe Al-Qaeda will team up with the US to stop them haha!

[Big D Duchovny]

[QUOTE=NoDachi;45101730]It is mental gymnastics because you say they're not killing people out of morals, yet they're killing people who breach their strict Islamist moral code. Such as drinking alcohol.

And linguistics, semiotics and all the study of languages and how people use them is always important. Because it shows so much with how people think and view the world.

I wouldn't argue that evil and utilitarianism have anything to do with each other at all. Since when you look at things from a strictly utilitarian manner, its completely ~beyond good or evil~.[/QUOTE]

If an action is morally sound it's good, if it's morally reprehensible it's bad. If the net amount of hurt caused by ISIS acquiring their goal is less than the one caused by them not pursuing it, their actions are morally sound. It doesn't matter whether ISIS thinks people will "be happier", because the reality is that people won't be if we measured the happiness of the population down the line. This means that we can "objectively" say that this is morally wrong action, and thus it's "bad" or "evil". Then we can discuss whether it's the intention or the result of the intention that matters, but we can at least say that their actions are "evil", even if they themselves aren't necessarily.

But really, I think this has taken up too much time already.

[smidge146]

[QUOTE=Gentlegen;45095975]Horrible people. I hope their guns malfunction and explode.[/QUOTE]

AK-47s are too reliable for that haha!

[NoDachi]

you can't use 'objectively' to describe morals. Since morals don't even exist on the same plane.

That is the crucial part you keep missing.

You can say what ISIS is doing is objectively bad because they will never really achieve their goals yet they're going to shit over an entire region causing untold suffering because of a misplaced ideology. And even if they did achieve their goals it still would be objectively bad because radical Islam is a fundamentally flawed ideology.

You can't say they're objectively immoral because to what morals are you applying this to? Your own? Are you the moral arbitrator of the universe?

[Steele92]

Considering ISIS gets their motive from a god in some old book of medieval thinking and want to make a megaconservative state out of it against all reason by exterminating everyone not like them, I'd say they are objectively contrast to innate morality, but what do I know

[NoDachi]

[QUOTE=Steele92;45101839]Considering ISIS gets their motive from a god in some old book of medieval thinking and want to make a megaconservative state out of it against all reason by exterminating everyone not like them, I'd say they are objectively contrast to innate morality, but what do I know[/QUOTE]

morality isn't innate

its a construct lmao

[Zaya]

[QUOTE=Aman;45101001]Maybe in a low intensity conflict with western countries involved.

You really think any middle eastern country gives any fucks about human rights? Don't be naive.[/QUOTE]

Implying every Middle Eastern country is a shit hole.

[Roll_Program]

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;45101573]They have a couple of heavy vehicles and helicopters, but I doubt they have a sufficient amount of trained people to make any use of them.[/QUOTE]

If they did start using them, the US would know exactly how to counter their own tanks effectively and just launch a missile with the right kind of warhead from a drone or ship or something. If anyone knows the weaknesses of their vehicles it'll be the country who made them.

[ZyreHD]

[QUOTE=XanaToast.;45095626]you know, we can actively make the world a much better place by hunting down every last one of these scumbags and anyone remotely like them

and annihilating absolutely every last one of them en masse. These aren't people, they're living breathing cancer.[/QUOTE]

Like WW2 which killed 3% of the world population back then? (I think it was 3%)