so in the wake of thanksgiving festivities

[uh-oh]

Originally Posted by Pharaohs Army

@uh-oh

I see now a bit more what you mean by clarifying/somewhat revising what I had quoted from you.
I also am not a fan of the overly simplistic "good vs. evil" paradigms.

And, at the risk of appearing to overly "hedge", I just want to be clear that I also do not think the Israeli shelling of Lebanon a decade ago, &the violent invasion of Gaza more recently-- I also do not think these are "good" for the well-being of humans. They are bad. Very bad; it's like torching and bulldozing your entire house because there a few dangerous wasps in it. (Funded and armed with the major help of the US gov't I might add).

But simply by elaborating on such things, I am basically falling into the "trap" or "construct" of "the West" vs. "Them"-- the very construct which the religious whackos want to frame everything. So I guess that's bad too but it's an easier way to explain things.

I am basically just making an argument for moral relativism. Which can be prickly of course, but I truly believe that there are "degrees of right&wrong" which can be starkly objective.

The Ghandi nonviolent resistance for India's independence, to me seems a rightful cause... again, for the health&well-being of humans living there.
Now, the British Empire may have strongly disagreed; and said our well-being is helped by territory, goods, power, and profit...
And yes, until their Independence, what Britain Said...Went.. so to speak. I see that part of the argument you're trying to make. Doesn't mean it's right or good. On the sliding scale I feel like Ghandi was more in the right, whether he "won" or "lost" (again to use simplistic terms).

word i hear what you are saying and largely agree, the main difference in what we are saying is you are attaching your personal opinions to the subjects.

in my personal opinion i think any downtrodden oppressed group should be able to shake off the shackles of oppression, and they should be helped to.

but my personal opinion of right and wrong means nothing in what i am saying.

to be conquered is to die or submit, if you submit you have given away all your rights, and with that, your ability to be right.

[veritas]

Was Hitler a bad guy?

[uh-oh]

Originally Posted by Pharaohs Army

And before you're tempted to make an argument for the modernization/"civilization", and how that could have been positive for the Indian "subjects", I'd just like to elaborate and say that I am speaking on the aggregate effects. The overall picture with the specifics of the situation. While modernization and economics could have been a beneficial side-effect for SOME Indians, on the WHOLE I believe the people there were better off striving for independence, based on the litany of negative things they were going through due to Britain controlling thingz. To say nothing of the notion that local control (and controlling one's own destiny so2speak), is, to me, to be objectively "more right". Not "absolutely" right, but certainly more right than the other alternative.

word im not disagreeing with you on any of this.

whether you or i view something as BEING right is irrelevant, to what IS.

whoever wins is right. because to win, you have to defeat your opposition

[uh-oh]

Originally Posted by Veritas the invincible

Was Hitler a bad guy?

its subjective brah

alot of what i am saying in this thread is from a baseless nationalistic standpoint, not a personal standpoint, more an outsider with no biases looking in. where as i feel you guys are looking at it from a humanity as a whole, borderless we're all the same standpoint

when my entire side of this discussion is from a nationalistic viewpoint for lack of a better word. one group of humans taking on another group of humans.

from hitlers vantage he was the best of guys, he was freeing his country of those commie bolshevik jews, and trying to make a great nation for his people to become greater and prosper. it was at the expense of others to gain that, so again it might not have been "right" for humanity, but if he was successful, he would have been in the "right" for his people for sure

but since he wasn't successful, and conquered nothing, he is wrong and a demon.

yet alexander the great killed probably more people, actually conquered places and all that and we view him as a hero of human history. although he's probably a bad example because the nation he put into place immediately splintered and fell apart after his early death lol

[veritas]

Is a child molester always evil?

[oats]

Originally Posted by quaker oats

For real though @uh-oh your beats are dope.

[PancakeBrah]

yo if you go up to a random person and hammer a nail into their eyeball that's pretty evil though even indians would think that's fucked up