"In a certain light, wouldn't nuclear war be exciting?"

[WALMART]

Hardly comparable, given the long and detailed history of Russian savagery, and that one isolated incident of Americans acting like savages, like the Hatfields and the McCoys, African-American slavery, school shootings, and the Abu Ghraib prison torture.

I'm not sure where to continue with this, so I am headed for bed. Nice talking to you, as always. Sleep well.

 

[Thalassa]

I'm not sure where to continue with this, so I am headed for bed. Nice talking to you, as always. Sleep well.

I know. My ancestors on the Trail of Tears thank you for complimenting the American white man's superior ability to refrain from being savages, unlike those chess playing Russians.

 

[Ivy]

I'm moving the useless discussion of who's trolling whom to OT posts. I would advise both of you to shut up right now.

 

[Tyrinth]

And what if you don't die, smart guy?

"smart guy", huh? It's almost like you're trying to mock me.

The odds of survival of all-out, world-wide nuclear war are slim. The world as we know it would end, and far more likely it would lead to the all-but-extinction of the human race. There's a reason the concept of mutually assured destruction actually seems to work.

On the off chance that I did survive, I fail to see why you seem to think that it would be a game-changer for me. I'd likely die of the radioactive fallout soon afterwards, anyway.

 

[Glycerine]

Taken from OkCupid!

Wanted to know what goes through people's mind when they answer this question.

In a certain light... yes but in most instances, NO.

Why does it have to be a value judgement? There is a difference between "In a certain light..." and "I find nuclear war fun and exciting... let's have it now".

 

[Galena]

Did read the thread, but it informed my ultimate decision not to answer the question.

Just because a "certain light" is possible to find doesn't mean that the "light" is a good one or worth looking for. Yes, we have intuition. Yes, we can interpret anything any way we want to. However, having the ability to do something--even inside our minds--doesn't give us a free moral pass to do it without discrimination. There's a time and a place for play.

The way this topic played out really made me think. I won't soon forget it.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

I voted no. You must be really fuckin bored to think that! You should reflect on that instead of looking for global issues to get your kicks for you. Typical INTP, Bad [MENTION=13260]Rasofy[/MENTION]!

Having said that:

I'll be in Argentina next month on business (fingers crossed) so if a nuclear war breaks out in that time, maybe us two can refound the forum?

Provided the wind is blowing in the right direction.

Also I don't want any Spanish bastards claiming asylum, we will apply strict immigration controls just like they do for the "sudacas"!

/sideways swipe at a nationality not well reprsented on the forum

 

[Lexicon]

In theory, some sort of apocalyptic event would be interesting. The aftermath, at the very least. How would we adapt? Would we? Exciting in a way, yes. Pleasant, probably not.*

*Especially [if Hollywood's taught me anything] if our post-apocalyptic leader ends up being Kevin Costner.

 

[garbage]

I'm moving the useless discussion of who's trolling whom to OT posts.

I also did this.

There was enough uselessness removed that mine and Ivy's posts are, like, a half-page from one another.

 

[EJCC]

Just because a "certain light" is possible to find doesn't mean that the "light" is a good one or worth looking for.

^ This.
[MENTION=6877]Marmotini[/MENTION]: Acknowledging that something COULD be interesting if viewed in a particular light just means putting yourself into an imaginary position; it doesn't mean you agree with it, or would ever agree with it. I relate to how others in this thread have been able to detach in order to put themselves in that position. (Which isn't to say that I agree with everything they've said so far on this thread -- sorry, [MENTION=13260]Rasofy[/MENTION], but telling anyone to enjoy rape while it's happening is completely inexcusable.) I COULD do the same thing, and I COULD say that it would be interesting from a certain perspective -- but the thing is, putting myself in that perspective, like you've been saying, would be a really bad idea for any number of reasons.

Which is why, on OKCupid, my answer to that question was "no", with the comment "That would be viewing things more impersonally than I'm comfortable with." Acknowledging that viewing things like that is possible, but also acknowledging the moral aspects of the question.

So even though I generally agree with you, Marm, I'm posting here to say that there's a difference between acknowledging that possibility and actually being morally okay with it. Seeing things from another point of view doesn't necessitate sacrificing your own moral code.

 

[Thalassa]

^ This.

[MENTION=6877]Marmotini[/MENTION]: Acknowledging that something COULD be interesting if viewed in a particular light just means putting yourself into an imaginary position; it doesn't mean you agree with it, or would ever agree with it. I relate to how others in this thread have been able to detach in order to put themselves in that position. (Which isn't to say that I agree with everything they've said so far on this thread -- sorry, [MENTION=13260]Rasofy[/MENTION], but telling anyone to enjoy rape while it's happening is completely inexcusable.) I COULD do the same thing, and I COULD say that it would be interesting from a certain perspective -- but the thing is, putting myself in that perspective, like you've been saying, would be a really bad idea for any number of reasons.

Which is why, on OKCupid, my answer to that question was "no", with the comment "That would be viewing things more impersonally than I'm comfortable with." Acknowledging that viewing things like that is possible, but also acknowledging the moral aspects of the question.

So even though I generally agree with you, Marm, I'm posting here to say that there's a difference between acknowledging that possibility and actually being morally okay with it. Seeing things from another point of view doesn't necessitate sacrificing your own moral code.

I think it's because the emotive word "exciting" is attached to the premise that it bothers me, exciting denotes thrilling or fun to me I suppose, and while I can comprehend why 1930's Germans could be convinced to be Nazis (but am definitely not a Nazi sympathizer) or why present-day Russians could be nationalists (and am more on the fence about that; I don't like the neo-nazi extremist violence, but I've heard excellent arguments for why Soviet culture-wrecking was damaging to the Russian psyche in such an extreme way that cultural cohesion is something they need psychologically...and this is a Jungian perspective...)...but I don't agree with them.

Still. I can see why these people could morally justify their actions. I comprehend it even if I don't necessarily support it, or even condemn it in the big picture.

And I can't morally justify nuclear war being "exciting" in any light, it sounds amoral or sociopathic to me, but it is probably because it's something I have given so much empathetic thought to, and why I felt compelled to post photos of Chernobyl and Hiroshima victims...I wasn't trolling or trying to break the rules, I was trying to make a point.

EDIT: Interestingly I think it's because it violates some Fi value of mine so deep, something so entrenched in childhood, and it also is supported by Jung's idea that the J dom (Fi, Fe, Ti, and Te doms) can see the P dom (Ne, Se, Ni, Si...but especially Pe doms) as lacking morality because they can accept so much without it being passed through a J filter; since you're a Te dom and reject Fi, it's easier for it not to disturb your Fi and you judge it more objectively with Te, but still judge it as I would, just in a more logical way!!

 

[EJCC]

I think it's because the emotive word "exciting" is attached to the premise that it bothers me, exciting denotes thrilling or fun to me I suppose, and while I can comprehend why 1930's Germans could be convinced to be Nazis (but am definitely not a Nazi sympathizer) or why present-day Russians could be nationalists (and am more on the fence about that; I don't like the neo-nazi extremist violence, but I've heard excellent arguments for why Soviet culture-wrecking was damaging to the Russian psyche in such an extreme way that cultural cohesion is something they need psychologically...and this is a Jungian perspective...)...but I don't agree with them.

Still. I can see why these people could morally justify their actions. I comprehend it even if I don't necessarily support it, or even condemn it in the big picture.

And I can't morally justify nuclear war being "exciting" in any light, it sounds amoral or sociopathic to me, but it is probably because it's something I have given so much empathetic thought to, and why I felt compelled to post photos of Chernobyl and Hiroshima victims...I wasn't trolling or trying to break the rules, I was trying to make a point.

I knew you weren't trolling. I know you better than that.

The only reason why I posted was because it seemed like you were making the argument that detaching to view things in a different light is immoral and turns you into a horrible person -- and I couldn't disagree more on that point.

I can see how nuclear war could be exciting in several cases:
1) "I wonder what the future of mankind will be"
2) "I wonder if everyone will die and I'll be the last person on Earth, like that guy in that Twilight Zone episode"
3) "Will there be zombies?? Lemme get out my boomsticks "
4) etc.

Of course, if I met anyone who said any of those things in earnest, I'd think they should put things in perspective and remember that millions, if not billions, of people will die, horrifically, and that that's not something to be happy about. But that all doesn't mean I can't see how they could think that way.

 

[Rasofy]

(Which isn't to say that I agree with everything they've said so far on this thread -- sorry, [MENTION=13260]Rasofy[/MENTION], but telling anyone to enjoy rape while it's happening is completely inexcusable.)

What would you suggest? Crying?

 

[Thalassa]

What would you suggest? Crying?

Would you enjoy being punched or stabbed? So why would you enjoy being raped?

 

[Rasofy]

Would you enjoy being punched or stabbed? So why would you enjoy being raped?

I wouldn't, but it's possible to make a bad and inevitable situation much more tolerant by accepting and embracing it. Ultimately, you wouldn't strictly enjoy, but making an effort in this direction would pay off.

 

[Thalassa]

I wouldn't, but it's possible to make a bad and inevitable situation much more tolerant by accepting and embracing it. Ultimately, you wouldn't strictly enjoy, but making an effort in this direction would pay off.

No I think that's kind of a sexist way to think, you're thinking of rape as a man-woman activity I'm guessing, so I invite you to think of it as some dude pounding you in the behind, and then I'd like for you to reframe your enjoyment statement.

Rape is not sex, it's an act of violence, even women who have rape fantasies tend to only want to be raped by a specific man or men they're attracted to, when they're turned on, which makes it actually not rape then.

While this attitude (making the best of a bad situation) is helpful in most areas of life, I don't think being brutal violent attacks are in the same category.

 

[EJCC]

Would you enjoy being punched or stabbed? So why would you enjoy being raped?

^ That.

It's like telling someone to enjoy being tortured. Not only that, but there's a whole other level of offensiveness in 1) telling someone to enjoy a painful experience, and 2) being a man telling a woman that. It's a combination between ignorant, presumptuous, entitled, and outright wrong.

To put things in perspective, a political figure in the US said almost that exact thing, [MENTION=13260]Rasofy[/MENTION], twenty years ago, as a joke; it cost him the election, and now that it's been rediscovered, it cost him his career; now he's "political poison".

I've since seen it brought up along with more recent rape quotes by American politicians, e.g. the ones about "forcible rape", "legitimate rape", rape as a gift from God, etc. Example: Here.

Edit:

No I think that's kind of a sexist way to think, you're thinking of rape as a man-woman activity I'm guessing, so I invite you to think of it as some dude pounding you in the behind, and then I'd like for you to reframe your enjoyment statement.

Rape is not sex, it's an act of violence, even women who have rape fantasies tend to only want to be raped by a specific man or men they're attracted to, when they're turned on, which makes it actually not rape then.

While this attitude (making the best of a bad situation) is helpful in most areas of life, I don't think being brutal violent attacks are in the same category.

^ This too.

 

[011235813]

On the one hand, "in a certain light" could mean the freedom to come up with any imaginary set of outlandish conditions that make nuclear war acceptably exciting. On the other, trying to think up those outlandish conditions seems like a frivolous thought exercise that overlooks or underplays the magnitude of what nuclear war would actually be like.

So sure, it could be exciting in a certain light, but honestly, why does that really bear thinking about?

 

[Rasofy]

No I think that's kind of a sexist way to think, you're thinking of rape as a man-woman activity I'm guessing, so I invite you to think of it as some dude pounding you in the behind, and then I'd like for you to reframe your enjoyment statement.

Rape is not sex, it's an act of violence, even women who have rape fantasies tend to only want to be raped by a specific man or men they're attracted to, when they're turned on, which makes it actually not rape then.

While this attitude (making the best of a bad situation) is helpful in most areas of life, I don't think being brutal violent attacks are in the same category.

I give up.

It's like telling someone to enjoy being tortured. Not only that, but there's a whole other level of offensiveness in 1) telling someone to enjoy a painful experience, and 2) being a man telling a woman that. It's a combination between ignorant, presumptuous, entitled, and outright wrong.

Your moral filters don't affect the viability of the idea.

Besides, I didn't put the thread on the philosophy subsection to get an etiquette lesson.

 

[011235813]

Forgot to add: my technical answer is yes, but my real answer is no. So I voted no, because technicality schmechnicality.