Action Against a War

[sk]

chucK said:

G-Dawg,

For a good laugh down the line, I suggest you print out what you just wrote. Put it away somewhere you're likely to find when your kids are like 5 years old .

 

I was soooooooo going to say something like that. But I didn't want to burst his bubble

[iain]

chucK said:

G-Dawg,

For a good laugh down the line, I suggest you print out what you just wrote. Put it away somewhere you're likely to find when your kids are like 5 years old .

He'll be the only one laughing when his kids are making the big bucks with the Army Corps of Engineers juggernaut with all that lincoln log and dirt moving experience, while your kids are singing barney tunes and saying things like undisclosed location.

[chucK]

Iain,

Children are not things to be molded. They are people to be unfolded!

[sk]

iain said:

chucK said:

G-Dawg,

For a good laugh down the line, I suggest you print out what you just wrote. Put it away somewhere you're likely to find when your kids are like 5 years old .

He'll be the only one laughing when his kids are making the big bucks with the Army Corps of Engineers juggernaut with all that lincoln log and dirt moving experience, while your kids are singing barney tunes and saying things like undisclosed location.

 

I had a friend in school who was not allowed to watch tv. It did not stop her from being a welfare mom.

[Dru]

i'm 30 yrs old and i still don't own a tv. no welfare yet! but i read 6 books a week, when its raining outside anyways... 900 pages in last 4 days.

[sk]

exactly my point Dru. It is far more about the individual person

 

unfolded, not molded. I like that ChucK

[chucK]

So I guess you don't watch "24" then huh? I thought for sure you did because there was scene this season where the "hero" hacksaws off the head of an alleged child molester .

Edited February 17, 2003 by chucK

[Dru]

no and i didnt see the simpsons 300 episode spectacular either.

 

simpsons and discovery channel are the only good TV i have ever seen... i like that discovery channel, david attenborogh narrating as hyenas lick each others balls, and a wildebeest gets eaten alive. you want kids to know what life is REALLY like show em the serengeti!

[iain]

I was just making a joke. I was raised on sesame street, 321 contact, electric company, mr rogers land of the weird, square one, muppet show, plenty of tv.

[chucK]

PBS kids is the BOMB!!!

 

Sure your kids are turned into brainless zombies, but at least they are nice PC brainless instead of toy-commercial crazed lunatics!

[PullinFool]

Continuing with the thread drift...

 

Not one who watches much TV, CSI is the bomb! I'm as hooked on it as I am CC Spray...

 

[sexual_chocolate]

Scientific thought is an ideology like any other, it's main selling point being that it uses methods that are supportable by testing, which was exactly the point I made about why verifiability is more important than worrying about someone seeing past an ideology. If you can attack FW's verfiability great, attempting to claim his points are invalid merely because he has an ideology isn't a very good argument, since that factor is common to every observer.

 

You are absolutely correct, and that's why I made the comment about Fairweather. His anti-socialist slant runs so strong that he can't even assess the facts surrounding many issues. This issue in particular was the legitimacy of Hugo Chavez' presidency. I consider his presidency to be entirely legitimate, based on all the information I have gleaned from various sources; Fairweather considers his presidency illegitimate, based on what I can only assume to be ideological differences. Fairweather seems to be concerned only with the fact that Chavez is more of a socialist than he would like, while ignoring the larger context of Chavez' legal standing. Observing this type of behaviour repeatedly allows me to make the claim that I did-namely-that Fairweather cannot see past his ideology. Only because Fairweather's arguments were scientifically unverifiable or observable was I able to make the assertion I did.

 

 

Why is it you don't take Fairweather's theories into account, after all you seem to dismiss them wholesale as you accuse him of. What standard must he, or I, use in order to show "taking them into account" is in operation? Surely one doesn't need to agree with them, for them to be considered taken into account.

 

See above for refutation.

 

The fact that I tend to disagree with Fairweather's philosophy and/or demagoguery has nothing to do with the facts regarding a particular case. I think I argued this quite clearly in my refutation of his views regarding Chavez.

 

 

 

 

I find it difficult to believe bad people cause good ones or vice versa, the existence of opposites may allow one to see that they are different from each other, but this doesn't extend to causation of same.

 

This is an interesting topic for me.

I would actually venture forth the idea that indeed "bad" does cause "good", and vice-versa. First of all, as you say, there needs to exist both nodes for reference; without "bad", we'd have no idea what "good" was, at least in any meaningful way. Morality as modifier of human behaviour would cease to exist (not without its own perils!).

So in this context, I'd say that human behaviour is certainly modified by both the signifier ("good" or "bad"), as well as the signified (the action denoted by the signifier). The pressures a humanoid faces when growing up in any society are almost entirely defined by codified expectancies inherent in the dualities presented by the "good" vs. "bad" schema that all culture has as its backbone. If this can be accepted, then we must accept that "good" causes "bad", and "bad" causes "good"; otherwise we must deny the reality of culture itself, a rather heady proposition!

 

Problem number one.. you are not accounting for different interpretations of justice. When Osama figures justice means killing non believers, and I don't, we both believe in justice yet have vastly different beliefs in what constitutes it. If you are unwilling to decide there is a standard for good or bad, you are likewise then unable to make any discernment between these differing standards for justice, so on that level I guess you can say all seek justice and therefore all are equal. I don't subscribe to this however.

 

I believe Osama would be in full agreement with Plato's views on justice.

 

 

You're trying to say FW won't consider other views because it makes him uncomfortable to think of himself in the role of enemy. I'm pointing out there are all kinds of people who consider me there enemy, and lots of people who think cops are the enemy, and it can be considered without any discomfort whatsoever.

 

I think we simply need to ask him:

 

Hey Fairweather, are you uncomfortable thinking of yourself in the role of your enemy?

 

 

The relativism you appear to be touching on, the existence of many views seemingly meaning none is actually valid in an absolute way, the way in which viewing oneself as enemy is uncomfortable thus viewpoints espousing this cannot be validly considered, it's all part of a piece where everything is the same as everything else.

 

If you've claimed the multiplicity of views and lack of good or bad people as a standard by which people cannot be judged, you have no basis to judge anyone here at home either, and no basis to compel others to follow your social norms.

 

Any person alive has their own ideology, and for some reason you'll credit people in one place the right to maintain their own views and actions, while people in another must subscribe to some of yours, and all the while say there are no bad people, that everyone ascribes to the platonic ideal. Why do those thousands of miles away get the benefits of your philosophical largess and unwillingness to impose your standards, yet those right by you do not?

 

I kinda like "Do unto others...."

[MtnGoat]

"it appears, this administration has the dubious dinstinction of causing the largest protests in history ...."

 

When the "cause" is seen as the US, instead of the guy with all the nasties who can end this issue in any given second with his compliance, all it shows us is there is a record number of folks completely out of touch with reality.

 

 

[PullinFool]

MtnGoat said:

When the "cause" is seen as the US, instead of the guy with all the nasties who can end this issue in any given second with his compliance, all it shows us is there is a record number of folks completely out of touch with reality.

 

That seems rather simplistic, considering there are many more issues involved here:

1. religious jihad

2. cultural monopoly

3. political cowboyism

4. personal vendettas

and probably others I haven't thought of.

 

[j_b]

"darn natives! if only they did what they are told, we would not have to kill them"

[JayB]

 

So political repression is wrong, unless practiced by avowed socialist.

 

I used to be astonished at the Left's defening silence concerning the wholesale slaughters perpetrated by Lenin/Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al - but it's beome clear that to many in what passes for the Left these days, both the interests and the lives of "The People" are in fact considerably less important than the well-being of the ideology that they are being sacrificed on behalf of.

[j_b]

"if only we could turn this into another cold war, that would be enough to justify anything we might do (life was good back then, we did not have to justify our actions before the fact)"

[trish_fox]

Bin Laden Appears to be Winning

 

It looks to me like the goals of Osama are being carried out.

The people of America are very frightened.

 

When there is a difference of opinion between America and America's allies Osama steps up to the plate and hits a home run with just an audio tape. Divide and conquer. Cause Americans to cower in fear.

 

What are we afraid of?

The 9/11/2001 acts caused 3,000 deaths.

 

We have over 30,000 firearm related deaths with over 12,000 of them Murder Every year.

 

We have over 41,000 traffic related deaths with over 15,000 of them alcohol related fatalities Every year.

 

In order to "Protect" Americans this administration has enacted legislation and Executive decrees that reduce the freedoms enjoyed by Americans. This is just what Osama wants.

 

If we are to have a free and open society we will have to put the fear away. Put the attacks in perspective and move on with our lives.

Are you so scared of Osama you are willing to give the Federal Government the amount of control over your day to day activities they ask in order to protect you from him?

 

I'm not scared of Osama. I resist the drumbeat of fear coming from the media and from Washington.

 

[glacierdog]

No shit. I think if anything, 9/11 should be a wake up call. The borders between nations are less signifigant than ever before. There will be more acts of terrorism in the United States. That is a certainty. Let's have a rally for Operation Enduring Freedom.

[PullinFool]

glacierdog said:

No shit. I think if anything, 9/11 should be a wake up call. The borders between nations are less signifigant than ever before. There will be more acts of terrorism in the United States. That is a certainty. Let's have a rally for Operation Enduring Freedom.

 

That brings up an interesting point:

Do we really expect to be a part of a global community, and yet avoid the blowback from those that don't agree with our cultural monopoly perspective?

that seems unrealistic...

[sexual_chocolate]

JayB said:

 

So political repression is wrong, unless practiced by avowed socialist.

 

I used to be astonished at the Left's defening silence concerning the wholesale slaughters perpetrated by Lenin/Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al - but it's beome clear that to many in what passes for the Left these days, both the interests and the lives of "The People" are in fact considerably less important than the well-being of the ideology that they are being sacrificed on behalf of.

 

Whatcha talking 'bout, Jay? Ya talking 'bout the strike, or sumpthin'?

[MtnGoat]

"That seems rather simplistic, considering there are many more issues involved here"

 

Not everything is overweeningly complex, no matter how personally satisfying it is to some to appear as masters of nuance and complexity, instead of actually getting a job done.

 

The issue is quite straightforward. Saddam has violated the terms of his ceasefire and should be held to account for it.

 

As for the other complexities:

 

1. religious jihad: What murderous fanatics believe cannot be ameliorated by the actions of those they already hate enough to kill. They believe in their culture of death every bit as much, and as fervently, as you believe anything in your culture, if not moreso.

 

Our failure to deal with this *and* recognize that in their view, non response is not a desire for coexistence, or peace, but the moral weakness of the infidel, emboldens them, as we've amply seen and are now already in the process of ignoring, all over again.

 

2. cultural monopoly: There are zillions of cultures to choose from. No one forces anyone to drink coca cola and watch the simpsons dubbed into whatever language. If this and more is popular, it's because they like it. People complaining about cultural monopolism ought to be taking into account that each individual chooses what to value on their own terms. The French battle with words they don't like, entering their lexicon anyway, shows the futility of trying to force culture from the top down instead of accepting that it grows from the bottom up.

 

3. political cowboyism: If being committed to a point of view is cowboyism, so be it.

 

4. personal vendettas: The weakest of the bunch. There are ample reasons to take the actions we are comtemplating over and above any level of vendetta.

 

 

 

[MtnGoat]

"but it's beome clear that to many in what passes for the Left these days, both the interests and the lives of "The People" are in fact considerably less important than the well-being of the ideology that they are being sacrificed on behalf of. "

 

Clearer than usual, that's for sure. After all, the entire ideology of the left is not based in respecting "the people" as individuals, but only as a mass to be used to gain specific end goals regardless of the wishes of the individuals they claim to represent. Your life and wants are held to be subservient to their social goal driven ideals, ending this or that ill by direction from above. Our role as tools to be used supercedes our personal desires to have our *own* values, beliefs, and actions.

[MtnGoat]

"We have over 30,000 firearm related deaths with over 12,000 of them Murder Every year."

 

Since the vast majority are suicides, the individual themself has made the choice to do these acts to themselves. As for the murders, these are already illegal and pursued by authorities the same as we pursue the murderers who perpetrated 9-11 and their allies.

 

"We have over 41,000 traffic related deaths with over 15,000 of them alcohol related fatalities Every year."

 

Every single person knows the risks of having the freedom to drive, and the alcohol related fatalities are already prosecuted.

 

"Are you so scared of Osama you are willing to give the Federal Government the amount of control over your day to day activities they ask in order to protect you from him? "

 

Are we so scared of liberty that some demand more and more control over our daily lives, over what we eat, what we put into our bodies, who we hire, who we buy from or sell to, and on and on and on? The answer there is yes. If we're concerned about liberty it's not just ideas like freedom from search, but freedom of association, freedom to control ones private property and personal choices as well. At such time as people stop demanding to control these also essential liberties of others, I for one will certainly take complaints about other violations more seriously. Until then, it appears the only liberties being supported are being chosen for highly political reasons.

 

 

[PullinFool]

MtnGoat said:

"That seems rather simplistic, considering there are many more issues involved here"

 

Not everything is overweeningly complex, no matter how personally satisfying it is to some to appear as masters of nuance and complexity, instead of actually getting a job done.

 

The issue is quite straightforward. Saddam has violated the terms of his ceasefire and should be held to account for it.

 

As for the other complexities:

 

1. religious jihad: What murderous fanatics believe cannot be ameliorated by the actions of those they already hate enough to kill. They believe in their culture of death every bit as much, and as fervently, as you believe anything in your culture, if not moreso.

 

Our failure to deal with this *and* recognize that in their view, non response is not a desire for coexistence, or peace, but the moral weakness of the infidel, emboldens them, as we've amply seen and are now already in the process of ignoring, all over again.

 

2. cultural monopoly: There are zillions of cultures to choose from. No one forces anyone to drink coca cola and watch the simpsons dubbed into whatever language. If this and more is popular, it's because they like it. People complaining about cultural monopolism ought to be taking into account that each individual chooses what to value on their own terms. The French battle with words they don't like, entering their lexicon anyway, shows the futility of trying to force culture from the top down instead of accepting that it grows from the bottom up.

 

3. political cowboyism: If being committed to a point of view is cowboyism, so be it.

 

4. personal vendettas: The weakest of the bunch. There are ample reasons to take the actions we are comtemplating over and above any level of vendetta.

 

 

 

Hoo-Ha!

 

Culture of death? That is so far off-base!

 

Religious difference = murder?

 

Cultural monopoly: oh, those crazy trans-nationals! No Biggie!

 

So Be It! has such a sense of narrow-mindedness ...

 

Vendetta? Hey, that's a drop in the old bucket - don't mean nothin'