America should die

Post Reply New Topic

you don't think it's true either, obviously, so i have no idea why you posted this. to incite anger perhaps? to make a point? it's rather silly if you don't believe it.

Yes. A kind of Uncle Ruckus.
You might be surprised how common that is. Then again you might not.



You might offend a few people who don't want to be murdered.
You would offend a lot of people over here who have been looking forward to the NFL season.
Maybe if you could hang on until after the Superbowl and relocate the teams abroad...
We have a nice stadium here at Wembley you know.

He *asked about it*. He didn't state it was true.

It is not silly to discuss things you disagree with.

so you think he was asking an honest question? i don't think so... i think he was making a point of sorts: that it is okay to say this kind of thing about americans, but not muslims.

but it is not the same situation, because he doesn't actually believe it to be true. which makes it silly. it would not have the same effect as other threads composed of hate speech.

Well, no, but I think the question is potentially interesting, and I asked a number of very interesting follow-up questions.

I also made a point, as you have said in the past that you thought our attitudes towards Islam were inconsistent. I think this is consistent.

I don't think it is silly if I don't believe it. I think that things I don't believe can be very interesting discussion topics.



I asked a NUMBER of honest questions with the hypothetical being the lead-in. Frankly, I would find a large number of possible responses interesting. Disgust is the least interesting response though. However, if someone really thinks the world would be better if certain Americans suddenly died, I would think that it would be interesting to get their perspective on the matter as well. Maybe they actually do have a reasoned out response. Maybe they have a different perspective. Maybe it is nothing. Often anybody's perspective is just nonsense anyway, so maybe different nonsense this time.

Secondly, I actually am fine saying the same kind of thing about every group in existence.

Thirdly, why does it matter whether I think it is true? In one sense it can't really be hate speech, but in another sense it isn't distinguishable from your definition of hate speech. I haven't seen many threads "composed of hate speech".

What is an honest question?

the way i intended to use the phrase is whether it was a question for which he wanted an answer (honest), or a question for which he wanted a reaction. but that was just my own wording- i don't think it is universally meant that way.

The opposite of a dishonest question.


I don't see the distinction as relevant. I wouldn't ask an internet forum a question for which I really cared what kind of answer I got. The point is to get interesting answers, and I don't know how that is different than "a reaction", other than the fact that I find the reaction of disgust and other similar ones to be the least interesting sorts. Creative responses are always good, but not fake creative responses.

"America" also includes Mexico and Canada. The United States is the official name to avoid confusion in international politics and policies.

Basically, you are trying to justify a holocaust based on nationality.

It is very similar to the line of reasoning Hitler used for his holocaust, but he mainly used ethnicity rather than nationality.

So, to sum up this whole discussion: It makes no rational, fair, or good sense to persecute an individual based on characteristics out of his or her own control or characteristics of a group he or she belongs to. Everyone should judge the individual solely based on his or her actions.

Did you ever consider that the main reason the United States has such a strict and somewhat aggressive foreign policy because there are countries that give ammunition to people with backwards thinking such as yourself?

Words have multiple definitions, therefore your statement is invalid. "America" means whatever I want it to mean. If I call a country "America", then it is America. If I call a region "America" then it is America. If I name a child "America" then it has the name of America. Your statement here is as relevant as saying that a person cannot have the name of Joseph because you've already met another Joseph.


No, I am asking the question. You can come up with the justifications.


Yes, and if there was a transnational Jewish conspiracy to destroy society, undermine one's people, and cause great suffering, then a Holocaust of them would make a lot of sense, just as CS Lewis points out (as quoted below) how if there were actually witches going around hurting people, it would not be wrong to not permit a witch to live. The point of disgust is that there are no witches, and that Jews are not engaged in so much evil.




Why? I mean, you just made an assertion, and an assertion that many people state, but very very few actually believe in practice. We continually judge people for things outside of their control. The prevalence of this phenomena has become so prevalent that moral philosophers have started talking about the category of "moral luck", in which people are lauded or blamed for things outside of their real control. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-luck/

Even further, utilitarian philosophy outright disagrees with you, by holding that it is rational and good sense to persecute individuals based upon the potential utility gained from that without regard of whether the individual controls these traits or not. While personal control might correlated with utility gained, you require a 1:1 correspondence or somewhere close.

So, in short, you are making a much more ethically controversial claim than you actually recognize.


It is a possibility. Certainly a theory you could put forward. I am less willing to accept your idea as valid though, as I think other factors are more relevant.

An answer is a reaction.

hahaha yes technically true, but they can also be distinct from each other.

of course they're distinct but your whole statement becomes a bit pointless if you consider that what people might count as an answer can vary greatly. people can't understand your argument if you use vague terms like that.

If there was a transnational conspiracy to destroy society, then those responsible should be targeted for punishment and the general population should have been spared.

The vast majority could actually be responsible or tied into the matter somehow, or even the efforts could just arise from Jewish genetics. It could be that who is responsible is actually unknowable but the situation had to be stopped. That being said, I really am not going to attempt to get into all of the details, but it is very likely that Nazis held false beliefs about Jews that helped justify their actions towards the Jewish people. Most of them were probably no worse morally on average than the rest of us, they're just our scapegoats.

So then would you argue that a human superiority complex is a natural trait