Is Harmful Behaviour From Others That The Victim Brought On Themselves Justified
Yes
Side Score: 2
|
 |
No
Side Score: 3
|
|
|
|
|
Well, there are many instances where retaliatory harmful behavior/action is wholly justified. When Hitler's Luftwaffe bombed most of Europe's cities including those in England, Air Marshal Richard Harris, (bomber Harris) explained to the megalomaniac that he had sown the wind and was going to reap the whirlwind, which he did. Someone said that the measure of true intelligence is one's ability to adapt to, and adopt the practices of their new environment so as to maximize their chances of survival and to boost the opportunities for success. I interpret the message in that quote to mean that, ''when in Rome, do as the Romans do, or suffer the consequences, justified or not. Would it be reasonable for an attractive girl dressed provocatively to walk down Dirty Dick's Avenue in the early hours of the morning and expect not to be sexually attacked? She should be able to complete her journey unmolested but would be tempting providence by doing so. Should a white man be able to take his soap box into deepest Harlem, N Y., and spout off the truth about white supremacy and the myth of white privilege? Yes, in the land of the free he should be able to do so, but shortly after starting his oration we would be asking, was he the architect of his own demise? It could be reasonably argued that by willfully ignoring the inevitable consequences of your behavior you will receive ''your just deserts''. Side: Yes
1
point
Well, there are many instances where retaliatory harmful behavior/action is wholly justified. When Hitler's Luftwaffe bombed most of Europe's cities including those in England, Air Marshal Richard Harris, (bomber Harris) explained to the megalomaniac that he had sown the wind and was going to reap the whirlwind, which he did. Just can't agree with this. If killing civilians is wrong when Hitler does it, then it's wrong when we do it, otherwise that's a double standard. The Dresden firebombing was one of the biggest war crimes of WW2, and it was committed by the allies. Side: No
That is a strong argument but fails to recognize that I am not promoting the gratuitous killing of civilians nor that two wrongs make a right. My point is that for any retaliatory measures to achieve their objectives we must fight fire with fire and in such cases the end justifies the means. In the eyes of those with the awful responsibility of conducting TOTAL WAR against Germany the Dresden bombing was justified as it was clearly identified as a major communications center and firebombing it would disrupt the Nazi's ability to convey messages to its military machine which was heavily engaged fighting the Soviet Army. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE THE PROVERBIAL COLLATERAL DAMAGE, JUST AS THERE WILL BE THOSE WHO OPT FOR A FREE RIDE AND WILL TRY TO GRAB THE MORAL HIGH GROUND BY CRITICIZING THE INDIVIDUALS WHO, AT A POINT IN HISTORY AND WITH A RESTRICTED KNOWLEDGE OF ''ENTIRE PERSPECTIVE'' FELT IT NECESSARY TO TAKE WHATEVER HORRENDOUS ACTION WAS NECESSARY TO DEFEAT A GREAT EVIL. I mean, take THE iceberg that sank the Titanic. There it was floating peacefully in the sea on a clear starry night when this ruddy great ship comes and smashes into it scattering great chucks of its mass all over the North Atlantic. Now that vessel got its payback. TITanic for TATanic . Side: Yes
|
1
point
That The Victim Brought On Themselves The language you're using makes it clear that you believe one person can be blamed for the actions and decisions of another person. This is never true. For example, if I come home and find my wife hasn't made me dinner, then she didn't "bring it on herself" if I punch her in the mouth. She made a decision about her choices and I made a separate decision about my own choices. The responsibility for personal behaviour always rests with the decision maker, never with a third party. Side: No
|
