TheAgitator.com
Those Racist Peaceniks
Sunday, May 2nd, 2004Seems the Republicans have learned a thing or two from the Democrats’ long-held habit of equating opposition to their own favored policies with racism. Here’s President Bush last week:
“There’s a lot of people in the world who don’t believe that people whose skin color may not be the same as ours can be free and self-govern,” Bush said.“I reject that. I reject that strongly. I believe that people who practice the Muslim faith can self-govern. I believe that people whose skins aren’t necessarily — are a different color than white can self-govern.”
There are only a few folks I know of, Mr. President, who think that olive skin tones and Muslim faith are incompatible with freedom, and they tend to be rather bloodlusty and pro-war.
The argument is not that Iraqis aren’t capable of a free society because they’re Arab or Muslim. The argument is:
Given that there’s no recent history in the region of the kinds of sustainable institutions necessary to preserve and support a free society, it’s foolish and arrogant to think we can force American-style democracy on Iraq or Iran or Syria at the point of a gun, and it’s ever more foolish and arrogant to think our military and civilian planners can construct a liberal democracy from little more than piles of rubble, oil revenue, and volatile ethnic strife.
It has nothing to do with race. It’s history.
Remember this when the Repubicans accuse the Democrats (most likely accurately, by the way) of demagoguing race in the November election.
It’s still not a compelling argument – Japan anyone?
Fair enough.
Sure Japan, but McArthur’s no longer around to tell us how to be kickass dictators in other people’s countries.
What else are we gonna force on them?
A more loveable dictator?
I say we should’ve left after we found Saddam and killed most of the Baathists.
They can fight it out for whatever government or non-governance they want.
Though I agree with Radley, Japan is a good argument. No doubt that many were religious fanatics and many willing to commit suicide and fight to the death…. On the other hand, Japan was at least a cohesive nation at the time. Iraq is hardly that. It is Iraq’s inability to get it’s own people to see eye to eye as a state that will be the problem, and possible downfall. I’m sure that there was resistance to democracy in Japan by a handful, but at least it’s people as a whole got along. A monarchy is much easier to deal with than a dictatorship. The people of Japan gave the emperor his power, whereas Saddam took his power from the people by force.
I like Sambo’s idea too.
I guess, in the first sentence, the President was addressing just us white, God-fearing Americans. I am truly chastened.
Me? I’m Disconnected from You
Another mid-season contract negotiation casualty. Most of these points are recycled from comments in completely disparate threads over the last month. I’m hella-eco-friendly. (1) The title of this post is from a Gary Numan song, and was used precisely…
Another reason is that there are factions in Iraq who would rather sacrifice national stability in an effort to accumulate power for themselves, and deny it to others.
That doesn’t require that all Iraqis be uninterested in democracy. It only requires that a few strong, well-armed parties be more interested in gaining power, and to hell with what everyone else wants.
Chris,
The Japan-Iraq argument is dubious to say the least. The fact that post-war U.S. reconstruction worked in Japan (and Germany) does not mean it will work in every country in which the U.S. attempts it.
Japan and Germany were/are religiously and ethnically homogenous nations, unaffected by the ethnic and religious strife that tears at Iraq. Germany was a democracy a short time before postwar reconstruction (Weimar Republic era) and both Germany and Japan had huge numbers of well-educated people. Japan had been Western-looking since moving its capital to Tokyo in the 1860s.
I hope you don’t really think we’ll be driving around Iraq-made cars in 25 years. Japan and Germany became economic powerhouses not because of American postwar reconstruction, but because of the societies that reconstruction was built atop. Iraq is nothing like them. The American attempt at nation-building in Somalia is a far more apt comparison, with, thus far, a similarly unsuccessful result. After all, 135 U.S. soldiers weren’t killed by Japanese of German insurgents in August 1946. None were.
Let’s get out of Iraq ASAP.
The sooner the better. How about tomorrow?
I agree with that the reason democracy in Iraq will be a tough sell is because they are not a homogenous nation as Japan was. It’s the same reason Africa struggles as well as Afghanistan and many other countries. There are too many different tribes, languages, dialects, cultures, religions, etc… in those countries to get The People to unite for any cause. But I submit that the one thing that can unite a diversity of people is freedom and democracy. America was much the same. Many cultures came together and unified nder the banner of freedom. I believe that Mr. Bush knows this and hopes the same for Iraq. Time will tell if it’s possible. But at least they have been introduced to the idea. I’m rambling… think the coffee was too strong today.
What is the context of this speech? To whom was he addressing and to whom was he referring when he said “There are lots of people in this world”? The answers to those questions are essential.
I can remember when perfectly healthy Japanese Men use to fly perfectly good airplanes into our (American) stuff.
And I can remember people saying the same things back then:
Given that there’s no recent history in the region of the kinds of sustainable institutions necessary to preserve and support a free society, it’s foolish and arrogant to think we can force American-style democracy on Japan or Germany, (or eastern Europe/â?the Soviet Blocâ?) at the point of a gun, and it’s ever more foolish and arrogant to think our military and civilian planners can construct a liberal democracy from little more than piles of rubble, and volatile ethnic strife. It has nothing to do with race. It’s history.
Anybody remember any Japanese men flying any airplanes into our stuff recently???
Anyone â?¦ ?
anyone?
Serpent, perhaps a more accurate comparison would be Afghanistan 15 years after it won its freedom & independence in 1989, and Japan or Germany 15 years after WWII.
Bringing out tactics employed in a war is overly simplistic. They all used machine-guns. So what? We nuked Japan twice, burned German cities to shit. Despite the occasional necessity, in war, there is no moral high ground.
MattG has pretty much nailed the issue.
Certain societies have a long history of structure and stability; others don’t and reforming them takes generations not a piece of paper (Iraqi constitution – mother of all jokes).
‘…that pack of scammers signed it, so now y’all have to behave….’ – I don’t think so Tim.
Joker,
My point is that if you are really (genuinely) against rape then you have to actually punish rapists.
You canâ??t make excuses for rapist, you canâ??t rationalize their behavior, you canâ??t say that it is not your job to prevent rape, and you certainly canâ??t claim that other Individuals who do oppose rapists and attempt to punish them are the real evil ones. At least, not if you want anybody to take you serious that you are genuinely against rape.
Causality â?¦ Deny it at your own peril.
I agree with MattG. Japan and Germany both chose their paths, and Iraq will have to also. It seems that everyone in the media and in the white house alike are saying that soon Iraq will have this wonderful democracy full of freedom and liberation.
However, by definition, isn’t a democracy something that the people have to choose? By the US saying to Iraq that they MUST have a democracy, isn’t that a political proxy to the dictator force that they’ve had in recent past?
Iraq has to choose, which is why the pro-war argument that we are going to create this great democracy doesn’t fly. Just like if Sadam was still in power, there would have to be a collective effort by the people to overthrow their current govt and create a democracy. Is it easier now? Depends on perception.
If you were an Iraqi, would you rather help force an overthrow of the current govt led by a ruthless dictator or, would you rather sell your idea to the US with the *possibility* that we accept and absolutely no chance to force your position (or at least it seems)? Like I said, just perception.
It doesn’t really matter weather we establish democracy in Iraq or not. What is important is that we establish a permanent base of opperations in the ME to stage battles against Iran, Syria, Saudi when it becomes necessary to do so.
I think what made fighting Japan legitimate also made it easier to reconstruct it in our image: they started it. Meaning they brought on our war with them, and they knew it. I think the accompanying sense of culpability played a large role in making their society relatively pliable. This doesn’t exist in the current situation in Iraq, where relief that Saddam is gone is mixed with humiliation that they needed the US to do it for them.
Anyway, no one knew for sure things would go the way they’re going in Iraq, just as none of us know for sure our efforts will ultimately fail. But the larger point is that war, like any government action, is a rather blunt tool for effecting any sort of desired social/political outcome. Sometimes it works, sometimes it don’t. Best to use it only when absolutely necessary.
This is an extremely annoying rhetorical tactic of the Bush administration. It reveals its liberal and social engineering prejudices.
There are important differences in the case of Japan worth exploring
Japan was thoroughly beaten by the Americans; Arabs perceive some possibility of kicking us out if they fight long enough and hard enough.
Japan had a range of social classes, including a mercantile class. Arab Iraq has the rich and the poor and the theocrats. The rich in many cases got rich from oil wealth and government largesse of one kind or another.
Japan had a nationalistic and anti-corruption ethos. Arab Iraq has a highly tribal ethos that is pathologically “familial” at the expense of the societal good.
The US had far more occupation troops in Japan.
The US had more confidence in its own way of life in the 1940s than at the present.
The US and Japan faced the common enemy of the Soviet Union providing an important incentive to cooperation. The same was true in West Germany
The Japanese leader, Tojo, gave important moral support to the major change in Japanese life postwar. The charismatic MacArthur provided a political center of gravity for the democratic transition lacking in Iraq.
Japan was ethnically and religiously homogenous.
Japan had already industrialized by the 1940s. It had already copied many Western institutions under the Meji reforms.
Japan has a good work ethic readily adaptable to capitalism; it lacks natural resources and compensated with industrial organization. Oil wealth has permitted the feudal and anti-modern tendencies of Iraq (and other parts of the Arab world) to receive a new lease on life. Fareed Zakaria explores this theme intelligently in his book the Future of Freedom.
America stuck around for 50 years in Japan to guarantee the success of these reforms.
Japanese notions of shame are distinct from Iraq’s and permitted a clean break with the past and the transfer of authority to the highly successful US. See generally the Crysanthemum and the Sword.
I’m sure there are a few dozen other reasons that this analogy, while not totally inapt, is not entirely persuasive either.
Ms Dani,
I think Bush made these comments in the opening statement of his recent (embarrassing) press conference about Iraq.
BTW, I do feel that the entire world will consist of democracies in the next, say, fifty years. Two-thirds of the world’s countries already are democracies, and four of six populated continents are almost entirely democratic. All that’s left is the Arab world (not the “Muslim World” — half the world’s Muslims already live under a democratically-elected government) and sub-Saharan Africa. And there have been and continue to be pro-democratic trends in the Arab world. But I think Operation Iraqi Freedom is retarding the cause by giving anti-American, anti-Western, anti-democratic elements in Islam a lot of talking points.
Here’s a great article detailing the state of democracy in the Arab world. I obviously disagree with the last part, where the author states that invading Iraq is a good first step towards democratizing Arab lands, but the first 9/10ths is a great Arab democracy primer.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11768
Serpent,
Welcome back!
It’s true that very important people believed Japan could not democratically self-govern, and that now they do. I believe that all Arab countries will democratize within my lifetime (I’m 31).
The question is whether Operation Iraqi Freedom has aided or retarded the Arab democratization process we all share as a common goal. The answer is starting to emerge that OIF may not have been helpful in this respect, which is why Bush fell back on the facile argument last week that:
“I believe that people who practice the Muslim faith can self-govern. I believe that people whose skins aren’t necessarily — are a different color than white can self-govern.”
…which wasn’t the topic under discussion. Of course Muslims can self-govern; there are eight or nine Muslim-majority democracies in the world already, and more to come. The real questionis whether we should have invaded Iraq. “No” appears to be gaining supporters.
I should add to my previous post that, in addition to the Arab nations and parts of sub-Saharan Africa, the last vestigially communist countries have also, of course, as yet missed the democratic train (China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam).
Radley,
Bush was very clumsy there, but in addition to seeking political advantage I think he was, however ineptly, affirming a universalism that is rejected by a significant portion of the left side of the antiwar movement.
John T. Kennedy writes:
“Bush was very clumsy there, but in addition to seeking political advantage I think he was, however ineptly, affirming a universalism that is rejected by a significant portion of the left side of the antiwar movement.”
I doubt it, John. The best argument from the left is not those (few) who are saying “Arabs cannot govern themselves democratically,” but the more subtle argument that “Arab nations are moving slowly towards democracy, but invading and occupying Iraq will turn Arabs against the West and democracy, which turns back the clock on democratization.”
Bush was attacking a straw man argument — that Muslims and people with brown skin can’t self-govern — because he’s losing the argument about whether OIF has been helpful or damaging in our shared goal of democratizing Arab nations.
roach: There are important differences in the case of Japan worth exploring.
There are NO important differences.
Either rewards and punishment are the mechanism of modifying behavior, or they are not.
You canâ??t claim that rewards and punishments work on some individuals (animals), and not others. All the empirical evidence contradicts that claim.
roach: Japan was thoroughly beaten by the Americans; Arabs perceive some possibility of kicking us out if they fight long enough and hard enough.
Well, that problem is easily solved by thoroughly beating the Terrorists.
Of course back in the early 1940â??s I am quite certain that there were individuals suggesting we should take it easy on the â??poor nazisâ? as well.
roach: America stuck around for 50 years in Japan to guarantee the success of these reforms.
Actually we STILL have troops stationed in Japan the last time I checked.
Itâ??s funny because I donâ??t hear any Democrats whining about FDRâ??s lack of an â??exit strategyâ????
Serpent, I don’t think your point is persuasive.
The US has intervened in some countries and not left them Democratic, e.g., Somalia, Haiti.
Others it has, Germany, Japan.
Likewise countries have tried to get democracy and have failed (Haiti, Rhodesia), suceeded (Poland, Hungary), or they’ve had middling results (Russia, Venezuela).
The various social, cultural, and economic factors I’ve discussed above seem to have a lot to do with it, whether that democracy is imposed from outside or originates from within.
Serpent,
There are “NO” important differences between postwar reconstruction in Japan and Iraq?
You can do better than that.
roach: The US has intervened in some countries and not left them Democratic, e.g., Somalia, Haiti.
We have also put murders and rapist in prison, yet failed to â??reformâ? them.
So what?
Does that mean we should stop putting murders and rapists in jail?
Think of all the money we could save in law enforcement, the court system, and prison construction, not to mention room and board by not prosecuting murder and rape?
Do you believe that â??freedomâ? is actually â??freeâ? (without cost)?
I have no idea what your last post means, Serpent.
The point of at least some of the folks critical of Iraqi democratization is that there are other, more modest goals that we could achieve there that we are not achieving because of our fealty to democratic ideology.
I think others are making the sensible point that, like “reforming prisoners,” one may be better advised not to try something if it is both costly and impossible. I don’t share this view on intervening in Iraq, but this “damn it we have to try” attitude is simply stupid when applied to any kind of political program, as there are other ways scarce resources can be sent.
I think the middle east would be more likely to embrace democracy if we nuked them like we did Japan.
Not that I support such a thing.
Either rewards and punishment are the mechanism of modifying behavior, or they are not.
Well, sure that’s one frequently effective mechanism of behavior modification, but even if it were really the one and only mechanism (which is debatable), we can never control the environments of millions of people in a foreign nation the way a researcher controls the environment of a lab rat.
fyodor: [rewards and punishment â?¦]Well, sure that’s one frequently effective mechanism of behavior modification, but even if it were really the one and only mechanism (which is debatable) â?¦
Debatable?!?!
If you are suggesting there is some other option/mechanism then I would think you should have no trouble in mentioning what that other (specific) mechanism is?
But if I recall correctly you are an Atheist, which makes me suspect the â??other mechanismâ? you are referring to is Wishful Thinking.
The cold hard fact is that the ONLY mechanism of behavior modification is the principle of positive and negative reinforcements. Individuals only act in their own best perceived interest (i.e. all Gravitons follow a path towards (in the direction of) maximum perceived benefit).
fyodor: we can never control the environments of millions of people in a foreign nation the way a researcher controls the environment of a lab rat.
So since we canâ??t ever realistically hope to put an end to murder and rape we should just give up trying?
How is it that you Liberals can be so certain that we control the planet to the extent that â??Global Warmingâ? is a â??fact of realityâ?; yet when someone suggests that killing terrorists deters terrorism you assert there is no way we can possibly exercise that much control over this reality?
That’s a great insight, Radley. This is one more piece of evidence, I’m afraid, indicating that the Bush administration is simply a liberal one. Putting aside the decision to go to war on Iraq and the tax cuts, what else have they done that a Democratic administration would have done differently?
Serpent’s arguments are always so original it’s unbelievable.
Travis
Serpent,
Sheesh, when did I ever say global warming was a fact of reality? Maybe you have me confused with someone else….
Anyway, regarding rewards & punishments, at a certain level, you’re right, all methods of behavior modification can probably be reduced to those factors. I was interpreting your words as referring narrowly to inflicting physical pain or the direct threat thereof versus letting up on it. I’ve heard that one of MacArthur’s cleverest moves in Japan was distributing a picture of him with Japan’s Emperor. It showed the Japanese that they truly were defeated, and since MacArthur was much larger, the juxtaposition made them feel small and powerless. Now, at one level this had nothing to do with rewards and punishments, it was just taking and distributing a friggin’ photo. But at a certain psychological level it had everything to do with that “mechanism.” My only point was that there’s a variety of ways to get someone to see what’s in his best interest other than putting a gun to his head. And in fact, when dealing with people willing to die for their cause, the threat of death can be a very small issue. Logically, one must either make them lose interest in their cause or show them that their cause is futile. For those who firmly believe their cause has divine backing, that’s a tall order. Any setback, however seemingly decisive, can be seen as temporary.
Regarding the “then might as well not even try” argument, well, it all depends on the available alternatives. Hell, why not take your “logical extension” type argument in the opposite direction? Are ALL worthy goals worth pursuing, regardless of their chances for success and their costs? I don’t think so. Trying to deter murderer’s and rapists is probably worth the associated costs. But that doesn’t mean trying to democraticize Iraq is!
And FWIW, I consider myself neither a liberal nor an atheist, but I’d cop to being a left-leaning libertarian and an agnostic.
Matt,
There are plenty on the left who don’t think there are any universal values. If you asked them whether free markets were appropriate for muslims this would become more clear.
True, John, but their arguments aren’t the strongest anti-OIF arguments out there.
I would never accuse Bush of meeting the strongest arguments head on. Or even being able to identify them…
Serpent-
“Do you believe that â??freedomâ? is actually â??freeâ? (without cost)?”
I’m not so happy footing the bill for the people of Iraq, instead of them doing it on their own…thanks a lot. Obviously, we’re in charge of making sure that no other nation has to be responsible for any sacrifices to gain their own freedom. Wish somebody like us was around 230 years ago so we didn’t have to have so many here die against the British. Freedom isn’t free…for whom? As soon as the Shiates(?) Sunnis, and Kurds learn to get along, democracy may stand a chance. Trying to compare rapists and murders here to other nations is just plain stupid. You can throw an unreformed criminal back into a cold dark cell, or just give them the death penalty. Try that with an entire nation. Kinda like trying to compare OIF to the War on Terror. The connections are so slim and far between that they’re not worth putting together. I know, I know, no terrorist attacks in 2 years…maybe because they’ve got 150,000 targets in their own back yards, so why take the risk of pulling anything here?
“Anybody remember any Japanese men flying any airplanes into our stuff recently???”
One was a terrorist action by a terrorist, and the other was a despicable last ditch attack on military units in battle. No connection there, don’t waste an more of your time on that one. All of you war mongers like to talk about how war is different now, so stop trying to turn back the hands of time to support your cause. Your arguments are flawed by either A) evidence, or B) your proven sudden changes of opinion whenever it suits your argument.
“yet when someone suggests that killing terrorists deters terrorism you assert there is no way we can possibly exercise that much control over this reality?”
It’s worked for Israel for the past 40 years, hasn’t it? These people don’t care about dying like you and I do. To most of them, it’s an honor to do so trying to kill us because they feel like we’ve shamed and oppressed them. I guess shaming them some more and pissing them off a little bit more is the right way to go then, huh? Thank god we tried the peaceful, non-violent and bloodless method first…oh yeah…we didn’t, did we? We alone are responsible for the situation we are in now. Every bully eventually gets kicked in the shins and punched in the nose. Should we let Al-Queada slide for 9/11? No way. Should we continue to go out our way to provoke them more by pulling some shit like those f@#king moron soldiers in that prison, and continuing to tell their people how they should live(just because we, the almighty crusaders of freedom, say so)? Another BIG no way.
For his next trick, GWB will lower a platoon of soldiers into a tank full of pirhannas, to show the world that we’re not afraid to get chewed up for benefit and/or amusement of others. In other words, swim in the tank, expect to be bitten.
Travis: Serpent’s arguments are always so original it’s unbelievable.
1) Is that suppose to be a refutation?
2) What is original? I was under the impression that EVERYTHING was based on something from the past?
3) Whenever you plan on posting the next great original Mona Lisa or Mozart Symphony, or Hamlet try and give us a heads up.
BTW — “Simple Religious Fanatic” is probably far more accurate and concise than Atheist/Murderer/Rapists.
fyodor: Sheesh, when did I ever say global warming was a fact of reality? Maybe you have me confused with someone else….
My apologies if I mischaracterized your beliefs, my friend. My point was simply that self-described â??Liberalsâ? seem to believe in the notion of â??Global Warmingâ? far more than self-described â??Conservatives/Libertariansâ?.
fyodor: Anyway, regarding rewards & punishments, at a certain level, you’re right, all methods of behavior modification can probably be reduced to those factors.
Probably?
fyodor: I was interpreting your words as referring narrowly to inflicting physical pain or the direct threat thereof versus letting up on it. I’ve heard that one of MacArthur’s cleverest moves in Japan was distributing a picture of him with Japan’s Emperor. It showed the Japanese that they truly were defeated, and since MacArthur was much larger, the juxtaposition made them feel small and powerless.
The best propaganda is unperceived at the conscious level.
fyodor: Now, at one level this had nothing to do with rewards and punishments, it was just taking and distributing a friggin’ photo.
Itâ??s information. All forms of Rewards (positive reinforcements) and Punishment (negative reinforcements) are reducible to Information.
Information is all the consciousness perceives (all it deals with). Are you suggesting you are capable of receiving or manipulating other forms of Input? Such as â?¦ ?
fyodor: But at a certain psychological level it had everything to do with that “mechanism.” My only point was that there’s a variety of ways to get someone to see what’s in his best interest other than putting a gun to his head.
I agree. But ultimately all forms of control are reducible to â??putting a gun to someoneâ??s headâ?.
If you want to control an Individualâ??s behavior (actions), then you can either Reward the behavior you want to encourage, or you can Punish the behavior that you want to discourage.
But those are your only options.
fyodor: And in fact, when dealing with people willing to die for their cause, the threat of death can be a very small issue.
Thatâ??s because Atheists aside, not everyone is so direly pessimistic or short sighted to assume that they will â??cease to existâ? when they â??dieâ?.
fyodor: Logically, one must either make them lose interest in their cause or show them that their cause is futile. For those who firmly believe their cause has divine backing, that’s a tall order. Any setback, however seemingly decisive, can be seen as temporary.
The way to convince an Individual that a particular view is wrong (logically flawed) is by demonstrating the fact in a logically inescapable manner.
But Faith is never an easy thing to annihilate.
fyodor: Regarding the “then might as well not even try” argument, well, it all depends on the available alternatives.
Trying and not Trying are your alternatives.
You seem to have a lot of â??Faithâ? in the NOT Trying option. Of course one wonders how you determined that â??Tryingâ? was doomed to failure a priori? Certainly you didnâ??t come to that conclusion by examining recent history.
fyodor: Hell, why not take your “logical extension” type argument in the opposite direction? Are ALL worthy goals worth pursuing, regardless of their chances for success and their costs? I don’t think so.
I would say that depends upon your precise definition of the phrase â??Worthy Goalâ?. I suspect that the fact you have deemed it â??Worthyâ? makes it Worth attempting?
fyodor: Trying to deter murderer’s and rapists is probably worth the associated costs. But that doesn’t mean trying to democraticize Iraq is.
To be honest I could care less about Democratizing Iraq. If that actually occurs it will be a bonus. A â??giftâ? from the Logical Goddess.
How many terrorist attacks have occurred inside the United States since 9/11?
It seems to me that Iraq has become like a magnet. Terrorists seem to be drawn there like flies to shit â?¦ to be annihilated by our ALL VOLUNTEER military force fully armed and girded for battle.
Of course I suppose Liberals would prefer to have terrorists killing our unarmed and relatively defenseless civilians — our wives, children, and families, back here at home? That is the â??superiorâ? option? The best defense is a good offense.
fyodor: I’d cop to being a left-leaning libertarian and an agnostic.
I have nothing but respect for Agnostics. That is an honest position to hold in my opinion.
Serpent, why is logic so under-rated? It all comes down to “because of A, then B” (over-simplified, of course).
What is there in this world regarding behavior/punishments and rewards that cannot be explained logically? (To anyone who cares) has anyone seen behavior that is new or original lately? Probably not. When someone is mean to you, your feelings get hurt. If a compliment is paid to you, it makes you feel good (generally speaking). A wise man once said “There is nothing new under the sun” and he was and is still right.
Chris,
Your example of Israel’s experience with trying to suppress Palestinian uprisings helps demonstrate why Serpent’s reduction of behavior modification to rewards and punishments is one of those assertions that are so true they’re useless. Apparently many Palestinians see murderous “martyrdom” as a greater reward than minding their own business under Israeli occupation. You can always frame people’s choices in such a manner, but that doesn’t mean that getting people to do what you want is somehow easy or simple or straightforward (or whatever it was Serpent was trying to imply about that)!
Serpent,
Thanks for the respectful reply. But of course I still disagree with you! :-) Much of what you say is true enough, but essentially circular and doesn’t help map a route for getting from point A to point B. Since the issue of democratizing Iraq was what this post was originally about, that’s the issue I was addressing myself. I think the justified war in Afghanistan and heightened awareness of the problem, both in this country and worldwide, have played the major roles in preventing another 9/11. No telling for sure. Maybe invading Iraq has played a role too, although I doubt it. But I’ll leave that discussion for another day.
The Serpent: Do you believe that â??freedomâ? is actually â??freeâ? (without cost)?
Chris: I’m not so happy footing the bill for the people of Iraq, instead of them doing it on their own…thanks a lot.
Me neither. Of course I am sort of â??old schoolâ? when it comes to warfare. I believe that To the Victor go the Spoils (of War).
Chris: Obviously, we’re in charge of making sure that no other nation has to be responsible for any sacrifices to gain their own freedom.
Perhaps the United States is in the unique position of being able to better perceive the ultimate benefits of global freedom than those blinded and bound by slavery?
Maybe turning a Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan into a modern Germany and a modern Japan has more direct ultimate benefits to Americans (and the world) than you have perceived?
Chris: Wish somebody like us was around 230 years ago so we didn’t have to have so many here die against the British.
The French helped us out back then.
Chris: Freedom isn’t free…for whom? As soon as the Shiates(?) Sunnis, and Kurds learn to get along, democracy may stand a chance.
Some (cynical) individuals might say the same thing about the United States except they might say â??Blacksâ?, â??Whitesâ?, and â??Latinosâ? instead of â??Shiitesâ?, â??Sunniâ??sâ? and â??Kurdsâ?.
Chris: Trying to compare rapists and murders here to other nations is just plain stupid.
I am using an example of obvious bad/immoral behavior (i.e. rape or murder) as an analogy to simplify a subject down to the level where it can be systematically examined and comprehended.
Chris: You can throw an unreformed criminal back into a cold dark cell, or just give them the death penalty. Try that with an entire nation.
â?¦ Or an entire city â?? like Dredan, or Hiroshima.
The Serpent: Anybody remember any Japanese men flying any airplanes into our stuff recently???
Chris: One was a terrorist action by a terrorist, and the other was a despicable last ditch attack on military units in battle.
Both were desperate attacks by desperate individuals who initiated unprovoked and unwarranted aggression against their neighbors.
Chris: No connection there, don’t waste an more of your time on that one.
You mean because it directly conflicts with your absurd contradictory nonsense?
Chris: All of you war mongers like to talk about how war is different now, so stop trying to turn back the hands of time to support your cause.
Perhaps it would be better if you stopped trying to deny history (Causality) in order to pretend that you have magic â??free willâ? powers?
â??freeâ?, â??freeâ?, â??freeâ?, all you closet-communist are ALL the same you think that you can get something for â??freeâ? â?? â??free lunchâ?, â??free rideâ?, â??free willâ?, â??free cheeseâ?, â??free marketâ?, â??free speechâ?, Jesus Christ! Try accepting the consequences for your actions for a change!
Your arguments are flawed by either A) evidence, or B) your proven sudden changes of opinion whenever it suits your argument.
The Serpent: Yet when someone suggests that killing terrorists deters terrorism you assert there is no way we can possibly exercise that much control over this reality.
Chris: It’s worked for Israel for the past 40 years, hasn’t it?
Israel is still there, despite the Muslims best efforts to annihilate it. Are you claiming otherwise?
Chris: These people don’t care about dying like you and I do.
Thatâ??s because they donâ??t believe they are going to â??cease to existâ? when they â??dieâ?.
Chris: To most of them, it’s an honor to do so trying to kill us because they feel like we’ve shamed and oppressed them. I guess shaming them some more and pissing them off a little bit more is the right way to go then, huh?
You ever heard of a â??Stress-Strain Curveâ?? Eventually if you apply enough Energy to a piece of metal â?¦ it will experience a catastrophic failure.
Similar to Germany or Japan in the Mid 1940â??s.
Chris: Thank god we tried the peaceful, non-violent and bloodless method first…oh yeah…we didn’t, did we?
Ummm, what are you suggesting those innocent civilians in the World Trade Center did to deserve being vaporized or roasted alive, or worse? Where was Osama bin Ladenâ??s overtures of peace, and bloodless non-violence prior to 9/11?
What makes you believe that I am any less violent than Bin Laden once someone has initiated violence against me unprovoked?
Just because you donâ??t shoot back at intruders who break into your house to steal your belongings and rape your wife in the middle of the night, doesnâ??t mean that everyone is so foolish.
Chris: We alone are responsible for the situation we are in now.
Ahh, so you believe the United States/Zionist conspiracy is most directly responsible for 9/11?
How about the Cole bombing and the Embassy bombings in Africa? Is that also the work of the Evil Zionists and Americans? Perhaps the Illuminati and gray aliens are involved as well?
Chris: Every bully eventually gets kicked in the shins and punched in the nose. Should we let Al-Queada slide for 9/11? No way.
Yes, but only if you have the guts to stand up to the Bully. Liberals donâ??t seem to have the stomach for it. They just want to pretend to be â??toughâ?, but their true motivations are as transparent as glass (fear, self-loathing, cynicism, pessimism).
Chris: Should we continue to go out our way to provoke them more by pulling some shit like those f@#king moron soldiers in that prison, and continuing to tell their people how they should live(just because we, the almighty crusaders of freedom, say so)? Another BIG no way.
Either you donâ??t have a problem telling people that it is wrong to murder and rape or you do have a problem asserting this belief (in word and by DEED).
Apparently you are the one with the problem.
Chris: For his next trick, GWB will lower a platoon of soldiers into a tank full of pirhannas, to show the world that we’re not afraid to get chewed up for benefit and/or amusement of others. In other words, swim in the tank, expect to be bitten.
â?¦ Or perhaps he could just pull G. Gordon Liddy out of retirement and get him to hold his hand over and open flame without flinching â?¦ ?
Lady Dani: Serpent, why is logic so under-rated? It all comes down to “because of A, then B” (over-simplified, of course).
Hey princess!
You ever get the feeling that the answer to that question is as obvious as â??the wheelâ? once you have perceived it?
Of course I would reword your second sentence just a bit. I would say that any valid premise (or axiom) is of the form:
X or NOT(X)
As in:
X = â??God existsâ?
X = â??Free will existsâ?
X = â??Matter exist independent of observationâ?
Lady Dani: What is there in this world regarding behavior/punishments and rewards that cannot be explained logically?
Nothing. (i.e. all comprehensible concepts are inherently Logical in nature (for any comprehensible concept there exist an underlying (logical/explainable) mechanic))
Lady Dani: (To anyone who cares) has anyone seen behavior that is new or original lately? Probably not.
All things â??newâ? are merely the reformation of something Old.
Lady Dani: When someone is mean to you, your feelings get hurt. If a compliment is paid to you, it makes you feel good (generally speaking).
Action â?? Reaction â?¦ Cause and Effect.
Of course the mystics canâ??t stand the notion that anyone actually thinks this way. They want to deny Causality. They want you to believe that events occur magically and are â??Un-Causedâ? (Stochastic, Random, Indeterminate, Supernatural)
Lady Dani: A wise man once said “There is nothing new under the sun” and he was and is still right.
Ohh Sistah, you are just too delicious for words. ;)
fyodor: Thanks for the respectful reply. But of course I still disagree with you! :-)
Iâ??d say there are 3 basic types of Individuals (Males).
1) The Inherently Violent
2) The Inherently Non-Violent
3) The Violent when provoked
You seem to be implying you are Type #2. Iâ??d place myself in group #3. Osama bin Laden or Hussein would be of type #1.
Types 2 and 3 never really have any conflicts in reality. All of the real conflicts occur between types #1 and #3.
fyodor: Much of what you say is true enough, but essentially circular and doesn’t help map a route for getting from point A to point B.
I disagree.
What I am saying is that if you want to get from point A to point B you have to be Systematic. You have to be Methodical. You have to use Logic.
What you canâ??t do is rely on the Stochastic nature of quantum mechanics to make everything work out by â??magicâ?. What you canâ??t do is rely on your â??free willâ? to make the consequences of your actions (or inactions) de-materialize from existence.
fyodor: Since the issue of democratizing Iraq was what this post was originally about, that’s the issue I was addressing myself. I think the justified war in Afghanistan and heightened awareness of the problem, both in this country and worldwide, have played the major roles in preventing another 9/11. No telling for sure. Maybe invading Iraq has played a role too, although I doubt it. But I’ll leave that discussion for another day.
Fair enough my friend.
Serpent, masterful, this is… “What you canâ??t do is rely on your â??free willâ? to make the consequences of your actions (or inactions) de-materialize from existence”
You can choose to do “A” but you can’t make the consequnce of doing “A” go away or be different. Now if you want different consequnces, then choose to do “B” or “C”, but even they have their own unchangeable consequnces.
ANd this, I’m glad that you don’t deny that we have free-will to choose our actions.
You do realize that even the Jedi do not possess â??free willâ?? Not even the Goddess possesses it!
Ahh, but perhaps our differences are only semantics (perception) Ms. Dani?
Ms. Dani: You can choose to do “A” but you can’t make the consequence of doing “A” go away or be different.
You touch a hot stove burner, and you burn your hand.
But you canâ??t touch it, without getting burned in the process.
Ms. Dani: Now if you want different consequences, then choose to do “B” or “C”, but even they have their own unchangeable [i.e. Preordained/Determined] consequences.
Precisely â?¦ however â?¦
Ms. Dani: And this, I’m glad that you don’t deny that we have free-will to choose our actions.
I would say that depends upon your precise definition of the term â??choiceâ? (â??to chooseâ?, â??to decideâ?).
For example, do computer programs possess â??free willâ??
I ask because computer programs (algorithms) also make â??choicesâ? between various options, and each of those options also has (fixed) consequences. In fact, I would say that I can perceive no substantial difference in the way that You or I make â??decisionsâ? and the way that a computer algorithm makes â??decisionsâ? â?¦ can you?
Serpent, your division of types of people is illusory. I supported the war against Afghanistan because I perceived a threat there, whereas I perceived no threat from Iraq (at least none that was clear and present). Osama Bin Laden acted against what he perceived was a threat from the west. Obviously, you and I would agree he was nuts (that is, there was no threat in lieu of his own provocation). It is the perception of threat over which people disagree. And it’s always the other side that started it!
As far as making the consequences of one’s actions de-materialize from existence, I do hope you were not offering that to me as a rebuttal as I have no idea why you would have ever expected me to harbor such a notion.
fyodor: Serpent, your division of types of people is illusory.
How so?
Let me go through it slower:
FIRST OPTION GROUP:
A) Individuals who will break into your house and shoot you (and then rape your wife).
B) Individuals who wonâ??t (ever) break into your house and shoot you.
SECOND OPTION GROUP: (derived as two subsets of 1B)
C) Individuals who wonâ??t shoot back when you break into their house.
D) Individuals who will shoot back when you break into their house.
fyodor: I supported the war against Afghanistan because I perceived a threat there, whereas I perceived no threat from Iraq (at least none that was clear and present).
So by that logic after Pearl Harbor we should have only declared war against Japan, and we never should have gotten involved with a war against Germany.
fyodor: Osama Bin Laden acted against what he perceived was a threat from the west.
You mean just like Hirohito?
So are you suggesting that Pearl Harbor and the World Trade center were really our own fault?
Maybe Bush is just doing what Hirohito and Osama did by preemptively responding to a perceived threat in Iraq?
fyodor: Obviously, you and I would agree he was nuts (that is, there was no threat in lieu of his own provocation). It is the perception of threat over which people disagree. And it’s always the other side that started it!
Isnâ??t that why we have courts? â?¦ Laws? â?¦ Governments?
So that we can settle these types of disagreements without resorting to flying airplanes into large structures?
Look, if you have a grievance against me, you feel I owe you some money, you canâ??t break into my house at night to just â??stealâ? what you think I â??oweâ? you. And if I happen to catch you inside my house in the middle of the night, and I shoot you as a result, no sane third party is gonna say that I was in the wrong.
fyodor: As far as making the consequences of one’s actions de-materialize from existence, I do hope you were not offering that to me as a rebuttal as I have no idea why you would have ever expected me to harbor such a notion.
I talk to a lot of people on a lot of forums. I recall your nick, and I recall chatting with you in the past, but it is entirely possible I may be confusing you (what you believe) with someone else.
I concede the point about people being inherently violent for lack of will for arguing it. Who the hell knows what’s going on inside their heads? Certainly once someone violates someone else’s rights, they ethically open themselves up to a violation of theirs.
As for Germany, we declared war against them after they first did so against us. Anyway, there are very rare ocassions when a fight them now or fight them later view is warranted. That was obviously the case with Germany. I didn’t see it in Iraq.
Since I called Osama Bin Laden “nuts” for perceiving a threat from us, I obviously don’t think either his or Hirohito’s attacks on us were justified.
Isnâ??t that why we have courts? â?¦ Laws? â?¦ Governments?
So that we can settle these types of disagreements without resorting to flying airplanes into large structures?
Look, if you have a grievance against me, you feel I owe you some money, you canâ??t break into my house at night to just â??stealâ? what you think I â??oweâ? you.
If I didn’t know you better, I’d say you were making an argument against our invasion of Iraq there! :-) The kind of “we know they’re evil so we’re going to do what we know is right” logic that justified our invasion of Iraq may very well have been similar to OBL’s rationalizations. Per your metaphor, we never caught Saddam’s Iraq inside our house.
All this BS about not invading Iraq because they were not a threat. It doesn’t matter. They were an example. Also a stragetic base of opperations throughout the ME. Our intellengence knew they would be easy to defeat, and we were able to make enough political cover / excuses to justify this action. It was though really all about gaining a stragetic stronghold. We now surround Iran and have staging all along the border of Syria. We also complied with OBL (UBL)’s demand to get out of Saudi. Forget the clatter and arguments. This was a necessary, and very important stragetic move in the WOT. Everyone is just trying to politicize each battle in this long term war. Please cant we just let this play out according to the plans drawn up by the greatest military planners in the world developed? We have to trust our leaders, see through the pap and bs they have to use to get things accomplished in this world (see UN, Dems., liberal press). Would it make everyone feel better if the entire War stragety was laid out. I’m sure our enemies would agree. OIF, and Afgan are only two battles in the WOT. Let the whole stragety play out, and provide our leaders with the support the need to ensure victory against the islamofacists who want to destroy our way of living.
Ohhh! â?¦ I remember you now. You were (or are) a Discordian â?¦ correct?
Or is it that you a minion of the sub-genius?
fyodor: I concede the point about people being inherently violent for lack of will for arguing it. Who the hell knows what’s going on inside their heads?
Obviously they find that harming other individuals is beneficial in their own minds.
fyodor: Certainly once someone violates someone else’s rights, they ethically open themselves up to a violation of theirs.
That was my main point.
Self-defense is always moral; whereas, pre-emptive aggression is not always moral.
fyodor: As for Germany, we declared war against them after they first did so against us. Anyway, there are very rare occasions when a fight them now or fight them later view is warranted. That was obviously the case with Germany. I didn’t see it in Iraq.
I really donâ??t see any substantial difference between the two situations.
Besides, a lot of Individuals would assert that Iraq (if not most of the Middle East) had made a de facto declaration of war on the U.S. over ten years ago.
The main difference today is that we are actually fighting back instead of just standing around like a punching bag.
fyodor: Since I called Osama Bin Laden “nuts” for perceiving a threat from us, I obviously don’t think either his or Hirohito’s attacks on us were justified.
Iâ??d concur. But I would also argue that we have been receiving lots of unprovoked and unwarranted attacks that originate in the Middle East, and the situation had only gotten worse when we tried to ignore it or hide from it (in the past).
Serpent: Look, if you have a grievance against me, you feel I owe you some money, you canâ??t break into my house at night to just â??stealâ? what you think I â??oweâ? you.
fyodor: If I didn’t know you better, I’d say you were making an argument against our invasion of Iraq there! :-)
When the defendant repeatedly refuses to show up for court, eventually you are forced to smash down his door and drag him before the judge in chains.
At least that is what you are forced to do if you believe in the rule of Law.
fyodor: The kind of “we know they’re evil so we’re going to do what we know is right” logic that justified our invasion of Iraq may very well have been similar to OBL’s rationalizations. Per your metaphor, we never caught Saddam’s Iraq inside our house.
Yes, but even you cannot deny that we DID catch him inside of our friendâ??s (our â??brotherâ??sâ?) house (i.e. Kuwait (not to mention the Kurds)). Are you against all forms of burglary, or are you only against burglary when it effects you directly?
No, I would say that there was overwhelming evidence against Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein left us few other alternatives (none viable). He may not have actually broken into our house just yet, but he was more than willing to assist anyone who would attempt it.
To be honest, I have found the Liberals defense of Saddam to be utterly unconvincing and wholly without merit. Essentially they are in the position of trying to explain to me why rape isnâ??t such a â??bad thingâ? after-all.
I agree with you willy.
You see it.
Sorry for the bad grammar and misspellings. I just get so pissed and emotional after reading all that liberal namby-pamby BS and type too fast.
So, when and how did Iraq and MOST of the Middle East declare war on US?
Of course Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was BAD. But I don’t know who appointed us cops with jurisdiction over other nations’ soil (which of course matters if you truly believe in the rule of LAW), and in any event, that crime was already prosecuted.
As a matter of fact, I am a Subgenius. Eternal Salvation or triple your money back, kiddo….
Fyodor -
It is not so much the nation-states of the middle east that declared war on the US. It is the clerics in these nations that have declared a jihad (prior to 911) and have fomented the terrorists against us.
The Bush international policy requires all govts. in the world to work to rid themselves of terrorist factions, or else we will have to do it for them. In cases where the nation-state provides direct support for terrorist organizations (AQ or any other) that govt. must either stop support, or be eliminated too.
Iraq was in direct violation of both these policies. They harbored terrorists (Abu Abbas), provided support to Hammas and suicide bombers in Isreal, and were twarting efforts of the UN to ensure they were not building outlawed (as laid out in cease fire agreement 1992) weapons that could threaten others and the US.
Was Abu Abbas actively plotting against the US? Hammas of course was not. Naturally I don’t approve of their tactics, but I don’t approve of a lot of what Israel has done. Were the clerics in question actively leading or supporting violent acts or plots against the US?
You seem to do alot of attacking the current WOT strategy and legitamacy. Do you feel the WOT is even justified? Or is it just politically movtivated to keep Bush in power?
If it is justified, what stragety would you use to win?
fyodor: So, when and how did Iraq and MOST of the Middle East declare war on US?
Have you been to the Middle East any time lately?
fyodor: Of course Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was BAD.
You really think so?
fyodor: But I don’t know who appointed us cops with jurisdiction over other nations’ soil (which of course matters if you truly believe in the rule of LAW), and in any event, that crime was already prosecuted.
Hmmm, and here I thought Saddam and his minions had escaped virtually unscathed?
fyodor: As a matter of fact, I am a Subgenius.
â?¦ which in my lexicon (and in Lord Bobâ??s) is exactly analogous to professing you are one of his ditto-brained flunkies (no offense intended).
fyodor: Eternal Salvation or triple your money back, kiddo….
But I thought there was no â??afterlifeâ?, and no ultimate consequences for our actions? Sounds like a lot of mystical mumbo-jumbo to me â?¦
Nations that harbor and protect people who are actively engaged (or have actively engaged) in effecting violent acts against the US are subject to pragmatic corrective actions by the US, which can include military action when no other course is available or feasible.
Serpent,
You do realize that the Church of the Subgenius is a JOKE? What makes it worthwhile is that it’s a good one.
fyodor: You do realize that the Church of the Subgenius is a JOKE?
Iâ??ve heard the claim.
I guess I just donâ??t â??get itâ??
But then again I hear a lot of low level Discordians trying to assert that Discordia is all just a big Joke. I think the jokes on them â?¦
fyodor: What makes it worthwhile is that it’s a good one.
If you say so my friend.
I guess itâ??s a lot like those funny photos of Iraqi prisoners some of those hilarious U.S. soldiers (i.e. comedians) took?
“I guess itâ??s a lot like those funny photos of Iraqi prisoners some of those hilarious U.S. soldiers (i.e. comedians) took?”
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
You’re almost as good a comedian as “Bob”!!
Ah, Serpent…more crap of yours to have to shoot down since you still feel the need to use bad examples and such.
“Perhaps the United States is in the unique position of being able to better perceive the ultimate benefits of global freedom than those blinded and bound by slavery?”
Thank God we’re spending the money and having OUR blood spilled all over the desert so Abdul in Najaf can be free. Like I’ve said before in other posts, those of you who support this, should all have to go to Sgt. John Doe’s house and tell his kids that their daddy/mommy had to die so some Iraqi kid’s parents could live. Iraqi blood should be involved in them winning their freedom, not ours.
“The French helped us out back then.”
Read the third word in that quote. The French helped us, they did not do it for us. What kind of a death ratio was there between our soldiers and the French? 20:1. A lot less Iraqis(only pertaining to soldiers/police) have died when we have sacrificed now over 700. Sorry, once again,just another bad example.
“Some (cynical) individuals might say the same thing about the United States except they might say â??Blacksâ?, â??Whitesâ?, and â??Latinosâ? instead of â??Shiitesâ?, â??Sunniâ??sâ? and â??Kurdsâ?. ”
The US Constitution was written solely for white American men, not anyone else, but we understood that in order to better ourselves, we needed to learn to get along, and changed over 200 years time. Many Iraqi’s have not figured that out yet, and won’t suddenly do so because we tell them to.
“Israel is still there, despite the Muslims best efforts to annihilate it. Are you claiming otherwise?”
I understand that hundreds of Israelis have died in the past few years from terrorist attacks. Quite a success that plan has been, right? One of the only reason they are still around is because of us. Some money here, a few f-15s there. I’m not saying that Israel deserves what it is getting, only that their past shows that killing a few terrorists will not deter them, only increase their numbers and need to kill you. Would you consider our war on terror a success if we had suicide bombers blowing up cafe’s in New York?!
“You ever heard of a â??Stress-Strain Curveâ?? Eventually if you apply enough Energy to a piece of metal â?¦ it will experience a catastrophic failure. ”
It’s a different situation when you try to bend a piece of metal with your hands when it is studded with nails. Sure, that metal may break eventually, but is it really worth it when you’re gonna get your hands all screwed up in the process?
“Similar to Germany or Japan in the Mid 1940â??s.”
This is not Japan or Germany, and it is not the 1940′s. Iraq is NOTHING like either of them, NOTHING. There are NO connections there at all. 2 totally different types of society and people.
“Ahh, so you believe the United States/Zionist conspiracy is most directly responsible for 9/11?
How about the Cole bombing and the Embassy bombings in Africa? Is that also the work of the Evil Zionists and Americans? ”
All were Al-Queada, and I didn’t say Americans/Zionists are guilty of doing them, so stop putting words in my mouth, I am very careful about what I say. We are responsible, as we have put ourselves in this position because of our own past actions. Our poor decisions have led us here. Our poor decisions have increased these people’s hatred of us.
“Yes, but only if you have the guts to stand up to the Bully. Liberals donâ??t seem to have the stomach for it. They just want to pretend to be â??toughâ?, but their true motivations are as transparent as glass (fear, self-loathing, cynicism, pessimism).”
I think you’ve failed to grasp this analogy and who the bully is…and I am by no means anything close to being a liberal, thank you very much.
“Either you donâ??t have a problem telling people that it is wrong to murder and rape or you do have a problem asserting this belief (in word and by DEED).”
My belief doesn’t matter when it comes to the lives of others, only the law. My opinion shouldn’t mean jack-shit, and neither should yours. When decisions are based on opinion, they are biased against someone, and no American’s rights should be taken away for that reason. Our Constitution was written in a way that should have avoided this, but unfortunately that’s changed. Murder and rape are very wrong, and I believe that that problem should be addressed. I just don’t believe that we need to be the world’s police. We have hundreds of our own murder and rape cases everday here to worry about.
“Apparently you are the one with the problem.”
If you mean that not having a “we gotta save the world” complex a problem, I’m guilty. Otherwise, I’m very happy here being protected, and hope that every other nation can do the same somehow, but I can tell you that I will never die for another one of them, and will never treat an American soldier like a chess pawn to do so either.
“Just because you donâ??t shoot back at intruders who break into your house to steal your belongings and rape your wife in the middle of the night, doesnâ??t mean that everyone is so foolish. ”
I would, because it is MY wife, and MY property to worry about. Has your little memory forgotten that I’ve already said we should nail Al-Quaeda?
In your case, I’m defending myself, in your argument for going to Iraq, your’re walking out of your home and attacking someone in they’re home that is living in a house down the street because they have raped/murdered. Apples and oranges once again.
“â??freeâ?, â??freeâ?, â??freeâ?, all you closet-communist are ALL the same you think that you can get something for â??freeâ? â?? â??free lunchâ?, â??free rideâ?, â??free willâ?, â??free cheeseâ?, â??free marketâ?, â??free speechâ?, Jesus Christ! Try accepting the consequences for your actions for a change!”
Thank you for the laugh on these completely moronic comments. Closet communist? ME? If you support social security or medicare or welfare in any way, you are much closer to being a communist than I am. I can start calling you a wanna-be facist, but unlike you, I obviously have a little more restraint. I want nothing free from anyone. All I want is for them to mind you’re own fuckin’ business and not infringe on my constitutional rights. As for taking responsibilty for my actions, I do. Your support for war has helped cost the lives of hundreds of american soldiers. I did not support that, and do not let it hang over my head even though it greatly saddens me. I’m very comfortable in my actions. You fail to take into acount possible bad consequences when planning your actions, while I understand that the worse can happen, and plan accordingly, and actually take the time to decide whether or not it’s actually worth the risks/losses.
Save your little “closet-communist” insults for somebody else. Can you even tell me what kind of government the US has without having to look it up? Its easy to call names and come up with all bad examples when you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Remove head from ass—-try thinking instead of acting all of the time. I guess you can call me that if you want, as soon as you’ve accepted that your’re a thoughtless idiot.
Chris: Thank God we’re spending the money and having OUR blood spilled all over the desert so Abdul in Najaf can be free.
Our military is all volunteer.
I suppose you would prefer living in a world where things like 9/11 were regular events on American soil?
Chris: I Like I’ve said before in other posts, those of you who support this, should all have to go to Sgt. John Doe’s house and tell his kids that their daddy/mommy had to die so some Iraqi kid’s parents could live. Iraqi blood should be involved in them winning their freedom, not ours.
Perhaps we should send you to the homes of the victims of 9/11 so you can explain that their justice isnâ??t worth you paying any extra taxes? You donâ??t want to be inconvenienced just because terrorist kill your fellow citizens. Just as long as no one tries to kill you.
Chris: Read the third word in that quote. The French helped us, they did not do it for us.
All motives are selfish. Is that a surprise to you? Is it supposed to be a surprise for me?
Chris: What kind of a death ratio was there between our soldiers and the French? 20:1. A lot less Iraqis(only pertaining to soldiers/police) have died when we have sacrificed now over 700. Sorry, once again,just another bad example.
You think less Iraqiâ??s have died than U.S. soldiers?
Are you adding in the 3000 from 9/11?
Chris: The US Constitution was written solely for white American men, not anyone else â?¦
Youâ??re wrong, but that point aside, you are a white man â?¦ arenâ??t you?
Chris: â?¦ but we understood that in order to better ourselves, we needed to learn to get along, and changed over 200 years time. Many Iraqi’s have not figured that out yet, and won’t suddenly do so because we tell them to.
So you are saying that â??towel-headed camel-humpersâ? arenâ??t sophisticated enough for Democracy? The thing is you Atheists believe you are better than EVERYONE.
Chris: I understand that hundreds of Israelis have died in the past few years from terrorist attacks.
You think that the Jews should abandon Israel?
Maybe you should abandon America, and move to some place more â??enlightenedâ? â?¦ like France.
Chris: Quite a success that plan has been, right? One of the only reason they are still around is because of us. Some money here, a few f-15s there. I’m not saying that Israel deserves what it is getting â?¦
That sounds like exactly what you are saying. You just want to pretend that you are not saying it. But that doesnâ??t mean I will pretend along.
Chris: â?¦ only that their past shows that killing a few terrorists will not deter them, only increase their numbers and need to kill you. Would you consider our war on terror a success if we had suicide bombers blowing up cafe’s in New York?!
The suicide bombers seem more interested in our ALL VOLUNTEER military in Iraq. You seem to think that is a â??bad thingâ?. I guess you would prefer having the terrorists over here blowing up innocent women and children like in Israel?
Chris: It’s a different situation when you try to bend a piece of metal with your hands when it is studded with nails. Sure, that metal may break eventually, but is it really worth it when you’re gonna get your hands all screwed up in the process?
Closet communist like yourself donâ??t really understand reality. Reality doesnâ??t interest you, only your own fantasies and delusions interest you. You are more concerned with how you imagine the world, than how the world really is.
The fact is that â??freedomâ? is not â??freeâ?. It has a Cost. If you are unwilling to pay that cost, then eventually YOU will be the one to suffer the consequences of that â??choiceâ?.
Chris: This is not Japan or Germany, and it is not the 1940′s. Iraq is NOTHING like either of them, NOTHING. There are NO connections there at all. 2 totally different types of society and people.
You denying past history doesnâ??t mean that past history did not occur. Those who forget the past are forever condemned to repeat it.
Chris: All were Al-Queada, and I didn’t say Americans/Zionists are guilty of doing them, so stop putting words in my mouth, I am very careful about what I say. We are responsible, as we have put ourselves in this position because of our own past actions.
So you are saying that we are not Guilty, but we are Responsible???
That sounds exactly like you are saying we are Guilty because we are Responsible.
Chris: Our poor decisions have led us here. Our poor decisions have increased these people’s hatred of us.
Not shooting back when someone breaks into your house and tries to kill you and rape your wife is a poor decision. Itâ??s exactly the decision you are recommending.
Chris: My belief doesn’t matter when it comes to the lives of others, only the law.
The Law is made of Beliefs.
Chris: My opinion shouldn’t mean jack-shit, and neither should yours. When decisions are based on opinion, they are biased against someone, and no American’s rights should be taken away for that reason.
You are basing your concept of â??Rightsâ? on an â??Opinionâ?, and as you just stated When decisions are based on opinion, they are biased against someone.
Your problem is that you donâ??t believe in an Objective system of Morality. Subjectivity is all that is left to you.
Chris: Our Constitution was written in a way that should have avoided this, but unfortunately that’s changed.
Only the Individuals interpreting the document have changed. The Constitution is unaltered itself.
Chris: Murder and rape are very wrong, and I believe that that problem should be addressed. I just don’t believe that we need to be the world’s police. We have hundreds of our own murder and rape cases ever day here to worry about.
So you are saying that if foreigners murder our citizens (like on 9/11 or Pearl Harbor) that we shouldnâ??t do anything about it? We should only attempt to bring American-born murderers and rapists to justice?
Chris: If you mean that not having a “we gotta save the world” complex a problem, I’m guilty.
Like I said why did we bother attacking Germany after Pearl Harbor? Was it our job to save the Jews from the Naziâ??s? Were we the â??worldâ??s policemenâ? back then? What did you care if all the Jews were exterminated?? We had murderers and rapists right here in the U.S. during World War II!!!! Why were we wasting time killing Naziâ??s?!? The Naziâ??s had NOTHING to do with Pearl Harbor. The Naziâ??s didnâ??t end up having any WMDs either! (despite Einsteinâ??s claims).
Chris: Otherwise, I’m very happy here being protected, and hope that every other nation can do the same somehow, but I can tell you that I will never die for another one of them, and will never treat an American soldier like a chess pawn to do so either.
Youâ??re delusional. You are already are a â??pawnâ?. You are a slave you have simply failed to perceive it.
Chris: [defending your home â?¦]I would, because it is MY wife, and MY property to worry about.
Yeah, but bullets and guns are expensive. You should just pretend that you will never be robbed. That ought to work.
Chris: Has your little memory forgotten that I’ve already said we should nail Al-Quaeda?
Yeah, but we should leave those Naziâ??s alone. They didnâ??t have anything to do with Pearl Harbor (9/11).
Chris: In your case, I’m defending myself, in your argument for going to Iraq, your’re walking out of your home and attacking someone in they’re home that is living in a house down the street because they have raped/murdered. Apples and oranges once again.
No â?¦ suppose you could perceive the future. Suppose that you knew a certain person was going to break into your house, kill you, steal your stuff, rape your wife, and kidnap a kid on the way out. Would you be justified in shooting and killing this intruder as they tried to pick the lock to your house, or do you have to wait until they break in first? Should you let them fire off a few rounds before you shoot back? You wanna be â??fairâ? right? Maybe you should wait and let them start to rape your wife â?¦ just to be sure?
Chris: Closet-communist? ME? If you support social security or medicare or welfare in any way, you are much closer to being a communist than I am. I can start calling you a wanna-be facist, but unlike you, I obviously have a little more restraint. I want nothing free from anyone.
Obviously you believe â??freedomâ? is â??freeâ?.
Chris: All I want is for them to mind you’re own fuckin’ business and not infringe on my constitutional rights. As for taking responsibilty for my actions, I do. Your support for war has helped cost the lives of hundreds of american soldiers.
You probably didnâ??t support war prior to 9/11 and that definitely cost 3000 American lives.
Your problem is that you erroneously believe you possess â??free willâ? (closet-communist like everything for â??freeâ?).
Chris: I did not support that, and do not let it hang over my head even though it greatly saddens me. I’m very comfortable in my actions. You fail to take into acount possible bad consequences when planning your actions, while I understand that the worse can happen, and plan accordingly, and actually take the time to decide whether or not it’s actually worth the risks/losses.
Iâ??d remind you that Inaction is also an Action.
Serpent, I’m not sure if you spend more time talking out of your ass or ignoring what I say…shame it’s that difficult for you to have a decent argument…notice how I actually back up my arguments, instead of just throw around that completely lame and self describing “closet-communist” term. I’m a libertarian dip-shit, I’m as far from Communist as it gets.
“Our military is all volunteer.”
Our soldiers don’t get to decide their posts either. How about the few thousand in Iraq that signed up for 4 years, just to be delayed much longer because they are there? Our military only does what it is told. I don’t knock the military, just the war-mongers that sent them there.
“Chris: Read the third word in that quote. The French helped us, they did not do it for us.
All motives are selfish. Is that a surprise to you? Is it supposed to be a surprise for me?”
Go ahead and just try to avoid the topic as much as possible. I’d be a whole lot less pissed about it all if we helped an Iraqi revolution than to just decide to invade the country. A whole lot less American deaths would have occurred, with probably the same outcome. That’s if Iraqi’s really were ready for democracy.
“You think less Iraqiâ??s have died than U.S. soldiers?
Are you adding in the 3000 from 9/11?”
Did you notice how I put “(only pertaining to soldiers/police)” in there, or did you just forget since it wouldn’t help your argument. Spin it for me one more time. None of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi from what I remember.
“You think that the Jews should abandon Israel?”
I never said that, only used their situation to show the mindset of terrorists. I don’t blame them one bit for what they are getting, my only claim was that killing a few terrorists does not create less, it creates more. Spin my words a little more again. Read what I say, not what you want to hear.
“Chris: Quite a success that plan has been, right? One of the only reason they are still around is because of us. Some money here, a few f-15s there. I’m not saying that Israel deserves what it is getting â?¦
That sounds like exactly what you are saying. You just want to pretend that you are not saying it. But that doesnâ??t mean I will pretend along. ”
More spinning. what did I say? I said that they are still around only because of us, NOT that them being around is a bad thing. I mean EXACTLY what I say. Your poor spin would imply that I think all poor people deserve to die if the government doesn’t give them handouts. That’s not anything close to what I said.
“Closet communist like yourself donâ??t really understand reality. Reality doesnâ??t interest you, only your own fantasies and delusions interest you. You are more concerned with how you imagine the world, than how the world really is.”
Considering the current situation Iraq, who seems to have the delusions of how reality is? Rummy and GWB have already BOTH admitted that things are much more difficult than they had imagined and planned for. I could have told you this was a possibilty long before we even got there. Thinking that this would be any easier than it is now is what is delusional.
“So you are saying that we are not Guilty, but we are Responsible???
That sounds exactly like you are saying we are Guilty because we are Responsible.”
More spin. If you get your ass mugged in a nasty area of town, that has broken street lamps and dark alleys, you are responsible for going into that area at night in the dark without being guilty of mugging yourself. If you choose to go there, you need to understand that the worse CAN happen, a part of reality you have yet to comprehend.
“Not shooting back when someone breaks into your house and tries to kill you and rape your wife is a poor decision. Itâ??s exactly the decision you are recommending.”
Even though you’ve spun some more, I can still go with your change…Al Quaeda needs to be dealt hwith, because they attacked us. PLEASE HEAR IT THIS TIME WHEN I SAY THAT! Saddam did not attack us, other than when on his own soil or his own airspace. The War on Terror and the war in Iraq are 2 different situations. One is about building democracy, and one is about destroying terrorism. After all, isn’t war different nowadays? Or does that only apply when it supports your cause?
“The Law is made of Beliefs”
That’s the problem with laws today. Laws were intended to protect the freedoms of the people, not express opinion.
“You are basing your concept of â??Rightsâ? on an â??Opinionâ?, and as you just stated When decisions are based on opinion, they are biased against someone.”
The US Constitution tells me what my rights are, I don’t need to hear anyone else’s opinion to know what they say. All you have to do is take the time to read it. Morals differ between people, and can better be described as strongly held opinions. If more than half find it immoral to drink, do you ban alcohal? We’ve seen the cluster-fuck that lead to, and as with the War on Drugs today. If over half find it immoral to be Jewish, do we put them in concentration camps? Law was not meant to be morality. The Constitution was written to protect everyone’s right to have and express an opinion, not force others to follow that opinion through government.
“The Constitution is unaltered itself.”
Please read the 18th and 21st Amendments and know what you’re talking about before opening your mouth next time.
“The fact is that â??freedomâ? is not â??freeâ?. It has a Cost. If you are unwilling to pay that cost, then eventually YOU will be the one to suffer the consequences of that â??choiceâ?.”
I would die for the freedom of Americans, and should be in the military now(medical disqualify), but would not want to for the freedoms of those in other nations.
“The fact is that â??freedomâ? is not â??freeâ?. It has a Cost. If you are unwilling to pay that cost, then eventually YOU will be the one to suffer the consequences of that â??choiceâ?. ”
Read what I say, instead of what you want to see please. I’m willing to pay the cost of my freedom, and those of other Americans, not Iraqi’s. I’m not willing to die so someone else can enjoy the freedom I gave up trying to win them theirs. Protecting freedom and creating it are 2 different things.
“Youâ??re delusional. You are already are a â??pawnâ?. You are a slave you have simply failed to perceive it.”
You chose to follow the masses, not me, I spent time actually thinking about things beforehand without blindly following. You, my friend are the slave. Or better yet…sheep.
“Chris: [defending your home â?¦]I would, because it is MY wife, and MY property to worry about.
Yeah, but bullets and guns are expensive. You should just pretend that you will never be robbed. That ought to work.
Spin some more to try and make me look bad with insults because you can’t formulate any decent arguments. Read what I say, not what you want to see.
“Yeah, but we should leave those Naziâ??s alone. They didnâ??t have anything to do with Pearl Harbor (9/11).”
Germany was a nation that declared war on the US before we ever fought them in WW2. They also killed a lot of americans that were not in military ships while in international waters. No, Germany had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, but if you’d taken a few seconds to recollect history, You see that were weren’t on a mission of morality, as is such in Iraq. Once again, if you actually take the time to look at them, Germany and Japan were nothing like Iraq today. Both attacked us, Iraq did not. Iraq is not a security issue, it is a democracy issue.
Apples and oranges.
“No â?¦ suppose you could perceive the future. Suppose that you knew a certain person was going to break into your house, kill you, steal your stuff, rape your wife, and kidnap a kid on the way out.”
You imply that GWB can see the future. You see, analogies, in order to be good in arguments, actually have to make a bit of sense and represent a situation. Because most of yours don’t, they suck and aren’t worth taking the time to read or argue. If you could see the future…what kind of piss-poor argument is that?
“Would you be justified in shooting and killing this intruder as they tried to pick the lock to your house, or do you have to wait until they break in first? Should you let them fire off a few rounds before you shoot back? You wanna be â??fairâ? right? Maybe you should wait and let them start to rape your wife â?¦ just to be sure?”
Picking the lock, no, unless I see they have a weapon. Threatening my family, you can bet your ass that I’m gonna take them down as soon as I see that there is a threat. Saddam hadn’t even started walking up your driveway yet, much less even tried picking the lock. Read what I say, not what you want to see. And please stop asuming things about me. I don’t care about “fair”. Life’s a bitch, and I understand that. If you didn’t believe in “fairness”, you wouldn’t have given your support for this pit. After all, it’s only fair that Iraqi’s have freedoms and democracy too, right? I’d let them live 100 years without being compelled to risk american lives to be “fair”. Iraqi’s problems are exactly that. That’s what not giving a crap about fair is all about. Neo-nazis such as yourself can’t see that though, can you? What is fair is a matter of opinion, and I don’t force my opinion on others by at gunpoint.
“Chris: Closet-communist? ME? If you support social security or medicare or welfare in any way, you are much closer to being a communist than I am. I can start calling you a wanna-be facist, but unlike you, I obviously have a little more restraint. I want nothing free from anyone.
Obviously you believe â??freedomâ? is â??freeâ?.”
WTF are you talking about? And obviously you’re an illiterate moron. Read what I say illiterate moron, not what you want to see and assume.
“You probably didnâ??t support war prior to 9/11 and that definitely cost 3000 American lives.”
And I didn’t support the stupid shit that we’ve pulled in the past to get us to the point that war is almost necessary either. You’re mistaken into thinking that everything is black and white and that there are only 2 paths to be taken.
“Your problem is that you erroneously believe you possess â??free willâ? (closet-communist like everything for â??freeâ?).”
I do possess “free will”, just not the erroneous ability to force it on other, as you seem to see as the case for yourself.
I’ve spent more time trying to rewrite my answers than anything else, since you failed to actually READ them the last few times. Call me names, fine. I can do the same, but choose to try and stay away from that as much as I can. Your arguments all still suck, and it’s really quite political of you to pick and choose single phrases of mine to support your argument. If you stopped taking my words out of context, maybe you’d actaully have to think about what you are saying instead of spilling a bunch of stupid crap in your posts. If you can’t win an argument, just insult the other guy until he gets tired of arguing, right? Do me a favor, stop making me have to retype everything over and over so you may actually read and understand it. And try reading some history books before sounding like an idiot by making false and uninformed claims. Just because apples and oranges are both fruit, does not mean that they are the same thing.
“Youâ??re wrong, but that point aside, you are a white man â?¦ arenâ??t you?”
Yes I am, but think that minority citizens deserve the same freedoms that I do here, and that has nothing to do with wether or not I’m right on that subject. If I’m wrong, why did we continue on with legally enslaving minorities for almost 100 years and didn’t allow women to vote until 1920? What it says, and what they meant for it to say, were 2 totally different things. Slavery and such was wrong then, as it would be today(and is in other countries). Back then, we (the majority)believed that our opinion of blacks meant more than the rights they should have received, and that’s why the Constitution was interpreted that way. That’s why you don’t interpret it, you read it. White men wrote it for themselves, but could hardly claim freedom if that was hinted in the Constituion. Fortunately, time took care of things there.
Chris: notice how I actually back up my arguments
No â?¦ I didnâ??t notice it.
Chris: I’m not sure if you spend more time talking out of your ass or ignoring what I say.
Chris: it’s that difficult for you to have a decent argument
Chris: I’m a libertarian, [you] dip-shit
It must have been obscured by all of the Ad hominens and other numerous logical fallacies contained in your post?
Chris: [Our military is all volunteer â?¦]Our soldiers don’t get to decide their posts either. How about the few thousand in Iraq that signed up for 4 years, just to be delayed much longer because they are there? Our military only does what it is told.
The purpose of a military is to take orders, and go where they are told. Their purpose is to hurt people.
What did you think the military was for, as a travel club? To make it easier to pick up Chicks?
You namby-pamby types believe the military should never be used regardless of the situation (unless of course, YOU are the one making the call).
Chris: [All motives are inherently selfish]Go ahead and just try to avoid the topic as much as possible. I’d be a whole lot less pissed about it all if we helped an Iraqi revolution than to just decide to invade the country. A whole lot less American deaths would have occurred, with probably the same outcome. That’s if Iraqi’s really were ready for democracy.
I donâ??t give a ratâ??s turd about achieving Democracy in Iraq. You think that is the reason we are there?
Chris: None of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi from what I remember.
And like I said NONE of the Individuals who bombed Pearl Harbor were GERMANS!
By your Logic we would never had invaded Germany during World War II. We would have never stopped Hitler. We would have never lifted a finger to help those â??stupidâ? Jews who were unwilling to risk their own lives to fight the Naziâ??s.
Chris: [You think that the Jews should abandon Israel?]I never said that, only used their situation to show the mindset of terrorists.
So because burglars might break into your house you shouldnâ??t bother to defend yourself (ever)?
What exactly are you arguing here?
Chris: I don’t blame them one bit for what they are getting, my only claim was that killing a few terrorists does not create less, it creates more.
But I never argued that we should only kill â??a fewâ? terrorist. I am arguing that we should annihilate them ALL. To do so requires Energy. You seem to believe the problem will go away all on itâ??s own by â??magicâ?. All you need to do is pretend real hard.
You naively believe that â??freedomâ? is actually â??freeâ? (without cost).
Chris: [the Destruction of Israelâ?¦]I said that they are still around only because of us, NOT that them being around is a bad thing. I mean EXACTLY what I say. Your poor spin would imply that I think all poor people deserve to die if the government doesn’t give them handouts. That’s not anything close to what I said.
You said that they only persist because of our assistance. [cause]
Ergo, without our assistance they (Israel) would â??cease to existâ? [effect]
But if you had your way we wouldnâ??t assist them.
Who is spinning what you said word-mangler?
Chris: Considering the current situation Iraq, who seems to have the delusions of how reality is? Rummy and GWB have already BOTH admitted that things are much more difficult than they had imagined and planned for.
Apparently your precognition is even more short-sighted.
Chris: I could have told you this was a possibility long before we even got there. Thinking that this would be any easier than it is now is what is delusional.
I never thought this would be a short conflict. And neither did Bush or Rumsfeld.
Shit â?¦ we still have troops stationed in Germany and Japan (since WWII).
Chris: More spin.
Keep saying it word-mangler, eventually it will start to sound â??trueâ?.
Chris: If you get your ass mugged in a nasty area of town, that has broken street lamps and dark alleys, you are responsible for going into that area at night in the dark without being guilty of mugging yourself. If you choose to go there, you need to understand that the worse CAN happen, a part of reality you have yet to comprehend.
Are you suggesting that the World Trade centers were the equivalent of â??dark alleys with broken street lightsâ??
Your problem is that you donâ??t want to address the actual problem.
The problem isnâ??t broken street lights, or dark alleys. The problem is Individuals who donâ??t believe there are ultimate consequences for their actions (i.e. Atheists). A dark alley or broken street light never killed or harmed anyone.
Chris: [Not shooting back when someone breaks into your house and tries to kill you and rape your wife is a poor decision. Itâ??s exactly the decision you are recommending.] Even though you’ve spun some more, I can still go with your change…Al Quaeda needs to be dealt with, because they attacked us. PLEASE HEAR IT THIS TIME WHEN I SAY THAT! Saddam did not attack us, other than when on his own soil or his own airspace. The War on Terror and the war in Iraq are 2 different situations. One is about building democracy, and one is about destroying terrorism. After all, isn’t war different nowadays? Or does that only apply when it supports your cause.
JAPAN needs to be dealt with, because they attacked us (at Pearl Harbor). PLEASE HEAR IT THIS TIME WHEN I SAY THAT! HITLER did not attack us, other than when on his own soil or his own airspace. The War on Imperial JAPAN and the war in GERMANY are 2 different situations. One is about building democracy, and one is about destroying terrorism. After all, isn’t war different nowadays? Or does that only apply when it supports your cause?
Chris: [The Law is made of Beliefs]That’s the problem with laws today. Laws were intended to protect the freedoms of the people, not express opinion.
All expressions are opinions.
Unless you are God.
Chris: The US Constitution tells me what my rights are, I don’t need to hear anyone else’s opinion to know what they say.
You mean there is only ONE POSSIBLE WAY to interpret the Constitution?
If that is True then why do we need the Supreme Court?
Chris: All you have to do is take the time to read it. Morals differ between people, and can better be described as strongly held opinions.
You believe that Morals are simply strongly held opinions?
I guess that is close as you will come to acknowledging a belief in Subjective morality (i.e. NO morality at all).
Chris: If more than half find it immoral to drink, do you ban alcohol?
It depends upon whether or not your believe in Democracy or Communism.
In a Democracy the Majority determines the Law. The Majority determines what is Moral.
Under Communism a small elite intellectually â??superiorâ? minority determines the law. And the same â??superiorâ? minority determines what is â??moralâ?.
Chris: We’ve seen the cluster-fuck that lead to, and as with the War on Drugs today.
The majority does not support the â??War on Drugsâ?. If fact, whenever they are given the opportunity to vote on it, the majority has voted against the war on drugs.
Chris: If over half find it immoral to be Jewish, do we put them in concentration camps?
If the majority of Individuals in this country banded together and attempted to â??eliminate the Jewsâ? I suggest there is very little the minority would be able to do about it.
If you doubt this, then examine the history of Nazi Germany and Europe circa 1940ish.
Chris: Law was not meant to be morality.
You are speaking like a â??Secularistâ? (i.e. a fanatically religious and intolerant Atheist)
Chris: The Constitution was written to protect everyone’s right to have and express an opinion, not force others to follow that opinion through government.
That is very true.
Unbeknownst to many the True purpose of our Constitution is to protect the Majority from the power of the Individual.
The purpose and goal of the majority is always more pure than those of the Individual. The Individual can benefit at the expense of the Majority by oppressing the majority. Whereas the majority only attempts to avoid oppression (by the Individual).
Chris: I would die for the freedom of Americans, and should be in the military now(medical disqualify), but would not want to [die] for the freedoms of those in other nations.
Dying for the freedoms of those in other nations is just as worthy a cause as dying for the freedoms of your countrymen. Do you only buy American cars and American made products? Whatâ??s the difference?
You think youâ??ll live in separate nations once you have â??ceased to existâ?? Theyâ??re all your brothers and sisters.
But itâ??s a moot point. The reason we are in Iraq has nothing to do with Democracy, and everything to do with Payback (justice).
Chris: I’m willing to pay the cost of my freedom, and those of other Americans, not Iraqi’s. I’m not willing to die so someone else can enjoy the freedom I gave up trying to win them theirs. Protecting freedom and creating it are 2 different things.
Iâ??d argue that Democracy in Iraq is a secondary goal (itâ??s irrelevant in my mind). American security is the primary objective.
Chris: [You are already are a â??pawnâ?. You are a slave you have simply failed to perceive it] You chose to follow the masses, not me, I spent time actually thinking about things beforehand without blindly following. You, my friend are the slave. Or better yet…sheep.
Do you know about the Great Shepardess?
She has a herd of Divine Sheep.
They are preyed upon by the Wolves.
But the Great Shepardess employees Dogs to protect the Sheep.
You see the Sheep, like the Great Shepardess are Vegitarians â?¦ Herbivores.
But the Dogs, like the Wolves, retain their carnivorous nature.
Of course the Wolves are fucking insane. Theyâ??ll eat anything. Shit, Iâ??ve even seen a Wolf eat another Wolf!
Chris: [Your problem is that you erroneously believe you possess â??free willâ? (closet-communist like everything for â??freeâ?)."]I do possess “free will”
No â?¦ you donâ??t.
Your problem is that you want to pretend you are “special”, seperate. That somehow you are not a part of this universe … this reality.
The behavior of atoms are completely controlled by the laws of physics (TLOP).
You are made of atoms and nothing else.
Ergo, YOU (your thoughts, actions, feelings, emotions) are completely controlled by TLOP.
Suppose I told you I had a movie of you entire life.
We could watch that film and laugh at all your crazy antics thus far.
But no matter how many times we watched that film, we arenâ??t going to see you do anything differently. Thatâ??s because all of your past actions are fixed. They are determined.
The same is true for all of your future actions. You just havenâ??t seen the film yet.
“No â?¦ I didnâ??t notice it. ”
That’s because obviously you still haven’t taken the time to read anything I’ve written.
“It must have been obscured by all of the Ad hominens and other numerous logical fallacies contained in your post?”
Find me one.
“You namby-pamby types believe the military should never be used regardless of the situation (unless of course, YOU are the one making the call).”
The purpose of the US military is to protect it’s borders and it’s citizens . I’ve read nothing about obligations to other nations in the Constitution.
“PLEASE HEAR IT THIS TIME WHEN I SAY THAT! HITLER did not attack us, other than when on his own soil or his own airspace.”
Hitler killed our citizens on non-military ships in international waters. Go back into your history book and read about a little ship named the Lusitania. His nation also declared war on us. Once again, read before you open your mouth. Germany and Japan also had a lot more in common than either do with Iraq.
“And like I said NONE of the Individuals who bombed Pearl Harbor were GERMANS!”
Read the paragraph above, open mouth, and insert foot. That’s called backing up an argument.
“So because burglars might break into your house you shouldnâ??t bother to defend yourself (ever)?”
Who said that? Not me. I think you need to go back and read a little of what I have written. If someone attacks(tries to rob) you, you defend yourself. There’s a reason in this country you can get away with hurting/killing someone else in self-defense, but not normally solely on what someone MAY intend to do. You seem to be promoting kicking everyone else’s ass, just in case they are a robber, so that they know not to screw with you.
“You mean there is only ONE POSSIBLE WAY to interpret the Constitution?
If that is True then why do we need the Supreme Court?”
Yes I do. The purpose of the Supreme court is to keep the executive and legislative branches from overstepping their bounderies by passing unconstituional legislation. They are supposed to interpret legislation, and see what is constituional, not interpret words that are written very clearly and bluntly. They’ve failed miserable over the past 100 years if it’s supposed to be their job to help protect American’s freedoms. The Constitution is written in plain English. It is not the works of Nostradamos. You want to change it and not pay attention to it? At least do it legally by ammending it instead of just pissing on it. The only parts of the constitution that should be open to interpretation are in terms of a fair trial, and what are considered cruel and unusal punishments.
“But I never argued that we should only kill â??a fewâ? terrorist. I am arguing that we should annihilate them ALL. To do so requires Energy. You seem to believe the problem will go away all on itâ??s own by â??magicâ?. All you need to do is pretend real hard.”
And all you’ll have to figure out is how to eliminate a small percentage of the muslim world to accomplish that. That should take plenty of magic. I believe that we should have avoided this problem in the first place, and should exhaust all non-violent strategies before just deciding to run in and kill people. We are in a position now that we must act against terrorists, but that does not mean that we should continue provoking new ones into existance.
“You naively believe that â??freedomâ? is actually â??freeâ? (without cost).”
Who ever said that either? I can pick out more than a few of my previous quotes that you obviously missed that say the opposite. There is a price I have to pay for my freedom. I know that very well. I don’t believe I should have to pay the cost of someone else’s.(another nation, not American) Try reading what I say, not what you want to. My words are not open to interpretation. They are exactly what I mean.
“I guess that is close as you will come to acknowledging a belief in Subjective morality (i.e. NO morality at all).”
I believe every citizen of this country should be able have and live by whatever morals they wish, as long as they don’t try to to make it law because they think they’re morals are better than mine.
“The majority does not support the â??War on Drugsâ?. If fact, whenever they are given the opportunity to vote on it, the majority has voted against the war on drugs.”
Than why do voter referendums often fail when dealing with legalizing marijuana? 90% of all of these prove you wrong.
“It depends upon whether or not your believe in Democracy or Communism.”
The United States is not a democracy, it is a Constituional Republic. Obviously you just answered my earlier question on whether or not you even had a clue.
“I never thought this would be a short conflict. And neither did Bush or Rumsfeld.”
No, but both have already said that they underestimated the situation.
“If the majority of Individuals in this country banded together and attempted to â??eliminate the Jewsâ? I suggest there is very little the minority would be able to do about it.”
Do you think that our law should allow it because the majority believes it? The Constitution and the little book of law that was in Hitler’s brain are set up a little bit differently. Read below about the type of government we have.
“You said that they only persist because of our assistance. [cause]
Ergo, without our assistance they (Israel) would â??cease to existâ? [effect]
But if you had your way we wouldnâ??t assist them.
Who is spinning what you said word-mangler?”
There’s a big difference between not helping someone and hurting them. How did I screw up there? Oh yeah, I didn’t, just another time you felt the need to grasp in the air for an argument. Should we help them…maybe, maybe not. I can’t get past the lack of authority we have to do so as provided by the Constitution. I hope Israel survives forever, but I will not ever die so that can happen, and will never ask anyone else to die in my place. By giving them money, you are forcing Americans to pay for them, and their freedoms, whether they want to or not.
“The purpose and goal of the majority is always more pure than those of the Individual. The Individual can benefit at the expense of the Majority by oppressing the majority. Whereas the majority only attempts to avoid oppression (by the Individual)”
You make this statement and call ME a closet communist!? Nazi’s believed exactly what you are describing. Thw Constitution was written to actually be correct, to control the power of the government over the people. Congress is in charge of seperate laws.
“Dying for the freedoms of those in other nations is just as worthy a cause as dying for the freedoms of your countrymen.”
Solely a matter of opinion.
“Do you only buy American cars and American made products? Whatâ??s the difference?”
The difference is that I’m having to pay to save everone else’s asses. If another country wants our protection, thye should pay us to do so. Once again, freedom can be free. Ask the Iraqis. They won’t end up paying us a dime back from what we spend to free them. Oh, and yes, I will only buy an American car. My Chevy S-10 is in the driveway right now. I’m not too picky about much else, since we’d figure it out here if we couldn’t get it from elsewhere.
“No â?¦ you donâ??t.
Your problem is that you want to pretend you are “special”, seperate. That somehow you are not a part of this universe … this reality.
The behavior of atoms are completely controlled by the laws of physics (TLOP).
You are made of atoms and nothing else.
Ergo, YOU (your thoughts, actions, feelings, emotions) are completely controlled by TLOP.
That’s one of the biggest loads of crap you’ve put in here..other than maybe that blabbering about divine sheep and wolves. If I had no free will, I’d be unable to make any decisions on my own, which is not the case. If everyone was put in the same situation, there would be many different possible emotions and reactions. TLOP controls what your brain has to interpret, but it is out ability to make different decisions and take different courses of action that proves that we have a free will. What you are talking about is destiny, which I don’t belive in.
“The same is true for all of your future actions. You just havenâ??t seen the film yet. ”
The fact that my future could be many different things is a sign of free will.
Would it make you happier to know that I am not an atheist? To be correct, I am an agnostic. I believe in God, but do not follow any religion. I believe that though it is full of contradictions, the Bible is a good lesson in morals, and it is what I base mine off of.
I have not mangled your words, if that is what you have been trying to imply. I invite you to show me an example, along with my “logical fallacies”. I make no assumption of what you mean, only read what you write. If you read what I write, you should not have a problem understanding it. Please now…no more uninformed historical quote, please. I’d hate to have to look up the names of all of the ships Hitler’s U-boats sank of ours before we went to war.
Chris: “The US Constitution tells me what my rights are, I don’t need to hear anyone else’s opinion to know what they say. All you have to do is take the time to read it.”
This is such a fundementally flawed argument that I question the sanity of all following reasoning. The Constitution should never be construed to define the rights of the individual, only to describe. This is so basic that it went without saying. Then apparently people like you got confused and we have Article X which be a clear indication of the mindset of the framers.
Wasn’t it you who said that the Constitution was written by white men for white men? They must have done such a good job, because you look to it yourself.
Chris:
“Go back into your history book and read about a little ship named the Lusitania.”
To keep us all honest, it is quite well established that Lusitania was sunk prior to WWI.
There are two warring personalities here who refuse to establish a common ground for any type of debate. Unfortunately it has degenerated to the point where each side takes its turn spinning the words of the other side, and then the opponent denies that spin is accurate, and soon the argument is over who is saying what, not over what the relative merits of the arguments involved actually are.
Let me just comment on this. You both seem to be capable minds. You’re both probably well-intentioned libertarians despite the escalating attempts to frame each other in various shades of extremism. There’s no reason that there can’t be an honest and rational discussion of the issues, but refusing to agree with each other about anything–at any cost, even denying that up is up or down is down for the sake of disagreement–is making for fistfight that entertaining but hardly rewarding.
Please, can we establish a common base of understanding? Can we at least agree on something? To concede a point is not to lose–to concede a point establishes common understanding, and in a long argument can be strategically crucial.
Can we not be so obstinate and disagreeable that we are soon denying that we said what we said or that it means what it means?
Hereâ??s your problem â?¦
Chris: If I had no free will, I’d be unable to make any decisions on my own, which is not the case.
Computer algorithms also make decisions on their own. Do computer programs require â??free willâ? to make those decisions?
Itâ??s obvious you have never really given this matter any thought. You are simply parroting the same nonsense you were originally mislead with yourself.
Chris: If everyone was put in the same situation, there would be many different possible emotions and reactions.
Actually every consciousness has the same exact algorithm at itâ??s core (MPB). The only difference is the database (of information (or â??experiencesâ?)) that a particular Graviton carries.
Chris: TLOP controls what your brain has to interpret â?¦
No â?¦ TLOP is the source of all your direct INPUTS (all your perceptions).
Chris: â?¦ but it is out ability to make different decisions and take different courses of action that proves that we have a free will.
The same computer algorithm operating with different datasets (different information) will make â??different decisionsâ? as well. Does that prove that computer algorithms also have â??free willâ??
Look, suppose we are in a laboratory somewhere, and I have two test tubes full of some chemicals (atoms), and I mix the contents of the test tubes into a beaker, and as a result I get a chemical reaction. Okay â?¦ so would you assert that the resulting chemical reaction was the product of â??free willâ? on the part of those atoms (those chemicals) or would it be more accurate to say that the chemical reaction was merely the result of atoms doing what atoms do naturally (i.e. atoms doing what TLOP programmed them to do)???
Can you explain why you believe the atoms comprising your physical brain operate any differently?
Chris: What you are talking about is destiny, which I don’t believe in.
Yes â?¦ I knew you would say that.
Serpent, do you believe in pre-determined destiny?
And concerning free will – if a person has many choices, even if the choices are pre-determined and the choices have various pre-determined consequences, then doesn’t he still possess free will since he does have to choose? Just curious about what your thoughts are on this… I’m pondering it myself.
Quantum particles do not behave deterministically, and eventually, all matter and energy is reduceable to quantum particles. They behave randomly–but along probability distribution curves. When it comes down to it, it is impossible to predict even what a single quantum particle will _definately_ (read: deterministically do in any particular situation.
Serpent, you’ve oversimplified the entire world into a classical interpretation of physics and computation that has long since been shattered by discoveries such as quantum mechanics, the incompleteness theorem, and computability theory.
You should stop championing computer programs as the pinnacle of knowledge and logic. First Goedel proved that for any mathematical system more powerful than a certain threshold (which happens to be arithmetic with natural numbers), there are formulas that are true that cannot be proven (i.e. a proof derivation cannot be given from the axioms, and adding more axioms will never prove every true statement). What Turing developed was a generalized model of computation that he soon proved could never be powerful enough to decide all questions–there is a large and rich class of problems where it is just infeasible to compute a solution, to do so is a mathematical contradiction.
The hope of expressing perfectly the human brain as a computer program has long since faded from the dreams of computer scientists. How can a machine with perfect memory, vast computational power to crank through complicated logic mimic something as fickle, short-sighted, and amnesia-dogged as a human? But of course, the problem is not necessarily one of expression, but continually wrecks itself on the shores of undecidability.
Mathematics is so deep and rich, so perfect and logical, but the incompleteness theorem found its limits–there are infinitely many mathematical statements that are true that cannot be proven to be true based on the axioms, and cannot be proven to not be false, or be false.
Ms. Dani.: Serpent, do you believe in pre-determined destiny?
Yes.
(although our perception of Time may be somewhat different.)
Ms. Dani.: And concerning free will – if a person has many choices, even if the choices are pre-determined and the choices have various pre-determined consequences, then doesn’t he still possess free will since he does have to choose? Just curious about what your thoughts are on this… I’m pondering it myself.
True â??free willâ? can only exist when Solipsism is True (i.e. when there is only one consciousness in all existence).
Solipsism was true in the distant past, but it is not true in the present.
This creates a situation that you might perceive as â??shared Omnipotenceâ?, or â??shared Omniscienceâ?. Power is like a Torch. From moment to moment it passes from consciousness to consciousness.
Although some consciousnesses hold the Torch longer, or more often than others.
“To keep us all honest, it is quite well established that Lusitania was sunk prior to WWI.”
Good call out…and now is a good time for this to end.
I like your nick.
dvision: Quantum particles do not behave deterministically, and eventually, all matter and energy is reducible to quantum particles.
You are wrong. All of Reality (including Quantum Mechanics) is entirely deterministic.
Albert Einstein: The Goddess does not play dice with Reality.
dvision: They behave randomly–but along probability distribution curves. When it comes down to it, it is impossible to predict even what a single quantum particle will _definitely_ (read: deterministically do in any particular situation).
Were you aware that recent experiments demonstrate that BOTH the position and velocity of a sub-atomic (i.e. Quantum) particle can be deduced at levels far below what Heisenberg asserted was possible (even in theory)? Of course thus far this has only been accomplished for particles in the past (the position and velocity is determined by examining images of particle collisions, after the fact).
But you tell me â?¦ how many times has the Stochastic nature of quantum mechanics caused you to â??randomlyâ? and uncontrollably run a RED traffic light? How often does 2 + 2 not equal 4?
dvision: Serpent, you’ve oversimplified the entire world into a classical interpretation of physics and computation that has long since been shattered by discoveries such as quantum mechanics, the incompleteness theorem, and computability theory.
Kurt Godel was a member of the same sect of Deism that I belong to.
And I have never met an Atheist who genuinely understood the Incompleteness theorem.
dvision: You should stop championing computer programs as the pinnacle of knowledge and logic. First Goedel proved that for any mathematical system more powerful than a certain threshold (which happens to be arithmetic with natural numbers), there are formulas that are true that cannot be proven (i.e. a proof derivation cannot be given from the axioms, and adding more axioms will never prove every true statement).
More or less.
What Godel says is that if you have a formal system (and all computer languages, including binary, are variations of formal systems) that there are propositions within the system which are either True or False, yet cannot be proven using the core axioms of that system.
All formal systems are incomplete.
Okay, but once you find such an anomaly (a â??Godel sequenceâ? (or Godel sentence)) you can correct the current system by adding a new axiom. Assuming the original formal system was X1, the new axiom creates a new formal system (lets call it X2). System X2 is more complete than X1, but system X2 is still Incomplete. Eventually it will be replaced with system X3, and then so on â?¦
dvision: What Turing developed was a generalized model of computation that he soon proved could never be powerful enough to decide all questions–there is a large and rich class of problems where it is just infeasible to compute a solution, to do so is a mathematical contradiction.
Turing never addressed the question of whether or not a â??Halting Problemâ? existed for the Human Consciousness?
The fact is they do. They are sometimes referred to as H-Moebius loops. You get stuck in one and your sanity will melt like butter in the hot Sun.
dvision: The hope of expressing perfectly the human brain as a computer program has long since faded from the dreams of computer scientists. How can a machine with perfect memory, vast computational power to crank through complicated logic mimic something as fickle, short-sighted, and amnesia-dogged as a human? But of course, the problem is not necessarily one of expression, but continually wrecks itself on the shores of undecidability.
The problem is that the Materialists have no idea of what exactly the difference is between something that is ALIVE, and something that is NOT ALIVE.
Are atoms alive?
How about the atoms in your brain?
If your atoms have no more â??free willâ? than the atoms of the Moon, then what makes you certain you are more alive than the Moon is?
dvision: Mathematics is so deep and rich, so perfect and logical, but the incompleteness theorem found its limits–there are infinitely many mathematical statements that are true that cannot be proven to be true based on the axioms, and cannot be proven to not be false, or be false.
Iâ??d remind you that Logic (Logos) is the more primitive cousin of Mathematics.
In other words, you need to have Logic before you can have Mathematics.
Serpent, in my observation, the difference between a “living” and non-living thing is the soul that inhabits it. This has to be. If it were not so, then we ARE all just a bunch of atoms that have lots of actions and reactions but no determination, yes?