Posts by botchtowersociety

i got up with only minor bruises but felt really dizzy and asked one of my roommates to take me to the hospital as i was dizzy and felt i was going to pass out on the spot in the middle of the street.

botchtowersociety

Damn, Randy. I hope your luck turns.

19

Captain America and The Avengers!

by Cold Steel in

does the wts oppose movies such as thor, captain america, and the avengers on the basis of thor/loki's godhood and captain america's patriotic bent?

or do they let artistic license slide for such movies?.

how about super hero movies in general?.

botchtowersociety

HULK SMASH PUNY GOD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AORKWkN3-c

13

23 mile skydive is successfull

by fakesmile in

just thought id drop that for those interested but not watching.

red bull has sponsored some really amazing stuff.

i hate to say it but i think they are squared away better than n.a.s.a.

botchtowersociety

I watched it live. What a rush!

79

Post Good Music, Any Genre

by leavingwt in

.

i hope everyone is having a great saturday night (or sunday morning).. .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0tge2n3nke.

botchtowersociety

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ3mxSGvqHc

76

Is Pacifism Ethical?

by cofty in

in another thread about things the watchtower got right two posters have expressd agreement with the fact that the wt refuses to take part in war.. i don't want to derail that thrread so what's your thoughts on pacifism?.

personally i think there are times that killing your enemies is regrettably the lesser of two evils.. .

edited to add - this link may help in defining various shades of pacifism.

botchtowersociety

I think to fight to defend yourself is ethical in principle--so long as you are not the aggressor, and your response limits itself to stopping the aggression.

I think the formulation arrived at after centuries of consideration within the Catholic Church sums up some of these principles well:

the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power as well as the precision of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

The world in general, however, does not often present us with clear cut, black and white scenarios at the international level. Is it ethical to respond with force in a certain situation? Is it reasonable to regard all other means as truly being exhausted? How much force is the correct amount? What is the desired result of the application of force? Are the necessary means even present to put a stop to the aggression? Will the response lead to an even greater evil? I think the last point may be the most difficult one, since outcomes can be very unpredictable.