Can You Bomb The Ideas Out of People?

[Mitsurugi]

I was listening to the Sam Harris podcast and he had on Jocko Willink and they brought up a really good point that I believe is understated and unoticed often when talking about the effectiveness of war.

 

Sam brought up the point that we have in the past, bombed out ideas out of people. Nazisim was an idea and we bombed them until they gave up. Japan was a unstoppable stubborn force that was not going to be stopped unless we bombed them. Then he made the brief link that radical extremists Muslims are in some sense in the same group of bad ideas. Jacko then said that "How do we stop ISIS without war? Do we invite them to formal debates and rationalize with them?". So in the end, we are left in this grey area between war and peace. So my main question is...How do we deal with these radicals like ISIS in an ethical matter? And do you believe we have to resort to bombing once again?

 

Keep in mind that also, there are an estimated 1.5 billion Muslims in the world as of 2014. If even one percent of them are extremists, that would mean 15 million Muslims are of subjective question.

[iNow]

Sometimes dropping a bomb is necessary. We don't do it to kill ideas. We do it to kill dangerous people.

 

Bombs must be dropped in parallel with dropped knowledge. Ideas must be advocated for passionately and in an enlightened manner, but they alone are often not enough unless you're willing to wait on a long enough time scale.

[Mitsurugi]

Ok, but is it deemed ethical?

[iNow]

Can we answer that categorically, or is it situation and context specific?

[Mitsurugi]

I would prefer categorically. But it's up to you. I just want to hear out everyones answer on this. It intrests me.

[iNow]

I'd prefer we not bomb.

I'd prefer we not kill.

 

I'd prefer that high quality, rational, empirically supported and logical argument carry the day.

 

However, I also recognize we're mostly hairless apes that survived in large part through the killing of differing tribes, often advancing by mindlessly throwing feces and tactically imposing the nonexistence of others.

 

I acknowledge that bombs and brutality may remain necessary until enlightenment is more the global norm than the local exception, and I do so while in parallel stipulating that in the purest, most idealistic, and robotically cold ethical terms brutality and bombs should both without protest be summarily discarded and swiftly degraded.

Edited July 28, 2016 by iNow

[Bill Angel]

Bombing campaigns have had mixed success. We bombed the hell out of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and won those wars. We bombed the hell out of North and South Vietnam and lost.

[Lyudmilascience]

Ok, but is it deemed ethical?

I think its ethical to bomb when it comes to defence. there are situations when someone is attacking you and it is a form of self preservation to defend yourself by killing when there is no other way to stop the criminal.

[swansont]

 

Sam brought up the point that we have in the past, bombed out ideas out of people. Nazisim was an idea and we bombed them until they gave up. Japan was a unstoppable stubborn force that was not going to be stopped unless we bombed them.

 

 

But did the bombing remove those ideas, or did it just remove those with the ideas from power?

 

I suspect a lot of fervent Nazis still had their rather odious worldview even after surrendering, and that the country moved forward because much of the citizenry did not share those views as their core beliefs.

[thatsneakyguy]

I was listening to the Sam Harris podcast and he had on Jocko Willink and they brought up a really good point that I believe is understated and unoticed often when talking about the effectiveness of war.

 

Sam brought up the point that we have in the past, bombed out ideas out of people.

 

Nazisim was an idea and we bombed them until they gave up.

First, very succinct description of WW2.

 

Like swansont said, were the ideas “bombed” out of them, or were the Nazi Germans defeated in WW2 and taken out of power?

Are there any Nazi Germans around today?

 

Japan was a unstoppable stubborn force that was not going to be stopped unless we bombed them.

Well not exactly unstoppable, right?

 

But there are many ways to conduct war besides bombing isn't there?

 

Would the US have become an independent nation without bombing the British? Oh wait…

 

Then he made the brief link that radical extremists Muslims are in some sense in the same group of bad ideas. Jacko then said that "How do we stop ISIS without war? Do we invite them to formal debates and rationalize with them?". So in the end, we are left in this grey area between war and peace. So my main question is...How do we deal with these radicals like ISIS in an ethical matter? And do you believe we have to resort to bombing once again?

Unfortunately there are many extremists, terrorists, and criminals who cannot be reasoned with. ISIS seems to be one of these groups.

 

At that point the only way to defend from such people is to physically stop them, either by killing them or imprisoning them. So that is how you have to deal with them. Ethically, if they are intent on killing others and cannot be reasoned with, then they have to be physically stopped.

 

It would be better to create an environment where groups like these cannot be sustained; either they cannot get recruits or no government will allow their presence. Currently ISIS can readily get recruits to join with them. That is a bigger problem.

 

Keep in mind that also, there are an estimated 1.5 billion Muslims in the world as of 2014. If even one percent of them are extremists, that would mean 15 million Muslims are of subjective question.

Not sure what direction you are going with this…

Edited July 28, 2016 by thatsneakyguy

[Mitsurugi]

Nice frozen picture . The last part was just to add a fragment to the argument of thinking ISIS is not a threat as we are constantly being told in America. Not trying to go anywhere with it but it is something I think people should be aware of.

 

 

But as another poster previously said, do we bomb the ideas out of people or do we bomb the people in power of these ideas? It does seen pragmatic in terms of defense to bomb these people. But in terms of ethics, I think it is sad that there is no other way to solve our indifferences. It is somewhat due to a failure to communicate.

[EdEarl]

People like Hitler and Ted Kaczynski do despicable things for other reasons, and there may always be people of this ilk; they need to be stopped by any means. On the other hand, desperate people do odious things sometimes including kill, when they would not otherwise. In addition, there are people who do stupid things in the heat of the moment and kill someone; they tend to be horrified by their actions and do not kill again.

 

It may be possible to create an environment in which Hitler types cannot control large groups of people, but IDK how. The others kill alone. Society can do things to prevent desperate situations, but I cannot imagine how the others can be stopped.

 

I realize we don't bomb people in all these categories, but accurate bombs and drones that can kill a person or a few people is relatively new advance in areal warfare. The accuracy will improve and become smaller. Government cameras are becoming common, and people will eventually be on camera anytime they are outside. Neither criminals nor terrorists will escape being photographed, and they may be caught quickly after committing a crime, unless local authorities will not or cannot capture them.

 

I believe cameras will be watching as many crimes are committed. If someone with a weapon is threatening to kill someone, should a drone be used to stop that person if it is necessary to kill them? If a person makes the decision to kill, who should, a judge or someone else?

 

Many Nazi war criminals were prosecuted and convicted. Some were executed; others spent a long time in prison. Some repented, but not all. Bombing will not change peoples minds about their reason for doing despicable things; people like Hitler and Kaczynski don't think they are doing despicable things.

Edited July 28, 2016 by EdEarl

[thatsneakyguy]

Nice frozen picture . The last part was just to add a fragment to the argument of thinking ISIS is not a threat as we are constantly being told in America. Not trying to go anywhere with it but it is something I think people should be aware of.

 

Sure but using that same logic you could also say:

Keep in mind that also, there are an estimated 2.2 billion Christians in the world as of 2014. If even one percent of them are extremists, that would mean 22 million Christians are of subjective question.

 

Keep in mind that also, there are an estimated 3.52 billion women in the world as of 2014. If even one percent of them are extremists, that would mean 352 million women are of subjective question.

 

Keep in mind that also, there are an estimated 1 million people who listen to the Sam Harris podcast in the world as of 2014. If even one percent of them are extremists, that would mean 10,000 people who listen to the Sam Harris podcast are of subjective question.

Seems kind of like a silly argument to me…

 

But as another poster previously said, do we bomb the ideas out of people or do we bomb the people in power of these ideas? It does seen pragmatic in terms of defense to bomb these people.

Well you can’t really bomb an idea can you?

You can only bomb the people with ideas. The bombing is to kill or stop them.

Hopefully the bombing is done in defense when reasoning breaks down.

 

Also I’m not really sure why you keep bringing up bombing when they are many different kinds of warfare.

Hitler wasn’t killed by bombing AFAIK. Neither was OBL.

 

But in terms of ethics, I think it is sad that there is no other way to solve our indifferences. It is somewhat due to a failure to communicate.

Yes, I agree it is a problem and sad that it comes to it. Very bad and unnecessary.

 

But ethically at some point you may have to be physically violent to defend yourself.

Unfortunately it does come to that. It’s just that some people use violence to express their will instead of talking/reasoning.

For a pacifist it is a very difficult problem to face.

[Mitsurugi]

 

You seem to miscontrue my logic and take it as something absolute and out of my context. You failed to notice I said "if" in my extremist statistic. If there where Christian extremists then we would have people who believe in slavery and the stoning of people who commit adultery and heretics. Which in the modern day, have no evidence of which happening unlike with Muslim extremists.

 

I mention bombing because it was the topic being discussed about in the podcast. Bombing people is also the quickest way to kill a large group of people fairly quickly. But I am not confining you into only on the topic of bombing. If you have read the other posts, this is a developing conversation. At the time bombing was the only topic being discussed and I therefore thought it needed to be expanded on and discussed more thoroughly and therefore made this thread.

 

 

I see a trend of you attacking me instead of giving thought to the idea. If offended or confused you before sneaky, I'm sorry.

[thatsneakyguy]

Sorry if you feel attacked Mitsurugi.
Honestly.
I guess I disagree with some of your reasoning.

You seem to miscontrue my logic and take it as something absolute and out of my context. You failed to notice I said "if" in my extremist statistic.

I don’t think I misconstrued your logic at all. In the first example I simply replace the word Muslims with the word Christians, and replaced the number.

I did notice you said “if”.
You can see that I included “if” also.

This was simply taking your logic and applying it to other groups.

If there where Christian extremists then we would have people who believe in slavery and the stoning of people who commit adultery and heretics. Which in the modern day, have no evidence of which happening unlike with Muslim extremists.

Well, there are Christian extremists, just not as many. Here is one defending slavery. I can’t find it now, but in a later video he said he would have no problem being a slave himself if his Christian slave master followed the commandments set forth in the bible.

 

If your point is that Muslim extremists outnumber the Christian ones I completely agree. Vastly outnumber.

 

But using your logic you could say:

Keep in mind that also, there are an estimated 4 billion males in the world as of 2014. If even one percent of them are extremists, that would mean 40 million males are of subjective question.

 

After all, male extremists outnumber the female ones, right? Just like Muslim extremists outnumber Christian ones?

 

The point was the logic you were using didn’t make sense to me. If you have no problem with it OK. We agree to disagree, no problem.

I mention bombing because it was the topic being discussed about in the podcast. Bombing people is also the quickest way to kill a large group of people fairly quickly. But I am not confining you into only on the topic of bombing. If you have read the other posts, this is a developing conversation. At the time bombing was the only topic being discussed and I therefore thought it needed to be expanded on and discussed more thoroughly and therefore made this thread.

Sure, bombing can kill a lot of people.
OK, let’s agree there are other ways to kill or stop people besides bombing.

Ethically I see this as a conflict between people who want to be peaceful and people who don’t.
Ultimately either the peaceful people get killed or the peaceful people become violent and kill the non-peaceful people.

 

It’s a dilemma and an interesting discussion.

 

I see a trend of you attacking me instead of giving thought to the idea. If offended or confused you before sneaky, I'm sorry.

 

Sorry, if it feels like an attack. What you wrote didn’t make sense to me. It seemed illogical.

I thought I was giving my thoughts? That is why I mentioned ISIS recruits earlier. I think the environment/culture can be changed, needs to be changed, but it can't be done by bombing.

But you didn’t offend me; no need for apologies.

 

Honestly, if you feel attacked, sorry for that. I didn’t intend for you to feel bad.
Take Care.

[zapatos]

But there are many ways to conduct war besides bombing isn't there?

 

Would the US have become an independent nation without bombing the British? Oh wait…

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here as the US did their best to bomb the British back into the sea.

[Mitsurugi]

Sorry if you feel attacked Mitsurugi.

Honestly.

I guess I disagree with some of your reasoning.

 

 

I dont think I misconstrued your logic at all. In the first example I simply replace the word Muslims with the word Christians, and replaced the number.

 

I did notice you said if.

You can see that I included if also.

 

This was simply taking your logic and applying it to other groups.

 

 

 

Well, there are Christian extremists, just not as many. Here is one defending slavery. I cant find it now, but in a later video he said he would have no problem being a slave himself if his Christian slave master followed the commandments set forth in the bible.

 

 

If your point is that Muslim extremists outnumber the Christian ones I completely agree. Vastly outnumber.

 

 

But using your logic you could say:

 

Keep in mind that also, there are an estimated 4 billion males in the world as of 2014. If even one percent of them are extremists, that would mean 40 million males are of subjective question.

After all, male extremists outnumber the female ones, right? Just like Muslim extremists outnumber Christian ones?

 

 

The point was the logic you were using didnt make sense to me. If you have no problem with it OK. We agree to disagree,

I don't feel bad and I don't understand why we are arguing this? I did state my points under a obvious context of war and the current modern situation of these countries. You have put some thoughts into the thread but you keep putting me along with them or so my logic. My logic may have seemed bad to you ok, I understand but it was according to the context base. To try to belittle the Muslims statisic with only one point of Christiain extermism be it, a point where a man SAYS he WILL glady be a slave to God is not really any good to me. I'd rather like to see actually proove it. You can't switch out Christain extermists and Muslim extremists when there are metrics for the latter. I don't want you to agree but I want you to undetstand what was my intent.

[swansont]

Like swansont said, were the ideas “bombed” out of them, or were the Nazi Germans defeated in WW2 and taken out of power?

Are there any Nazi Germans around today?

 

 

 

It's been 70 years, so it might be better to ask if there were any in 1946.

[Raider5678]

Sorry if you feel attacked Mitsurugi.

Honestly.

I guess I disagree with some of your reasoning.

 

 

I don’t think I misconstrued your logic at all. In the first example I simply replace the word Muslims with the word Christians, and replaced the number.

I did notice you said “if”.

You can see that I included “if” also.

This was simply taking your logic and applying it to other groups.

 

 

Well, there are Christian extremists, just not as many. Here is one defending slavery. I can’t find it now, but in a later video he said he would have no problem being a slave himself if his Christian slave master followed the commandments set forth in the bible.

 

 

If your point is that Muslim extremists outnumber the Christian ones I completely agree. Vastly outnumber.

 

 

But using your logic you could say:

 

Keep in mind that also, there are an estimated 4 billion males in the world as of 2014. If even one percent of them are extremists, that would mean 40 million males are of subjective question.

After all, male extremists outnumber the female ones, right? Just like Muslim extremists outnumber Christian ones?

 

 

The point was the logic you were using didn’t make sense to me. If you have no problem with it OK. We agree to disagree, no problem.

 

 

Sure, bombing can kill a lot of people.

OK, let’s agree there are other ways to kill or stop people besides bombing.

Ethically I see this as a conflict between people who want to be peaceful and people who don’t.

Ultimately either the peaceful people get killed or the peaceful people become violent and kill the non-peaceful people.

 

It’s a dilemma and an interesting discussion.

 

 

 

 

Sorry, if it feels like an attack. What you wrote didn’t make sense to me. It seemed illogical.

I thought I was giving my thoughts? That is why I mentioned ISIS recruits earlier. I think the environment/culture can be changed, needs to be changed, but it can't be done by bombing.

But you didn’t offend me; no need for apologies.

 

Honestly, if you feel attacked, sorry for that. I didn’t intend for you to feel bad.

Take Care.

Slavery in the bible, wasnt for life unless done so willingly. They were suppose to release them after a couple of years,(less then 10). And they weren't suppose to beat them, and if they did, they had to give him time to recover etc. It was actually a lot less brutal then southern slavery was, but it was still slavery.

 

Also, 10% - 15% of Muslims are shias.

Shias are the radical muslims if you didn't know.

[StringJunky]

Slavery in the bible, wasnt for life unless done so willingly. They were suppose to release them after a couple of years,(less then 10). And they weren't suppose to beat them, and if they did, they had to give him time to recover etc. It was actually a lot less brutal then southern slavery was, but it was still slavery.

 

Also, 10% - 15% of Muslims are shias.

Shias are the radical muslims if you didn't know.

ISIS are Sunni... if you didn't know.

[Moontanman]

Slavery in the bible, wasnt for life unless done so willingly. They were suppose to release them after a couple of years,(less then 10). And they weren't suppose to beat them, and if they did, they had to give him time to recover etc. It was actually a lot less brutal then southern slavery was, but it was still slavery.

 

Also, 10% - 15% of Muslims are shias.

Shias are the radical muslims if you didn't know.

 

 

Such bullshit, did you read it or let someone else tell you what it said? The slave for only 7 years thing only applied to jewish slaves for everyone else it wasn't voluntary or limited by time. In fact the Bibles the slaves are property can can be passe down to your children. Not to mention you could beat them as much as you wanted as long as they didn't die in two or three days from the beating...

 

Sharia law pretty much follow biblical law...

[Mitsurugi]

I've come to one conclusion that you can kill the person but you can't kill the spirit. Just like the church tried to burn all of Copernicus'ses (Not sure how to spell it.) book copies of Helocentricity and many other great works of Science. Copernicus was not the first come up with the idea of Heilocentricity, it was actually Aristarchus in 280AD; Copernicus was the first to try to prove it mathematically.

 

Anyway I digress.

 

(I mean spirit in purely ideological belief.)