(January 29, 2009 at 9:56 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: coming back to ends justifying means:

How does one determine what constitutes as an end, and how does one value it to offset with the means?

Re-run time Leo! In my example of the case of The Terror in the F.Revolution.
:-

The means was the arrest and summary execution of thousands of people believed to be counter-revolutionaries.

The end was defence of the revolution.


To me, that is a complete event.
Whether the defence was achieved is another matter and open to debate.

Okay, lets for the sake of argument accept that as an end to the means. How does one value the defense of the revolution towards the lives of the thousands of people dying?

(January 31, 2009 at 4:40 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: Okay, lets for the sake of argument accept that as an end to the means. How does one value the defense of the revolution towards the lives of the thousands of people dying?

Robespierre famously replied to critics ( themselves revolutionaries ), who thought that too much blood was being shed, with the question " would you have a revolution, without a revolution? ".
I think that he was arguing that the situation was so serious that it was unfortunate but essential that extreme measures were needed in extreme times.
Robespierre saw that the revolutionary government had enemies everywhere....royalists and disgruntled aristocrats and clergy in France, emigrees abroad and the country had wars to wage.
Under the circumstances, extreme measures, notably the Reign of Terror, were pursued and " innocent " people were undoubtedly sacrificed. There again, the main protagonists Robespierre, Danton, Desmoulins and others, ironically perhaps ( although I like to think they knew the risks they ran ) died on the guillotine themselves.
Revolutions tend to be bloody. Such is the nature of the beast.
Wars too.
I can only say that if I were French and some of my family had perished in the Revolution, I would be proud if they had been revolutionaries, ashamed if they had been counter-revolutionaries and sad if they had been neither i.e. they should have been revolutionaries.

Now replace revolution with Islam.

(January 31, 2009 at 5:14 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: Now replace revolution with Islam.

What do you mean?

(January 31, 2009 at 3:00 pm)bozo Wrote:

(January 31, 2009 at 2:59 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I am fully aware that Leo is able to look after himself, and I wasn't trying to be protective of him, rather the attitudes here on the forum. If I let you just throw an insult and walk away from the entire debate it might encourage others to do the same kind of thing, and the last thing I want for this forum is for people to abandon all forms of courtesy and start throwing insults around. Firstly it is rude, and secondly it isn't the sort of thing you need to do to prove a point. If anything, it makes you look immature and unable to form a decent rebuttal.

Lighten up Adrian.

Excuse me, but I am trying to run a decent forum here. We have already had an issue about racism brought up where one member said "fuck this place", all because I was trying to remain neutral and ask for an explanation of a seemingly racist post. I'm not going to let this forum slip into flame wars where people simply throw insults back and forth and nobody gets anywhere. If you want to debate, then you are welcome to, and you should be courteous and refrain from using ad-hominem attacks. If you don't want to debate, or you insist on simply trying to demoralize or bring down your opponent by attacking them as a person, then you can get lost. Simple as that.

The argument you make here is exactly the reason fundamentalists rationalize killing people who do not share the same ideology as they do.

(January 31, 2009 at 5:19 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(January 31, 2009 at 3:00 pm)bozo Wrote:

(January 31, 2009 at 2:59 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I am fully aware that Leo is able to look after himself, and I wasn't trying to be protective of him, rather the attitudes here on the forum. If I let you just throw an insult and walk away from the entire debate it might encourage others to do the same kind of thing, and the last thing I want for this forum is for people to abandon all forms of courtesy and start throwing insults around. Firstly it is rude, and secondly it isn't the sort of thing you need to do to prove a point. If anything, it makes you look immature and unable to form a decent rebuttal.

Lighten up Adrian.

Excuse me, but I am trying to run a decent forum here. We have already had an issue about racism brought up where one member said "fuck this place", all because I was trying to remain neutral and ask for an explanation of a seemingly racist post. I'm not going to let this forum slip into flame wars where people simply throw insults back and forth and nobody gets anywhere. If you want to debate, then you are welcome to, and you should be courteous and refrain from using ad-hominem attacks. If you don't want to debate, or you insist on simply trying to demoralize or bring down your opponent by attacking them as a person, then you can get lost. Simple as that.

Leo and I are this very night having a lively debate. I never did any of the things you accuse me of.....ask Leo and lighten up.

---

(January 31, 2009 at 5:20 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: The argument you make here is exactly the reason fundamentalists rationalize killing people who do not share the same ideology as they do.

You may think that but I don't in the circumstances of revolutions.

Adrian, really, it's fine, I did not see his post as a ad hominem at all.

(January 31, 2009 at 5:33 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: Adrian, really, it's fine, I did not see his post as a ad hominem at all.

Very well, but I still don't want people to go around making ad hominems, and some people (like myself) think that being called an eel is an ad hominem.