I think everyone would agree that they woudl hope no one gets killed. Well except the drug addicts and rapists. They can get killed.

Just because they do it, doesn't mean there is one. There is no justification, none. These people are evil in their everyday lives, and they just are letting it take over during the disaster.

You want to know how someone handles stress and hardship? Look how they handle their everyday life. If they keep a calm head in life they will during hardship.

If your a criminal and a evil bastard in every day life, guess what, you will be in a hardship situation too.

Actually, there always has been a justification attempted. "I own her." "She's less than human." "This will teach her a lesson."

Those are just a small sample. And, yes, I'm feeling slightly sick at the thought that some perverted mind finds those words as justification. But, yes, the morality to support it does exist.

So, it's okay to trample on some people's rights because they're not you?

That makes a ton of sense.

If that's the case, then just wait. Eventually they'll get to you, too.

Shadow, at the end of the day, there is no difference. "Moral" justification for shooting someone in the head is pretty much the same as rational justification. It's just to help you sleep at the end of the day.

Or convince the others to let you sleep, instead of stringing you up.

Okay, moral justification. My men fight better when they are sexually satisfied. When they fight better they are less likely to die and more likely to win. My men and I are fighting for justice and liberty. If we win everyone will be happier and if we lose everyone will suffer.

The needs of the many outweight the needs of th eone and the needs of the many are best served through this particular act of rape.

Of course, that moral justification is best used if you are an Utilitarian.

Here is another one. God told me to. That always works. God is always morally right.

People should be fucking shot for trying to use relativism to win arguments...

Mmu1, that has got to be the funniest thing I have read all day.

No, toturi, he isn't saying that. He's saying you're absolute fucking asshole if you lump stupid, poor, and lazy together as the only defining characteristics of those left behind. And, y'know, he's right.

I thought "stupid/poor/lazy" meant stupid or poor or lazy. Would it help if Ronin had posted "stupid/poor/lazy/etc"? I read Cynic's post as it doesn't matter if the people left behind somehow did not realise what a mess they were getting into, but that the mode of evacuation was not stopped just before NO became hell on earth. My post was in reply to that: how do you determine the moment just before the shit really hit the fan(so as to stop the evacuation)?

Yes, beliefs are not neccessarily truths.

The Earth is round, People have seen it from space, it can be proven by anybody who knows anything about radio, with a tall enough object it can be seen in the shadow.

Tell me what is the difference between belief and truth if the belief is true?

Unfortunately, there is no way to prove the existance of god, and I'm not trying to convince anyone of it. I have experienced god in my life and so I believe. If someone else doesn't then that's fine with me.

I just find it sad that there are people who would justify the physical and mental subjugation of a woman and use the excuse that morals are all relative. If all morals are relative, does this mean that you do only what you want when you want? Do you steal a woman's purse when you start running low on cash? Why not? It doesn't matter because it is only the one-sided beliefs of our society that says it wrong? And hey, beliefs are not truths, so screw it.

What your saying makes absolutely perfect sense to me.

Still, there is some point in your life where you have to believe something. I have neither the education or the time to go out and prove the truth of everything the world has to offer. Most people end up having to accept what others have determined to be truth. Whether that truth is tainted with personal belief is for the seeker to decide.

As you said earlier, morals are there to help you sleep at night. Notwithstanding a person who grew up in a society where something like murder is all fine and dandy won't have a problem with it, as morals are relative.
In our society though, most people are taught from a very early age that killing is wrong. Nowadays (at least where I live), killing in the name of your country is going out of vogue, but the other reasons are still pretty valid as far as society is concerned. That's how I was raised, and maybe because of that is why I have the beliefs I have on the subject. Maybe, that is the only reason for all I know. As much as I want to explain why I feel the way I do about God and religion, and the morals my religion tries to promote, I can't, and wouldn't have the words to make it make sense except to another person who has experienced what I have. Sheez, I hope that sentence made sense. Basically I have nothing that I can present that would counter your point conclusively, nor would I want to, as I can understand where you are coming from (in the context in which you wrote it) completely.

But to the point, whether you believe it is wrong or not, so long as one lives in this particular society, you are pretty much stuck living by the morals others have established. In the murder example, sure the guy who has no problem with killing another guy, but if he wants to stay out of jail, he's going to have to be really clever, or just not murder anyone.
I don't think the average person really wants to kill a person in their lifetime (again, maybe that's just what I think), but if you do something like join the army (or Foreign Legion ), you may well have to do it whether you want to or not. It's just the rules of the game.

Wow. We are on the same page. Hell, we're in the same paragraph.

You have said nothing I disagree with, can refute, or wish to refute.

We disagree in that I would say law is a scion (yay, word of the day!) of morality relative to the society. Otherwise, how would the law get there in the first place?

edit: Did you mean: "Any scientist will tell you that you can't prove anything." That would make more sense given the following sentence but it tripped me up a bit.

This is a really important conversation to be having. It's fascinating to sit back and watch it unfold.

In NYC on 9/11/01 the city was surprised by the attack and thousnads died in a matter of hours. The island on Manhattan was locked dwon for 2 days with nothing and no one getting in or out. Of the emergency services people who were not killed (less than 400 total) they were badly disrupted as many vehicals and leaders were ranked among the dead and thw WTO center housed the emergency center.

Two summers ago New York and the North East were plunged into a blackout. In neither case do we have reports of armed gangs and rapes. In fact you saw what was best in human nature.When the planes hit the Towers, the call was "CITYWIDE" a code for if you've got a badge, no matter what part of the city you are usually in, get down there NOW. The Bronx and Brookyln were stripped of police. Crime was all but non-existant. Where traffic lights were out, civilians stood in and directed traffic. If police and Paramedics were not availble private citizens stepped in to share food and gave what help they could.
New York in distress became an shining example of the best in the American heart. Cuaght by surprise in emergency, people stood together to help one another, to show that society is more than fear of Police, but a sense of common humanity.

By comparrison in NO they were told well in advance to get the hell out of town. It is understaood that those who did not could not (I have no sympathy for those who could but didn't) but they were told to rally at certain points AND bring food and drink for 3 days. The situation broke down long before the 3 day point meaning they didn't, or at least they couldn't and instead of drawing together, they preyed on each other.

A doctor who was in the superdome for the frist two days, before being evacuated as an escourt for badly injured people said inb the first 2 days it was a night mare and he would not go back in. By comparison to the Big Apple, the big Easy seems to be the worst of human nature in an emergency.

There was a basic breakdown in law enforcement in NO, which led to all sorts of other problems. NYC never had a breakdown in law enforcement on 9/11. In fact, it was probably the opposite; even though things didn't go smoothly on 9/11, the first responders probably gave 200%.

In contrast, they are now saying that upwards of 2/3s of the NOPD decided they could not enforce the law. Either because they lacked organization and coordination or because they personally decided to take care of their own lives over their job (many NOPD cops turned in their badges or went to protect their own families and property).

What really surprises me about the NOPD is the apparent lack of foresight. I mean, it's no great surprise that New Orleans could flood, but yet they didn't seem to have a backup plan for coordination in the case of a flood. Many precincts were underwater and the cops had no where to go to reorganize. Some cops took over a Wal-Mart and just holed up inside to survive, looting it for supplies. You'd think there would have been a plan in place prior to this disaster for the police to converge on a high-ground location of New Orleans with a field headquarters equipped with satellite phones, generators, etc.

I mean, the NYPD has field locations they can commandeer all over the city in case of emergencies, that are pre-determined and widely-known.

A good point about a lack of planning by the NOPD. but my popint was that Law Enforcemnt in NYC on 9/11 did not break down, it disappeared. "CityWide" is an actual order and this was issued. It pulls ALL police from everywhere in the city and sends them to the danger zone. And still at the edges of the outer bouroghs, and I've been in some scary parts of the Bronx, things actually got safer as people pulled together. They shared what they had. in NO they stole from one another.

9/11 and Katrina are definitely very different situations. While New Yorkers outside ground zero were frightened and uneasy, they didn't feel abandoned, isolated, or desperate for survival. Those in New Orleans did.

But I'm really still just shocked at the lack of preparedness by the NOPD. The events on 9/11 certainly qualify as a less-likely urban scenario in NYC than a flood is in NO. New Orleans sits in a below sea-level bowl, there absolutely should have been a NOPD plan in place for dealing with an urban flood.

The NOPD (and NO's political and social program infrastructure) has a long earned reputation for incompetence and rampant corruption. I wish I could be surprised at how this all worked out.