Jump to content
eldiablo84_06

Fear of Death

Recommended Posts

Guest Merkin

Logan was Roosefelts advisor and shit. He stole Logans ideas and other stuff too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Logan was Roosefelts advisor and shit. He stole Logans ideas and other stuff too

 

 

 

It's Roosevelt you asshat.

________

sc2 replays

Edited by mikey13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Merkin

you know that my post was making fun of THIER spelling, right...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you know that my post was making fun of THIER spelling, right...

 

And my post was making fun of you, what's the confusion?

________

Z50A

Edited by mikey13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yay tommy wins, the battle, and logan wins the war because im a genius

 

it's posts like this that make my brain bleed

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to add to that. Chaloupka answers your question point blank. The alternative is literally to mock the bomb. Just chant the word nuke a hundred times and do exactly what anti-nuclearists tell you not to do. Anti-nuclearists argue that we should stop using terms like "nuke", "nuclear exchange" etc.. because it desensitizes us to the bomb. Chaloupka argues that rejection of such language only creates more fear of the bomb and inevitably reinforces its vary existance. Remember things like deterrence/mutually assured destruction are all a product of this "fear of the bomb" according to chaloupka. Desensitizing us to it allows us to overcome the fear of the bomb and come to grips with it.

 

i dont know anything about chaloupka, but the way you phrase the alternative to the argument makes me feel like it would be relatively contradictory in a debate sense. if the alternative is just to say stuff like "nuclear exchange" or "nuke" because it desensitizes us to the "bomb", then wouldn't any articulated link argument also be a reason the opposing team solves for the implications of your criticism? i'm probably horribly wrong, but whatever

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As per the textual "derrida-esque" version of chaloupka (with the lacanian desire for bomb impx) - the most common alternative is irony. By questioning why we fear nuclear weapons and realizing that our fear only makes nuclear catastrophe more possible (fear = arms races/build up in weapons/complete focus on nuclear war *in which we do ANYTHING to prevent an attack*) we can effectively combat our fear. As R.E.M. says "its the end of the world as we know it and i feel fine"....this ethic allows us to learn to love the bomb and confront it rather than fearing it. And i guess you can argue that you decrease fear/the possibility for nuclear war to happen since the bomb can only gain power if we fear it/take action to prevent it.

 

i have a question...how does the whole textuality of nuke war function as a debate argument...i understand derrida's/chaloupka's argument about it, but i guess im not really sure why its necessary or how it is used as an argument in the kritik...it doesn't seem like the textuality argument is necessary to win all the desire for the bomb stuff and other fear nukes bad stuff.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i stumbled across this thread aminute ago and noticed some statements about the K that were simply wrong.

 

a friend of mine and i have been cutting this K for a while, and the reason the K is run isnt a mirrior image for the affirmative claiming impacts of death or else this would be one giant impact turn to basically every advantage out there. theoretically, the K kritiks the very atmosphere of life. the affirmative submerses themselves into a world where they THINK they can stop death from occuring and that is bad. no policy option fiated or not could ever guarntee the impmentation of plan to solve for death of every kind. the alternative instead says that rather than fearing death and trying to save soo many lives we should just embrace death because in real life 10 out of 10 people die no matter what. Baudrillard goes on to talk about how we use life insurance and car seatbelts as a way to protect those lives, but in a way this is only going to lead to more deaths.

 

take the nuclear weapons scenario for example.

 

nuclear weapons were intentionally made for a defensive structure and not offensive at all, however these defesive weapons to "protect lives in danger" were use as a weapon of destructing during WWII against Japan. this is a prime example of how fearing death actually kills the very people we want to try ad save.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...