Kimmo Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 For you guys left of center it's never the obvious call on who is "evil" or a "sociopath" but always some crazy moral equivalency argument rooted in self-hatred and the desire to attack your own as "no better" than the "other". "never the obvious call"? I'd say it's fairly obvious on this one. if ET showed up (ask tvash) and saw the carnage that US foreign policy has bequeathed upon the world, there wouldn't be much room for equivocation. but before you get all wound up: other countries have fucked shit up too! amazing! no self-hate needed. but you are right about the sociopathy charge: i think psychopathy is more fitting, with a touch of psychosis. i mean, check it out: george bush all of a sudden starts believing in a guy who claimed to talk to god some 2,000 years ago. ok, so this part i'm cool with; i think i've talked to god too! but here's the hard part: this 2,000 year old god-talker named jesus said hey humanoids, love each other. blessed are the peace-makers. god says to chill out and turn the other cheek. if you do anything , at least don't hurt others. so here's this self-proclaimed born-again christian who has taken jesus the peace-monger as his personal saviour and unequivocal leader , yet somehow finds the capacity to attack a defenseless country with the largest most sophisticated army in the history of mankind, KILLING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE. if the above does not fit the diagnostics of psychosis and psychopathy, then the terms are meaningless and entirely political in nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 For you guys left of center it's never the obvious call on who is "evil" or a "sociopath" but always some crazy moral equivalency argument rooted in self-hatred and the desire to attack your own as "no better" than the "other". "never the obvious call"? I'd say it's fairly obvious on this one. if ET showed up (ask tvash) and saw the carnage that US foreign policy has bequeathed upon the world, there wouldn't be much room for equivocation. but before you get all wound up: other countries have fucked shit up too! amazing! no self-hate needed. but you are right about the sociopathy charge: i think psychopathy is more fitting, with a touch of psychosis. i mean, check it out: george bush all of a sudden starts believing in a guy who claimed to talk to god some 2,000 years ago. ok, so this part i'm cool with; i think i've talked to god too! but here's the hard part: this 2,000 year old god-talker named jesus said hey humanoids, love each other. blessed are the peace-makers. god says to chill out and turn the other cheek. if you do anything , at least don't hurt others. so here's this self-proclaimed born-again christian who has taken jesus the peace-monger as his personal saviour and unequivocal leader , yet somehow finds the capacity to attack a defenseless country with the largest most sophisticated army in the history of mankind, KILLING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE. if the above does not fit the diagnostics of psychosis and psychopathy, then the terms are meaningless and entirely political in nature. By your argument, Lincoln, Truman and FDR are all psychopaths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 For you guys left of center it's never the obvious call on who is "evil" or a "sociopath" but always some crazy moral equivalency argument rooted in self-hatred and the desire to attack your own as "no better" than the "other". "never the obvious call"? I'd say it's fairly obvious on this one. if ET showed up (ask tvash) and saw the carnage that US foreign policy has bequeathed upon the world, there wouldn't be much room for equivocation. but before you get all wound up: other countries have fucked shit up too! amazing! no self-hate needed. but you are right about the sociopathy charge: i think psychopathy is more fitting, with a touch of psychosis. i mean, check it out: george bush all of a sudden starts believing in a guy who claimed to talk to god some 2,000 years ago. ok, so this part i'm cool with; i think i've talked to god too! but here's the hard part: this 2,000 year old god-talker named jesus said hey humanoids, love each other. blessed are the peace-makers. god says to chill out and turn the other cheek. if you do anything , at least don't hurt others. so here's this self-proclaimed born-again christian who has taken jesus the peace-monger as his personal saviour and unequivocal leader , yet somehow finds the capacity to attack a defenseless country with the largest most sophisticated army in the history of mankind, KILLING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE. if the above does not fit the diagnostics of psychosis and psychopathy, then the terms are meaningless and entirely political in nature. By your argument, Lincoln, Truman and FDR are all psychopaths. You have the historical sense of a planarian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted February 14, 2011 Author Share Posted February 14, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 You have the historical sense of a planarian. You have the personality of slime-mold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) I do tend to grow on people. I don't know about you and me, though. There's a level of stupid below which I don't have a lot of patience. Edited February 14, 2011 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) NYT front page: Iranians throwing rocks at riot cops and torching vehicles in downtown Tehran. One of the few regimes that competes with the Bush administration for bad ideas, bluster, bullshit, and brutality. Edited February 14, 2011 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crux Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Tumultuous Tehran - videos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 More video here from the opposition leader's FB page (love the modern world!)...and comments, if you read Farsi or Arabic. Mousavi's FB page Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 As usual j_b is attributing some sort of broad-brush stroke set of beliefs to his interlocutors, lumping them into one pile. He vaguely mentions the term "Social Darwinist" and, in a convoluted run-on, talks about how one supposed "Social Darwinist" agrees with some vague "other Social Darwinist", and attributes to them both some supposed belief they hold regarding the precedence of economic freedom. some form of social darwinism has always been the justification for the policies of laissez capitalism, which is the ideology that you all share. We can see the effects of your extreme ideology all around us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 You need to get (back) on meds. Seriously. 2 years of "lick sack", 2 pages of grammar, and now 2 pages of "take your meds" but still nothing to the substance of this thread. What a douchebag! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crux Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 If P, then Q. Q. Therefore, P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 If P, then Q. Q. Therefore, P. No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 what an ignoramus blowhard you make (sigh) "Social Darwinism, term coined in the late 19th century to describe the idea that humans, like animals and plants, compete in a struggle for existence in which natural selection results in "survival of the fittest." Social Darwinists base their beliefs on theories of evolution developed by British naturalist Charles Darwin. Some social Darwinists argue that governments should not interfere with human competition by attempting to regulate the economy or cure social ills such as poverty. Instead, they advocate a laissez-faire political and economic system that favors competition and self-interest in social and business affairs. Social Darwinists typically deny that they advocate a "law of the jungle." But most propose arguments that justify imbalances of power between individuals, races, and nations because they consider some people more fit to survive than others. The term social Darwinist is applied loosely to anyone who interprets human society primarily in terms of biology, struggle, competition, or natural law (a philosophy based on what are considered the permanent characteristics of human nature). Social Darwinism characterizes a variety of past and present social policies and theories, from attempts to reduce the power of government to theories exploring the biological causes of human behavior. Many people believe that the concept of social Darwinism explains the philosophical rationalization behind racism, imperialism, and capitalism. The term has negative implications for most people because they consider it a rejection of compassion and social responsibility." Robert C. Bannister, B.A., M.A., Ph.D. Professor of History, Swarthmore College. Author of Social Darwinism: Science and Myth and On Liberty, Society, and Politics: The Essential Essays of William Graham Sumner. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE "Social Darwinism," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 what an ignoramus blowhard you make (sigh) "Social Darwinism, term coined in the late 19th century to describe the idea that humans, like animals and plants, compete in a struggle for existence in which natural selection results in "survival of the fittest." Social Darwinists base their beliefs on theories of evolution developed by British naturalist Charles Darwin. Some social Darwinists argue that governments should not interfere with human competition by attempting to regulate the economy or cure social ills such as poverty. Instead, they advocate a laissez-faire political and economic system that favors competition and self-interest in social and business affairs. Social Darwinists typically deny that they advocate a "law of the jungle." But most propose arguments that justify imbalances of power between individuals, races, and nations because they consider some people more fit to survive than others. The term social Darwinist is applied loosely to anyone who interprets human society primarily in terms of biology, struggle, competition, or natural law (a philosophy based on what are considered the permanent characteristics of human nature). Social Darwinism characterizes a variety of past and present social policies and theories, from attempts to reduce the power of government to theories exploring the biological causes of human behavior. Many people believe that the concept of social Darwinism explains the philosophical rationalization behind racism, imperialism, and capitalism. The term has negative implications for most people because they consider it a rejection of compassion and social responsibility." Robert C. Bannister, B.A., M.A., Ph.D. Professor of History, Swarthmore College. Author of Social Darwinism: Science and Myth and On Liberty, Society, and Politics: The Essential Essays of William Graham Sumner. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE "Social Darwinism," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2000 This proves nothing - other than your propensity to attribute (whole systems of) beliefs to individuals in broad-brush strokes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimmo Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 By your argument, Lincoln, Truman and FDR are all psychopaths. are you comparing george bush jr.'s iraqi pursuits with the actions of those above? do you consider them equal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 By your argument, Lincoln, Truman and FDR are all psychopaths. are you comparing george bush jr.'s iraqi pursuits with the actions of those above? do you consider them equal? "death's of 100's of thousands of innocents" Dresden Hiroshima etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 you are a troll. You have nothing to say beside ad-hominems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimmo Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 are you comparing george bush jr.'s iraqi pursuits with the actions of those above? do you consider them equal? "death's of 100's of thousands of innocents" Dresden Hiroshima etc. those two that you mention above are definitely psychopathic in nature, in the clinical sense of the term. are you comparing the larger context of WWII to the Iraq war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 If P, then Q. Q. Therefore, P. Yup. It's amazing these guys haven't figured KKK out yet...he's only got, like, one moving part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted February 14, 2011 Author Share Posted February 14, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Where'd you score the pic of TTK? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Same joke? Really? Like I said, one moving part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted February 15, 2011 Author Share Posted February 15, 2011 Where'd you score the pic of TTK? Actually, it's the GOP's presidential candidate for 2016. They won't be running one next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crux Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Don't be so negative about the GOP chances for finding an experienced one of their kind for 2012. From where I sit, it's looking like Ahmadinejad will be looking for a job. 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.