leopold99 said:it isn't about winning or losing
it's about keeping our numbers trimmed
Guess you didn't read what I wrote, but never mind. I have other solutions.
Take a hard look at russia. Copy them exactly.
leopold99 said:it isn't about winning or losing
it's about keeping our numbers trimmed
yes i read it. we are not talking about warspuriousmonkey said:Guess you didn't read what I wrote, but never mind. I have other solutions.
Take a hard look at russia. Copy them exactly.
J.J said:Hey wesmorris you've raised a great question. It made me think more and deeper about the question and the situation.
I think that you said "Of course is most likely is NEVER justified in the eyes of those who are hurt by it."
But I think in this situation we are not looking at justifying as to be just emotionally
Of course the family that lost their son or relative from a suicide bomb will never justified or forgive for what the terrorist have done.
My question is what about the Iraq citizens that got killed by American soldiers?
I know that I might never change someone's view towards this question, but it is my job to point out that those terrorists are not "bad or evil".
For what the American soldiers have done to their country don't they have the right to defense or attack back?
I think the real question for "can terrorism ever be justified' is do terrorist have to right to do what they have done when their enemy is doing the same to them but they got the bad name “terrorists”.
leopold99 said:and what is russia's plans for keeping her population trimmed?
According to most sources, the population of the present Russian Federation peaked in 1991 at 148,689,000. Even with significant increases in immigration in the early 1990s, the Russian population has been shrinking since 1992; according to projections by the Center for Economic Analysis of the Russian Federation, immigration will make a very small dent in a continued negative natural increase through the year 2005. Thus, for the period 1985-2005, projected total immigration is 3.3 million, whereas the natural population will decrease by 12.9 million. The annual rate of population change, which dropped from 0.7 percent in 1985 to its first negative figure of -0.3 percent in 1992, is projected to reach -0.6 percent in 1998 and to continue at that level through 2005.
Several reasons are given for the decline in Russia's population. First, the postwar baby boom, which began echoing in a secondary population rise in many Western countries in the early 1990s, had much less demographic impact in Russia. Second, a long history of Soviet ecological abuse has planted still unquantifiable seeds of demographic decline throughout the population, especially in areas of concentrated industry, military installations, and intensive agriculture. Third, post-Soviet Russia has experienced a general decline in health conditions and health care (see Health, ch. 5).
In addition, the prolonged economic downturn of the early and mid-1990s, in which an estimated 31 percent of the population (46.5 million people) had incomes below the poverty level, has increased the incidence of malnutrition, which in turn lowers resistance to common ailments. Only individuals who have their own gardens are assured a regular supply of fruits and vegetables (see table 6, Appendix). Even under the Soviet system, the average Russian's diet was classified as deficient, so the population now shows the cumulative effects of earlier living conditions as well as current limitations. Poor economic prospects, together with low confidence in the state's family benefits programs, discourage Russians from planning families; the least positive "reproductive attitudes" have been found in the Urals and in northeastern Siberia.
spuriousmonkey said:
leopold99 said:yes, but that isn't healthy. you want your birth rate on the plus side not the minus.
in my opinion a nation should have a positive birth rate
with a means to "remove" people after they have had a chance to contribut to society.
a negative birth rate means a declining population, and that isn't good
i don't know man, we need a workable solution for an overcrowded planet.spuriousmonkey said:You said you wanted to cull your population?
Killing of a few thousand men in war isn't going to help. The women are still there to be impregnated.
J.J said:I don't know if you read my earlier posts.
Do you believe Immoral Kant view of our morality and what is justified or Utilitarian's view on what is justified.
Once again if you believe in Immural Kant's view then it basically means you have no emotional feelings what so ever.
I believe we are all emotional animals, and then we should just ignore Immural Kant view on what is justified. (If you don't know what I am talking about please read the very first of my post, cause the space not enough to re post) Then only on view left and that is the view of the Utilitarian.
Great example!
That was my thesis but if you didn't read my earlier post then you probably don't know. You are right and I think the same, as I post earlier that if you have the same view as Kant then you will say Wars are not justified, Terrorism is not justified, Killing is not justified those about all involves killing in some way, thus they are all Not Justified.
I agree, but often we cannot look at the situation rationally thus we revenge. Even though it might not seem rationalize, but it is justified. I feel like you agree with me but just miss understand me or we have the same view but I didn't understand you.
Sorry back to the ball example in that case you trying to say that both are justified? That that's what you meant then I agree that is why my thesis is as I posted earlier “If wars can be justified so can terrorism".
So I’m saying they both justify one another.
This might seem one sided view but really the question is
“can terrorism ever be justified?” so it already assumes that it is not justified
, cause the question is asking CAN TERRORISM EVER be justified not Is Terrorism Justified.
Post back with what you think please.
That makes most of Islamic terrorism worldwide unjustifiable!Anomalous said:Terrorism is justified in case U dont have nukes and money and your country has been taken over by banna dictatorship. As a patriot it becomes ones moral obligatory duty to destroy the enemy but only till a point where your country becomes safe from the attitudinal threat.
Even then terrorism is not justfied. Look at the Tibetans.....they have survived so gracefully and are adding positively to the world. One day they will win back their freedom. And they have the respect and support of the entire world.Anomalous said:Terrorism is justified in case U dont have nukes and money and your country has been taken over by banna dictatorship. As a patriot it becomes ones moral obligatory duty to destroy the enemy but only till a point where your country becomes safe from the attitudinal threat.
U r comparing apples with oranges.Buddha1 said:Even then terrorism is not justfied. Look at the Tibetans.....they have survived so gracefully and are adding positively to the world. One day they will win back their freedom. And they have the respect and support of the entire world.
I think the communist rebels/ and all such militants are doing a great disservice to the world.