Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 "Questions being raised does not indicate their validity. Some folks think raising questions means they are valid simply because they thought of them. I think looking at the context of same, and answers to these questions that get ignored because they are not what the questioners want to hear, makes more sense. A zillion unanswered pointless questions just means unanswered pointless questions." The questions of Bush's ties to and dealings with the energy industry aren't pointless. Do you honestly believe he and his cronies denied Congress access to all those files because it was an issue of national security? It's tempting to accuse you of being naive again, but you seemed genuinely hurt by that before, at least hurt enough to adopt a holier-than-though attitude, so the Doctor will let the question stand. Suffice it to say that politicians have set a precedent of being involved in less than savory activities (Watergate, Lewinsky, Iran-Contra, God knows how many cases of bribery and kickbacks) and the Doctor doesn't see why he should continually allow himself to be duped by believing that this time they're honest and not self-serving corporate whores. As far as DFA is concerned, they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 "No, these acts aren't legal, but if you look at these incidents, you don't see the police being too heavily punished for their actions, either." So they aren't legal, we are different, but it's a matter of degree, right? So are we better enough to even bother doing anything, in your eyes? "In a nation where the powers that are meant to maintain the law are given a slap on the wrist at most for working above the law, it doesn't make much difference if these behaviours are illegal." Does it or does it not make a difference, even if it's not much? Are you aware that you are consistently attacking the very basis of moral action you use to claim social and environmental goals must be imposed on people who don't agree with them? How is it I am supposed to think your ideas are valid and worth imposing if I can turn around and say that they are imperfectly implemented, then you have made no difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbw1966 Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 Mtngoat wrote: ". . .is it "obvious"? I don't see how obvious it is, when we have wiped his organizational center. These judgement calls you take for granted as proofs continue to amaze me!" Seems you are guilty of your own judgments that you take as proof, no? The organizational center has been wiped? I've seen no irrefutable evidence of this. On the contrary, I've read news accounts that indicate its just moved its base of operations. Scattered maybe, wiped no. You are a master of obfuscation mtngoat. But I enjoy the repartee going on. Makes people think and thats always a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 "illegal for the lower classes and tolerated/condoned by those in power. if you steal from a rich man you are a thief, if you steal from 1,000,000 poor people you are a savvy businessman." Example please. "if you are poor and smoke crack and get caught you are thrown in prison, if you are jeb bush's daughter you get some cushy optional resort disguised as rehab." and this happens differently...where? Don't make the mistake of comparing the real with the perfect, in a world where the reality is comparing the imperfect with the less imperfect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 quote: Originally posted by MtnGoat: "illegal for the lower classes and tolerated/condoned by those in power. if you steal from a rich man you are a thief, if you steal from 1,000,000 poor people you are a savvy businessman." Example please. You forget W. Bush's role in the Savings and Loan scams of the 80's so fast? "if you are poor and smoke crack and get caught you are thrown in prison, if you are jeb bush's daughter you get some cushy optional resort disguised as rehab." and this happens differently...where? Don't make the mistake of comparing the real with the perfect, in a world where the reality is comparing the imperfect with the less imperfect. ya but you claimed that the difference in the US was the rule of law. sounds like the oligarchy getting their way in both places to me. PAGETOP MUIR ON SATURDAY [ 09-17-2002, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: Dru ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 "The questions of Bush's ties to and dealings with the energy industry aren't pointless." They are when they are answered, the answer is not believed nor is proof to the contrary provided. "looks like" is not good enough to overide someone elses answers, who knows because they are them, and you are not. If there is actual evidence, produce it and send people to jail. If there is not, consider the answer given as truth until shown otherwise. I do not accept "looks like" proofs of malfeasance because anyone with a gripe can make noise. "Do you honestly believe he and his cronies denied Congress access to all those files because it was an issue of national security?" Possibly. I am not sure. "It's tempting to accuse you of being naive again, but you seemed genuinely hurt by that before, at least hurt enough to adopt a holier-than-though attitude, so the Doctor will let the question stand. " I was not hurt, I was pointing out the common thread I find in nearly all people who are sure others need to be told what to do and profess this attitude as caring. Look at how many times on this thread alone we see someone who wants more control over others claiming those other darned people don't know what to want, are programmed by someone else, are too stupid to make good decisions, and all the rest. The common element is always those *other* people aren't as smart as the claimant. If calling someone on the reality of this is "holier than thou", I ask what is more holier than thou than deciding *others* need to be forced to live as the proponent wants them to, by the proponents values. If we're gonna go on about holier, let's discuss that one. Feel free to strike out on the naive path again, I can take it, but I wanted to point out the innate elitism buried in such statements. "and the Doctor doesn't see why he should continually allow himself to be duped by believing that this time they're honest and not self-serving corporate whores." I don't blame you. But until real evidence is shown that stands in court, it's all hearsay. I refuse to consider men I don't know liars until I see the actual evidence against them. I know I don't like being called a liar and it is disrespectful to do to others what I do not like myself, politician or not. "As far as DFA is concerned, they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt." They are human like anyone else, I make no distincton between their right to respect even if I disagree, until proven otherwise. Unless I extend this to everyone I canot expect it for myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 "Is this belief *true*, or just commonly held? I don't care how many people believe something in a factual case." Well, I would certainly say the "belief" itself is true, since there are many who practice it. Yes, the belief does exist! It is also commonly held, from what I understand. And the reason it is commonly held is that most indications at the disposal of those making the observations seem to indicate a validity in the hypothesis. I understand you to be a clinical rationalist, and as such, I would be led to think that a preponderance of observable phenomena indicating the validity of a certain hypothesis would sway you towards that hypothesis, no? I think we have it, in this case. "You still are not answering the question, how is it we survived all those earlier events, along with all the flora and fauna we see now, in spite of the fact that the climate has varied more than some project it varying in their worst cases?" Certainly we survived because we are adaptable creatures. We have been imbued with intelligence, foresight, communal caring and compassion, along with other qualities we might call greed, selfishness, viciousness, and brutality. I tend to think that on some level, all of these led to our survival. (Interesting reading exists about life in survival situations, such as in gulags or concentration camps.) But, is survival the bottom line? Why would we want to make life difficult for ourselves, if we know better? I think we can use these qualities of intelligence and foresight to notice trends and patterns in our behaviour, and work towards the elimination of behaviours that create harm and suffering. Let's not force insufferable conditions on our progeny, a progeny still without a voice! Their liberties must be considered also, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle_Tricky Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 MtnGoat, you seem uninterested in refuting any of the a priori truths that I've stated thus far. MtnGoat wrote: "No, we're going after him [saddam] because he's a worse, less principled threat than we are." Are you trying to say we're an exceptional, differently-principled threat to the world? ----- "A snafflehound must nevertheless make himself feared in such a manner that he will avoid hatred, even if he does not acquire love; since to be feared and not to be hated can very well be combined..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 It was a very efficient way of destroying their base of operations with minimum American casualties. Next question: Are you suggesting that elimination of Al Queda's primary training, logistics, supply, and concentrations was not militarily appropriate? There we go with the "minimum American casualties" argument. Are American lives worth any more than Afghanistani lives? If so, why? Destruction of Al Qaeda's infrastructure was militarily appropriate, yes, however destruction of civilians is not, and the destruction of Al Qaeda's stuff led to a great deal of innocent lives lost. "And another: If you are not qualified to make judgements concerning an alternate plan, how is it you are qualified to determine the one used was not appropriate? This is very curious." Do you base all of your actions solely on fact? Do you ever act based on feeling or opinion? Or is everything you do dictated by cold logic? Surely you make some decisions based on your feelings? The Doctor finds war and murder to be morally objectionable, and while he understands that it is frequently unavoidable and will never go away, he feels that any military action that is carried out so as to limit civilian casualties is a good start. The fact that so many more innocent people had to die (and how many more will due to the destruction of what was left of Afghanistan's infrastructure?) as a result of our military action makes that action, in the Doctor's eyes, inappropriate. Are the police in a foreign nation, looking for combatants who have declared war on them? nope. The tendency to compare situations which are not analogous doesn't make much sense to me. The point was that we were ostensibly looking for Osama B. Laden and rooting out a government we disagreed with, which is a fairly specific task, so it is analagous. You don't hunt down a criminal by demolishing the country he was last seen in and taking thousands of civilians down in the process. Our attacks were on very specific targets. The Doctor's argument on this point refers to the number of murdered civilians here. The idea being that if we had maybe gone after these targets that were so close to innocent people with some more precise weaponry, we wouldn't have murdered so many people. Who said new tactics couldn't involve old ones, especially when faced with a classic situation of entrenched troops in open country ripe for B52 runs? If we say new tactics are we still allowed to use guns, or is that old tactics too? Ha ha. But really, what new tactics were used in that war? The Doctor is open to the possibility that new tactics were used, but all the media reported was a lot of bombing and propaganda distribution. is it "obvious"? I don't see how obvious it is, when we have wiped his organizational center. These judgement calls you take for granted as proofs continue to amaze me! Didn't another video tape of Bin Laden turn up not too long ago? Hasn't Bush admitted that we are still looking for him? The question of Bin Laden being alive is not a "judgement call ... take[n] for granted as proof;" it is something that is accepted as fact by the president whose actions you're so keen on defending. Using what standard, exactly? How many attacks have there been since 911? how many have we stopped? How many were planned? Isn't this all stuff that needs to be known before we can trot out the "fact" that we haven't done much? DFA already cited the repeated warnings by our Homeland Security guru and his colored charts. Unless you're willing to accept that our own government would fabricate these alleged threats simply to bolster support for its war on terrorism, which the Doctor doubts, given your stringent requirements for factual verification. So assuming that the government is on the level telling us we face continued threats of terrorist attack, does that not indicate that there is still a functional terrorist apparatus out there? DFA knows it's a lot to ask to interpolate things using known information, but humor him, here. It won't kill you to accept something without empirical proof, you know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 quote: Originally posted by MtnGoat: If there is actual evidence, produce it and send people to jail. If there is not, consider the answer given as truth until shown otherwise. I do not accept "looks like" proofs of malfeasance because anyone with a gripe can make noise. ... I don't blame you. But until real evidence is shown that stands in court, it's all hearsay. I refuse to consider men I don't know liars until I see the actual evidence against them. I know I don't like being called a liar and it is disrespectful to do to others what I do not like myself, politician or not. But these two clips contradict our administration's rationalization for military build-up in Iraq don't they? Yes, Hussein is an awful, dangerous man, but why is the evidence of nuclear arms production not presented first if that is the true threat? If there is a nuclear threat to the US, by all means, we should eliminate it. But please present some evidence that this is so before we commit to such a massive operation. Again, spare us the tired civil versus international law stuff. A liar is a liar around the world, so shouldn't we use the same standards? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 The Dr. needs a dose of boot camp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fence_Sitter Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 if the doc doesn't like it here he can leave! go to asia...oh wait there is a big hole in teh ozone there cause of all their pollution...ok go to s. america...oh awit they are slash and burning ALL their resources...or how about western europe...wait there is what 3 trees per square mile there... this is the U.S.A. buddy if you dont like it your commie butt outta here and go live in Iraq... i dont care how much of a hippie you are...they hate white people so much you wouldn't last a minute...and you question the way WE do things? pppssshhhhaa! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 ah yes, intolerance of differences in opinion and questioning our government. were you making some accusation towards him about being un-american? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 "I understand you to be a clinical rationalist, and as such, I would be led to think that a preponderance of observable phenomena indicating the validity of a certain hypothesis would sway you towards that hypothesis, no? I think we have it, in this case." that's a very good case you're making, and I especially like the clinical rationalist part, which is pretty damned close to correct, since Objectivism could be described this way. What we have not established however is that a preponderance of people hold this view, which would be one issue, and that the view has actual rational underpinnings, which balances the majority view position. Still, some great thinking on your part. But I really find someone believing we cause more extinctions than any other cause to be a pretty big statement. "Certainly we survived because we are adaptable creatures. We have been imbued with intelligence, foresight, communal caring and compassion, along with other qualities we might call greed, selfishness, viciousness, and brutality. I tend to think that on some level, all of these led to our survival." But what about weeds, trees, frogs, ants, birds, etc now with us? They survived too, without any of the qualities you describe as necessary for ours. The constant of the earths climate is *change*. I see here defenses of an idea where the climate is static. IMO this is not supportable. "But, is survival the bottom line? Why would we want to make life difficult for ourselves, if we know better? I think we can use these qualities of intelligence and foresight to notice trends and patterns in our behaviour, and work towards the elimination of behaviours that create harm and suffering." Why do we get to assume this causes harm and suffering, a-priori? How do you know the temperature isn't "supposed" to be 5 degrees hotter or cooler? The idea that the earth is "perfect" now is *itself* a construct that must be defended and explained before one can make a case against warming, and I don't see any of that here yet! "Let's not force insufferable conditions on our progeny, a progeny still without a voice! Their liberties must be considered also, no?" Surely. But when the Vikings were growing crops in Greenland, a place where they later starved to death when it got towards todays "normal" temperature, wouldn't they consider the future cooling to *now* insufferable? This is the problem I have with this. The entire debate assumes an unknown and arbitrary setpoint, which does not exist. It stakes such a point as the current time (or a few decades previous), when a look at any climate chart shows how rediculous this is, and then people claim we must save the earth from change, when all it has ever done is change, for reasons no one can explain! [ 09-17-2002, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fence_Sitter Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 he obviously downt like it very much...i admit there are some (many) things i would change about the way we do business... but i dont trash it...i try to be positive about where i am cause i am grateful for all that my ancestors have done to proctect my freeedoms and the blood that was spilt for my freedom, the freedom of my country man and the freedoms of others including the jews in europe in the 40's... dishonoring the U.S.A. so much...he sounds like trudeau saying that "America had it comming"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 "Are you trying to say we're an exceptional, differently-principled threat to the world?" yup. don't you think so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 quote: Originally posted by trask: The Dr. needs a dose of boot camp. Trask needs a dose of heartfelt punk rock idealism. Oi! Oi! Oi! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fence_Sitter Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 isn't that a euphamism for a heroin addiction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 And now for something completely different: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Dr Flash Amazing: There we go with the "minimum American casualties" argument. Are American lives worth any more than Afghanistani lives? If so, why? Yes, to Americans they are; because they are "our" boys. Don't forget where you come from. Is there no patriotism in you? I know continuing this thread will only frustrate me, but I can't help it. It shocks me that people don't believe in this great experiment called the USA. Greg W Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 "if the doc doesn't like it here he can leave! go to asia...oh wait there is a big hole in teh ozone there cause of all their pollution...ok go to s. america...oh awit they are slash and burning ALL their resources...or how about western europe...wait there is what 3 trees per square mile there... this is the U.S.A. buddy if you dont like it your commie butt outta here and go live in Iraq... i dont care how much of a hippie you are...they hate white people so much you wouldn't last a minute...and you question the way WE do things? pppssshhhhaa! " That's truly hilarious. Is America not founded on the idea that if one does not like the way things are being done, one might use the means legally afforded as a citizen to change them? The idea of "if you don't like it here, live elsewhere" is rather narrow-minded, given that the beauty of our political system (when it works) is that people can change what they don't like. Also, Dr. Flash Amazing is not a fucking hippie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 anybody out there wanna get high? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fence_Sitter Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 ya know what other argument doesnt work? that poverty thing...where that afghanistanies (sp?) are forced to kill us to preserve their way of live because they are dying out...but dotn forget that osama is the quintessential spoiled rich kid... go figure... -DFA- "but the liberal media said..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 some of us are getting high... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fence_Sitter Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 yeah well when you support terrorists and excuse their killing of innocent americans and equate them with a country we are at war with (do you think that most people in afghanistan wanted us to stop fighting the taliban?)...you sound like you dont wanna be here...and your logic only follows if you arent a communist...ya red hippie! 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.