JayB

Reverse optimization of the asset allocation problem. Perfection.

Insanity.

Perfectly well- in so many words I stated that human nature is the desire and control of everything. That is what the human ego wants, craves. Over centuries, most cultures have begun to develop more tolerant attitudes that curb this desire into more passive/aggressive manners of pursuing that gratification, of hiding it's true aims. The difference is that Islamic culture is centuries behind and is still steeped in openly aggressive, angry, violent action to simply take what you want. It's very childish indeed but the danger of it in adult minds has been demonstrated. And the fact that, as you pointed out, terrorist attacks are not limited to being against Americans and American interests, indicates that this isn't just the US vs. Islam. The ego of the Islamist wants everything, right now, therefore everyone is expendable. The thing is, it's no different with any other humans except that societal influences in most other cultures have directed this impulse into less violent means. On relative terms, maybe so. If you were a teenager in Iraq, what's the likelihood you would see Americans as invaders and occupiers? If you were an American colonist, what's the likelihood you would see the British as oppressors? If you were an English nobleman in the 1700's what's the likelihood you'd see the American colonists as rebellious, traitorous scum? It's called relativity. Your status as an American today makes it seem unthinkable that the American colonists were in the wrong. I'm not suggesting they are or aren't, just that one's perceptions are relative. So what about Islam? I personally think the tenets of fundamentalist Islamic doctrine, and much of the culture that is results from it, is reprehensible and completely unacceptable and ill suited to the formation of a peaceful society. But even the most moderate person brought up in Islamic society would have a view of it that is comparatively relative. You keep bringing up "moral equivalence". Well, most Christians as well as Islamists would condemn one for having out of wedlock sex. I don't think there is anything wrong with it at all, in fact I think religious repression of sexuality is one of the strangest and most neurotic parts of organized religion. Everyone, myself included, is convinced their morality on this issue is, well, the most "moral". So which one is righteous? You cannot answer this without consulting your own prejudices. Unless you've picked sides according to your prejudices, how much difference is there exactly? My hypothetical observers would surely see thousands of German citizens who were powerless (individually if not collectively) to stop Hitler's policies being incinerated by American bombs. America was in the right- but only within the paradigm of humanity's inability to advance beyond their ill manners of relationship and lack of understanding of their own egos and minds- manipulation, possession, acquisition, oppression- that breed such conflicts in the first place. We clearly aren't advanced enough to have done anything differently, but this resistance to even discussing these flaws- aided interminably by our mindless identification with nationalism, patriotism, and- surprise!- our religions, and helped further along by manipulative people in power who seek even greater power, certainly helps perpetuate our stumbling from one conflict to another. Obviously not. But would it be any different if they manifested those grievances by becoming politically active in their country and working to incite a nationalist war against the US someday, using patriotism to whip their citizens into an anti-US frenzy? Are bombs with a country's name on them being dropped on the US 'morally equivalent' to an Islamic woman with a name and address detonating herself on the Space Mountain roller coaster? Is it this "personal touch" that disturbs people so much? I appreciate the thoughtful responses. I'm familiar with moral relativism, and accept that people's circumstances condition their perspective to a large extent. Accepting that this is true doesn't mean that I have to concede that the particular framework through which any particular actor perceives a particular event is by default - by the fact of its very existence - either as moral or as legitimate as any other perspective held by any other observer. Geoffrey Dahmer may not have been capable of making a moral distinction between his actions and those of the Donner Party, but that doesn't render the distinction between eating the flesh of the dead in order to survive, and murder to gratify a perversion any less real or absolute. The fact that both George Washington and Osama bin Laden employed violent means in an effort to secure certain political ends doesn't render the distinctions between the types of violence they employed, their targets, or their ends any less meaningful or absolute. That's all. As far as the War of Independence is concerned, I am actually quite sympathetic to the English case. I do think it was reasonable to tax the colonies in order to support the expenses associated with defending the border, that the English colonial rule in the colonies was both generous and lax by the standards of the time, and that on the whole the British troops acted with an admirable degree of civility and restraint throughout the conflict. One can look at both Canada and Australia and see quite clearly that a continuation of British rule would have hardly been detrimental to the rights or liberties of the subjects, and may well have brought about the end of slavery in the US in 1834 instead of 1863, and prevented the civil war or anything like it from occurring. Having said all of that, pretending that either the means employed by the colonists or the ends that they were persuing render them the moral equivalents of the contemporary jihadists is indefensible in any sane or rational moral framework. ................................................................. 5d7Ms48DQX0

One could also consider the cases of Japan and Germany, both in terms of the tactics used to win the conflicts, and in terms of the presence of an occupying force for years after the conflict, and permanent bases....

I disagree with this simply because I don't see this happening. I see a lot of people blaming themselves for inciting what is being brought down on our heads. You don't see it? What's happening is both one and the other- either one blames Islam entirely for the conflict, or blames America and wallows in self loathing. Both are short sighted and not seeing the bigger picture. Do you suppose if some intelligent alien without bias or knowledge of human history came to Earth and observed the goings on, they would intuitively see a peace loving USA being mercilessly attacked by a group of savage, foreign invaders who adhere to a intolerant, violently oppressive and psychotic religious doctrine? Or might they see the world's richest and most powerful country, one which enjoys the sole privelege of maintaining standing armies and bases in foreign countries all over the world, one which uses it's economic might to dictate if not coerce many countries into operating in particular ways favorable to it, one which- forcibly or not- also exerts overt cultural influence upon most other cultures, being attacked by a group of savage, foreign invaders who adhere to a intolerant, violently oppressive and psychotic religious doctrine? Viewed that way, one might conclude that the nature of humans is violent conflict and a perpetual need to control everything and everyone around them. The fact that one culture happens to have particular aspects that are more modern and enlightened and tolerant and compassionate is all relative, since that same culture also happens to currently have all the power and control. This country was founded by people who rebelled against an occupying government and a culture from which they wanted separation- in other words, it came about through an insurgency that required what today's pundits if placed in 1700's England would deem "terrorism". Focusing on fragmented details ignores the examination of humanity as a whole. Since most have no patience for an objective examination of humanity, the most common reaction then is to say "that's human nature, can't change it". At which point one gives up and resigns that nothing can be changed, therefore, one chooses sides in the conflict according to one's prejudice and soldiers on, ensuring a continuation of the status quo. Which leads us back to my original point- it's all their fault! 1. How well does this address terrorist attacks that aren't directed against the US? 2. Is there a direct equivalence between the violence employed by the American colonists and modern jihadists to advance their particular ends? 3. Are all ends furthered by violent means morally equivalent to one another? Both the allies and the Germans used mass-bombings of civilian population centers as part of the tactics that they employed in an effort to secure victory? Did that render the Allies and the Axis powers morally equivalent to one another, and the outcome a matter of indifference? Would your hypothetical observers look at the two sides, see them bombing each others cities, and conclude that any moral distinctions between the two sides were rendered mute by the use of equally horrible tactics? 4. People from all over the world are affected by American power. Are all people from all cultures equally likely to manifest their grievances by plotting to detonate themselves in midtown Manhattan or Disneyland?

1. Only part of the discussion at hand has been concerned with suicide bombings. Are poverty and desperation behind honor killings, forced marriage, etc? 2. If we transition from the general and abstract to the real and concrete and look at who is actually engaging in what, how well does the notion that all people of all cultures who encounter a particular set of hardships are equally likely to respond with suicide bombings - irrespective of their religion or culture? And how true is it that those who do engage in this act have necessarily been driven to do so by either material hardships or extremes of political repression that have no analogue anywhere else in the globe or throughout history? Does the intensity and distribution of suicide violence correlate perfectly with either poverty or repression? If not - how do you explain this? How well does the existence of suicide terrorists who were neither poor, nor uneducated, nor subject to political repression fit into this scheme? How tough are things for the immigrants in Denmark who were plotting to murder the cartoonist compared to, say, the hundreds of thousands of desperately poor, HIV-infected people living in a Sowetto slum? I'm willing to concede that as repression and deprivation increase, so does desperation - and a certain amount of violence grows out of that. It's not the Brazilian street-kids or Haitan boat-people that are detonating themselves in discos, though, is it? Why do you think this is the case?

Translation: "If you criticize me or my positions, then you are by default a racist/sexist/etc/etc/etc/etc-ist and you can't sincerely count yourself as a supporter of cause X, Y, or Z unless you agree with me on both the ends and the means." Or.. "You say that you are *against* forced marriages and genital mutilation, but you were *opposed* to strict title-9 parity in collegiate athletics..." Righto.

"Or are you suggesting that the major actors (the US government) are doing something about it and should be supported?" Whether or not you agree with the current foreign policy initiatives undertaken by the US at this or any other point in history can be separated from the question of whether or not you: 1)Conclude that suicide attacks on civilians, honor killings, etc, etc, etc are manifestations of an inexcusable barbarism 2)Think its clear that these actions are perpetrated by very devout Muslims who are certain that their actions find sanction in either the Koran/Hadith, or the religious authorities. The same holds true for those who extend their tacit support to these practices. One couldn't be opposed to both the invasion of Iraq *and* Muslims who believe that any of the practices that have come under criticism here are either required of or consistent with their understanding of Islam? "As usual, the most vehement defenders of women’s liberty on this board in the Islamic context are also those most likely to denounce as kooks, commies, and parlor Marxists those raising the issues of racial and gender equality, violence against women and human rights in other contexts. While I don’t know that one must condemn and criticize everything in order to criticize and condemn one thing, some consistency on this point would lead one to believe that those people were something more than hypocritical opportunists." One can't be simultaneously opposed to Marxists, or believe that their views on any number of topics are profoundly mistaken at best - and support racial and gender equality? Neither logic nor the evidence provide any support for the arguments you've put forth here.

Lo0fTa8v-XQ

I hope that you won't take this the wrong way, but from my long-distance arm-chair, it looked like your route had objective hazards on par with "Reality Bath," and that for large stretches of the route anyone attempting to climb it would run the risk of getting pulped by a serac fall. I wasn't there, have never been on the mountain, let alone the route - so am I seriously off base here?

Here's a statement I'll make clear for you: it's precisely pricks like you (and the politicians you support) on both sides that have lead us to the current warfare in the Middle East. Most folks, 'Them', and 'Us', are cool, and just want to be left alone. Along come 'you pricks', who point to 'them', and say, "what a bunch of assholes; it's fundamental to their religion". Clear enough? Fucking prick. Ad Yawninem. I'll add that you are the first person I look to for carefully constructed and nuanced critiques of religious doctrine. What puzzles me is the fact that you make no such concessions on behalf of fundamentalist or born-again Christians. No tortured pleading that the folks who sanction violence against doctors who perform abortions, no nuanced consideration of the larger sociopolitical currents that may have conditioned the beliefs of the opponents of gay marriage, no labored rhetorical chiaroscuro employed on behalf of the belief system that supports the creationist outlook. Yet we see this reflexive bristling at the very idea that the doctrines within Islam, the imams who interpret it, the convictions of those who behave in what they believe to be strict accordance with its dictates - have any essential connection with the set of ideas that constitutes the faith. What gives? And what response do you have - can you have? - to the people who were either born into or converted to Islam and have since renounced it, and who have submitted critiques of Islam that far exceed anything that I've put forth? Clearly, even if one were to accept the proposition that you've extended: that one cannot take a position on say, the jizya, unless one is a Muslim - which is a transparent absurdity that simply can't be defended, we're still left with this question. What about the infinitely greater number of people who live in majority Muslim states that are born into the faith and have to choose between suffering quietly or the very real prospect of *true* martyrdom for speaking, acting, or living in a manner that contradicts the doctrines of the Koran or the prerogatives of Sharia as they are understood by, and which largely govern, the societies that they live in? If you choose to respond, I hope that you can muster something more compelling than what you've put forth here.

"Blooop...Bloooop.....Blooop.......BOOOM." Irony meter going critical after a disciple of Marx makes this statement....

Do proceed to flesh out the "Are you a member of X? No? Then you are in no position to critique the doctrines of X or those who find sanction for their conduct within them" argument. Failing that, straighten out those pesky apostates who *clearly* knew nothing about the religion that they've left behind.

"I reject the moral pretense used to justify blatant aggression if only because these very same people waging the wars are opposed to even paying lip service to racial/gender equality and human rights in any other context except the muslim one." 1)You seem to be equating criticism and condemnation with aggression. 2)Even if one accepts your closing proposition at face value (who is the one doing the essentializing here, exactly?), this argument seems to rest on something along the lines of "Anyone who fails to support living wage legislation is in *no* position to condemn honor-killings, forced marriage, or suicide bombings." Or do I misunderstand your line of reasoning here? 3. Minor Anecdote. "However, by 1783 America became solely responsible for the safety of its own commerce and citizens with the end of the Revolution. Without the means or the authority to field a naval force necessary to protect their ships in the Mediterranean, the nascent U.S. government took a pragmatic, but ultimately self-destructive route. In 1784, the United States Congress allocated money for payment of tribute to the Barbary pirates. Use for the money came in 1785, when the Dey of Algiers took two American ships hostage and demanded US$60,000 in ransom for their crews. Then-ambassador to France Thomas Jefferson argued that conceding the ransom would only encourage more attacks ("Millions For Defense, Not One Cent For Tribute"). His objections fell on the deaf ears of an inexperienced American government too riven with domestic discord to make a strong show of force overseas. The U.S. paid Algiers the ransom, and continued to pay up to $1 million per year over the next 15 years for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. Payments in ransom and tribute to the privateering states amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800. Jefferson continued to argue for cessation of the tribute, with rising support from George Washington and others. With the recommissioning of the American navy in 1794 and the resulting increased firepower on the seas, it became more and more possible for America to say "no", although by now the long-standing habit of tribute was hard to overturn. In 1786 Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves. Jefferson reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress: The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven." If the invocations to violence, the punishments meted out in Sharia courts etc find no sanction in either the Koran or the Hadith - from where to they come, and are those who invoke them in the present mistaken in their sincere belief that they are acting in accordance with the perogatives of their faith? If Qutb was articulating sentiments that were completely antithetical to the various traditions of Islam, how does one explain their resonance in his time, and during the present? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

Stats from the Pew Global Survey Note that the stats in the first table don't include the "sometimes/rarely" and "never" stats...

It is possible that those in the theoretical majority who would otherwise engage in the above mentioned protestations against fundamentalist violence refrain from doing so for fear they might be KILLED IN THE STREETS by the "deluded minority"? That's one possible explanation, but it's difficult to apply to the millions of Muslims who live in states where the state security apparatus would not permit such retributions.

"We are apostates of Islam. We denounce Islam as a false doctrine of hate and terror. However we are not against Muslims who are our own kin and relatives. We do not advocate hate and violence. Muslims are the main victims of Islam. Our goal is to educate them and let them see the truth. We are against Islam and not the Muslims. We strive to bring the Muslims into the fold of humanity. Eradicate Islam so our people can be liberated, so they can prosper and break away from the pillory of Islam. We would like to see Islamic countries dedicate more time to science and less time to Quran and Sharia. We would like to see them prosper and contribute to human civilization. We would like to see the draconian laws of Islam eliminated and people are treated humanely. We strive for freedom of beliefs, for equality of gender and for oneness of mankind. Mankind’s biggest challenge: Today the humanity is facing a great danger. Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise and the hatred is brewing in the minds of millions of Muslims. This hatred must be contained or there would be disastrous consequences. We believe that the education is the only answer. Muslim intellectuals must realize that Islam is a false doctrine and they must let the rest of Islamic world know the truth. Islam is a religion that thrives on the arrogant assumption that it is the most logical, the most scientific and the most perfect religion. While the fact is that it is the stupidest doctrine — the most backward and absurd belief. Once the truth about Islam becomes common knowledge, it will be weakened and the Islamic fanaticism will lose its fangs. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being expended to combat Islamic terrorism, yet no effort is made to contain the ideology behind this terrorism. It is our belief that Islamic terrorism will not be eliminated unless and until the ideology behind it is exposed and eradicated. This is what we intend to do." If one accepts Tvash's ludicrous proposition, then we are still left with the matter of what argument to employ against these folks. http://www.apostatesofislam.com/index.htm

is bigoted nonsense, and inconsistent with your subsequent statements you'd last less than a week in an islamic theocracy Do you ever just shut the fuck up? It's funny how these Islam threads never have a single Muslim participant...just a bunch of stupid fucking white morons who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground regarding that topic. "Oh, but I've read a lot about it..." The notion that you have to be an observant member of any particular faith in order to evaluate the doctrines of the said faith, or the conduct of those who claim to be acting in accordance with its principles is some of the more inspired idiocy that I've encountered in quite a while. Bravo. "Were *you* and orthodox Catholic Spanish Inquisitor in the 15th century church? NO? That's what I thought..."

If the people waging jihad represent a deluded minority who are acting in absolute contravention of the central tennets of the Muslim faith, why is it that we have seen scores of demonstrations around the world in response to the publication of a cartoon depicting their prophet, but no such demonstrations against those who have besmirched their faith by invoking it to justify their threats and violence? How about marches against suicide violence in which the mistaken few invoke their religion to deliberately slaughter as many civilians as possible? Do you reckon that the fact that the folks who have plotted this particular atrocity represent some indeterminate "non-majority" of the faithful provides much comfort either for the people who are on the wrong end of the death threats for violating Muslim taboos, or to those who wish to do so without living in fear for their lives? Moreover the people committing these deliberate atrocities - like the Taliban, like the Wahhabis - seem to be quite sincere in their belief that it is they, not the moderates, who are both living and acting in the most strict accordance with the perogatives of their faith? How do you know that they are incorrect?

Cynical Pinnacle. Wunsch's Dihedral or Center route? How about that thing on the slabby section bit above turf spreader to the right of the center route? Think it's called "The Abortion" or something like that in Hubbell's book.

Where in the hell is the "Smoke Crack and Worship Satan" autosig? This kid is astonishing. I'll never be able to verify it myself, but I'd wager that 5.11 trad is waaay closer to 4th class than it is to 5.15.....

I recall reading a couple of studies a while ago that showed that the net public revenue yield from smokers was positive. The findings were that the taxes that they paid on their cigarettes plus the Social Security contributions that they made, but never collected due to early mortality outweighed any excess health costs that they imposed on the system....

I know that it was the National Guard troops that enforced the law in this case, I'm just not sure if there's a formal process in place for doing so - or if it's something that gets done by state or federal decree.

Hopefully a few progressive towns will up the ante and allow Firemen to choose which burning buildings they turn their hoses on based upon what they think of the occupants' and/or their politics.

That does raise the question of who has the authority to enforce the law when the local police department refuses to do so. County Sherriff ---> State Patrol------> Feds? If George Wallace was still around, I'm sure he'd know.