Message from @OnyxM

Discord ID: 462853975591485442


2018-07-01 05:30:30 UTC  

How was it good?

2018-07-01 05:30:40 UTC  

Good for their society

2018-07-01 05:30:46 UTC  

It's essentially a complicated way of committing suicide

2018-07-01 05:31:26 UTC  

To further the good of the society by your own will

2018-07-01 05:31:27 UTC  

When Muslim aggression began, what we now call Turkey was under Byzantine Christian Orthodox rule

2018-07-01 05:31:47 UTC  

So was the Holy Land in fact

2018-07-01 05:32:18 UTC  

So would you say there was any benefit? To this day everything except a tiny sliver of the Holy Land is under Muslim rule

2018-07-01 05:32:36 UTC  

And the little piece that isn't, was liberated by the British

2018-07-01 05:33:36 UTC  

In that situation it was immoral because there was nothing gained

2018-07-01 05:33:46 UTC  

By anyone

2018-07-01 05:33:58 UTC  

Only bad done to themselves

2018-07-01 05:34:12 UTC  

So it was bad for them to fight the Muslims?

2018-07-01 05:34:45 UTC  

Yes it is generally bad to fight a fight you cant win to the death

2018-07-01 05:35:30 UTC  

I don't believe you have answered me yet, Ehzek. So I will repeat myself: by your logic, if someone committed mass murder and through it became successful, does that mean that they have done no moral negative and are in fact in the right?

2018-07-01 05:35:40 UTC  

So by your own definition, if you do not succeed in doing good, then you are doing bad.

2018-07-01 05:36:01 UTC  

Which would also make true, that if you do not succeed in doing bad, then you have not done bad

2018-07-01 05:36:02 UTC  

No mass murder would be wrong because there is no benefit

2018-07-01 05:36:13 UTC  

Wrong

2018-07-01 05:36:15 UTC  

It doesnt matter if they were never caught

2018-07-01 05:36:18 UTC  

There is benefit, that hypothetical person became successful through it.

2018-07-01 05:36:27 UTC  

You cannot ignore that detail.

2018-07-01 05:36:29 UTC  

It benefited China, it benefited Germany

2018-07-01 05:36:51 UTC  

But that hurt the others it is wrong

2018-07-01 05:37:03 UTC  

It was done out of want not necessity

2018-07-01 05:37:05 UTC  

But it helped a lot more than it hurt

2018-07-01 05:37:36 UTC  

Well if their goal was to help china and germany then it was moral

2018-07-01 05:38:01 UTC  

If not it is an unintended benefit of their immorality

2018-07-01 05:38:10 UTC  

German population is 82 million now. Only about 11 million died in the Holocaust. Therefore a small fraction for the greater good

2018-07-01 05:38:20 UTC  

So, mass slaughter if they mean well, is moral?

2018-07-01 05:38:24 UTC  

Yes it was absolutely with the intent of helping the country

2018-07-01 05:38:59 UTC  

If people pick fights with you constantly and you end up killing them all that would be moral

2018-07-01 05:39:14 UTC  

Provided you aren't inciting them

2018-07-01 05:39:27 UTC  

Population of China is 1.4 billion. Only 72 million died from communism. About 6%. The other 94% benefited from it.

2018-07-01 05:39:32 UTC  

But that requires the immorality on them

2018-07-01 05:39:48 UTC  

For them to be attempting murder

2018-07-01 05:39:52 UTC  

Children and infants included?

2018-07-01 05:40:03 UTC  

They were picking fights?

2018-07-01 05:40:14 UTC  

In reference to onyx

2018-07-01 05:41:17 UTC  

The communists arent wholly moral because of its forced nature

2018-07-01 05:41:20 UTC  

You said "if their goal was to help China and Germany then it was moral", thus you are inferring--unless you are not, in which case you should clarify--that mass slaughter with well intentions is completely fine and moral

2018-07-01 05:41:27 UTC  

How do you *not* see the flaw in that?