Laughing at Saddam by Hero

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
What makes you a Human being?

I follow these rules. I do as little hurt to my fellow human beings as I can. I try to help as much as I can.

Some people do better at this than I. Some do worse. Some do so much worse that they drop below the line between human beings and animals in a human being suit. I consider Saddam one such. I'd like some one of you to explain to me why you think he should be considered a human being. Does anyone know?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 2:38 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Are we now discussing the death penalty? I just want to know 'cause I don't want to be accused of changing the subject again.

Actually, I think now we're discussing if Saddam was a human being. Several people have said he was, but only Fletch2 has offered a reason why, which relies strictly on genetics, not ethical or moral content.

Do you think Saddam was a human being, and if so, why?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 3:26 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi Citizen;

"I mean a small sparrow through your average Jet engine would make it turn itself inside out quite spectacularly, let alone a man, and a fairly substantial one at that."

I've seen what happens when a jet engine loses a turbine at 80% power. Not pretty at all but really really cool.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 3:42 PM

Though I don't claim to be a religious man, I do try to live my life by "judge not, lest thee be judged". Maybe it was my love for Metallica when I was a kid... I don't know.

All I got to say is that because I have a great distrust in our media and their disinformation and propoganda, I'm not entirely sure that he was this bad guy that we all say he is. I didn't know him personally, and I wasn't in Iraq to know how life there was. He never did anything bad to me and WE gave him weapons. He never had any nuclear weapons, just like he said the whole time.

We invaded them, pure and simple. I don't know why we did, though I have my suspicions. Saddam was a scapegoat and we made him a martyr now as well.

The misplaced hatered many here have had for that man is no different than the hatered many here have had for George W. Bush. Bush is the face of this war, but there were many driving forces behind him and he was just along for the ride. The President has the unique position of being able to take all the credit when things go well and also to take all the blame when things go bad, so the people behind the curtain are left to their own devices while he plays human shield for them.

I think it's funny how not one single person had anything to say to my last post about this earlier on the thread. Saddam was the only secular leader in the Middle East, and therefore, our greatest potential ally there. Since our goal seems to be to make Iraq a puppet state, I see no reason we couldn't have incorporated Saddam into it and keep him as leader out there. Our eyes and ears are everywhere. It wouldn't have been hard to monitor his activities and put him back in line if needed be.

His death was a shame, and the mass enjoyment which stemmed from it is even a greater shame on our nation. All of those taking glee in this happening seem to me to be nothing more than extras in 1984 that throw their books and cuss at Emmanuel Goldstein during the daily two minute hate. Dance puppets.

Now we're in the middle of an Iraqi civil war that we have no business being in. Bush wants to send out more troops, but the Dems say they won't approve more troops (unless valid reasons can be given why). But then that two faced bitch Pelosi says that she wants to increase military spending and make our military larger and stronger.

I for one don't want another dollar of my taxes going to this damn war or our army. When our efforts to convert everybody in the Middle East to our secular and materialistic ways fail, we will have them suicide bombing our malls and schools instead of each other because we couldn't just sit back and let them destroy each other and had to play nanny police.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 3:57 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi 6-string,

I'm not sure why nobody replied to your post. I would have expected a few disagreements from those who liked the execution. As for the others, perhaps they agreed with your general sentiment if not every last detail.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 3:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
The thing that strikes me most is the materials that they used to make that engine. I mean a small sparrow through your average Jet engine would make it turn itself inside out quite spectacularly, let alone a man, and a fairly substantial one at that.

I’ve never heard of a bird as small as a sparrow causing that kind of damage, but certainly large birds like duck and geese can wreak all kinds of havoc on jet engines. But all of the damaged caused by bird ingestions, that I’m familiar with, are the result of in-flight collisions, which is really a different thing then a stationary event.

Every now and then there are stories of some poor dude getting sucked up by an engine. Surprisingly, it’s not always fatal, but I doubt its fun. Large engines like those on civilian jets seem to be the most deadly though; they can chew up folk pretty good. I found a couple of cases of stationary ingestion of civilian flight crew, all of them were fatal. The pictures were not pretty. Oddly, though there didn’t seem to be any visible structural damage to the engine, but the pictures probably didn’t tell the whole story, and I couldn’t find any technical report.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 4:56 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

These are interesting -

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 5:00 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
These are interesting -

So if Saddam were sucked into a jet engine, would he be a pureed human being, and why?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 5:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I think it's funny how not one single person had anything to say to my last post about this earlier on the thread. Saddam was the only secular leader in the Middle East, and therefore, our greatest potential ally there. Since our goal seems to be to make Iraq a puppet state, I see no reason we couldn't have incorporated Saddam into it and keep him as leader out there. Our eyes and ears are everywhere. It wouldn't have been hard to monitor his activities and put him back in line if needed be.

You underestimate the stranglehold that Hussein had on Iraq and you overestimate the ability of the US to enact regime change through clandestine operations in that country. But setting aside these various misconceptions, for the moment, you’re right that the former Ba’athist regime in Iraq was secular, but you’re not about it being the only secular regime in the Middle East. There are actually several, most in fact. Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan and Egypt are all secular regimes; some are allies, some are not. The largest misconception that you have is perhaps the notion that a regime in the Middle East need necessarily be a brutal ruthless dictatorship, like the former Ba’aths in Iraq, in order to be a US ally. I don’t think that’s true at all, and while it sometimes seems as if some foreign policy analysts would agree with you, I think that is an unfortunate attitude to take. It turns out that there aren’t any Arab regimes in the Middle East that are real liberal democracies, like Israel or Turkey, which makes it difficult for the US to put their support on Arab liberal democracies, but that doesn’t mean that there won’t be some day or that US foreign policy should necessarily support regimes that are the antithesis of.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 7:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You underestimate the stranglehold that Hussein had on Iraq and you overestimate the ability of the US to enact regime change through clandestine operations in that country. But setting aside these various misconceptions...

I simply don't buy the picture that they're painting for us. You do. Who's to say who's right or wrong, since neither of us are there. Our Government is trying to sell us a war based on black and white and good and evil and I'm sorry, but many people in America are just not buying it. Most of us have no clue why we're even fighting this war in the first place, and if that isn't Orwelian, I don't know what is. Test that theory out for yourself. Ask 5 different people in your office why we're at war and you'll most likely have 3 different answers at least.

If the point of this war was to win, a few well placed nukes would get the job done in 24 hours and no more of our kids would have to die, and after the bombs went off, they'd know we haven't had our nuts cut off yet and there'd be nobody in the Middle East foolish enough to try anything stupid again.

There are far too many hidden agendas for me to believe that Saddam had any such stranglehold on Iraq, and even less of a chance that somebody is going to make me believe that our military couldn't get this job taken care of by now without it deliberately being a clusterfuck.

Quote:
you’re right that the former Ba’athist regime in Iraq was secular, but you’re not about it being the only secular regime in the Middle East. There are actually several, most in fact. Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan and Egypt are all secular regimes; some are allies, some are not....

Okay.... let me stop you right there.

Obviously, you read a whole lot more newspapers than I do. (See Thomas Jefferson quotes above). So there's other regimes... what's your point? Saddam had a lot of influence and was obviously one of the big players or we wouldn't have given him so much attention all these years. I don't really give a rats ass about some two bit no-name secular regimes out there, and besides, we've just prooven that we'll kill their leaders when we're through using them and they no longer suit our purposes. If I was any of them, I wouldn't trust the US at all. If they were smart in the Middle East, they'd all band together and kick our asses out of there. All we do is give them guns and bombs and sit back and watch them kill each other, then dig one of their leaders out of a hole, hang them, and celebrate as if we've ridded the world of some unspeakable evil. Then we build a schoolhouse and a puppet state Democracy and call ourselves liberators.

Quote:
The largest misconception that you have is perhaps the notion that a regime in the Middle East need necessarily be a brutal ruthless dictatorship

While I appreciate your opinion that I even have a misconception here, let me first point out that I never had even said anything of the sort in my former post. But now that you mention it, I have to disagree with your statement. These are ruthless people who have been backed into a corner. They are going to fight and fight and fight until they are all dead or their wills are crushed. Your pussy Arab Democracies are cute and all, and will probably have a place in the Middle East if we ever get a handle on the situation (which we NEVER will) but when they're being raided their "peace is the answer" attitudes are not going to shield them from the bullets and bombs like magic. Simply because you think this is not true at all, or that you think that is an unfortunate attitude to take does not mean that I have any misconceptions on the issue. Are we in disagreement, yes.

Truthfully, you really lost me from that point on.

What I don't think you're getting here is that I don't believe that we have one single legitimate reason for being there. Are there agendas? Yes there are, on all sides. The big boys are jockying for position while the American Taxpayer is being played and aside from propoganda shots of Iraqi's waving American flags and being kissed by American soldiers, I've seen no proof that the quality of life for the average "Liberated" Iraqi has increased in the slightest.

And furthermore... I couldn't really care any less about the quality of life of the Iraqi in the first place. When did we become Mother Theresa? All of that noise is simply the lipstick on the pig.

They hate us and they have every right to. I just hope I don't take any shrapnel stateside because of some jagoffs in the Pentagon started this whole thing.

RIP Saddam

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 4:33 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I've seen no proof that the quality of life for the average "Liberated" Iraqi has increased in the slightest.

It's not a matter of proof, both sides put up tons of it...its about credibility. On one hand we have the eyewitness testimony of tens of thousands of American servicemen. On the other the self-serving testimony of those seeking American defeat in the war either for personal political gain, in the case of the Democratic Party and much of the media, or to justify and distract from corruption, as in the case of the UN and France, or to promote the anti-American, pan-Arab jew killin agenda...or just because they hate Bush and would do anything to see him defeated.

Lets take one example. A widely broadcast world media story showing a dead American soldier's last message home before being killed (on a flash drive found on his dead body). He admits to crimes, drug use, and is against the war. Very sad. Except he's alive, was not in Iraq over the holidays (thus no message home admitting anything),is in favor of the war, and getting ready to redeploy later this year. But that story does not seem to make the world and especially the Arab media. Gee, I wonder why.

So on one hand we have a soldier, dead and anti-war. On the other hand, same soldier, alive and pro-war. Who do we believe? Perhaps if you poked him in the chest it would give you a clue as to which is correct, after all even Jesus was doubted on the subject of being alive.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 5:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I simply don't buy the picture that they're painting for us. You do. Who's to say who's right or wrong, since neither of us are there. Our Government is trying to sell us a war based on black and white and good and evil and I'm sorry, but many people in America are just not buying it. Most of us have no clue why we're even fighting this war in the first place, and if that isn't Orwelian, I don't know what is. Test that theory out for yourself. Ask 5 different people in your office why we're at war and you'll most likely have 3 different answers at least.

The people in my office are probably better informed on these matters then yours, but in any regard you asked why no one responded to a post in which your principle argument was a blatant misconception on the nature of secular regimes in the Middle East. When I explain your misconception to you, you simply ignore it, and that probably explains, more then anything else, why you ‘have no clue’ about why we are fighting this war. You got that whole “Iraq is the only secular regime” crap from the media, I imagine or from some punditry. That’s an ideological viewpoint that is not consistent with a factual understanding of Middle East politics. If you’re going to base your understanding of this war on misconceptions like that, then you really have to expect that you will have a less then adequate grasp of the politics of this war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 8:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I follow these rules. I do as little hurt to my fellow human beings as I can. I try to help as much as I can.

So a guide dog is a Human Being.

Can you objectivly prove that any of this is true?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 9:16 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
So a guide dog is a Human Being.

Closer than Saddam.

Quote:
Can you objectivly prove that any of this is true?

You first, please. You're the one who claims to be able to identify a human being. What is your criteria? Why is it that no one is willing to tell me what it is about Saddam which makes him a human being in your eyes?

I've stated my reasoning:

Quote:
So what makes a human anyway? The decorative packaging, or what's inside? Is it a general acceptance of the rules we've developed over time; don't murder, don't lie, don't steal, don't hurt, etc.? Can some human-looking beings be so far outside these rules that they don't qualify for the benefits of humanity any more? Obviously, I think so.

What's your's?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 9:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
You first, please. You're the one who claims to be able to identify a human being. What is your criteria?

No I didn't. You made the claim, I never have. You're the one telling us that you have the ultimate measure of what it is to be Human and that Saddam doesn't measure up, I've not made one claim to back up. You have, on the other hand, and to detract attention from the fact you haven't even tried to back them up you demand I back up claims I haven't even made.

Why is that?

Quote:
Why is it that no one is willing to tell me what it is about Saddam which makes him a human being in your eyes?

Because it's a stupid question.

But in the interests of completeness.

All your reasons for saying Saddam wasn't human pretty much devolve down to, 'because I say so'. Your criteria are arbitrary, and far from complete, "Saddam wasn't a Human because I say so", "I am a human being, because I say so", so why you think it's then reasonable to expect a complete and reasoned response with objective criteria from others is beyond me. You haven't provided such yourself, but feel perfectly fine about demanding it from others?

Is this the definition of hypocrisy?

The criteria for being a Human being is...
ChrisIsAll saying they're Human.

Ergo Saddam must be human, because ChrisIsAll says so.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 10:09 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
You first, please. You're the one who claims to be able to identify a human being. What is your criteria?
No I didn't. You made the claim, I never have.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Saddam was a human being, twisted and evil perhaps, and he lost his right to live among us as he tortured his first victim, but he was still a human being.

Is this you identifying Saddam as a human being? Did you have some criteria, or did you just take a contrarian position so you could argue?

Quote:
All your reasons for saying Saddam wasn't human pretty much devolve down to, 'because I say so'. Your criteria are arbitrary, and far from complete, "Saddam wasn't a Human because I say so", "I am a human being, because I say so", so why you think it's then reasonable to expect a complete and reasoned response with objective criteria from others is beyond me. You haven't provided such yourself, but feel perfectly fine about demanding it from others?

OK. Here's my hypothesis.

There are certain rules which have been developed by human beings over the ages, just by trial and error, that are good rules to live by. Stuff like don't kill people just because you want to, don't take their family or their stuff just because you can, Don't lie, etc. Though not exactly the same rule-set in every society, there are some general universal priciples the vast majority all pretty much agree on. The understanding of and agreement to these rules, at some level, is what differentiates us as human beings, rather than animals in human being skins.

Some individuals don't buy into these rules at all. They break them at will and with no compunction. At some point, their behavior becomes so egregious that they go beyond the bounds of humanity.

Even a cursory reading of Saddam's actions since 1958 would indicate that he has obviously passed beyond the bounds of humanity, and is therefore not a human being.

_______________________________________________

Now in normal discourse, you would present your hypothesis as to why Saddam is a human being.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 10:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
OK. Here's my hypothesis.

There are certain rules which have been developed by human beings over the ages, just by trial and error, that are good rules to live by. Stuff like don't kill people just because you want to, don't take their family or their stuff just because you can, Don't lie, etc. Though not exactly the same rule-set in every society, there are some general universal priciples the vast majority all pretty much agree on. The understanding of and agreement to these rules, at some level, is what differentiates us as human beings, rather than animals in human being skins.

Some individuals don't buy into these rules at all. They break them at will and with no compunction. At some point, their behavior becomes so egregious that they go beyond the bounds of humanity.

Even a cursory reading of Saddam's actions since 1958 would indicate that he has obviously passed beyond the bounds of humanity, and is therefore not a human being.

Well this is all very backwards. Human Behaviour defines Humans? Surely Humans define Human Behaviour? You wouldn't make a very good Biologist.

"This isn't a Dog, it doesn't do Dog things".

Quote:
Now in normal discourse, you would present your hypothesis as to why Saddam is a human being.

In normal discourse one would hope you wouldn't setup strawmen. Why must I back up a claim I haven't made?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 10:41 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I wandered out for just a bit and when I came back Slick had turned the thread into a Kafka novel. How absurd.

There are more interesting questions to answer than 'Was Hussein human?' How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? If athletes get athlete's foot, do astronauts get mistletoe? Can God make a rock bigger than He can lift? and .. Why ask pointless questions?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 11:01 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Why must I back up a claim I haven't made?

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Saddam was a human being, twisted and evil perhaps, and he lost his right to live among us as he tortured his first victim, but he was still a human being.

You didn't make this claim?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 11:07 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

BORing ... whatever

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 11:08 AM

I generally view the definition of “human” and the behavioral characteristics implied in “humanity” to be two different things, but there is an argument to be made for the “humanity” as the definition of “human.” For instance, young children that are abandoned early and are not exposed to the societal norms or language that we often take for granted before the onset of puberty, will remain developmentally challenged and never be able to participate in society in a normal way. This means that human behavior is not actually completely independent of human biology.

Although for the sake of simplicity, I continue to view them as independent.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 11:29 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Saddam was a human being, twisted and evil perhaps, and he lost his right to live among us as he tortured his first victim, but he was still a human being.

You didn't make this claim?

Geezer, that's MY claim, you mixed it up with Citizen's quotes, you biped!

Besides, I have been endowed with the ability to judge, and I say Saddam fit the genetic criteria to be considered a human being.

So sod off Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 11:32 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
There are more interesting questions to answer than 'Was Hussein human?'

That's OK Rue. Just because you can't answer the question doesn't make us think any less of you.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 11:47 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Another dodge by Slick. We've gone from laughing at Hussein, to was he human, to my intelligence. Yes, I can see Slick knows how to stay on topic.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 12:44 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Geezer, that's MY claim, you mixed it up with Citizen's quotes, you biped!

Sorry. I thought he was taking over your argument after you quit. So I guess Citizen doesn't claim Saddam was human after all.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 12:53 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Another dodge by Slick. We've gone from laughing at Hussein, to was he human, to my intelligence. Yes, I can see Slick knows how to stay on topic.

What can I say, Rue? All you had to do was let us know why you consider Saddam human. You were unable to perform this task. Since you're apparently unable to identify a human being, I hope someone labels the chairs, lamps, etc. in your home so you don't waste time trying to talk to them.

Or you could try again. What criteria do you use to determine that Saddam is, in your opinion, a human being? I'm not even asking for an objective reason, just some glimmering of how you make the decision.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 1:15 PM

STORYMARK

Geezer: I often disagree with what you have to say, but this is the dumbest, most idiotic stance I've ever seen you take.

You should be embarrassed.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 1:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Saddam was a human being, twisted and evil perhaps, and he lost his right to live among us as he tortured his first victim, but he was still a human being.

You didn't make this claim?
...
Sorry. I thought he was taking over your argument after you quit. So I guess Citizen doesn't claim Saddam was human after all.

One could almost say that assigning my name to words I never said is lying, couldn't one? I believe in a normal discussion this would be time for you to apologise to me isn't it?

I never said, alluded or implied I was taking over ChrisIsAll's argument, I was showing the holes in yours. Fact is you are essentially implying that 'Human Behaviour defines Human beings' when in fact as anyone willing to apply even basic logic should be able to see, Human Beings define Human behaviour. In fact your logic, Human Behaviour defines the Human, leads inexorably to the conclusion that all sorts of people aren't Human, those with severe mental retardation and illness for instance. Hell even young children can be extremely selfish, perhaps they don't display enough 'non-Human' behaviour to be non-Human to you?

You don't get to define what is and what is not Human behaviour, Human behaviour is what Human beings do, even if it is, for want of a better term, evil. In fact dehumanising your enemy, even with good reason, is the first biggest and arguably most crucial step to becoming a monster yourself. Think about it, would you get a pang of guilt if you butchered a chicken? That's how you do it, turn 'them' into animals, because then you can do anything you like to 'them' and console yourself because you really could never be as bad as those 'animals'.

If you want to show Saddam isn't Human then you're really going to have to come up with something better than 'he doesn't behave like a human' because if he is Human his behaviour must therefore be Human. If he is not Human, however, you can then make the case that his behaviour is not Human.

Now if you think you've come up with the ipso facto definition of 'Human', in the philosophical sense you are currently using it, you are, quite seriously, unconscionably arrogant. This is a philosophical question that has been argued since before ugg asked og what the point of getting up in the morning and fighting saber tooth tigers actually was. We are now no nearer an answer than ever, but if you'd like to give us the benefit of your god-like insight, please enlighten us.

Perhaps in lieu to an answer of such a profound philosophical nature (unless you are indeed God, if so I have a few further questions, like who was the fourth Marks brother?) we should take a more scientific view, Human beings are individuals belonging to the species Homo sapiens of the the Hominidae family, Human behaviour is the behaviour demonstrated by this species.

It may be uncomfortable to think that someone who is essentially the same as you or I could do terrible things, that maybe if you or I were in the same position, and had had the same upbringing, we may have been just as bad, harsh thought, sobering even, but sometimes adults have to recognise that in life nothing is black and white.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 2:17 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Slick,

"Or you could try again. What criteria do you use to determine that Saddam is, in your opinion, a human being? I'm not even asking for an objective reason, just some glimmering of how you make the decision."

This isn't my issue, it's yours. It's not interesting to me. And frankly, I see it as another one of your diversions when your argument falls apart.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 2:47 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And frankly, I see it as another one of your diversions when your argument falls apart.

Got it in one, Rue.

Uh huh Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 3:15 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
[B Fact is you are essentially implying that 'Human Behaviour defines Human beings' when in fact as anyone willing to apply even basic logic should be able to see, Human Beings define Human behaviour.

Amazing. You don't even bother to read what I said before coming up with this complete reversal of my position. Human beings determine what it is to be human by setting general rules and guidelines. There are some of these rules and guidelines that are universal. Violate these universal rules and guidelines to a certain degree and you no longer qualify as a human, or a human being. So I'm pretty much saying that, Yes, human beings, by consensus, define human behavior, and what it means to be a human being.

Quote:
You don't get to define what is and what is not Human behaviour, Human behaviour is what Human beings do, even if it is, for want of a better term, evil.

But you just stated, right up above, that "Human Beings define Human behaviour." Now they don't? Make up your damn mind.

Quote:
In fact dehumanising your enemy, even with good reason, is the first biggest and arguably most crucial step to becoming a monster yourself.

I dehumanize Saddam, not because he's my enemy, but because of his actions, which don't meet the human test.

Quote:
Think about it, would you get a pang of guilt if you butchered a chicken?

I've shot, butchered, and eaten game. I feel mixed sadness, elation, and thankfulness towards the animal.

Quote:
...I have a few further questions, like who was the fourth Marks brother?)

As far as I know, there is no fourth "Marks" brother. The fourth Marx brother was either Gummo or Zeppo, depending on how you sort them. Gummo was the fourth by birth, but Zeppo worked more with the other three.

Quote:
It may be uncomfortable to think that someone who is essentially the same as you or I could do terrible things...

Not really, 'cause I don't consider Saddam the same as myself. If you want to, go right ahead.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 3:19 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I see it as another one of your diversions when your argument falls apart.

The argument that Saddam was a murderous, immoral, psychotic thug who doesn't qualify as human and deserves no respect, and in fact should be marginalized and forgotten as soon as possible? I haven't seen anyone explain why he should be considered human, respected, or remembered.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 3:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So I'm pretty much saying that, Yes, human beings, by consensus, define human behavior, and what it means to be a human being.

Okay, so I give a summation of what you're saying, you accuse me of misrepresenting what you said, then say "yes that's what I said". Make up your damn mind

Quote:
But you just stated, right up above, that "Human Beings define Human behaviour." Now they don't? Make up your damn mind.

Oh dear, I did assume this was obvious, evidently not. Humans, like any other living creature, don't get to decide by committee what Human behaviour is. By "Human beings define Human behaviour" I VERY obviously meant that Human beings define 'human behaviour' by behaving. If a human being does something, that's something humans do. It really is very very simple.

Simple logic is something Humans don't usually have a problem with.

Quote:
I dehumanize Saddam, not because he's my enemy, but because of his actions, which don't meet the human test.

Uhuh.

Quote:
As far as I know, there is no fourth "Marks" brother. The fourth Marx brother was either Gummo or Zeppo, depending on how you sort them. Gummo was the fourth by birth, but Zeppo worked more with the other three.

Ahh, so you do have a God complex.

Quote:
Not really, 'cause I don't consider Saddam the same as myself. If you want to, go right ahead.

Well you being incapable of understanding genetics is hardly my concern.

No apology for openly lying about my statements then? Humans apologise when they've wronged another, don't they?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 3:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The people in my office are probably better informed on these matters then yours, but in any regard you asked why no one responded to a post in which your principle argument was a blatant misconception on the nature of secular regimes in the Middle East. When I explain your misconception to you, you simply ignore it, and that probably explains, more then anything else, why you ‘have no clue’ about why we are fighting this war. You got that whole “Iraq is the only secular regime” crap from the media, I imagine or from some punditry. That’s an ideological viewpoint that is not consistent with a factual understanding of Middle East politics. If you’re going to base your understanding of this war on misconceptions like that, then you really have to expect that you will have a less then adequate grasp of the politics of this war.

Wow.... that's pretty insulting. You really think highly of yourself. I don't think I feel like debating this issue with you any further. This is simply a matter of you and people you associate with being smarter than everyone else and your opinion is always right.

I think you're arrogant and crass and pig headed. Warmongering people like you are the reason nobody is going to feel sorry for us here when America isn't top dog anymore.

You sir, are an embarrassment.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 3:58 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Humans, like any other living creature, don't get to decide by committee what Human behaviour is.

Ah. This, then, is the root of our disagreement. I think humans, by consensus, do get to decide what human behavior is.

Quote:
Ahh, so you do have a God complex.

No. I just know how to use Google. You should try it some time. And perhaps learn how "Marx" is spelled in relation to Chico, Harpo, Groucho, Gummo, and Zeppo.

Quote:
Well you being incapable of understanding genetics is hardly my concern.

Finally, an answer (in a roundabout way). You consider Saddam as human as you because he has the same genetics. See, that wasn't hard, was it?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 4:01 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Just off on another tangent.

Do you consider Mel Brooks a bad man because he made fun of Hitler, who was dead at the time, in The Producers?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 4:04 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Slick,

I don't quite know where to begin.

Hussein is beyond anything we can do to him. Even his memory is out of our hands. Depending on how far out in time you go, history will remember him as a side-note at best - who was it the US attacked, again ? - until more pressing problems make even the entire Iraq debacle insignificant. (And we are facing problems that will overwhelm the problem of Iraq, unless, of course, we blow ourselves up first.)

So you're drawing a line in the sand that will be blown away - is already being blown away as we converse.

The reason to think of him as human - a despicable, hateful human - isn't for his sake, it's for yours. To not feel empathy at the death of another is to be a reduced human being and to bring yourself closer to being Hussein.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 4:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The reason to think of him as human - a despicable, hateful human - isn't for his sake, it's for yours. To not feel empathy at the death of another is to be a reduced human being and to bring yourself closer to being Hussein.

Wow Rue... I think that may be the most intelligent post I've seen in here in a long time.

Maybe we don't disagree on as much as we thought we did.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 6:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Wow.... that's pretty insulting. You really think highly of yourself. I don't think I feel like debating this issue with you any further. This is simply a matter of you and people you associate with being smarter than everyone else and your opinion is always right.

I think you're arrogant and crass and pig headed. Warmongering people like you are the reason nobody is going to feel sorry for us here when America isn't top dog anymore.

You sir, are an embarrassment.

Come on, tell me what you really think!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 6:24 PM

That's about as nasty as it's going to get. Not a big fan of flame wars.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 6:45 PM

Oh, I find that hard to believe. Anyone who can come up with that kind of response is a natural!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 9:59 PM

I just say it like it is. I'm not looking for a verbal shoot fight. If there is no point in discussing this any further, I find no great pleasure in throwing shit at one another.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 5:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I just say it like it is. I'm not looking for a verbal shoot fight. If there is no point in discussing this any further, I find no great pleasure in throwing shit at one another.

No. You say it like you want it to be or at most like you see it, but certainly not like it is. If you were saying it like it is, you wouldn’t have made the mistake of assuming that Iraq is the only secular regime in the Middle East. And whatever point there might have been to this discussion, you threw out several posts ago in favor of childish ridicule, so I don’t see any reason to take you seriously now, do you? I’m not here to tutor you on Mideast politics, and I’m not going to discuss the issue with you anymore, so that really only leaves pointless banter.

Which is really all this thread is good for anyway, it’s pretty much all over the board, from Crow’s demise to your crazy assumptions about Iraq.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 6:20 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The reason to think of him as human - a despicable, hateful human - isn't for his sake, it's for yours. To not feel empathy at the death of another is to be a reduced human being and to bring yourself closer to being Hussein.

I'm trying to be very careful of what I say, because I think there's a point in here somewhere, and I don't want to move back to the lower level of discourse.

I agree that one human feeling empathy for the death of another human is one of the best things about humanity. Even at the death of someone we know nothing about, reported on the news, we default towards empathy. Even when a suicide bomber blows up a bunch of people, we may find just a glimmer of empathy for the bomber, because he thought he was doing the right thing for his people, or religion, or whatever, no matter how misguided we think he was.

I consider empathy over the death of a human a learned behavior, an understanding that under other circumstances that could be me; and that understanding is a benefit to the species as a whole. It's what keeps us from just bopping strangers on the head.

I guess where we differ is that I think a person can consciously, by his actions, opt out of this system. He can break the ties of empathy and humanity which should connect him to all other people. he can kill humans, any humans, with no empathy, with no more compunction than killing roaches.

This person I cannot empathize with. I can't say "There but for the grace of (something) go I." There is no connection between us, no shared humanity. That's the way I think of Hussein.

I'd really like to have a discussion about this, rather than an argument. On the infrequent occasions when we do put down the cudgels and actually share information, I always get something out of it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 6:36 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

On empathy in general - certain types comes fairly naturally at certain ages. Children cry when they see other children crying ... because they understand what it means to cry.

Most people feel immortal until about 30 years old. Even when you see death it's an abstraction, not something you feel inside. (Though it's something you'll have to deal with later.)

At a certain point death becomes personal. It's the basic biological fact of an individual dying that we can understand.

That is the empathy due Hussein, the kind you shouldn't disavow because, if you do, you put your humanity in peril.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 7:44 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
On empathy in general - certain types comes fairly naturally at certain ages. Children cry when they see other children crying ... because they understand what it means to cry.

Most people feel immortal until about 30 years old. Even when you see death it's an abstraction, not something you feel inside. (Though it's something you'll have to deal with later.)

At a certain point death becomes personal. It's the basic biological fact of an individual dying that we can understand.

That is the empathy due Hussein, the kind you shouldn't disavow because, if you do, you put your humanity in peril.

Is everyone due the same empathy at their death? Besides the biological fact that we all die, does the way in which we've lived our life affect the amount of empathy we're due? Should the empathy we may feel at a person's death be completely divorced from how we consider them as a person?

Not a trick question, I really am interested in your response.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 7:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Ah. This, then, is the root of our disagreement. I think humans, by consensus, do get to decide what human behavior is.

So Ant's get to decide, by committee, what Ant behaviour is. So what is up with all these biologists studying ants? They should just ask them, surely?

And Psychologists, what a rip, all they need to do is ask you, you've got it all worked out.

Quote:
No. I just know how to use Google. You should try it some time. And perhaps learn how "Marx" is spelled in relation to Chico, Harpo, Groucho, Gummo, and Zeppo.

You take a joke, and throw a tantrum and start bitching about spelling, the lowest form of discourse on the net, including flame wars.

Good job, well done you.

Perhaps I could say ' behavior ' is spelt behaviour...

Quote:
Finally, an answer (in a roundabout way). You consider Saddam as human as you because he has the same genetics. See, that wasn't hard, was it?

Actually, if you read my post, you know like you were admonishing me for not doing even though I did, you'd realise I didn't give an answer in the philosophical ground that you are talking about, I gave what science had too say on the matter, and asked that without a philosophical definite maybe it would be better to rely on the scientific answer we do have. From a scientific standpoint there is little difference between you and Saddam, you seem unable to grasp this concept, I merely said that wasn't my fault.

You have merely said "I say Human behaviour is X, Saddam doesn't show X, Saddam isn't human", that's not an argument, at all, Saddam isn't Human because Geezer says so just doesn't cut the mustard, sorry. Try again, or make a fatuous remark, perhaps you could take a cue from AURaptor and discuss my sexuality, that's sure to swing the whole thing in your favour

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 9:02 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

That I think is the difference between sympathy and empathy. Sympathy says - I feel sorry for you. Empathy says - I feel with you. Sympathy is earned based on the characteristics of the recipient, empathy is given based on the characteristics of the empathizer.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
On empathy in general - certain types comes fairly naturally at certain ages. Children cry when they see other children crying ... because they understand what it means to cry.

Most people feel immortal until about 30 years old. Even when you see death it's an abstraction, not something you feel inside. (Though it's something you'll have to deal with later.)

At a certain point death becomes personal. It's the basic biological fact of an individual dying that we can understand.

That is the empathy due Hussein, the kind you shouldn't disavow because, if you do, you put your humanity in peril.

Is everyone due the same empathy at their death? Besides the biological fact that we all die, does the way in which we've lived our life affect the amount of empathy we're due? Should the empathy we may feel at a person's death be completely divorced from how we consider them as a person?

Not a trick question, I really am interested in your response.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 10, 2007 9:06 AM