Happy Tiananmen Square Massacre Day

[Tingkai]

Ran: You're getting as bad as Fez.
Fez: You're nuts as always. Murder is okay if the economy does well. Talk about nuts.

What happened there was simple: unarmed civilians were slaughtered during the night by the military. It was wrong. Period. The government didn't do it because they were communists. The gods knows the KMT were just as bad.

This was a government that panicked and used brute force to put down a peaceful protest. Deng and the others have done wonders for China, but this remains a bloody stain on their record.

[Timexwatch]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


you missed it. 12 anniversary of the 1991 massacres of kurds and shiites was last month. You'll have to wait for the 13th anniversary.

Or were you were referring to the anniversary of the Halabja gassing? Not sure what time of year that was.

It's a troll Who do you think he's referring to?

[ranskaldan]

David Floyd:

rans,

You are making one huge mistake. Murdering one person for the purpose of trying to save any other number is immoral, because murder is always wrong.

If you have the power to prevent the death of 100 people, and you don't, you're the murderer of 100 people.

The case is, therefore, the choice between being the murderer of 1 and being the murderer of 100.

Arrian:

Still, crushing demostrators who had been peaceful to that point with the army, which resulted in either several hundred or several thousand deaths (depending on whom you believe), was a terrible thing to do. REGARDLESS of the fears of the leadership - justified or no.

Of course it was terrible. I agree with you on that.

GePap:

Every trully great crime is always justified with "a future" that we can never trully know exists.

So every human decision, as long as it is justified by "a future" that we never get to see, is therefore a truly great crime?

A -> B, hence B -> A. That is the most fallacious generalization in this thread yet.

Tingkai:

Ran: You're getting as bad as Fez.
....

What happened there was simple: unarmed civilians were slaughtered during the night by the military. It was wrong. Period. The government didn't do it because they were communists. The gods knows the KMT were just as bad.

This was a government that panicked and used brute force to put down a peaceful protest. Deng and the others have done wonders for China, but this remains a bloody stain on their record.

Do you seriously think that given enough time, the protests would have fizzled out?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
David Floyd:
If you have the power to prevent the death of 100 people, and you don't, you're the murderer of 100 people.

The case is, therefore, the choice between being the murderer of 1 and being the murderer of 100.

But that's based on a speculative future. One that many may disagree with. Especially, those that died.

GePap:

So every human decision, as long as it is justified by "a future" that we never get to see, is therefore a truly great crime?

A -> B, hence B -> A. That is the most fallacious generalization in this thread yet.

You're just grasping at straws here. That wasn't what he meant and you should know better.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by DaShi


But that's based on a speculative future. One that many may disagree with. Especially, those that died.

So hence it's wrong, because many people disagree with it.

An utter non-point right there.

You're just grasping at straws here. That wasn't what he meant and you should know better.

That was precisely what he meant.

[Arrian]

Do you seriously think that given enough time, the protests would have fizzled out?

Ah, but do you seriously think that, given an attempt by the CCP to discuss the demostrator's concerns, that the demonstrations would have continued?

We can go around on this all day, of course. But IMO, the massacre was a direct result of a totalitarian government not being able to deal with its people's concerns in a non-violent manner. Their only response, it seems, is to call in the Tanks.

-Arrian

[DaShi]

Originally posted by ranskaldan


So hence it's wrong, because many people disagree with it.

An utter non-point right there.

What is wrong with you? You're saying its right because you agree with it. Why can't you and UR argue? Are you really that blind?

That was precisely what he meant.

If he denies that, will you come over here and suck my ****?

Now that's an argument!

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Arrian


Ah, but do you seriously think that, given an attempt by the CCP to discuss the demostrator's concerns, that the demonstrations would have continued?

We can go around on this all day, of course.

I agree with you that we'll never know for sure if negotiations would've worked. IMO though, sizzling negotiations would've run the risk of dragging workers/peasants out on the streets in much larger numbers. Then everything would've been over.

[GePap]

Ran: you keep basing your arguemnt on the notion that had the portestors not been put down, social chaos and desrcution would have followed. Well, you don;t know that to be true fo a second. You assume it to be true, and that assumption is not enough, on anyones part, to justify what was done that day.

Any great crime, from the Holocaust on culd always be "justified", as long as one starts trying to construct some alternate future that was better than the current one, just as long as the crime occurs. I personally don't care to wallow in such notions, specially if the assumption of what will be is based on somehitng as ridiculous as "lessons from history"

[mindseye]

Photos from THAT timeline would contain one thousand times more blood, gore, and pain than the ones mindseye has shown.

Sorry, Rans, but your entire argument is based on a fundamental fallacy: "Appeal to consequences of Belief". From Nizkor (a link I got from you! ):

Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
The Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief is a fallacy that comes in the following patterns:

X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences.
(...)
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the consequences of a belief have no bearing on whether the belief is true or false.

In other words, your conjectural future has just as much validity (i.e. none) as a similar argument that any given speculative future would have turned out better!

The leaders had any number of options open that day. But they chose one that for certain had murderous consequences. When they ordered the 27th Army to shoot it's way into the square using live ammunition, there was little question as to whether or not lives would be lost.

This is why the rest of the world was so shocked and revulsed by what happened that day. Your painting imaginary futures which justify the massacre do you no credit.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by mindseye

Photos from THAT timeline would contain one thousand times more blood, gore, and pain than the ones mindseye has shown.

Sorry, Rans, but your entire argument is based on a fundamental fallacy: "Appeal to consequences of Belief". From Nizkor (a link I got from you! ):

That fallacy is basically based on the idea that: A is bad, hence A is false. But that's fallacious because desirability is not connected to truth/falsehood. You can have nice truths, nasty truths, nice falsehoods and nasty falsehoods.

And how is that connected to mine?

[David Floyd]

If you have the power to prevent the death of 100 people, and you don't, you're the murderer of 100 people.

No, the person who murders 100 is the murderer of 100. If you have a moral means to prevent that murder, you should of course take that course of action. However, murder is never a moral course of action - you're simply murdering an innocent.

The case is, therefore, the choice between being the murderer of 1 and being the murderer of 100.

You're half right - the choice is between being the murderer of 1 and the murderer or none. My choice is to murder nobody.

If someone decides to murder 100 people, that decision can't be attributed to you in any way whatsoever, only to the immorality of that one person.

[David Floyd]

Further, your use of the phrase "power to prevent murder" is wrong. You have the power to prevent yourself from committing murder, but your power does not extend to controlling the decisions of others.

Take responsibility for your own actions - if you kill someone, you are a murderer, and if someone else kills 100 people, then they are also a murderer. But if you refuse to commit murder, and someone else decides to commit murder, then how can you be the murderer? It doesn't make any sense at all.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by David Floyd


No, the person who murders 100 is the murderer of 100. If you have a moral means to prevent that murder, you should of course take that course of action. However, murder is never a moral course of action - you're simply murdering an innocent.

As a bystander with full knowledge and power to change the situation, you are also a murderer. And what about a case when the 100 people are about to die of pneumonia - or kill each other?

You're half right - the choice is between being the murderer of 1 and the murderer or none. My choice is to murder nobody.

"Murderer of none" is self-delusion. 100 people died and you had the power to change it - yet you didn't.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Further, your use of the phrase "power to prevent murder" is wrong. You have the power to prevent yourself from committing murder, but your power does not extend to controlling the decisions of others.

In this specific case you do control the decisions of others. That's why there's the word "prevent" in there.

In other words, if one child is about to pour sulphuric acid over another child (both are too young to understand), you should simply stand aside because you aren't making the decision, even though you can easily prevent it?