Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 120

Thread: Kim Jong Un fed his uncle to 120 starving dogs: report

  1. #91
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,972

    Re: Kim Jong Un fed his uncle to 120 starving dogs: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    It's **** like this that makes me realize how much I hate moral equivalency.

    We had a thread the other day with people arguing over the "cruelty" if executing someone with a drug cocktail not yet tested on humans because the normal one was no longer sold. It was being made out to be a horrible, cruel, unusual punishment of the worst kind.

    .....then you see "eaten alive by 120 starving dogs" and you realize however bad you may feel like some of what we do is, the act like we're some kind of backwards dictatorial third world barbaric regime morally is just ridiculous.
    True, but defending something we do on the basis that it's not as bad as the practices of the worst possible countries on earth is also pretty weak.

  2. #92
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,325

    Re: Kim Jong Un fed his uncle to 120 starving dogs: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    He's in good company....without mentioning names.
    I was gonna say, I've seen Kim defended here.

  3. #93
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,972

    Re: Kim Jong Un fed his uncle to 120 starving dogs: report

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    I was gonna say, I've seen Kim defended here.
    Figures. I reached a critical mass lately in which I finally stopped being surprised by anonymous internet strangers saying crazy, inflammatory things.

  4. #94
    Wrinkly member
    Manc Skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Southern England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    23,165

    Re: Kim Jong Un fed his uncle to 120 starving dogs: report

    Here's an idea. Maybe it's not true. We find it believeable because of where it comes from...

    BBC News - Did Kim Jong Un feed his uncle to dogs?
    Don't work out, work in.

    Never eat anything that's served in a bucket.

  5. #95
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,972

    Re: Kim Jong Un fed his uncle to 120 starving dogs: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Manc Skipper View Post
    Here's an idea. Maybe it's not true. We find it believeable because of where it comes from...

    BBC News - Did Kim Jong Un feed his uncle to dogs?
    The article itself states that while the story may not be certain, the thing about it is its extreme believability in light of what we know about the Kims.

  6. #96
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,590
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Kim Jong Un fed his uncle to 120 starving dogs: report

    I would have thought more highly of the guy if he'd fed his uncle to his starving citizens instead.

  7. #97
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: Kim Jong Un fed his uncle to 120 starving dogs: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    True, but defending something we do on the basis that it's not as bad as the practices of the worst possible countries on earth is also pretty weak.
    I'm not really even talking about the "defending" something we do. If we do wrong then we should address that.

    It's more the general notion that comes up at times of a "we're as bad as ...." type of thing. It's the same type of thing that would irk me with things back during the war as well. Want to complain about what we do, cool. Want to say we're "no different" than people doing a significantly more barbaric and worse thing at a far greater frequency? That's ridiculous.

    It's not so much a notion of "see, what is happening in that other situation is okay". Rather, it's simply trying to look at it a bit in context. Is that particular case wrong or "cruel and unusual by our standards"? That's a big question, and one for another thread. But the fact we're even HAVING that conversation over something that theoretically is meant to be a painless form of execution, but simply hasn't been tested on humans is a wonderful sign that REGARDLESS of how you feel about it you should still be able to feel that the United States as a country and a society does generally try to be as humane as possible on this issue.

    We're arguing about whether or not we should use an untested means of potentially painless chemical execution......North Korea is having prisoners eaten by 120 starving dogs.

    Even if you can't stand the death penalty, or if you don't mind it but don't agree with what's happening in that case, you should still be able to step back and go "regardless of how wrong I think this is, I can be thankful that I'm in a society where THIS is the worst that's being debated on this topic".

    Like I said, it's the whole relative morality thing that it makes me think of. That notion acknowledges that both things CAN be wrong. It's simply suggested that two wrongs aren't always necessarily equal.

  8. #98
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,972

    Re: Kim Jong Un fed his uncle to 120 starving dogs: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I'm not really even talking about the "defending" something we do. If we do wrong then we should address that.

    It's more the general notion that comes up at times of a "we're as bad as ...." type of thing. It's the same type of thing that would irk me with things back during the war as well. Want to complain about what we do, cool. Want to say we're "no different" than people doing a significantly more barbaric and worse thing at a far greater frequency? That's ridiculous.

    It's not so much a notion of "see, what is happening in that other situation is okay". Rather, it's simply trying to look at it a bit in context. Is that particular case wrong or "cruel and unusual by our standards"? That's a big question, and one for another thread. But the fact we're even HAVING that conversation over something that theoretically is meant to be a painless form of execution, but simply hasn't been tested on humans is a wonderful sign that REGARDLESS of how you feel about it you should still be able to feel that the United States as a country and a society does generally try to be as humane as possible on this issue.

    We're arguing about whether or not we should use an untested means of potentially painless chemical execution......North Korea is having prisoners eaten by 120 starving dogs.

    Even if you can't stand the death penalty, or if you don't mind it but don't agree with what's happening in that case, you should still be able to step back and go "regardless of how wrong I think this is, I can be thankful that I'm in a society where THIS is the worst that's being debated on this topic".

    Like I said, it's the whole relative morality thing that it makes me think of. That notion acknowledges that both things CAN be wrong. It's simply suggested that two wrongs aren't always necessarily equal.
    Depends on what the point is. If someone is arguing that what we're doing is equal to feeding live prisoners to hungry dogs then obviously that's stupid. If they're arguing that we share, for example, the death penalty, with a country we hold to be largely uncivilized when the rest of the world has moved on then that's different.

  9. #99
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,273
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Kim Jong Un fed his uncle to 120 starving dogs: report

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    The article itself states that while the story may not be certain, the thing about it is its extreme believability in light of what we know about the Kims.
    I don't like to say I'm good at anything, I think there's a fine line between confidence and arrogance.

    But besides perhaps PSK and DonSutherland I would rate myself after all the research I've done as the one of the foremost experts on North Korea in this forum and barring my light hearted comment on page 1 I had severe doubts about this story.

    It's a bit too twirly mustache even by the Kims standards.

  10. #100
    Professor
    SBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    01-18-16 @ 03:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,523

    Re: Kim Jong Un fed his uncle to 120 starving dogs: report

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    Read more here:
    Kim Jong Un fed his uncle to 120 starving dogs: report

    That is about as sadistic as it gets.
    It's cool, he only has nuclear weapons and a starved, drugged, brainwashed mass militarized citizenry directly opposite some of the worlds most develop(ed)(ing) economies. What could go wrong?

Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •