WTF IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE

[tvashtarkatena]

Don't look in there.

[ClimbingPanther]

"love is blind" truly explains many strange phenomena

[tvashtarkatena]

Don't even think about it.

 

Or not think about it.

 

Forget it.

[sexual_chocolate]

(it's easy to label soemthing as "extremism" from the comforts of your safe and secure arm-chair).

[ClimbingPanther]

stop trying to talk sense into tvash, he's not thinking right now. my chest freezers are, of course, full of chests.

[tvashtarkatena]

My armchair is uncomfortable and dangerous.

[tvashtarkatena]

stop trying to talk sense into tvash, he's not thinking right now. my chest freezers are, of course, full of chests.

 

I knew you'd bite on that one, but then, I always know.

[tvashtarkatena]

My armchair is not, however, contagious.

[ClimbingPanther]

PILLOW!!!!

[ClimbingPanther]

PILLOW!!!!

give in, tvash, you know you want to bite on that one

[ClimbingPanther]

I'm for live and let live. Pretty simple.

you sound so libertarian when it's convenient. if only it were true in EVERY argument you make, you angst-ridden liberal, you!

[tvashtarkatena]

As I've stated before, I don't get angst. I get even.

 

There are a few trogs on this board who dive behind labels for cover. I'm not one. I think I've made it pretty clear that I think personal liberty is important, but I don't hang with the organized "Libertarians" because none of the groups I've dealt with seem to have a realistic grasp of the real world. They have a private property worship that was probably appropriate for around the mid 1800s but which certainly does not work with a population approaching 7 billion. Now, individual land use grossly affects the liberty of too many others to remain unregulated; a violation of libertarian principles. Those out there who are trying to live sustainably and improve the land their responsible for get my utmost respect and admiration. That could be a condo, mud hut, or any earnest run at a point inbetween.

 

I think the federal government has served us poorly and needs to be defanged in favor of more diverse political experimentation at state and local levels; as long as the Constitution is maintained. All the innovation for the future is happening at these more localized levels anyway. Global power projection has gotten us a lot of near free trinkets but those hens are now coming home to roost. We have a rich continent and we should focus on how to make it sustainable in its own right.

 

And blah blah blah like anyone here actually gives a shit.

Edited February 13, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[ClimbingPanther]

so how does your communist view of property mesh with your ACLU-style privacy & liberty?

 

Private property is fundamental to the protections the Constitution gives to private citizens. Congress & the SCOTUS have painted a very different picture of personal freedom depending on who owns the land. Destroy private property and you have destroyed the Constitution.

[JayB]

"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.

[prole]

"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?

 

Here's a fine example of such a group doing just that. It's been working on women's rights in Afghanistan for near 30 years. It's also been undermined and marginalized by "liberty's crusaders" since day one of the US occupation.

 

"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.

 

One can certainly be opposed to Marxists or any other group supporting racial and gender equality. What goes on around here though is continual slandering of people raising human rights issues, civil rights issues, gender and racial issues as commies, feminazis, etc. unless, of course, we're speaking about Islam. This double standard would seem suggest those people were more interested in providing ideological cover for their political and racial beliefs than genuine concern for human rights, etc.

[JayB]

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.

[sexual_chocolate]

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

 

I don't see these as being so conveniently separable at all.

 

do you label the invasion as an "inexcusable barbarism"? if you don't, then this is where many have serious issues with your duplicity and lack of ability to see context.

 

 

the rest of your post seemed reasonable.

[prole]

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.

 

Nice bit of verbal gymnasturbation there. The only thing I can't understand is why you passed up the opportunity to use the word "onano" in a sentence.

[sexual_chocolate]

added note: it seems as though you spend a bit of time in the lab, so your understanding of chemical processees gives you the knowledge to note that certain chemical reactions are predictable, step by step. step one happens, catalyses step two, etc etc.

 

my point is that in general, violence begets violence. it has been called a universal law by some.

while suicide bombings are "barbaric", they don't happen in a vacuum. they tend to happen in environments where people feel themselves to have no other choice with which to respond to the difficult conditions they face. morally condemning anyone doesn't change the situation.

[archenemy]

Unless, of course, they are the ones causing the situation.

[StevenSeagal]

And, of course, when one chooses sides according to one's prejudice, 100% of the blame can always be apportioned to one side.

 

[archenemy]

And, of course, when one chooses sides according to one's prejudice, 100% of the blame can always be apportioned to one side.

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.

[RuMR]

can't we just get back to the cartoons??

 

THe one where Muh. is screaming his head off at the pearly gates is hilarious..."NO MORE, WE'VE RUN OUT OF VIRGINS!" or something like that...

[StevenSeagal]

And, of course, when one chooses sides according to one's prejudice, 100% of the blame can always be apportioned to one side.

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!

[RuMR]

cartoons, man, cartoons...