Did Pol Pot really use tanks as a main method of killing?

He couldn’t have done what he did without the combination of modern warfare technology + population. I don’t think that’s under dispute. Atheism didn’t invent evil dictatorships.

Did Pol Pot really use tanks as a main method of killing? Did the Hutus in Rwanda? Is that the explanation for Darfur?

Jordan, that’s a strange throw-your-hands-in-the-air response to a relevant argument. The claim was made that the twentieth century did not exhibit great moral progress, as witnessed by the mass murderers of the century. You answered that it was because of technology that they were able to do that. This answer says no, that’s not how Pol Pot did it. Now you say, “you’re just arguing for arguments (sic) sake.” No, he was responding to an arguable claim on your part.

But that is how Pol Pot did it! He wouldn’t have been able to do what he did without a modern military (again, by “modern,” I’m talking tanks, guns, bombs, etc.). Also, let’s not forget the population factor. More people = more death.

At any rate, did you watch Pinker’s TED talk about the myth of violence? I linked to it above.

Pol Pot did not need tanks to commit mass murder. What he needed was a blatent disregard for decent moral standards. So much for “honing in on moral truth.”

Right… And, prior to Pol Pot, nobody had a blatant disregard for decent moral standards. *sigh* I’m done with you. You’re just arguing for arguments sake.

More people were killed in the 20th century than in all prior history and scientific breakthroughs added to the arsenal of killers.

That’s a convenient half truth, William. The world’s population in the 20th century was far greater than in any previous century. Look at the numbers:
2000 6.0 billion
1900 1.6 billion
1800 1.0 billion
Look at this graph.

If you want to compare the cruelty of men living in different times you have to normalize by the population numbers. If you do that, the 20th century does not stand out.

Look at the French Wars of Religion of the late 16th century (Catholics vs. Protestants). The population of France, 16-18 million, went down by 2-4 million.

Look at Thirty Years’ War that reduced the population of German states by 15 to 30%.

Oh, and why don’t you answer my question? What is the “basis” of your moral realism?

Holo wrote: Nice display of intellectual rigor there, Jordan. Just answer the question (the onus is on you): what is the basis for your alleged, moral objectivity…

I did.

and, while you’re at it, what does your “moral sense” mean? Is it something akin to your physical “visual sense,”

Yes, similar. If you see a child getting beaten, do you have to consult your Bible or formulate a logical argument to know its wrong? No. You perceive the wrongness with your moral sense.

Holo wrote: And the killing of 1.4 million unborn children in the U.S. alone are so efficiently carried out by remarkably “progressive” technologies… thanks to the will-to-power (oops, I forgot: there’s no free will) reduction of persons to untermenchen “clumps of cells”.

Thanks to moral & technological progress, countless women have been able to avoid the life-destroying burden of an unwanted child.

I strongly suggest you watch this with an open mind:

Pinker on the myth of violence

It’s only 20 minutes.

Our age? The Civil War began in 1861. The right of women to vote- early 20th century. Cambodia and Biafra are latter 20th century. Moral regress. A sign of the last century.

J: Go read the part of my post that you conveniently left out. You know, the part where I acknowledge that technology has made us better at killing? Willingness and ability are two different things.

The induced starvation of Biafrans and the Cambodian mass exterminations were not the consequence of advanced weaponry. The evidence of moral invariance is extensive. We’re not witnessing human moral upgrades; modern mythology notwithstanding.

That sort of behavior has been around since the the beginning, whereas the examples I gave of moral progress are unique to our age.

Analogy: Does the fact that people still get sick imply that we haven’t made progress in medicine?

The induced starvation of Biafrans and the Cambodian mass exterminations were not the consequence of advanced weaponry. The evidence of moral invariance is extensive. We’re not witnessing human moral upgrades; modern mythology notwithstanding.

Let’s leave aside the question of whether you understand what realism is about, could you please provide a basis for your alleged, moral objectivity?

I (imperfectly) perceive morality with my moral sense. What is the basis of your “alleged moral objectivity”? I imagine it will be long-winded and incoherent. Or maybe you’ll save us both some time with a good old-fashioned, “Goddidit!”