glacierdog Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 (edited) SC, I have a question for you. What would you do differently right now if you were in office? Holy cow! I got a pagetop! I didn't even notice. Edited February 16, 2003 by glacierdog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 buddy, when you get a pagetop you need to celebrate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 You peace protesters might want to bring some hankies to wipe the egg off of your faces on Saturday. bwahaha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 sexual_chocolate said: Fairweather said: SC writes: Sometimes I think you won't look past your ideologies when analyzing situations. You're so caught up in notions of right and wrong, assigning blame, that you can't at all begin to see that there are ALWAYS two sides to any given situation. Yeah, I admit it can be a bit scary to allow yourself to see the "enemy" as human, just like anyone else in many ways, but I think this is vital if we're going to understand at all the recursive international situation. Just my humble opining. SexC, Had thinking like this taken root in the late 1930's, we'd all be speaking German or Russan by now. "Notions of right and wrong"? Would you have negotiated with Hitler? Face it SC; your sypathies will always lie with any nation or group that opposes America. Especially if they have socialist or communist ideals. There IS right and wrong, good and evil. And, as demonstrated by WWII, sometimes the best path to peace is through war. The light-water reactor has been under construction in NK for several years. There have been reasonable technical/political difficulties/delays in its timely completion. NK promised to abandon its "plutonium seperation" efforts. Clinton/Albright/Carter, dupes all, forgot(?) to tell NK that its uranium enrichment efforts were included in this. GW could withdraw us from the Iraqi borders tomorrow and I suspect you would proceed to blame him for allowing Saddam to kick the inspectors out of Iraq once again, and for all subsequent brutality perpetrated by his regime. I stand by my statement. You're no different than Hanoi Jane or Tokyo Rose, or the idiots that spat at our soldiers upon their return from Vietnam. You're doing it again. You're comparing Iraq to Germany. You're a bad and silly boy. I don't know why I waste time with you. I guess I'm just a sucker who gets baited really easylike. Silly me. So anyways, like I was saying, you're a bad and silly boy. Shape up. And until you can come up with something better than the WWII analogy, I'm done with you, cuz you're making yourself seem as silly as George the Dumb. SChoc, I suspect you won't answer, because you can't. Since when is using HISTORY to illustrate one's point "out of bounds"? I guess what you are saying is, "I, Sexual Chocolate have no reasonable response here, so I'm going to take my ball and play with someone else". Then you come up with "you're a bad and silly boy" and "George the Dumb". Wow! Great debate. What a joke you are! At least AK has some backbone...and maybe even an open mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PullinFool Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 To_The_Top said: I have always wondered why Bush has almost completely forgotten about Al Quiada. They are the ones that attacked us from what I remember, not Iraq. I think saddam is evil, and we should wait until they mess up and then take action like something on a war like magnitude, or SHOW us or someone the proof if going in now. Where is the connection, and what about stirring up too many hornets nests at once? Maybe about backpedalling with "senior" advisors brings one to places of previous "power stances?" Shrubby is in final analysis, maybe a "daddy's boy", with just enough dangerous convictions (religious conservative) to make it seem different? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted February 17, 2003 Author Share Posted February 17, 2003 SChoc, I suspect you won't answer, because you can't. Since when is using HISTORY to illustrate one's point "out of bounds"? I guess what you are saying is, "I have no reasonable response here, so I'm going to take my ball and play with someone else". Then you come up with "George the Dumb". Wow! Great debate. What a joke you are! At least AK has some backbone...and maybe even an open mind. Alright then, I'll play. What was the question? Something about the relevance of history for understanding the present? Of course of course. But the comparisons must be valid. And I only see a most superficial validity in comparing Saddam and Iraq to Hitler and Germany. Saddam has no expansionist policy. Saddam has no capacity for pursuing an expansionist policy. Saddam has been disarmed, and is making no moves to create the capacity for an expansionist policy. Saddam allows inspections of his country. (By the way, I wonder if you knew that Clinton pressured the UN to pull the inspectors out? Iraq did not kick them out. Just a little side-note, to clarify an oft-repeated error.) Hitler spelled out, quite clearly and early on, what his intentions were. There was no nuclear technology to act as a deterrent back then. Ahh jeez, I can't believe I'm debating this with a John Birch society member. If you can't see the dissimilarities, then you probably don't want to. There is no question you have the right to believe what you want to. Let's just say we disagree, and leave it at that! And: I'm not anti-america. It's just that there's so much going on with the current administration that I disagree with, it only seems I'm entirely anti-america. There are many things beautiful about this country! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 You obviously did not bother to read ANY of my post, and decided instead to defend your position by creating a straw man reply. I never compared Saddam to Hitler. I said "As demonstrated by WWII, sometimes the quickest way to peace is through war." John Birch Society? I've heard of it...some sort of anti UN group. Probably close to a Libertarian philosophy? Probably much I'd agreee with. (?) Regardless, I'm certainly not a member. Are you a member of The Socialist Workers Party? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted February 17, 2003 Author Share Posted February 17, 2003 No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted February 17, 2003 Author Share Posted February 17, 2003 "As demonstrated by WWII, sometimes the quickest way to peace is through war." So this is what you wanted me to respond to? I don't know if I'd agree; WWII went on for 6 years! Although it certainly seems that WWII was necessary (if entirely decontextualized?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PullinFool Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Fairweather said: I said "As demonstrated by WWII, sometimes the quickest way to peace is through war." It seems that approximately 6.2 million people worldwide disagree ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 How about the other 5,993,800,000? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 "Sometimes I think you won't look past your ideologies when analyzing situations." And you look past yours? You don't have an ideology you use to decide there are always two sides to an issue? It matters not wether someone has an ideology, because we all do and it's inescapable. What matters is how defensible, and self consistent, your ideology is. "You're so caught up in notions of right and wrong, assigning blame, that you can't at all begin to see that there are ALWAYS two sides to any given situation. " The existence of two sides, or ten, or fifty, does not eliminate the possibility that one is in fact correct. There is no justification at all for the supportability of ideas on the basis of lots of points of view existing. The existence of people who thought the world is flat did not make it flat, regardless of their being two sides. How many sides there are is irrelevant. Wether a side is supportible with evidence is all that matters. "Yeah, I admit it can be a bit scary to allow yourself to see the "enemy" as human, just like anyone else in many ways, but I think this is vital if we're going to understand at all the recursive international situation. " The existence of bad people willing to do bad things doesn't necessarily make anything recursive. There are bad people willing to do bad things in every society in every social strata, for no reason other than they want to. There is no cause, no injustice needed for this desire. It's not uncomfortable at all to imagine some people think I am their enemy, Bin Ladin certainly would consider me one if he knew me personally. I don't find it uncomfortable in the slightest to consider his hatred for my non submission to Allah, because it is a non sequitur that has nothing to do with me. His hatred of my life not lived by Allah's rule is something he decided on, and I don't value his judgements, or those of his cohorts, enough in any way to be made uncomfortable by them at all. Criminals think cops are the enemy too, but I don't think too many cops loose sleep over that. It's this kind of ludicrous relativism that leaves you open to all the maladies and contradictions this multiculturist mishmash is inevitably prey to. If it's all relative and you're so concerned about recursivism, why are you so interested in forcing domestic policies upon me against my will? Who made *you* so right if there is no right and wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 (edited) "It seems that approximately 6.2 million people worldwide disagree" Nearly the entire population of the earth thought it was flat for the bulk of recorded history, too. Regardless of all their belief, it wasn't. I've never quite figured out how quoting how many people support something is supposed to validate it. Edited February 17, 2003 by MtnGoat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted February 17, 2003 Author Share Posted February 17, 2003 You don't have an ideology you use to decide there are always two sides to an issue? I think this stance is more borne from scientific observation than mere ideology. I've never come across an argument that didn't have more than one view being postulated. Hell, inherent to discursive thought is bifurcation. Thought can never capture the totality of reality (an ideology!); hence, the unattainability of GUT (another ideology!). "You're so caught up in notions of right and wrong, assigning blame, that you can't at all begin to see that there are ALWAYS two sides to any given situation. " The existence of two sides, or ten, or fifty, does not eliminate the possibility that one is in fact correct. There is no justification at all for the supportability of ideas on the basis of lots of points of view existing. The existence of people who thought the world is flat did not make it flat, regardless of their being two sides. How many sides there are is irrelevant. Wether a side is supportible with evidence is all that matters. Exactly. But one must take into account the differing theories, something Fairweather seems to have a hard time doing because of his ideological blinders. "Yeah, I admit it can be a bit scary to allow yourself to see the "enemy" as human, just like anyone else in many ways, but I think this is vital if we're going to understand at all the recursive international situation. " The existence of bad people willing to do bad things doesn't necessarily make anything recursive. Actually, if we are to believe in the notion of "bad people", then absolutely their existence leads to recursion; if everyone was good, then all would be good, right? But, I for one don't believe in the notion of "bad people"; I believe more in the notion of a Platonic ignorance, where all really want justice (an ideology, extended from observation!). Criminals think cops are the enemy too, but I don't think too many cops loose sleep over that. It's this kind of ludicrous relativism that leaves you open to all the maladies and contradictions this multiculturist mishmash is inevitably prey to. If it's all relative and you're so concerned about recursivism, why are you so interested in forcing domestic policies upon me against my will? Who made *you* so right if there is no right and wrong? Then here in this last part you kind of lost me. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 listening to you guys argue about who would be worse: gore or bush II... I got a quote for you: "Democrats or Republicans? Its like choosing between warm shit and cold shit." - Charles Bukowski. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Fairweather, I'd have to go back through the threads to see if you stated this or not but it has been stated here that the comparison of Saddam to Hitler is accurate and that appeasement now is like appeasement in 1938. Obviously, for the reasons that pointed out, that is not the case. Most notably, there is nobody advocating or even practicing appeasement. Had a coalition of European powers kicked Germany out of Poland after they invaded, destroyed Germany's infrastructure, and maintained a presence there for most of the next eleven years in order to prevent Germany's rebuilding their infrastructure, would you or anybody else here argue that Germany could still have perpetrated WWII? Any effort to compare this situation with history should look at our efforts to accomplish regime change. Clearly, in its weakend state Iraq poses little immediate threat to us or our allies and we are going there to replace the government. This is much more like Afghanistan, Kosovo, Vietnam, or Chile than it is like WWII. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 (edited) Dru said: listening to you guys argue about who would be worse: gore or bush II... I got a quote for you: "Democrats or Republicans? Its like choosing between warm shit and cold shit." - Charles Bukowski. dru, next time I see you the is on me... that was priceless Edited February 17, 2003 by Muffy_The_Wanker_Sprayer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 (edited) 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. "Exactly. But one must take into account the differing theories, something Fairweather seems to have a hard time doing because of his ideological blinders." 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. "Actually, if we are to believe in the notion of "bad people", then absolutely their existence leads to recursion; if everyone was good, then all would be good, right?" I think you're not using the right word if that point is your intent. Recursion springs not from simple opposition or existence of opposites, but instead is based on one action causing another, proceeding in a series of causal loops. 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. "But, I for one don't believe in the notion of "bad people"; I believe more in the notion of a Platonic ignorance, where all really want justice (an ideology, extended from observation!)." 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. "Then here in this last part you kind of lost me. Sorry." 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. 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? Edited February 17, 2003 by MtnGoat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 What does DFA have to do with this, pray tell? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 sorry DFA, changed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 sometimes you are long-winded and boring, apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 "Up to 30 million people demonstrated worldwide, including around 6 million in Europe, according to figures from organisers and police, although most conceded there were too many people in too many places to count. " http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,897057,00.html it appears, this administration has the dubious dinstinction of causing the largest protests in history .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Of late, I'm thinking we need a course correction here in America, and we need it fast. It has to be more than just 'everyone is jealous of us, and this is the world we live in, so we have to deal with it. No - other nations aren't living in high anxiety mode - unless they're worried about future hostile actions of the United States Government. If we continue on this path, you can forget about that economic recovery, a 401K retirement, or even sending Junior to college. Even if nothing ever happens again, the fabric of our society is starting to crumble from within. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glacierdog Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 Big problem in my opinion is that the average American spends entirely too little time educating him/herself further. We work, and when that's over all we want is play. Don't get me wrong, I love entertainment as much as the next smoe. But I also know that I can't stand to pass endless hours watching tv or reading People magazine. I don't know how we could turn the tide. All I know is my kids aren't going to know what a goddamn tv is until their at least 10. And toys? HA! Dirt and lincoln logs. I'll give em a hose to run water through the dirt. I'm drifting way off here. I'll stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted February 17, 2003 Share Posted February 17, 2003 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 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.