| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| jimmy |
Posted - 05/21/2006 : 05:17:03
This is a continuation of the religious debate from last week.
I thought I'd start off with some sweeping generalizations.
The Bible is a mix of basic historical records and mythology. For instance, I'm sure there was a big flood, but the rain wasn't caused by a magical man in the sky who made a rainbow afterwards.
There are some religious people who are decent people- these are the ones who use it as, what people have called, an opiate. For instance, a couple whose child dies might use religion as a comforting idea that allows them to believe they'll see their child again in Heaven.
Then there are the people who go to church and think they're good people even though they don't behave acording to what they claim to believe. They're nothing like their role model, Jesus.
Finally there are the people who use their religion as justification to control other people- the Pro-life, prayer in the classroom, censorship crowd.
Reason and logic are useless against these people. The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination and anyone practicing it should be put to death. But no reason is given why it's wrong.
Then there's the Catholic Church. A friend of mine told me that when she went to school the nuns told the girls that they'd go to hell if they wore make-up. The Church is rich beyond belief, but they've been trying to squeeze out every penny they could get from even their poorest parishoners.
They've always been so quick to point out the things that they consider "immoral", then it turned out that their organization had a GIGANTIC number of child molesters and in a lot of cases they covered up the crimes. A GIGANTIC number, not just in America, but worldwide.
And even after all that they have the nerve to come down on "The Da Vinci Code".
Holy Fingers said he thought FB was too smart to be religious, and people got upset about that. But I can see what he means, because I just don't understand how smart people can believe in God.
"Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." JOHN 15:14 |
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Holy Fingers |
Posted - 05/29/2006 : 07:56:16
I am pleased to see the direction in which this thread has alligned itself.
 REMEMBER THIS: Nowhere in history has an atheist taken a human life in the name of his cause. |
| Newo |
Posted - 05/27/2006 : 04:02:59
Funny how political dialogue still keeps people focused on rivalries between countries when most of their governments were bankrupted and had to sign on the dotted line to financialhouses during World War II. Talking about America v. Russia v. Europe or anything like that is a geopolitical map long since dispappeared and when I hear somebody using these terms it´s like they´re waxing their handlebar moustache and talking about the perfidy of those Damn Austro-Hungarians.
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
| Erebus |
Posted - 05/27/2006 : 00:12:30
I still like you, darwin, if you'll forgive me for saying so. After all, we'll always have Richard Dawkins, even if we do somehow depart from there on inexplicably divergent paths.
Since there are probably still a few of us attending this thread, half of whom can actually stomach reading what must be contrary to their normal diet, on the cusp of this American Memorial Day Weekend, I must share with you the following essay, which, yet again, did in fact cause me to cry upon reading it [and now again, after re-reading it to preview my posting of it. call me a fool, but despite everything I do actually love this country], by Victor Davis Hanson, "Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Professor Emeritus at California State University , Fresno , and a nationally syndicated columnist for Tribune Media Services" [per his website], and, I must add, frequent contributor to National Review Online:
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson052606.html
Private Papers
www.victorhanson.com
May 26, 2006
Looking Back at Iraq
A war to be proud of.
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
edit: I removed the text and left the link. The essay is not that long but it did seem too big here as a single post.
“What a bargain: At a cost of a mere $100,000 or so, a northeastern college can take your child and transform him into a delicate flower incapable of handling opinions at odds with his own.” - Rich Lowry, National Review Online, May 23, 2006 |
| darwin |
Posted - 05/26/2006 : 15:22:01
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
Some called it the “flypaper” tactic, and they were right. Better we kill the murdering bastards in Iraq rather than here in our homes.
Maybe this thread is serving the same purpose.
That's funny, and I can't say I don't deserve it. Sometimes I am as unhinged as I think the world is becoming. Is that irrational? Wait: don't answer.
Thanks, it was too funny to pass up. I think you and I are better off not discussing politics with each other. |
| Newo |
Posted - 05/26/2006 : 09:38:44
quote:
I think the average Iraqi is glad the US, Britain, and others invaded, for all that they have suffered as a result.
That´s the kind of thing you need to hear from the mouth of an Iraqi, and I´m going to speak for the only person I´m qualified to speak for. You said you feel (in a post a few months ago, correct me if I´m wrong) the route taken is a lesser or necessary evil, I´d probably feel that way if I hadn´t noticed the pattern that after every war there´s a little less democracy to fight for. Perhaps I´m overtly influenced by where I grew up, just when someone is waving a gun around I´m more inclined to look to someone else for exchange of ideas on what is best for the planet.
--
Gravy boat! Stay in the now! |
| Erebus |
Posted - 05/26/2006 : 09:27:10
quote:
Originally posted by lonely persuader
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
I for one am glad Bush “taunted” the insurgents. Yes, bring them on to where they die, by what ratio? Ten to one target? More? Some called it the “flypaper” tactic, and they were right. Better we kill the murdering bastards in Iraq rather than here in our homes. Jesus Fuck, Bush: you don’t have a goddam thing to apologize for, unless you want to address your utter lack of fiscal frugality or your capitulaton on illegal immigration, but that’s an aside unless you also want to get into why we’re likely to soon be afflicted by another run of Dem “talk” and appeasement. Please do give me more involvement of the United Nations. Yeh, that’ll work! And Blair, everybody knows that if the Nazi’s had remained in power after WWII the Cold War would have shorter, but does that mean we SHOULD have done so? Please, even though you’re both a couple of professionall asskissers, try to take a stab at honor. Just because the press and the electorates of your respective nations, so long as they still deserve the term, have completely surrendered all sense of integrity, that doesn’t mean that you have to as well. Damn!
woh there!! your scaring me again Erebus!! The US come into their country and they try and kick the US out and you say "kill the murdering bastards". No "Weapons of mass destruction". Iraq had nothing to do with 911 etc. Unless you mention it enough in the press in the same sentences.
In Ireland, we fought against England from 1918-1921 using bloody guerilla warfare tactics (we had been part of the british emprire for 700 years before). Michael Collins is a national hero, although he orchastrated the murder of many many GI men sent over from britian in cold blood etc.
As goes that old song by a group most here probably never heard of, Dan Hicks & His Hot Licks, "I Scare Myself".
I spend a large portion of each day in a sector of the blogosphere where people still believe the weapons of mass destruction were moved to Syria during that seemingly interminable period when the UN gave Saddam "warning" after "warning". I am one of those people. And when I am not believing that, I recall that almost everybody, across the entire political spectrum in basically every Western nation, was convinced that Saddam had such weapons. These same people, again including myself, believe that though Saddam was not directly involved in the 911 plot, he was a significant part of that den, providing logistical and material support for Bin Ladin's terrorist brigade for years. But I admit that I really don't concern myself too much with justifications for the intervention in Iraq, just as I likely will not if something similar comes to pass in Iran. The invasion of Iraq was long overdue and it was about time the entire region was destabilized, because that decades-long stability, such as it was, was being used to construct a credible threat against the civilization, for all its faults, that has given us the leisure to debate such things.
I sympathize with the Irish struggle against the empire, just as I do with the American revolutionaries, but in neither case did those guerrillas indiscriminately slaughter innocent civilians simply going about their daily business. I think it's different, and so I call them murderers. I think the average Iraqi is glad the US, Britain, and others invaded, for all that they have suffered as a result. Things are going well over there, much better than the press will ever admit, and would be going even better if the murderers were not being supplied by Iran, if the press didn't daily reward the murderers by casting every casualty as a referendum on the war, and if Bush and Blair could somehow conduct a press conference without dishonoring the blood of our soldiers.
(Sorry my posts go on so long. I really don't start out intending that, but then I get going, and then I add all these commas, and then there you have it.)
“What a bargain: At a cost of a mere $100,000 or so, a northeastern college can take your child and transform him into a delicate flower incapable of handling opinions at odds with his own.” - Rich Lowry, National Review Online, May 23, 2006 |
| Erebus |
Posted - 05/26/2006 : 08:40:24
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
Some called it the “flypaper” tactic, and they were right. Better we kill the murdering bastards in Iraq rather than here in our homes.
Maybe this thread is serving the same purpose.
That's funny, and I can't say I don't deserve it. Sometimes I am as unhinged as I think the world is becoming. Is that irrational? Wait: don't answer.
“What a bargain: At a cost of a mere $100,000 or so, a northeastern college can take your child and transform him into a delicate flower incapable of handling opinions at odds with his own.” - Rich Lowry, National Review Online, May 23, 2006 |
| lonely persuader |
Posted - 05/26/2006 : 06:05:12
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
I for one am glad Bush “taunted” the insurgents. Yes, bring them on to where they die, by what ratio? Ten to one target? More? Some called it the “flypaper” tactic, and they were right. Better we kill the murdering bastards in Iraq rather than here in our homes. Jesus Fuck, Bush: you don’t have a goddam thing to apologize for, unless you want to address your utter lack of fiscal frugality or your capitulaton on illegal immigration, but that’s an aside unless you also want to get into why we’re likely to soon be afflicted by another run of Dem “talk” and appeasement. Please do give me more involvement of the United Nations. Yeh, that’ll work! And Blair, everybody knows that if the Nazi’s had remained in power after WWII the Cold War would have shorter, but does that mean we SHOULD have done so? Please, even though you’re both a couple of professionall asskissers, try to take a stab at honor. Just because the press and the electorates of your respective nations, so long as they still deserve the term, have completely surrendered all sense of integrity, that doesn’t mean that you have to as well. Damn!
woh there!! your scaring me again Erebus!! The US come into their country and they try and kick the US out and you say "kill the murdering bastards". No "Weapons of mass destruction". Iraq had nothing to do with 911 etc. Unless you mention it enough in the press in the same sentences.
In Ireland, we fought against England from 1918-1921 using bloody guerilla warfare tactics (we had been part of the british emprire for 700 years before). Michael Collins is a national hero, although he orchastrated the murder of many many GI men sent over from britian in cold blood etc. |
| darwin |
Posted - 05/26/2006 : 01:49:43
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
Some called it the “flypaper” tactic, and they were right. Better we kill the murdering bastards in Iraq rather than here in our homes.
Maybe this thread is serving the same purpose. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 05/26/2006 : 01:36:18
Since I’m guilty of the last four posts here, why not five? I retire to what I would call my “music room” except that it actually is just the extra bedroom of a two bedroom apartment. With no agenda, and despite feeling guilty over playing too much Frank lately, I cue the New Orleans Tipatina July 3, ‘93 show, mostly because it has recently been praised here but also because I expect to confirm the praise. Not surprisingly, I do. Great sample of that tour with Santiago, Feldman, and Vincent. For continuity I follow with the Reading Festival August 26, ‘94 boot, and then a Cult of Ray/Oddballs compilation I made years ago. Obviously much fun was had. Funny how that works: one guy in a box listening to Frank Black and friends for three hours somehow manages to enjoy himself.
So I emerge to my Yahoo home page to find an Associated Press headline of “Bush and Blair acknowledge Iraq 'setbacks'”:
“In unusually introspective comments, Bush said he regretted his cowboy rhetoric after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks such as his "wanted dead or alive" description of Osama bin Laden and his taunting "bring 'em on" challenge to Iraqi insurgents.
"In certain parts of the world, it was misinterpreted."
He also cited the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. "We've been paying for that for a long time," Bush said.
Blair regretted the way in which Saddam Hussein's political allies were expelled from the Iraqi military and government soon after the fall of Baghdad. Critics have said the purge left a security vacuum and encouraged former regime loyalists to take up arms against the newly installed government.
Blair also said allies seriously underestimated the strength and determination of the insurgency.
"It should have been very obvious to us" from the beginning, Blair said.”
What a couple of fucking tools! Of course it didn’t go as they expected, and of course the limp AP refers to Bush’s “rhetoric” as “cowboy”. I for one am glad Bush “taunted” the insurgents. Yes, bring them on to where they die, by what ratio? Ten to one target? More? Some called it the “flypaper” tactic, and they were right. Better we kill the murdering bastards in Iraq rather than here in our homes. Jesus Fuck, Bush: you don’t have a goddam thing to apologize for, unless you want to address your utter lack of fiscal frugality or your capitulaton on illegal immigration, but that’s an aside unless you also want to get into why we’re likely to soon be afflicted by another run of Dem “talk” and appeasement. Please do give me more involvement of the United Nations. Yeh, that’ll work! And Blair, everybody knows that if the Nazi’s had remained in power after WWII the Cold War would have shorter, but does that mean we SHOULD have done so? Please, even though you’re both a couple of professionall asskissers, try to take a stab at honor. Just because the press and the electorates of your respective nations, so long as they still deserve the term, have completely surrendered all sense of integrity, that doesn’t mean that you have to as well. Damn!
And of course the press can’t help but title the story to the effect that Bush and Blair “acknowledge” what all the numbnuts, present company excepted, expected from the beginning, but that’s a whole ‘nuther story. Talk about a “culture” that deserves what it gets! Sorry. Sorta. But this really pisses me off. Sometimes I actually wish this would actually get around to where it's going so politicians and press would have to start dealing with it for what it really is. As if!
“What a bargain: At a cost of a mere $100,000 or so, a northeastern college can take your child and transform him into a delicate flower incapable of handling opinions at odds with his own.” - Rich Lowry, National Review Online, May 23, 2006 |
| Erebus |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 15:57:00
quote:
Originally posted by speedy_m
Not to turn this (further) into a discussion strictly about the Middle East, but I think, when comparing "our" (Western) society with their's, we often feel a sense of superiority as we deem ourselves much less violent, fanatical and irrational.
This last clause strikes me, and I know you too speedy m, because I can understand how the entire rest of the world can legitimately characterize us, at least historically, most especially the Anglo world, as the violent ones. So many disparate parts of the world speak English because the English Navy was so good at what it did. And in saying "English" I do not mean to exempt the American, or the Canadian, the Australian, the New Zealanders, or the South African. Certainly in the post-WWII America earned it's share of the blame/credit, if only because most of the West found itself on its backside. What a twisted, mixed pedigree. So many times I have wished we could have managed to leave Africa, Asia, and the Mideast alone, but that isn't how humans behave. Ever short-term profit uber alles! All of which is not to "discredit" the French, Germans, Spanish, Portuguese, Italians, Belgians, Dutch, Scandanavians or anyone else, so much as to say that the English Navy gained the seas and to a great extent our present. But, though "we" may understand the complaints of the world, "we" also may expect that in our place they might have done similarly, and that, whether or not they would have, "we" will not willingly have our throats slit. Or will "we"?
Though such views are standard in the textbooks, it's surprising how little they inform most pedestrian-level discussion, meaning, but not at all to slight, our own.
“What a bargain: At a cost of a mere $100,000 or so, a northeastern college can take your child and transform him into a delicate flower incapable of handling opinions at odds with his own.” - Rich Lowry, National Review Online, May 23, 2006 |
| Erebus |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 15:06:41
quote:
Originally posted by lonely persuader
There's a slight sense of paranoia from reading this!!
I know. I went to sleep thinking it made me sound crazy. I even thought about getting up to delete it but then just accepted that that's not how things are done. It's not so much paranoia over loss of liberty as it is concern over loss of the ability to discuss that which we most necessarily need to discuss. "We" being the world, not the forum, of course. Though I abhor any trumpetting of "Unity, Unity!", I am constantly confronted with how shut down things are. Europe vs. USA, USA vs. UN, Left vs. Right, Dem vs. Repub (with its political analogs in other Western nations), and of course Christendom vs. Islam. And I'm a part of it. I can hardly read a paragraph from the leftwing blogosphere without wanting to be anywhere else, all the while finding my National Review or InstaPundit beacons of clarity and light. And when I find my beloved forum overrun with nothing but the obligatorily subtle dissection of Frank and otherwise superficial fun with cultural minutia, I sometimes dispair over the elephants in the living room. God love Frank (ha! given the topic), but there are other issues, conspicuous in their absence, for the very intelligent fans here. So sometimes I panic, and seem "paranoid", as you say.
“What a bargain: At a cost of a mere $100,000 or so, a northeastern college can take your child and transform him into a delicate flower incapable of handling opinions at odds with his own.” - Rich Lowry, National Review Online, May 23, 2006 |
| Erebus |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 14:35:59
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank
Yeah, I'm not sure there's much of a distinction between the "suspect everybody" regime and the "accuse everybody" regime.
Good point. Both have the effect of suppressing the discussions we will require to adequately address the challenges of the day, though I am concerned that "accuse" does target the hawkish whereas "suspect" tends more to inhibit the guilty. Perhaps not such a slight disctinction, though in regard to liberty the effect is quite similar.
“What a bargain: At a cost of a mere $100,000 or so, a northeastern college can take your child and transform him into a delicate flower incapable of handling opinions at odds with his own.” - Rich Lowry, National Review Online, May 23, 2006 |
| Erebus |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 14:14:43
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
remember all that rot about Ashcroft's impending assualt on civil liberties? Oh no, they're going to be able to see what I check out of the library!!! And just whose liberties have been repressed? No, this is not about Bush, Ashcroft, or Rumsfeld.
Oy vey!
darwin: "How do you, a "libertarian", feel about the NSA tracking our phone calls?"
erebus: "I'm glad the adults are keeping us safe"
darwin: "Yes, they are quite a well organized and well planned bunch. Just what we want in a daddy."
First of all, I must say I just finishing watching "The Corn Is Green" - Bette Davis, Nigel Bruce, John Dall (1945), and it made me cry, more than once. Bette Davis was so vividly a genius that she makes me wonder why the rest of us aren't.
Now then, thanks darwin. Yes, that pretty much sums it. You're a man with a memory and I'm grateful. I glad someone is connecting the dots when it comes to communication among terrorists. And no, I don't fear the Bushies going hog-wild with telephonic eavesdropping, though I'm sure there are some pretty sad things yet to come to light. My main gripe is with USA Today, the NY Times, the Wash Post, and others being so cavalier with national security, presumably for simple partisan advantage, which is, mostly to say, to get the Dems back in the White House, in addition to shaming the hated Bush. Pretty sad, and yes, unamerican. No doubt they will ably cloak themselves in high principle.
“What a bargain: At a cost of a mere $100,000 or so, a northeastern college can take your child and transform him into a delicate flower incapable of handling opinions at odds with his own.” - Rich Lowry, National Review Online, May 23, 2006 |
| glacial906 |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 14:08:28
I wonder how all of this will pan out. You've got half the commentators speculating that the U.S. is drawn too thin already, and that they will end up having to reinstate the draft, and then you've got the other half talking about war with Iran. Shitty timing, even for a war.
Signature censored by forum moderators. |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 12:13:22
quote:
Originally posted by lonely persuader
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank
Heh, perhaps. Let me ask you another question: could you see the US using nuclear weapons, aside from as a reaction to a nuclear attack?
 "If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate."
I'll counter with another question:
could you see the Iran (assuming they get em) using nuclear weapons, aside from as a reaction to a nuclear attack?
I'll answer, I don't think the US would to be honest. But even if they don't, do you think they will invade Iran (or do you think that decision has been made)?
Truth be told, I could. I don't know if they'd just drop one on a whim someday, but if the eternal fighting with Israel/Palestine goes through a rough spot or there were to be a war with Iran, I could certainly see it.
I think if Iran were to back off and comply with the UN and IAEA like the rest of the world, then no, the US wouldn't go to war at least in the present. They're still too tied up in Iraq, and I don't think for a second that Iran is not aware of that. However, if diplomacy and sanctions fail, as they assuredly will, to dissuade Iran, then what are the options? Either let them go and hope they don't use it (which they, at the least, will certainly threaten to do) or else get in there and see to it that they don't.
Thankfully, this time I believe there would be a fairly large consensus that action is required rather than the US/UK flaunting international law to go to war with a country on a justification of utter fabricated bullshit. The world would be a more stable place if they hadn't been the aggressors there, and I strongly feel that either Iran would not be taking advantage of the US' exertion elsewhere or else would be dealt with already.
But back to your question, do I believe and did I believe that a US invasion of Iran was in the cards, yes, sooner or later, for one excuse or another. All part of their plan. But would it have been this year (and it will be this year)? Not likely. Doubtless Iran knows this too and wants something to threaten the US with to keep them out or at least make them think twice.
"If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate." |
| speedy_m |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 12:04:21
quote:
Originally posted by lonely persuader
quote:
Originally posted by speedy_m
In the Middle East, they have had a culture of animosity, acrimony, strife, violence and all the rest for x number of years (fill in the x with the appropriate large number). Try telling a soccer mom to give up her SUV. Try telling the equivalent in the Middle East the equivalent thing to change. Not so easy.
he's back jack smoking crack find him if you want to get found
A bit harsh, i bet there are many many peaceful places in the middle east. IRAQ is in shit at the present, agreed. And even if it does eventually get fixed the ends don't justify the means and never will.
I don't see it as harsh. I'm sure there are peaceful places in the Middle East, just as there are people/communities in N. America which use public transit and the like. What I'm saying is I grew up in a country which has essentially known little if any war, strife and conflict, especially with neighbouring countries. I haven't been socialized to hate another group of people who have offended or desecreated me or my beliefs in some way. So its easy to sit back and feel superior because I'm so peaceful.
he's back jack smoking crack find him if you want to get found
|
| glacial906 |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 10:22:20
Uh, yeah, definitely I could see Iran using nuclear weapons for a variety of reasons, one among them potentially nuking Israel, if they had them, while I can't imagine the U.S. using them for anything other than retaliation. Although I'm not saying a nuclear war is impossible, the prospect of such a thing seems to keep most of the major world powers (yes, the "adults") from confronting each other directly. (i.e. the Cold War.) Smaller nations, oftentimes run by extremist individual with a particular beef with another nation, seem to be much more likely to use nuclear weapons as a show of force. I don't know Iran as a nation well enough to make the assessment that that is what they'd do. But, would I have thought it was okay for Saddam Hussein's regime to have nuclear weapons? Hell no. I can't even completely trust what my own government does with nuclear weapons, I sure as hell don't want to have to rely on the discretion of a leader with a personal grudge against another country.
Signature censored by forum moderators. |
| lonely persuader |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 10:15:50
quote:
Originally posted by speedy_m
In the Middle East, they have had a culture of animosity, acrimony, strife, violence and all the rest for x number of years (fill in the x with the appropriate large number). Try telling a soccer mom to give up her SUV. Try telling the equivalent in the Middle East the equivalent thing to change. Not so easy.
he's back jack smoking crack find him if you want to get found
A bit harsh, i bet there are many many peaceful places in the middle east. IRAQ is in shit at the present, agreed. And even if it does eventually get fixed the ends don't justify the means and never will.
|
| lonely persuader |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 10:09:58
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank
Heh, perhaps. Let me ask you another question: could you see the US using nuclear weapons, aside from as a reaction to a nuclear attack?
"If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate."
I'll counter with another question:
could you see the Iran (assuming they get em) using nuclear weapons, aside from as a reaction to a nuclear attack?
I'll answer, I don't think the US would to be honest. But even if they don't, do you think they will invade Iran (or do you think that decision has been made)?
|
| speedy_m |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 08:52:18
Not to turn this (further) into a discussion strictly about the Middle East, but I think, when comparing "our" (Western) society with their's, we often feel a sense of superiority as we deem ourselves much less violent, fanatical and irrational. I'm not attempting to justify or dismiss the actions of religious zealots and terrorists or imply that "we" (Americans, by default) are all ethnocentric elitists; I think a comparison can be made in terms of cultures. I don't mean culture in terms of arts and language and belief systems, I mean culture in more broad terms. Like the American "culture of fear" that seems to have permeated the country the last few (post 9/11) years. For example, North American society is a "car culture" to the extreme. Our society is essentially organized around the automobile and oil and gas. Despite the warning signs of the lack of sustainablility of this lifestyle and skyrocketing gas prices, we all still drive around and destroy our environment (socially, economically and otherwise). It's like smoking. Everyone knows it's bad, yet millions still smoke. Car culture has existed for aprox. 50 years, and it seems nearly irreversible. In the Middle East, they have had a culture of animosity, acrimony, strife, violence and all the rest for x number of years (fill in the x with the appropriate large number). Try telling a soccer mom to give up her SUV. Try telling the equivalent in the Middle East the equivalent thing to change. Not so easy.
he's back jack smoking crack find him if you want to get found
|
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 08:49:45
Heh, perhaps. Let me ask you another question: could you see the US using nuclear weapons, aside from as a reaction to a nuclear attack?
"If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate." |
| lonely persuader |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 08:30:47
>Can we all agree that they are certainly after weapons at least, or do people buy the 'nuclear power' thing?
I think there after nuclear weapons, if im honest. But, as a bargaining chip (security). US will have to take em seriously and try and bring them in outa the cold (definately no invading).
I know some of em dudes are exteme etc. But I'm as suspect about the US as i am IRAN. Iran say extreme things etc but usually keep to themselves (oppress their own citizens). US say lovely things but do extremely terrible things abroad (oppress other citizens).
Difference. US have a good PR man. |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 07:37:47
On nuclear weapons in Iran:
1) Openly hostile leader who wants to "wipe Israel off the map".
2) Local sentiment reflects this desire and prejudice.
3) Does not seem to concern itself with the wishes and norms of the international community nor diplomacy.
I don't care that it's Israel. They have no special place in my heart but the point is that if you put ANY country in there, making statements like that, to my mind, declares you unfit to be running a bake sale, nevermind a country. I mean, I do understand your point and even agree to an extent that one or many country/ies with nuclear weapons shouldn't be telling the other they can't have them, but where does that reasoning end? If you are selling uranium, and someone tells you they're going to make a bomb and "nuke Turkey" or something like that, should you sell him the uranium? He may have just as much claim to it as you do, but that doesn't make it right. This case may not be so clear cut, but it's not so far off, is it?
That historically the US has used two bombs is obviously disgusting but awareness of the bombs was not high and the consequences nationally and internationally for a country using a nuclear bomb today would be almost as damaging as the bomb itself. Iran, as pointed out above, would nationally be very much in support of nuking Israel, not just in leadership, but rank-and-file citizenry, and doesn't seem to give a damn about international relations anyway.
The consequence would undoubtedly be war and/or nuclear retaliation from Israel (I still feel that in these circumstances nobody BUT Israel would retaliate with nuclear weapons) assuming they do have weapons, but perhaps Iran could simply say, "We'll bomb you next" and that would keep them protected. Or perhaps they'd be attacked anyway and more nuclear bombs would be exchanged and, well, keep an eye out for four horsemen.
In any case, I have thought along the lines you have, but in the end I see no choice but to disallow an unstable country nuclear anything. Can we all agree that they are certainly after weapons at least, or do people buy the 'nuclear power' thing?
"If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate." |
| lonely persuader |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 03:22:49
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
I understand jimmy. I sorta regret getting into some of the things I opened up, and that makes me sad, the regret that is. As a culture the West has gotten truly creepy lately, and I'm not talking about anything to do with anything George Bush has done. This post is about the repression of debate, not about religion. Last night I was reading at http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWE4ZGE0MjhkYTEyZDc1YjUwNjc1NzFmZjVkZmUwYmQ . Michael Rubin arrived in Iceland for a series of lectures only to find himself accused of and investigated for war crimes on the basis opinions he had espoused. As he explains, "My crimes were multifold: Writing an article blaming Saddam Hussein—not United Nations sanctions—for Iraqi deaths, and then advocating for Iraqi liberation. This made me responsible for “war-crimes and violating international law by indirectly causing the invasion of Iraq.” Like thousands of others, I had also worked at the Pentagon and volunteered for duty in Iraq. At each university lecture, protesters worked to disrupt my speech. Some were young students, and others were older retirees, members of a group calling itself, “The Movement for Active Democracy.” I was even accused of complicity in a cover-up of the 9/11 attacks. Among my crimes, the protesters pointed out, “[Rubin] is a Jew and a big supporter of Israel.” Guilty as charged. I do not apologize for my religion, and I am also a big supporter of India, Turkey, Taiwan, Mali, and other democracies. Iceland is a small country. Rather than ignore the incidents, both newspapers and television reported it. I was already in Finland when I got an e-mail informing me that the police commissioner dismissed the lawsuit."
On May 15 the blogger who linked me to Rubin's story, wrote about his own situation at http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1069 that “Today Father Johan Leman, a Catholic priest of the Order of Saint Dominic (the inquisition order) and a professor at the Catholic University of Leuven, has joined the chorus. Father Leman is the previous president of the CEOOR (Center for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism), the inquisition center of the Belgian government. In today’s news broadcast on the national radio he says that the CEOOR has been negligent because it has not already started prosecutions against me.
“According to Father Leman I have incited racial hatred, with the result that extremist or unbalanced people, such as Hans Van Themsche, have decided to take the law into their own hands and shoot immigrants. Father Leman blames the Belgian authorities and the CEOOR for not punishing me.”
Of course these are just examples against pundits on the right, and I know the left can provide credible counterexamples, or at least I think they can. The Dixie Chicks’ confusion over the difference between censorship and capitalism doesn’t count, and remember all that rot about Ashcroft's impending assualt on civil liberties? Oh no, they're going to be able to see what I check out of the library!!! And just whose liberties have been repressed? No, this is not about Bush, Ashcroft, or Rumsfeld.
Just to be clear, I am not bringing this up because of lonely persuader’s most recent post in this thread. The role of Israel is worthy of discussion, and at least he had the courage to say what he thinks. And in no way am I alluding to any shortcomings on the part of our moderators. I do bring this up, however, because there is a chill over these many lands, from Brussels to Reykjavik to San Francisco, and sometimes it extends into this forum. I feel it, and I usually give into it. After all, it is almost always easier to just keep quiet. Which means they’re winning, against all of us regardless of our political or religious stripe. How long is before the thought police reach into little web pockets like this? Don't think it can happen? Did anybody here think they'd live to read of the types of things I link to above? Creepy.
“What a bargain: At a cost of a mere $100,000 or so, a northeastern college can take your child and transform him into a delicate flower incapable of handling opinions at odds with his own.” - Rich Lowry, National Review Online, May 23, 2006
There's a slight sense of paranoia from reading this!! I guess us europeans tend to stick up the palestinian side of things (just to even things up i guess) since Israel has so much sway in the states. I don't obviously advocate blowing people up or violence but I think it is far removed from religion (was my only point). That whole joke about, "im not a passivist by nature, im a passivist by physique", springs to mind with us Irish.
My current gripe is the whole Iran suitation actually. Why can't they develop nuclear power or weapons? (although, i'd be happier if everyone had none).
I think I just hate the way that one adult (yes, lets pretend the US administration are adults) can tell another, "no, you can't have those", we can have any amount of bombs etc we want, but you can't. What nation were the only one's to use an A-bomb or two on civilians? Why has Israel refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? I guess since Israel's nuclear weapons program has never been publically acknowledged.
Oh, yes and WW II was terrible etc. How'd we get talkin about this stuff?
Jimmy what does the H. stand for in Jesus H. Christ? Feck this, Ive a paper to write for a workshop and get submitted today.. |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 05/25/2006 : 00:32:44
Yeah, I'm not sure there's much of a distinction between the "suspect everybody" regime and the "accuse everybody" regime.
"If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate." |
| darwin |
Posted - 05/24/2006 : 22:42:06
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
remember all that rot about Ashcroft's impending assualt on civil liberties? Oh no, they're going to be able to see what I check out of the library!!! And just whose liberties have been repressed? No, this is not about Bush, Ashcroft, or Rumsfeld.
Oy vey!
darwin: "How do you, a "libertarian", feel about the NSA tracking our phone calls?"
erebus: "I'm glad the adults are keeping us safe"
darwin: "Yes, they are quite a well organized and well planned bunch. Just what we want in a daddy."
________________________________________________________________
Working on the T.V. show Emergency! was particularly nice because I was working with a real pro “Randy Mantooth” - Dick Van Patten |
| Erebus |
Posted - 05/24/2006 : 21:58:25
I understand jimmy. I sorta regret getting into some of the things I opened up, and that makes me sad, the regret that is. As a culture the West has gotten truly creepy lately, and I'm not talking about anything to do with anything George Bush has done. This post is about the repression of debate, not about religion. Last night I was reading at http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWE4ZGE0MjhkYTEyZDc1YjUwNjc1NzFmZjVkZmUwYmQ . Michael Rubin arrived in Iceland for a series of lectures only to find himself accused of and investigated for war crimes on the basis opinions he had espoused. As he explains, "My crimes were multifold: Writing an article blaming Saddam Hussein—not United Nations sanctions—for Iraqi deaths, and then advocating for Iraqi liberation. This made me responsible for “war-crimes and violating international law by indirectly causing the invasion of Iraq.” Like thousands of others, I had also worked at the Pentagon and volunteered for duty in Iraq. At each university lecture, protesters worked to disrupt my speech. Some were young students, and others were older retirees, members of a group calling itself, “The Movement for Active Democracy.” I was even accused of complicity in a cover-up of the 9/11 attacks. Among my crimes, the protesters pointed out, “[Rubin] is a Jew and a big supporter of Israel.” Guilty as charged. I do not apologize for my religion, and I am also a big supporter of India, Turkey, Taiwan, Mali, and other democracies. Iceland is a small country. Rather than ignore the incidents, both newspapers and television reported it. I was already in Finland when I got an e-mail informing me that the police commissioner dismissed the lawsuit."
On May 15 the blogger who linked me to Rubin's story, wrote about his own situation at http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1069 that “Today Father Johan Leman, a Catholic priest of the Order of Saint Dominic (the inquisition order) and a professor at the Catholic University of Leuven, has joined the chorus. Father Leman is the previous president of the CEOOR (Center for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism), the inquisition center of the Belgian government. In today’s news broadcast on the national radio he says that the CEOOR has been negligent because it has not already started prosecutions against me.
“According to Father Leman I have incited racial hatred, with the result that extremist or unbalanced people, such as Hans Van Themsche, have decided to take the law into their own hands and shoot immigrants. Father Leman blames the Belgian authorities and the CEOOR for not punishing me.”
Of course these are just examples against pundits on the right, and I know the left can provide credible counterexamples, or at least I think they can. The Dixie Chicks’ confusion over the difference between censorship and capitalism doesn’t count, and remember all that rot about Ashcroft's impending assualt on civil liberties? Oh no, they're going to be able to see what I check out of the library!!! And just whose liberties have been repressed? No, this is not about Bush, Ashcroft, or Rumsfeld.
Just to be clear, I am not bringing this up because of lonely persuader’s most recent post in this thread. The role of Israel is worthy of discussion, and at least he had the courage to say what he thinks. And in no way am I alluding to any shortcomings on the part of our moderators. I do bring this up, however, because there is a chill over these many lands, from Brussels to Reykjavik to San Francisco, and sometimes it extends into this forum. I feel it, and I usually give into it. After all, it is almost always easier to just keep quiet. Which means they’re winning, against all of us regardless of our political or religious stripe. How long is before the thought police reach into little web pockets like this? Don't think it can happen? Did anybody here think they'd live to read of the types of things I link to above? Creepy.
“What a bargain: At a cost of a mere $100,000 or so, a northeastern college can take your child and transform him into a delicate flower incapable of handling opinions at odds with his own.” - Rich Lowry, National Review Online, May 23, 2006 |
| jimmy |
Posted - 05/24/2006 : 18:41:59
When I woke up Sunday morning, I really regretted starting this thread...I shouldn't post when I'm high, but then I'd never post at all. I guess I thought I was on a roll after my very funny post ( I have to admit I'm very proud of it ) in the celebrity sex thread I started.
But anyway, it's pointless to talk about religion, and I don't believe that I can change people's opinions, and if I could I wouldn't want to anyway.
I would like to say a couple more things though. I don't feel the need to go crazy and change the laws or anything but:
I don't think "under God" should be in the Pledge, and anyone who defends it being in there is a douche.
and
I don't think "In God We Trust" should be on our money.
and
Lights on trees are fine, but there shouldn't be nativity scenes or menorahs on government property.
I think everyone knows these things are wrong, even the people who defend them- they just want them kept in place because it's their religion that's being represented.
"Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." JOHN 15:14 |
| lonely persuader |
Posted - 05/24/2006 : 02:02:51
To be honest this topic has really decended into the politics within different cultures (and not neccessary anything to do with real religion). It may be what some people percieve to be religion (as religion gets blamed for anything) (but not). Suicide bombings has very little to do with religion and alot to do with oppression by the far right in Israel. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 05/23/2006 : 20:56:42
Didn't mean to screw up the thread.
|
| Holy Fingers |
Posted - 05/23/2006 : 18:56:33
quote:
Originally posted by remig
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Fingers
Atheists believe the "code" and christians do not.
REMEMBER THIS: Nowhere in history has an atheist taken a human life in the name of his cause.
I don't believe the "code". This is full of bullshit. A bad book made by a guy that had read "the 10 rules to make a thriller" and went to the first semester at any random art school.
Sorry. Probably should have said that atheists WANT to believe the code. I know I would like to, but I can't.
REMEMBER THIS: Nowhere in history has an atheist taken a human life in the name of his cause. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 05/23/2006 : 17:13:59
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank
More on topic, I'd hate to think of society moving to a 'head race', if I may coin the term. Though it's less frightening than an arms race, a rush to get head count and encourage population growth where it's not wanted nor desired nor sustainable will doubtless have very grave societal effects. The notable exceptions are probably in the north, Canada and Scandinavia, for example, and especially Scandinavia. The world needs more of those girls around. Though, I suppose, I'll be too old to appreciate them by the time that comes to fruition.
This reminds me of reading how in countries where parents often use ultrasound to select the gender of the child (India? China?), so many opt for boy children, which makes one think the country is likely to eventually end up with a surplus of young men, which makes me think of an army, but also emmigration. That in turn reminds me of reading how the interval between wars among the city-states of ancient Greece was in part governed by the availability of young males to fight the wars. You know, kill off too many, till then you can't wage war, and restock for the next one.
quote:
But I veer from the topic. Again. Regarding socioeconomic policies, I certainly agree that in general merit should trump anything else; not to say people should be fired at random or without thought, but the labour movement has moved things into an us vs. them mentality that promotes "how much can we get away with" thinking. I'm not sure how this applies to having people find a place in society, but perhaps I'm not the only one that strays from the topic at hand.
I mention socioeconomic policies because I have read more than once, at conservative blog sites, that long-term employment guarantees in France, especially within the civil service and perhaps in other countries as well, make it difficult for the young and immigrant to break into jobs in the broader culture, which retards cultural assimilation and contributes to immigrants remaining their enclaves, thus slowing the spread of broader social values. Don't know how true this is, and I admit that one reason the conservative writers condemn this is that they oppose both massive civil service sectors and government mandated employment guarantees.
|
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 05/23/2006 : 16:12:16
A very far side note, and perhaps worthy of its own topic, but have any of you read Freakonomics? The abortion topic was an interesting one in there, though wholly unsurprising, I'm sure it's controversial.
More on topic, I'd hate to think of society moving to a 'head race', if I may coin the term. Though it's less frightening than an arms race, a rush to get head count and encourage population growth where it's not wanted nor desired nor sustainable will doubtless have very grave societal effects. The notable exceptions are probably in the north, Canada and Scandinavia, for example, and especially Scandinavia. The world needs more of those girls around. Though, I suppose, I'll be too old to appreciate them by the time that comes to fruition.
Re: Muhammed cartoons, I agree fully they should not have been censored nor have caused riots. BUT I freely admit that, knowing the offense they would generate, they were in bad taste. There was a cartoon of Jesus screwing a pig in our local university newspaper and while the guy was tossed and there was an overreactive outcry, nothing burned down. Again, poor taste, but not censored.
Finally, answers. As if it were so easy. Fear and lack of understanding are definitely not going to help. I'm not suggesting that you are saying this, just that it seems both of us agree we are heading down this path. I feel a lot of this is perpetrated by the media and also by extremely paranoid/power-grabbing government. Of course, any government, in fact any anything, animal or human, seeks more power than it has. There are variations on what power means to individuals, of course - money, prestige, or simply independence and freedom - but I think that this is true of anyone. And so, we are fed more paranoia to sell advertisements and freedoms to the appropriate parties. This is old news, I know, but consider the results. Instead of promoting cultural understanding, and ultimately integration (to be distinguished clearly from assimilation), the road we walk is to increased secularity, which, as outlined previously, is a big problem.
There was a balance between security and freedom before 9/11, and most of us would probably agree that it was perhaps inappropriately skewed. But we are piling so much on the other side that we are threatening to topple the scale. And whatsmore, I'm not convinced we've gotten much on the positive out of this in the trade.
But I veer from the topic. Again. Regarding socioeconomic policies, I certainly agree that in general merit should trump anything else; not to say people should be fired at random or without thought, but the labour movement has moved things into an us vs. them mentality that promotes "how much can we get away with" thinking. I'm not sure how this applies to having people find a place in society, but perhaps I'm not the only one that strays from the topic at hand.
Personally, I'm in favour of and quite happy to have more immigrants, but I'd like it controlled a little more as well. Initial placement would be one area that I think could improve a lot. If you don't lump them all together in the first place, they may be more inclined to meet others and find things in common.
But I have to run out, so I leave this to others to discuss.
"If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate." |
| Erebus |
Posted - 05/23/2006 : 15:56:11
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
[quote]Originally posted by starmekitten
It seems odd to me that those who most strongly support a multicultural Europe seem oblivious to broader demographic trends that will eventually conflict directly with support for tolerance and multiculturalism. Birth rates of the more historical, white Europeans are way down, whereas those of Asian and African immigrants are high, so it would seem that within the next fifty years or so the Islamic populations will become the voting majorities across much of Europe. Given how little practitioners of of Islam support modern ideas of tolerance for women, other religions, homosexuals, ... you name it, and given that Islamic voters seem likely to vote for officials and policies that would overthrow or at least cripple the culture of tolerance, doesn't it concern some of you that today's culture of tolerance will likely bring about a culture of intolerance? Specifically, a culture that is most intolerant of the most outspoken supporters of tolerance, meaning those who support women's rights, abortion rights, sexual orientation rights. (Ironically, abortion rights play a large role in the low birthrate of historical Europeans, which could lead to eventual elimination or at least curtailment of abortion rights.) I don't think it's realistic to believe that over the next few generatons multiculturalistic ideas are somehow going to infiltrate Europe's Islamic populations enough to ward off such a shift in voting patterns and resultant social policies. However, I do admit that it is quite possible that these trends will not continue to the extent I fear, but only because conflct, perhaps horrific conflict, may intervene before that can happen.
I believe birth rates are down in almost all countries (true, more so in Western nations) and I have never seen abortion to be shown to be a major cause of the decline. Contraception I believe is far more significant and family planning.
I partially dismiss these type of birth rate arguments because they have been made repeatedly throughout history (from the Eugenics of the "lower classes" to the Mormons are going to overrun the US), and to my knowledge they never seem to come true.
I should have mentioned contraception. Thank you. And you make a good point on birth rate arguments in general. Long-term social predictions usually end up looking foolish, and I don't mean to claim the trendlines will continue unchanged. I have often read that family size decreases as education is made more widely available to women. Having acknowledged that, the current situation does seem somewhat different due to matters of scale, meaning that in some countries births of historic ethnic groups are running well below replacement rates, while immigrant rates are well above that and unlikely to be much impacted by the education of women, at least within the next two generations, by which time the changes I suggested will largely have occurred. Certainly the situation may not develop to an extreme degree, and maybe the changes will even be slow enough that spread of tolerance will soften the effects, But I do think some who often argue here need to do more to factor such considerations into their political positions, especially as they regard tolerance. It's funny to think that many here will live long enough to see how it turns out, as if much of anything ever really "turns out".
|
|
|
