Let's hear it for all the peeps that want to see America destroyed! by chrisisall

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

FINN

Quote:
Bullying people makes you feel important. Like all fundamentalists, you’re just spreading the Word. Preaching the Gospel to the imbeciles, that’s how you justify the Gestapo debating tactics. That’s what Falwell did.

Oh, you mean Gestapo tactics like breaking your hands? Electroshocking your genitals?

Or do you mean Gestapo tactics like asking dreaded questions? Questions like "Why is human life is sacred in one context but not another?" or "Why is preaching hate OK by some but not others?" It never occurred to me that Socrates was Gestapo, 'cause all I was doing was practicing the Socratic method:

Quote:
The Socratic Method (or Method of Elenchus or Socratic Debate), named after the Classical Greek philosopher Socrates, is a form of philosophical inquiry in which the questioner explores the implications of others' positions, to stimulate rational thinking and illuminate ideas.[1] This dialectical method often involves an oppositional discussion in which the defense of one point of view is pitted against another; one participant may lead another to contradict himself in some way, strengthening the inquirer's own point.

As I have said many times over, all I'm trying to do is get you to THINK.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

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

Friday, November 28, 2008 12:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
As I have said many times over, all I'm trying to do is get you to THINK.

I think just fine without your preaching. You think, that because I don’t regurgitate your opinion back to you, that I don’t think, but that’s just arrogance. The same kind of arrogance shared by people like Falwell. And I don’t want to listen to you preach, anymore then I want listen to Falwell preach.

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

Friday, November 28, 2008 9:57 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You think, that because I don’t regurgitate your opinion back to you, that I don’t think, but that’s just arrogance.

You contradict yourself other every other sentence.

You made it quite plain that human life begins at conception. In your view, human life is genetic potential... even before it becomes more than a placenta it's already "human".

And in your argument against abortion, you've said that human life is sacred and shouldn't be killed.

So by your definition EVERY human life is sacred because being "human" is in the genes.

Except in cases of capital punishment because the person is no longer "innocent".

So, you've changed your definition of "human". It must be both genetically human AND innocent.

But even then, considering the unborn and young children who are killed in war, THAT death is acceptable because they're "collateral damage".

So this time, you've changed your definition of "sacred"... you don't REALLY mean "sacred", you REALLY mean that human lives... even innocent human lives... can be spent if the killing was accidental or if the killer "meant well". Even if someone accidentally kills thousands of innocent human beings.

So REALLY what you mean is Innocent human lives are quite expendable, but only for reasons that YOU accept as being "worthwhile".

--------------

Your logic just doesn't hold up. If you REALLY mean All human lives are sacred you would simply say that it's unacceptable to kill except in the case of self defense of the defense of others. You would judge ANY killing on the basis of whether it saved more than were killed, whether it was in war, punishment, economics, or abortion. Life for life. Not life for vengeance; or life for "freedom/ choice"; or life for capitalism or communism.

OR you would simply say that humans are expendable in war if its accidental, in the interests of justice, or for whatever other purpose you deem acceptable. That some people (armies, police) have the authority to kill but that others (women, doctors) don't.

But the problem is you say BOTH. And those two statement can't exist together in the same ethical framework.

I could bring you several more examples of how your own thinking runs headlong onto itself.

I'm not really interested in you regurgitating my "line"... whatever you think that is. What I'd really like you to do is resolve some of the contradictions within your own thinking.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

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

Friday, November 28, 2008 10:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm not really interested in you regurgitating my "line"... whatever you think that is. What I'd really like you to do is resolve some of the contradictions within your own thinking.

You know, I think I have provided these answers to you already. What you want is to push your religion down my throat. I’m just not interest. You want to browbeat, and manipulate to impose your inflexible view of abortion and Bush-hating on me. If I thought you actually cared what I think, then I’d happy to discuss it with, but you don’t. So give it a rest, okay? If you want to know what I think, you can start by fairly and honestly evaluating what you’ve been told already, instead of this disingenuous calculating interpretation, you’ve provided here.

You claim that we shouldn't use capital punishment because it's wrong to kill except in terms of self defense, but then you don't disagree with, say, World War II, in which thousands of innocent people were killed in collateral damage. Why don't you try to explaining this?

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Your logic just doesn't hold up. If you REALLY mean All human lives are sacred you would simply say that it's unacceptable to kill except in the case of self defense of the defense of others. You would judge ANY killing on the basis of whether it saved more than were killed, whether it was in war, punishment, economics, or abortion. Life for life. Not life for vengeance; or life for "freedom/ choice"; or life for capitalism or communism..

1.2-1.5 million innocent Iraqis died in Iraq as a result of Saddam Hussein’s misuse of sanctions. Since the war began, fewer then 100,000 Iraqi civilians are estimated to have been killed. Yet you support the use of sanctions. If you actually cared about saving lives, then you would support the war, since it kills far fewer then sanctions. Furthermore then end result of the war, which is much less bloody then the peace, is the possibility for a better country in Iraq. The end of result of no war, which is far bloodier then the war, is further tyranny little chance of reducing casualties or improving life for the Iraqis.

Of course, I have explained all this to you. You simply won’t allow any information hat doesn’t suit your fundamentalist views to find its way past the blinds. If you can’t even accept or honestly interpret what you have been told so far, then it’s pointless to discuss it further with you.

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

Friday, November 28, 2008 10:58 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I think I have provided these answers to you already

I have no idea what your answers are. You seem to be saying several things at once, and the answers that you provide can't possibly exist in the same logical/ ethical framework. So I don't know WHAT you really mean!

Last I heard on the specific topic of war and collateral damage, you basically said that it's hard to predict how many lives would have been saved/ spent if other course of action had been taken. But if that's the case, doesn't it argue for MORE caution before going to war? Quite honestly, your answers leave me puzzled more than anything.

Quote:
You want to browbeat, and manipulate to impose your inflexible view of abortion and Bush-hating on me. If I thought you actually cared what I think, then I’d happy to discuss it with, but you don’t.

If I didn't care what you think, why would I remember it so clearly? Yanno, I get some posters mixed up with each other. Not you. I think about your answers but I can't figure them out.

AFA trying to force you towards my opinion: I have NO PROBLEM with peeps who are anti-abortion and are also against capital punishment and war. I have more of a problem with peeps who say that it's okay to kill for the greater good (or for personal gain), but at least they're self-consistent. But my fuses fry when somebody says "life is sacred" and abortion is horrific but collateral damage in the fight for "freedom" is acceptable. So, which is it? Are human lives sacred or not? If human lives are not sacred, for what reasons are they expendable? Or, if you don't think I'm expressing this very clearly, how WOULD you express it? When is it OK to kill, and why? When is it not OK to kill, and why?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

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

Saturday, November 29, 2008 3:32 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I think he's saying that it is okay to kill when killing kills less people than not killing.

Your mileage may vary.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

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

Saturday, November 29, 2008 4:49 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh, it seems Finn added to his previous answer. I'll read it and think about it.

ETA: done. So Finn do you mean Its okay to kill when killing kills less people than not killing. ?

If that's the case, then I have no further questions, and you bring up a good point about sanctions. We may quibble about how many peeps died during the war versus how many peeps died during sanctions but your rationale is perfectly clear. Thank you.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

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

Saturday, November 29, 2008 5:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
1.2-1.5 million innocent Iraqis died in Iraq as a result of Saddam Hussein’s misuse of sanctions. Since the war began, fewer then 100,000 Iraqi civilians are estimated to have been killed. Yet you support the use of sanctions. If you actually cared about saving lives, then you would support the war, since it kills far fewer then sanctions.

Okay, flaw here, how can you be sure that millions more would have been killed by his misuse of sanctions between the time of the beginning of the Iraq War until now? What if most of the killing he did was all that he was gonna do?

I thank you for telling us your rationale for supporting taking Saddam down by force, it makes sense in a way most others don't, however it still begs the eternal question why HIM when there are so many other bad guys who were/are killing more peeps ACTIVELY than Mr. Hussein was?

The questioning Chrisisall

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

Saturday, November 29, 2008 6:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, in addition, the sanctions were about to end. Invading Iraq for "human welfare" involved some pretty long-range suppositions about what Saddam would have done with the extra money and whether that would have made him a deadly threat in the future. Possibly, but hard to say.

Also, I think Finn gets me mixed up with Rue. I've decided there are better ways to bring rogue nations into line than sanctions, but that's another story.

Still, at least I now have a sense of what Finn is driving at, which I appreciate.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

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

Saturday, November 29, 2008 6:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
1.2-1.5 million innocent Iraqis died in Iraq as a result of Saddam Hussein’s misuse of sanctions. Since the war began, fewer then 100,000 Iraqi civilians are estimated to have been killed. Yet you support the use of sanctions. If you actually cared about saving lives, then you would support the war, since it kills far fewer then sanctions.
Okay, flaw here, how can you be sure that millions more would have been killed by his misuse of sanctions between the time of the beginning of the Iraq War until now? What if most of the killing he did was all that he was gonna do?

That’s not a flaw in my logic. What if Hitler was done killing? He was going to stop killing Jews and give back the countries he had already invaded. What a waste World War II was.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I thank you for telling us your rationale for supporting taking Saddam down by force, it makes sense in a way most others don't, however it still begs the eternal question why HIM when there are so many other bad guys who were/are killing more peeps ACTIVELY than Mr. Hussein was?

Like who?

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

Saturday, November 29, 2008 7:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
That’s not a flaw in my logic. What if Hitler was done killing?

No doing what you shoot down others for, Finn.

Quote:
Like who?

Don't insult my intelligence, Kirk.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Saturday, November 29, 2008 7:03 AM

Double double toil & troubles
Connection stutters & my post doubles

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

Saturday, November 29, 2008 7:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
That’s not a flaw in my logic. What if Hitler was done killing?
No doing what you shoot down others for, Finn.

You asked, and you got your answer.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Don't insult my intelligence, Kirk.

I guess I can read that as there weren’t any others?

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

Saturday, November 29, 2008 7:19 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Now, now Finn. Don't be puttin' words in Chris' mouth!

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

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

Saturday, November 29, 2008 7:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You asked, and you got your answer.

Okay, multiple standards- I get that.

Very mortal.

Quote:
I guess I can read that as there weren’t any others?

Whatever.

The impatient Chrisisall

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

Saturday, November 29, 2008 7:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Now, now Finn. Don't be puttin' words in Chris' mouth!

I don't mind, if it's his way to make a point-
FOR ME TO POOP ON!!!

The TRIUMPHant Chrisisall

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

Saturday, November 29, 2008 7:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You asked, and you got your answer.
Okay, multiple standards- I get that. Very mortal.
Quote:
I guess I can read that as there weren’t any others?
Whatever.

You asked a question and you got an answer, and now you refuse to response, which is fine. I don’t need an answer. I don’t think there is one that you can give anyway. But this is just one of countless times we gone through this. Signym goes on this ridiculous thing every few months or weeks. And it’s always the same thing –she takes an intentional misinterpretation of my opinion on abortion and applies it to an intentional misinterpretation of my opinion on interventionism and derives the dubious conclusion that I’m a murdering bastard. You have plenty of time to think of an answer, in a couple of months the topic will come up again, trust me.

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

Saturday, November 29, 2008 8:07 AM