Poll: Would you wipe out a culture?

[Kevlar Eater]

I wouldn't do it to save more lives. I'd do it because it would make me happy.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

Sure killing millions of regular people and their rich culture because of a few extreme hundred is totally cool. In fact lets start off right now! Well there are those Islamic extremists that are causing everyone trouble. Bam, no more Islam. There are also some pretty intolerant and dangerous Americans too, lets just wipe out America too. And you know, there are some pretty cruel Chinese as well how about we erase China from existence. Oh, and Christianity has a few "followers" that are pretty bad, lets get rid of that as well. And there was that rude European that I met the other day. So Europe in general has to go. You know what humanity in general has come up with some pretty big dicks. Lets just kill everybody regardless of how "bad" they are.

Nothing wrong with that right?

 

[emeraldrafael]

No. Let the world solve it itself. You're looking at it as kill 1 million to save 10 million, and thats all well in good. But lets look at it like this:

Lets say theres 100k extremist. You're killing a million to stop a 100k. Thats killing the same percentage of innocents just to stop evil. That itself makes you no better then the extremist.

 

[Whateveralot]

Yes, for one simple reason:

You do not need religion to be a good person. Ones that claim religion makes people do good things they wouldn't do if there was no religion, are ignorant.

Edit: A slight nuance: I would not whipe out a culture per se, I would whipe out the religion that drives them, without killing the people.

If religion cannot make you a good person, EVER, than religion cannot make you a bad person, ever. In fact, it can't make anyone anything.

Its almost like... people get out of religion what the put into it! And evil people do evil things, regardless of belief!

No... your right. Religion has killed everyone, ever.

On a side note, religion is an idea. Can't kill religion without killing the people.

What I meant to say that religion is not the only way people can ever be good, which is something that I keep picking up when I hear about faith. There are religions that think everyone that thinks differently is good. Does that make them bad people? Not necessarely, but it sure isn't helpful.

I think people should be more open-minded then that. Accepting other peoples' religions (or lack thereof) is the first step. There is no religion that does not do that: child indoctrination happens in every religion. Yes, even in atheism. But my parents are atheists, and they always let me free in this. In fact, they put me on a christian school, and I was thought of religion. It is my choice not to believe in God and I like that freedom.

 

[Whateveralot]

True, but like you said, it's about conditioning. Religion teaches people to base opinions on faith, not fact. Also, a lot of religions are degressive, corrosive things that want science to stop existing, doesn't want to vaccinate our children against diseases and in extreme cases even kill homosexuals. By allowing even the slightest glimp of that, you condition these ways of living. Not saying all religion is horrible, I have a great deal of respect for people that devote their lives to something like that, but it's not a very good thing to devote yourself to.

In my personal perfect world, religion only excists in a single persons' mind and does not carry over to other people. So no churches, no bible schools. People need to choose for their own, create their own vision. I do believe there could be religious councellors to go to in times of need. Representatives of a belief. But they should be schooled psychologists, not just people that believe in God. This way, people always have the freedom to think what they want, but can talk about what they believe in a constructive manner, not to indoctrinate little children to believe in a God.

I agree about anti indoctrination. I was brought up in England (mostly) in a Catholic church and school. I was never told or lead to believe that faith was superior to science and fact. I was never taught that homosexuality was wrong, or that people who were different should be treated differently. In fact, had the place been in America or Australia, it would have probably been shut down on suspicion that it was a hippy-socialist-communist place or something XD

What I'm trying to say is that the religion itself is read, and understood in many different ways. That's why all of the different sects in the Abrahamic religions disagree so violently with each other, despite having essentially the same goal and general belief. I think that religion should be age restricted, like voting and other adult things, and that moral values should be taught in multi faith schools (of which they are all legally made to be), where everyone is taught the same things. I am a globalist, and believe that should be a standard around the world. I think that is fair. I think that there should be equality around the world, and that it's the moral responsibility of people to look after others and to not judge people the way they do, rather like "Christian" teaching tells (read:not any Christian denomination that actually exists, the one that Jesus preached, that everyone chooses to ignore). I think that people would be far better off in this situation, ethically at least. Then, however, you are leaning towards communism, and as all good propaganda tells us, the closer to communism, the more evil it truly is.

I'm not religious and I'm not a communist by the way, but I do think we need to take the best concepts from every ideology and try and make a healthy balance between them.

Interesting. I kinda agree on that single ideology thing, BUT there is no way this will ever happen. Therefor I figured the best thing is just to teach everyone to live their religion on their own - personal fronts. Does religion need to spread? No. If people want to believe something, they will. The bible / koran / etc. can still be available and no one will ever forget about religion. I'm not saying they should. But just leaving it there for people to choose whenever they want is a better option. I'm not even entirely against church; it depends on the preacher. If it's just praising the lord, reading stories, etc. I think it's not really necessary: people can do that by themselves in their time. But there are also preachers that actively talk about life, the way they solve problems. That's a much more interesting approach, simply because it is more informative and less indoctrinating.

Where in the UK are you from, if I may ask?

 

[Scarim Coral]

Does this sound like it's a metaphor for something? Although I do agree on killing millions if it means to save billion or trillion, what happen to a peaceful approach like diplomat or negotiate?
I think it fair to say that we aren?t the heroes to do kill them all, we will be as bad as them (since it pretty much killing them all just because they don?t agree with us which is the same as their view in the place).

 

[Verlander]

Interesting. I kinda agree on that single ideology thing, BUT there is no way this will ever happen. Therefor I figured the best thing is just to teach everyone to live their religion on their own - personal fronts. Does religion need to spread? No. If people want to believe something, they will. The bible / koran / etc. can still be available and no one will ever forget about religion. I'm not saying they should. But just leaving it there for people to choose whenever they want is a better option. I'm not even entirely against church; it depends on the preacher. If it's just praising the lord, reading stories, etc. I think it's not really necessary: people can do that by themselves in their time. But there are also preachers that actively talk about life, the way they solve problems. That's a much more interesting approach, simply because it is more informative and less indoctrinating.

Where in the UK are you from, if I may ask?

London, England, but I'm half Italian, and have previously lived in Australia and the US. I agree that my idea isn't achievable, and it doesn't take into consideration people that are just down right nasty, but it's an opinion.

I don't think that children should be allowed to join a religion until they can choose to at a state legislated age. That's just me. Although, I do find that a lot of people lead into a religion at an early age tend to leave when they get older, but are more open minded about religion than a lot of children raised atheist, around here anyway. Just my observation

 

[Whateveralot]

Interesting. I kinda agree on that single ideology thing, BUT there is no way this will ever happen. Therefor I figured the best thing is just to teach everyone to live their religion on their own - personal fronts. Does religion need to spread? No. If people want to believe something, they will. The bible / koran / etc. can still be available and no one will ever forget about religion. I'm not saying they should. But just leaving it there for people to choose whenever they want is a better option. I'm not even entirely against church; it depends on the preacher. If it's just praising the lord, reading stories, etc. I think it's not really necessary: people can do that by themselves in their time. But there are also preachers that actively talk about life, the way they solve problems. That's a much more interesting approach, simply because it is more informative and less indoctrinating.

Where in the UK are you from, if I may ask?

London, England, but I'm half Italian, and have previously lived in Australia and the US. I agree that my idea isn't achievable, and it doesn't take into consideration people that are just down right nasty, but it's an opinion.

I don't think that children should be allowed to join a religion until they can choose to at a state legislated age. That's just me. Although, I do find that a lot of people lead into a religion at an early age tend to leave when they get older, but are more open minded about religion than a lot of children raised atheist, around here anyway. Just my observation

That's true. But that's just the difference between children that have been taught that god is bad, but have no idea what religion actually is, or kids that actually know what religion is. That's why raising kids as atheist is just as bad as raising them with any given religion. All parents need to do is raise their kids to be open minded about other peoples' ideas and opinions. THAT makes a good person.

Wow...you moved a lot. Interesting I have a boring life, I guess I do hear that it's quite nasty, leaving a country where you have built up a life.

 

[Kyuubi Fanatic]

Yes. This is without certainty that the culture will mature out of extremists however. I chose my answer before I read the OP. Having read it I am unsure. If the culture truly matures out of such strife then 10 million is a small sacrifice for the potential gain of the future.

However outside theoreticals we have no idea what the numbers of casualties one way or another are, nor if the culture will ever grow to exclude such extremism. Knowing that, while I do not necessarily advocate complete genocide, and cultural accomplishments aside, I would still advocate violence. I realize that sounds cruel, but it is.

I assume this hypothetical is simply a nicer presentation of the middle-east. Assuming that, this has always been my stance: Completely take them over, dissolve them into other nations, and over time the wounds will heal. I realize the risk of their culture being lost is great, but they're living in the true third world, and attempting to help their lives improve by throwing proverbial pennies at them will do nothing. The greater nations will only truly invest significant interest if the areas are part of their own collective. I apply this model to Africa as well.

Whether it's the United Nations, America, or even the Communist nations, once third world nations are assimilated (for lack of a better word) completely, and rebuilt, maybe generations later when the home front is no longer dens of poverty and chaos, such things as terrorist extremists and the constant fighting of warlords struggling for their own piece, will simply fade away as a product of the old world disease.

 

[Verlander]

That's true. But that's just the difference between children that have been taught that god is bad, but have no idea what religion actually is, or kids that actually know what religion is. That's why raising kids as atheist is just as bad as raising them with any given religion. All parents need to do is raise their kids to be open minded about other peoples' ideas and opinions. THAT makes a good person.

Wow...you moved a lot. Interesting I have a boring life, I guess I do hear that it's quite nasty, leaving a country where you have built up a life.

It gives me an insight into what would otherwise be a confusingly different country. By which I mean America. The one thing it made me learn, is that no matter how similar these countries seem, with the lack of language barrier and suchlike, is that they are all vastly different cultures, the people have different mindsets, and that I'm, no matter where I was born, a natural, cynical Brit XD

A good example is that things like the WBC don't, wouldn't, and can't exist in the UK. They would be banned from doing so. They ARE banned from coming here already, they aren't allowed in the country. In America that would be seen as a violation of your personal rights. Over here, we see them as a violation of everyone else's personal rights And in Australia, everyone is like the WBC! (just kidding of course, I don't believe that).

Same with Scientology. I doubt they will ever be allowed religion status in the UK (touch wood). America and Australia don't seem to have a problem with it, probably because both countries are far more religion centered. We've had hundreds of years putting up with the bullshit of organised religion, and so we don't want any more! By comparison USA and Australia are baby countries, and that mentality hasn't seeped into the general mindset yet. Which is why, for me, it's so scary that the USA is the world sole superpower (for the moment anyway), as to me, they don't have the hundreds of years of realistic cynicism to do the job very well. If the people in charge of those nukes and suchlike believe that they are getting messages direct from God, and the general populace is happy to believe propaganda until the 3rd generation, then, to me, there is a problem. Not one I can do anything about, but a problem nonetheless.

Don't get me wrong though, both Australia and America have some absolutely incredible and fantastic aspects to them. Just keeping it topical

 

[Twilight_guy]

Never. When we punish the innocent for the sins of the wicked then we ourselves become the wicked.

 

[spidermounky]

that culture dies

 

[DesiPrinceX09]

Is this even worth answering?
What exactly are you trying to get at here?
Is there a reason you're picking on religious extremism itself?
How do you know you're not the kind of religious extremist you're describing?
Do you even realize you dont have to be a religious extremist to kill millions of other people?

Are you trying to justify the destruction of an entire culture just to get at some extremists?
Are you trying to tally up how many people are was vicious or cowardly as you'd like to believe?

Are you just wasting peoples time with a pointless moral dilemma that could cause some people offence?

Surely there's some more intelligent thing you could do with your time if you have enough of it to come up with something as ridiculous as this?

I'd be impressed if all of that could be answered truthfully, but the cynic in me says you could still be lying no matter what you say, so good luck with that, really.

Definitely agree with this,and besides; why do you need burn down the whole tree just to get rid of a few bad apples?

For those of you that said yes: Do you wanna kill me to!? Islam is my religion and there are extremists, so do I have to suffer for their crimes? (that are mostly committed against people like me anyways...)

 

[ProfessorLayton]

I can offend whoever the hell I want to if it would save lives. That's my choice.

Oh really?? You just try saying "The majority of violent terrorist acts are perpetrated by nominally Islamic forces" and see how quickly that gets you banned, fired, sued, jailed or whatever is appropriate for the place where you said it...

Sorry... but the way things are going in America and Europe today, offence only goes one way...

Except for the fact that what you just said wasn't pointing out extremists and rather being an ignorant, finger-pointing bigot. There's a huge difference between saying "Muslim extremists are dicks" and "Muslims are dicks."

Never. When we punish the innocent for the sins of the wicked then we ourselves become the wicked.

You make a good point. If we take out and kill an entire group of mostly innocent people for the acts of some, it makes us just as bad, especially considering that chances are most of those people don't even agree with the extremists.

 

[Ickorus]

Yes, it isn't a good thing and i'd hate to be the guy to push the button (though im assuming I would be) but it would be for the greater good.

But like I said, it wouldn't be an easy thing to do to condemn an entire culture to death but it would be neccessary.

Im gonna play a bit of devil's advocate here, what about the kids of those people, and their grandchildren? Surely condemning future generations would be just as bad as letting that 10 million die?

Can't answer that question unfortunately, very tough question indeed. I don't think i'd be able to make the decision now.

 

[Jedoro]

No. Evil man becomes dead man, but good and neutral men are left alone.

 

[Cakes]

Islam/arabs, chinese and gypsies.

Yes, I'm not joking. Don't care if I'm cold.

You, uh, realise Islam and Arab aren't synonymous, right?

 

[Dorian6]

As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil they set out to destroy

 

[Delicious Anathema]

Islam/arabs, chinese and gypsies.

Yes, I'm not joking. Don't care if I'm cold.

You, uh, realise Islam and Arab aren't synonymous, right?

I mean that whole region, nuke it and re-populate.

 

[KalosCast]

There are violent extremists in every culture. Therefore, by your reasoning, every culture would deserve to be wiped out.

No, and you're an idiot.