REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The Demonization of the Opposition

POSTED BY: SOUPCATCHER
UPDATED: Sunday, August 1, 2004 10:50
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 27388
PAGE 2 of 4

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 3:37 AM

DRAKON


Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Seriously, Drakon, for instance, I didn't mean to call anyone names with the term "extremist." I simply meant it literally. A total ban on abortion, across the board legalization of firearms, and a hard-line commitment to only lowering taxes, in my view, are definitively "extreme," as in "there ain't nothing beyond that." See what I mean? There's nothing more anti-abortion than a total ban. The most condemning thing I intended in using the word "extremist" for was to imply that the temporary political imbalance created by the neocons and their extreme views did not define reality. That reality was probably somewhere closer to the middle.


I am not so sure. As in the abortion case, you are talking about killing something. It ain't a frog, it ain't a tumor, it will be a baby at some point. When that is, I don't know and neither do you. So I don't see any "middle ground" there, and that it is far better to err on the side of caution than not.

Gun bans, you have the right to life. Unless that means you have chosen to protect and defend your life intruds on the rights of others, simple ownership is not a problem. Use, we can talk about, but ownership. Again, where is the middle ground?
Quote:
You talk a lot about being bombed or killed or our enemies taking over America. I think this is a real fear of yours. You're afraid of dying, and you're willing to put up with an awful lot of abridgements of your rights if it means that your life is spared. That's your profit and loss assessment.
You really need to read this over and think about how it looks to someone like me. The tone comes across as condecending, and that is rather insulting.

Look, maybe we see people differently. I see what we got going here, in terms of rights, freedoms and the like as a pretty good and workable system. There is a lot of objective stuff I see as proving that point. (Per capita GDP, economics, etc.) I'd like to keep that going. And bin Ladan himself says he wants to destroy that.

Now I look at what "rights" we are losing, and I don't see much. I see a lot of overblown rhetoric bandied about, especially by those on the left, which simply does not match what the statutes say.
Quote:
And I don't believe that America is in any real danger from terrorists. America will not be defeated this way. Yes, terrorist may strike at any time, but that has always been true and it cannot be stopped - where there's a will, there's a way. Thankfully, like serial murder and death cults, there are not a lot of people in the world who are really up for it.
Well, I hope you pardon if that is not our reading of the situation we find ourselves in, and at least TRY to defeat terrorism. Try to stop them before they are able to cause too much damage.

And throw in WMDs into the equation, you get the Fermi plague. As technology advances, it becomes easier and easier for fewer and fewer people to kill more and more people.
Quote:
In your reality, the "War on Terror" is necessary to safeguard your life and country. You seem to believe that there's a chance that a group of Islamic terrorist could somehow take over the United States. You imply that if we don't let Bush wage this war however he sees fit, they will conquer us.
In my reality? Sorry, but there is only one reality that we are discussing here. Trying to imply that I am delusional is not an effective argumentative tactic.

Its not a matter of conquest per se, at least not in what you seem to mean by the term. But so weakend militarily, and economically weakened, we have to bow to someone else's demands, regardless of whether they are in our best interest or not.
Quote:
For me, the attack on the WTC was a criminal act, not an act of war. There is no nation or dictator or ideology responsible for that crime. No attack on any nation or dictator or ideology will be effective against terrorism. The criminals are responsible for the crime. In my reality, the "War on Terror" is just rhetoric, not unlike the "War on Drugs." It's just talk.
There is a precedent, Jefferson's war on Piracy during the early years of the 19th century. And I think treating it as a crime is exactly what the terrorist want, count on in order to succeed.

For a number of reasons. First off, in a trial, you need a level of proof that might not be always achievable. Beyond a reasonable doubt is sometimes not always doable in regular crimes. And the risk if you are wrong, if you fail to get a conviction, are simply too high, as 9-11 showed us.

Two, there are always legal technicalities to get the terrorist off. I remember one report of some Al Qaeda docs that explains many of these technicalities that a terrorist could use to get off scot free.

and 3, I get the impression these guys don't really care. Heck a lot of them are going to die in their initial or first operation anyway. So what are you going to threaten them with as far as punishment? Prison? Perhaps the death penalty.

Just because soemone is not a government does not mean they cannot declare war, nor act upon that declaration. And with rising technical abilities, the problem becomes worse.

Quote:
Terrorism is similarly culturally based. Destroy Al Quaida and another torrorist organization will take its place. Terrorism is a spontaneous reaction to political hopelessness.
Sort of, that is a model that is almost something I agree with. bin Ladan was worth a quarter billion dollars himself, and his family is worth severl billion dollars. So it ain't an issue of poverty.

But it is an issue of political hopelessness. Totalitarian regimes, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, and Lybia, cannot keep up, and do their jobs. (Information problem) That does create discontent in the populace.

And there is the fact that those out of power want to be in power, but can't. So to take care of these problems, and protect their phoney baloney jobs, they direct that anger toward Jews, Americans, anybody but their own governments.
Quote:
I think the Bush forces and the anti-bush forces suffer from a similar rift in reality. Basic disagreements about what is real and what isn't real are being ignored. It's as if people are speaking different languages. I just gotta I pray that we all get through it okay. I'm sorry for being a brat earlier, Drakon, but it's been a bad couple of years, you know what I mean?
Yeah I do. And trying to call this a rift in reality, again, ain't going to work much in losing your brat image. You see this as a law enforcement issue, and to a large extent that is how the last administration dealt with it. And that is why we ended up with 9-11.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 4:04 AM

DRAKON


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So you see, unless you explain to me what you mean when you say "people", "life", "free", I really DON'T know what you mean!
I am at a point, after dealing with exactly this kind of thing, to be a bit tired of these games. I have written rather extensively here, on these subjects, in English, which I would assume is your native language as well.

Yes you are being nitpicky. You are trying to show something about edges which is irrelevant. If you ain't near the edges, whether they are crystal or not, is irrelevant. And since you have already accused me of evasion, really what is the point in even asking?

You are trying to tell me that this shades of grey thinking is somehow superior to being able to reduce them to black and white. And yet this is a perfect example of why your concept fails. You can't tell the difference between a cup and a bowl, and you want to tell me your way of dealing with reality is superior?
Quote:
Drakon, Soupcatcher- I think the question is not whether the ends justify the means, it's whether the ends justify ANY AND ALL means. Drakon's ends- freedom, security, liberty, whatever- are still undefined. Until I know what the ends are, I won't know whether the means are justified, or even likely to be effective.
And youi probably never will. Lets cut the garbage. You don't know what freedom means, what a person is, whether you are alive or not, you are a perfect illustration of the problem with "shades of grey" You get bogged down in nitpicking, whether you claim that is not your thing or not, is irrelevant. You make it impossible to communicate with you, and when I give up on your games, I am being "evasive".



"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 5:05 AM

TOMSMEAGOL


Drakon--

It doesn't bother me that you have a different set of political beliefs from mine. It doesn't bother me that you view the world in terms of black and white. It doesn't bother me that you feel the war in Iraq is both just and necessary. A lot of people think that way and I'm not going to say you or they are wrong--difference of opinion is one of the greatest aspects of a democratic society.

What bothers me is that you feel the need to belittle and demean EVERY single point that someone else makes if you don't agree with it. I've read many posts that use perfectly valid debate techniques which you've dismissed as being invalid arguments. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean their argument is invalid, Drakon.

And going back to one of your original statements, the minority party ALWAYS demonizes the majority party, whether that means democrats attacking republicans (which is what we currently have) or republicans attacking democrats (the Clinton era and Carter era are two recent examples). If you want historical examples, look at the Lincoln era or the Roosevelt (FDR) era. It is unfortunate that this occurs, but it is unavoidable--after all, each party wants to appear better to the voters than the other, and it's always easier to criticize from the outside than the inside.

In closing, I want to share a quote which I find very relevant today. You may be surprised by the author:

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

Teddy Roosevelt, from the "Kansas City Star", May 7, 1918

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

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 7:23 AM

HONEY


Drakon,

You have split this into black and white, as if there are only "good guys" and "bad guys" in your world. Furthermore, your posts indicate that you believe that since they are "the bad guys," by definition we must be "the good guys" -- and as such are incapable of doing bad ourselves.

You are arguing against my points as if I ascribe to that same immature 'philosophy' and your stance boils down to a belief that I am taking the side of the "bad guys." This greatly misrepresents what I've said. By taking this stance, you have missed entirely everything that I've tried to convey to you.

I attempted to bring this conversation with you to a slightly more intelligent level, but I've obviously failed. Since apparently we're down to beating a dead horse, I won't be discussing this with you any further.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think."

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

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 9:56 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


My, you ARE in a pissy mood today, aren't you?

Drakon, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking- "Well, everybody KNOWS what we mean when we say !"

There are two things about your posts that are seriously flawed:

a) You use emotive, abstract words in different contexts without explaining what you mean. When I ask you to explain or define the basis, the core, the absolute fundamentals or your viewpoint, enshrined in YOUR WORDS, you can't be bothered. It's "nitpicking".

I'll point out an example further down of your uses of the words "free" and "freedom" and show you why I don't undersdtand what you mean.

b) You CONSISTENTLY use the word "we" in place of "I". There's a lot of interesting psychological things I could say about that, but I'm not going to. Suffice it to say that you really should excise that word out of your postings unless you really have a specific "we" in mind. You're certainly not representing me- so who is this "we", kemosabe?

-------------------------------
Drakon's uses and implications of the words "free" and "freedom"


The reason being, is that people are free to associate and form whatever political parties they want.
= unconstrained by law or fear?

You don't mind having a strong military to protect and defend your rights and freedoms
= rights granted by law? (e.g privacy?)

Sometimes it is necessary to give up some freedom in order to not get killed.
= privacy? due process?

We give up the freedom to fire our guns indiscriminantly, but we all benefit by not getting shot by a stray bullet
= unconstrained by law or fear

You can try to maintain your freedoms while they are trying to kill you, but it doesn't work in the real world of suicide bombers and hijackers
= privacy? due process? religious rights?

Dead people ain't freeto do anything
= capable of (yes, I know, this was a rhetorical flourish)

but with terrorist attempting to use our freedoms and rights against us...
= privacy laws? due process? religous tolerance?

you are perfectly free to ignore them
=unconstrained by law or force?

OJ got off scott free
= unimprisoned, without due consequence

looking at each proposal individually, seeing how they affect security and freedom
= privacy? due process? ownership rights? freedom of expression? religious rights?

If freedom means the freedom to get blowed up
false choice

Look, people are free
= uncontrained? unimprisoned? have the right of privacy, due process, religious tolerance, right to vote....?

deny folks the freedom to do just that (rape, murder, talking in movies)
= uncontrained choice?

You appear to see freedom as an end unto itself. I see life and happiness as the end all of it all
= prosperity?

I am happier with less rules
= less rules?

They know that democracy and freedom is their death knell
= democracy?

you would be one of the first to complain if one of these terrorists were set free
= unimprisoned

what we got going here, in terms of rights, freedoms and the like as a pretty good and workable system
=???

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

You appear to several definitions of FREEDOM.

a) not in prison
b) without constraint by law, lawless
c) without constraint by force or fear
c) rights granted by law (eg.privacy,due process)
d) democracy
e) capability
f) prosperity

So, when you say "People [in Iraq] are free" what do you mean? "People" in Iraq are certainly still in prison. "Due process" wasn't recognized by the USA occupation (see Abu Ghraib). Iraqis have not yet had a chance to vote for their government, are fearful of rampant lawlessness, and suffer from intolerable unemployment rate. They have an interim consitution, but over 100 edicts from the CPA (which, among other things, limits taxation on foreign companies and allows 100% ownership of previously nationalized resources- such as oil and water).

What I would say is that the interim Iraqi consitution formally grants a number of RIGHTS to its citizens. Although these rights have yet to be exercised, it is an important first step. Iraqis also feel less fearful expressing their opinions and practicing their religion (which, by the way, deprives women of equal rights.)

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

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 11:19 AM

HJERMSTED


I think the U.S. should seriously explore the idea of Majority Preferential Voting.

In that scheme, when voting for an executive position (ie, President, Governor, Mayor, etc), the voter chooses their candidates in order of preference.

For example, in 2000 my ballot would have looked like this:

1. Ralph Nader
2. Al Gore
3. Donald Duck
4. etc.

After the first tally of votes, if no candidate had achieved more than 50% of the vote, all ballots where the number one slot was filled in with a non-major candidate (let's say all those who received less than 5% of the vote) would have line one scratched and line two would become the vote from that ballot. You keep doing this, moving down the list as necessary until you have a candidate with a clear majority. This method is also referred to as the Automatic Run-off Ballot or something like that.

It's NOT a complex system. What it IS is a far more democratic system than the winner-take-all electoral college method. Majority Preferential Voting elects leaders that more accurately reflect the actual (not supposed) desires of the people. It also allows people to vote for their third party choices without fear and/or intimidation from the main two parties.

I believe I read that New Zealand actually elects their leader this way (any Kiwi Browncoats out there who can verify this?).



If we citizens truly wish to allow third parties to influence our Congressional bodies, we need to look into a Proportional Representation system which is a bit more complex. In a Prop. Rep. system, districts vote for parties not candidates. The parties are rewarded seats proportional to their election results (get 5% or more of the vote... receive 5% or more of the seats in congress or the state house, etc.). The parties then hold conventions and decide who to send, a process the average citizen can also participate in if they stay involved with their party after election day. When in effect, a multi-party congressional body would need to form coalitions and share ideas to pass legislation.


Since I'm ranting... (sorry!)... I'll also add that I think it's loooooong overdue that we have Binding National Referendums in the U.S. I, for one, would have LOVED to vote "No!" on NAFTA before our short-sighted politicians signed our nation up for that.

I would limit national referendums so as to NOT include the ability for the citizenry to take away existing or theoretical constitutional guarantees (as Bush & Co. are now trying to with the derisive defense of marriage amendment). However, if we citizens so chose to give ourselves MORE freedom (short of legalizing violence) I am not opposed to that. I would love to see guaranteed universal healthcare put up for referendum in my lifetime. The U.S. is so far behind the rest of the industrialized world on that score that it is embarassing.


Finally:
* We need to minimize the influence/importance of the Electoral College if not outright abolish it.
* We need to make legislative "riders" illegal. Too many sinister changes are making their way into law via such riders.


The tools for building a better U.S. are out there... the test run / experimental phases of such changes were conducted (thankfully, some would say) by braver nations than ours... and the successes are on record along with the pitfalls.

Trying nothing new here in the "envy of the world" (yeah, right!) is, I'm afraid no longer an option.

Okay, I'm done rambling.

Stay gold! Keep Flying!

mattro

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

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 2:08 PM

DRAKON


SigynM: Well having to deal with pseudo intellectuals like yourself for too long, its bound to put folks in a pissy mood as you describe it. I have written at length, even in this tread, enough that seems to me would make that meaning clear to anyone who is an English speaker, and has half a brain. Or who is not playing some BS word game and really trying to understand what I am saying. I answered your questions for a while, until it just simply got too ridiculous any more.

You don't know the meaning of life. Not in any philosophic context, but the meaning of the bloody word "life". Now tell me again this is any kind of honest attempt on your part to understand what is said. And I leave it up to you to convince me that this is not some silly little game you are playing.

As for your psychological comments about my use of the word "we", I doubt very much that you are alone in your views, just as I am not alone in mine. I represent a side in this debate. Just as you represent a side. So thanks for you "concern", but again, I figured that it was something too simple to dwell on, and that someone so intelligent as yourself, would understand it all too quickly.

Yes I lost my temper. The stupidity pretending to be wisdom on display by your side is maddening. The arrogance that can not even tell the difference between a cup and a bowl, or who sees everything as shades of grey, and attempts to pass this off as somehow useful, it is bothersome.

I can be bothered if I even suspected you were listening. But you weren't. You just want to play silly little games, trying to show off that superior intellect of yours. It didn't work and I called you on it. Forcefully, and probably impolitely, but that is life.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 2:44 PM

DRAKON


Quote:
Originally posted by Honey:
Drakon,

You have split this into black and white, as if there are only "good guys" and "bad guys" in your world. Furthermore, your posts indicate that you believe that since they are "the bad guys," by definition we must be "the good guys" -- and as such are incapable of doing bad ourselves.
Sigh... This is a perfect example of why I was in a "pissy mood" this morning.

Yes, i have broken it down to bad guys and good guys. Call me daft but I think killing 3,000 people by crashing airlines into skyscrapers is a bad thing. To me that is a very black and white issue. Why more folks cannot grasp that, I have no clue. It has nothing to do with who is what, or even what we are capable of. It does have to do with what we do with that capability.

Have their been bad things that happen? Yes, its war. Bad things happen in war. But I look at all the charges, accusations, ankle biting trivia, and I have come to the conclusion that there is no moral equivalence here. Feeding someone feet first into a plastics shredder is a bad thing to do to another person, generally speaking. Hooking up electrodes to a body and threatening to pull the switch, may not be good, but is still far better than the first example. Court marshalling the folks who ran Abu Ghraib still makes us better than those who ran the prison before. And ignoring all of the good that came about from removing Saddam, some of it still unfolding as we speak, to consentrate on what will be little more than a minor footnote, I don't see as a useful exercise.
Quote:
You are arguing against my points as if I ascribe to that same immature 'philosophy' and your stance boils down to a belief that I am taking the side of the "bad guys." This greatly misrepresents what I've said. By taking this stance, you have missed entirely everything that I've tried to convey to you.
Well there seems to be a lot of that going about. Yes, I do see you as siding with the bad guys. I don't think that is your intentions, but it matters not. I doubt you even realize it. Actions have consequences and we don't get to pick and choose them. If those consequences end up bad, well, again, what you intended is irrelevant. And in this case, in this war, those consequences can be very bad indeed.

You worry about the rights of terrorist who want to kill us and don't mind dying in the process. Like a flock of lawyers is going to scare them out of committing their next atrocity. You seem oblivious to the fact that habeus corpus can negatively impact our ability to garner intelligence.

Home front morale, especially in a democracy is important as well. Democracies can vote, decide collectively whether to continue, or give up. As Vietnam proved, one can win militarily on the battlefield and have all those lives and resources wasted, if the public gives up on the war before the enemy does. The political left, not the North Vietnamese won that war, by convincing enough Americans to give up on South East Asia. And the words 'boat people' came into our lexicon.

When the French took over, there was no fleeing. And when the Japanese invaded during WW2, the Vietnamese did not run. But when the North finally invaded south Vietnam, and the US refused to lift a finger to help, that is when the vietnamese people started fleeing.

Only this time it isn't some far off Oriental country. Its here at home that we are fighting for. Our lives, our freedoms, our ability to have these discussions no matter how heated they may be.

Earlier the term baby killers was brought up, and you said nobody was doing that. And after I read your words, I read a story out of Seattle about a veteran wearing their medals during a 4th of July parade and getting exactly those terms and those remarks directed at him. I don't think you knew of it at the time, but still it is happening again.

You apparently fail to see how this constant harping on Abu Ghraib impacts all this. And I am at a loss to explain it any better than I have already.

I do quibble with your contention you were trying to elevate the tone of all this. But that is unimportant now.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 3:31 PM

DRAKON


Quote:
Originally posted by TomSmeagol:
What bothers me is that you feel the need to belittle and demean EVERY single point that someone else makes if you don't agree with it. I've read many posts that use perfectly valid debate techniques which you've dismissed as being invalid arguments. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean their argument is invalid, Drakon.
Sigh.

I actually feel I have been more than patient here. And I see what I have done is arguing against their points, rather than 'belittling' them. Granted my last few posts have been a bit "pissy" but frankly I feel justified somewhat, considering the stuff that has been spewed my way.

Chalk it up to fatigue if you like. Trying to explain things to some people, who instead want to play word games, can be tiring.

Quote:
And going back to one of your original statements, the minority party ALWAYS demonizes the majority party, whether that means democrats attacking republicans (which is what we currently have) or republicans attacking democrats (the Clinton era and Carter era are two recent examples).
Funny, this was one of my original points. But I also think there is a reason why the minority party is the minority party, and that is they are not effectively convincing the American populace. I have read what they write, what they put out. And I can see why they are having difficulty, but it is apparent to me that many of them simply don't care.

Critisism is one thing, and can be a good thing. But that is not what we are getting here. We are not getting an honest debate, we are getting word games, charges, innuendo, ad hominum attacks. Even presenting a logical, if forceful, argument does not get the argument addressed, it gets the argument dismissed as 'belittling' (as just one example).

In Farenheit 911, one of the charges Moore makes is that the present administration smuggled out bin Ladan's relatives right after 9-11. Even putting aside factual errors concerning timing, or that Richard Clarke, no Bush lover, has claimed responsibility for those flights, there is a big problem with that charge.

I got a little brother. And when we were growing up, sometimes he would do something and I would get in trouble because of it. "Why didn't you stop him?" my mom would yell. And I am sure other sibling have had similar experiences.

But then my brother never killed 3,000 people in a single day.

With emotions the way they were shortly after 9-11, it is reasonable to assume that after the death and destruction of that day, some rather angry folks might not have been too discriminating as to which bin Ladan they lynched. And so, it seems prudent to get his relatives out of harms way as soon as possible. Yet this is taken as an example of something bad, something that should not have been done.

I don't know what Moore or his supporters would recommend, consentration camps and torturing them for information seems out. Allowing them to be lynched by an angry mob does not appeal to me either, and I doubt it would to most folks. So I am left with the fact that Moore is charging the Bush administration with preventing the lynching of folks whose only tie to 9-11 was an accident of birth. And this is supposedly a bad thing.

This is the kind of stuff I am dealing with here. It makes no sense. And before we dismiss Moore as someone who does not speak for the DNC, it should be noted that Congress shut down, so the Democrats in congress could go to Moore's film, that the chairman of the DNC embraces Moore and is quoted as "believing" Moores charges.

This cannot work out well for the Democrats. If the general perception of the Democratic party is that it is unpatriotic, it won't get elected. People are basically self interested, and are not going to vote people in power who give the impression that they do not like the electorate, think the populace is stupid, or would give any other nation a veto on our right to defend ourselves.

And that is probably the real danger involved. While I may be a Republican, I do see how the two party system provides an additional check and balance to the entire political process. But if the DNC does not change, if the electorate gets the impression that it has no credibility, then we lose that additional check. We end up with a one party system by default.

I had hoped that they would see this after the, well, I am going to be blunt, the disaster of the Clinton years. In his 8 years, they went from the majority party to the minority, losing both houses of Congress, as well as eventually the White House.

You mistake my defense of the President as a call that there should be no critisism. I will insist that it be relevant, and constructive, as opposed to what has been dished out so far. But that is not what I have been facing.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 3:55 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


If someone tells you to go get the "cup", you're not likely to pick up a ladle, a pot, or a spoon. But what if there are Japanese teacups, coffee cups, and glasses all in one cupboard? Would you know what the other person was referring to? Probably not.

So what about words that are abstract- like "freedom"?? How can we have a conversation when we can't discuss what those words mean?

You've used the words "free" and "freedom" many times in different ways. You use it, you talk around it, you give examples (security, prison, tyranny) of its opposite or refer to what it produces (prosperity) but you've never defined it. I don't think you can. I think you're challenged by the very thought. I think you use words... like "we" and "people" and "life" AND "cup" ... unconsciously, presuming a consensus that doesn't exist.

I used the word "life" simply as an example, like the word "cup". I KNOW the meaning of "life" (BTW, I meant "life" not "human life"). I also know that there are examples where the definition breaks down. (What about viruses? What about prions? What about mycoplasma?) Recognizing that definitions have limits doesn't mean wiping out all distinctions. (There's that either/or thinking again!) It simply recognizes that the universe doesn't conveniently fit itself into our neat little mental boxes.

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

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 4:14 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


umm.. define the word "spewed" and explain if, and how, it pertains to me.

heh heh heh


Sorry, I just couldn't resist!

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

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 10:15 PM

DRAKON


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So what about words that are abstract- like "freedom"?? How can we have a conversation when we can't discuss what those words mean?
I really wish you would drop the act. If you don't know what a word means, pick up a dictionary.

But you see, I doubt your sincerity here and that is your real problem. Since we are talking about simple words, common every day words that I doubt you have not heard, I find it hard to believe that you don't know what I mean. You are playing a game here, and I have called you on it.

Considering my rather long winded response, and your position on "shades of grey" thinking, (or rather the lack of thinking brought about by employing this concept), I see this for what it is, an attempt to prove your point by acting like you are confused by the meaning of simple english words.

And I believe I made this clear. But I do thank you in one respect, for proving the flaws in exactly that manner of thinking. You are stuck, confused by simple words, unable to move forward, or make any kind of decision, or come to any resolution. Whether you believe I can or not, well, considering you confusion over such simple words, it is unimportant to me, and becomes less so the more you continue with this game of yours.

And since in politics, the welding of political power requires making decisions, you are proving better than I can just why folks who think like you should never be elected to office. Indecision is effectively a decision, with its own consequences, but one is less able to figure out beforehand what those consequences are. So much for your vaunted "shades of grey."

Perhaps this is what passes for clever in your circles, pretending to be an idiot. Fortunately, I don't travel in such circles. It just doesn't work with me, and I have no desire to play. You will have to inflict this on others instead.

I understand quite well the differences between the map and the territory, and that mental constructs such as memes, ideas and concepts are just that, maps, not the territory they describe. But the purpose of a map is to aid you to get where you want to go. A blank piece of paper is useless as a map, especially if it is all grey. You've illustrated that perfectly, and are bogged down in the meaning of the individual words, pretending to be the fool, and refusing to even make the attempt to address the issues at hand.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 10:42 PM

SOUPCATCHER


I'm not sure how we got here from there. But here's my summation of the responses to my original question. Drakon has proposed that members of the political party not in power demonize members of the political party in power because they feel helplessness and frustration. SPLibertarian has proposed that demonization is more a smoke screen put out by both sides to accentuate false differences and mask the similarities. (I hope that I have summed this up accurately). I tend to lean more towards SPLibertarian's explanation simply because I feel Drakon has only captured a portion of the demonization. For Drakon's explanation to be correct, we should have only seen demonization coming from the Republicans during the Clinton administration and demonization coming from the Democracts during the Bush administration. But from my perspective I have seen no real change in who is doing the demonizing. Liberal and neo-con are both used as swear words. People on all sides are throwing out the label "traitor" (which, in my mind, is a sure sign of demonization). Hell, this thread is headed in that general direction.

So that's what I've gleaned from this discussion in regards to the original question. Two answers is better than one, but not as good as three . Thanks all.

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

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

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 3:51 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


But you see Drakon, I can and do make decisions, and my decisions are usually pretty damn good. My colleagues- who are themselves quite astute and politically aware, who come from all over the world and have done everthing from invading Iraq to having been jailed in Ethiopia as a student revolutionary - respect my views because I've predicted things that they didn't see.

We DON'T use words like "freedom" in our discussions. It means too many different things to different cultures and viewpoints. If you had simply said "We'll have to give up some privacy to fight terrorism" then we could have discussed what kinds of privacies and how much and whether it was likely to work.

Words create "things". In cultures where the counting system is "one- two- three- many" a hundred and a billion are the same "thing". Words are important. If you don't define them they'll define you.

Semantics aside, let's look at your logic.
Quote:
With emotions the way they were shortly after 9-11, it is reasonable to assume that after the death and destruction of that day, some rather angry folks might not have been too discriminating as to which bin Ladan they lynched. And so, it seems prudent to get his relatives out of harms way as soon as possible. Yet this is taken as an example of something bad, something that should not have been done.

Are you telling us that it would have been impossible for the Bush administration to hold 1200 people in protective custody??? If the administration is truly that incompetent, how do you suppose they can protect us from terrorists? You pose false "either-or" choices, Drakon. You live in a very little, urgent world full of extreme -and mostly irrelevant - choices and it's going to drive you crazy if you're not careful.




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

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 9:38 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


OK< so now that I have a wee bit more time, I'm going to lay something in your head that should keep you awake at night.

Because of my DOD project I'm in touch with the coordinator of our highly populated county's anti-terrorism hazmat units. FYI they (and we) are seriously - very seriously- gearing up for the run-up to elections. One of the things that hasn't been banged out yet is the political reponse to a terror attack just before or during elections. What would George W do? Declare martial law? Invalidate the elections? Go with a 10% turnout?


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

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 2:55 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well, so far no answer from Drakon.

WHAAAAAAHHH!!!


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

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 5:12 PM

RUE

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


SignyM:
I get to this board for an hour or two maybe once every 10 days, on average. I really, and I mean really, don't have much time for postings from Drakon et al. So I am puzzled by, but admire, the fact that you seem to take these things at face value.

I just recently read Drakon's newest posts and I did get a sort-of frantic, manic underlying mindset. Either 'THIS' OR ALL HELL'S GONNA BREAK LOOSE ! Patriot Act or DOOM! Invade Iraq or FACE DEATH ! And sometimes it was in nearly these words. I hope Drakon doesn't take offense, but it seems uncomfortable.

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

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 5:49 PM

HONEY


Mental health care professionals have three words to describe persistently splitting the world into black and white: "Borderline Personality Disorder," a.k.a., chronic inability to mature.

Just sayin'. Look into it.

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

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 5:51 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Sometimes Drakon doesn't come back for a day or two. I really really want to talk to that guy.

I mean, I'm trying my darndest to have a decent discussion- I'm really being fair and honest about my questions and Drakon just thinks I'm playing games!






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

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 5:56 PM

RUE

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


Drakon:

"One side says at conception. The other side, well, I am not really sure."

I don't think the question here is where is the beginning of 'life'. An egg is 'alive' and a sperm is 'alive'. It is the old 'life generates life concept.' I think you are trying to get at where does a human individual come into existance.

http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/N100/2k4ch39repronotes.html
"The first 3 weeks are the most hazardous periods in your life. Roughly one third to one half of all fertilized zygotes never make it beyond this point."

Sometimes a placenta forms and an incipient fetus just - doesn't happen. I don't think you would consider a placenta a person, but in your scheme, while a single-celled fertilized egg is fully human, a later placenta is not. That is a self-contradictory definition.

On the other hand you said "You are either alive, or dead. You ... still have a functioning brain, as determinable externally .."

Why not apply the same definition (functioning brain) to 'human' life at both ends?

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

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 8:29 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:
Originally posted by Honey:
Mental health care professionals have three words to describe persistently splitting the world into black and white: "Borderline Personality Disorder," a.k.a., chronic inability to mature.

Just sayin'. Look into it.


Your last post, Honey, gets at the heart of what I find fascinating about this thread and Drakon's contribution. To me his argument is really the embodiment of demonization, which is to say polarization, which is to say thinking always in terms of black and white. I'm thinking that Drakon's argument is really a fundamentalist one. Fundamentalism is characterized by very strict definitions that the fundamentalist doesn't think are strict at all because, to him, that's just the way things are. Fundamentalists have a very mystified idea of all those words that Signy wants him to define. They mean what they mean, everybody knows that--everybody who isn't dumb, or mental, or playing word games.

When Soupcatcher started this thread I was really excited about the discussion, 'cause I'd been thinking a lot about that very issue. I gave myself a few days to think about what I had to offer, but by that time the dualism debate had already taken hold.

One of the things I wanted to discuss on the topic of demonization was the issue of projection. We tend to demonize others and condemn them for precisely the qualities we dislike and fear in ourselves. We say, "It's not my problem, it's THEM, THEM, THEM!" Captain Ahab says, "It's that darn whale, he ruined my life!"

So I was thinking: What is it that liberals are busy disowning about themselves and projecting onto conservatives? And what do the conservatives deny in themselves and blame the liberals for?

What came to mind were hate and naivete. The lefties are nothing if not kind and gentle and compassionate, aren't they? And if you call a conservative naive, he'll just laugh and blow smoke in your face, right?

After 9/11 the left really pushed their own agressive rage way way down, and projected it on the right. I think that fueled a lot of the whole, "We deserved it" rhetoric that was flying around before a lot of the families in New York even knew if their loved ones were still alive. It was spooky. So I think a lot of formerly left leaning folk out there kinda moved away from the left. They felt their rage and owned it instead of burrying it and a lot of them supported the "War on Terror" because it spoke to them.

What I keep hearing very loudly and often from the right is that liberals "LIVE IN A FANTASY WORLD!!!" But at the same time, and to a larger and larger degree it seems, the right live in the imagination of their President. If Bush says it, it must be true. Period. I don't hear a lot of rightwing skepticism about the right. Even Denise Miller, snarkiest man on Planet Earth, doesn't have a mean thing to say about George! But without skepticism we lose our ability to discern truth from illusion and are likely to swallow anything our trusted source hands us.

So we get liberals who are full of rage and painfully naive conservatives. Hijinks ensue...

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

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

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 11:52 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I don't know about BPD. "But everybody KNOWS what we mean by...!" and "Just because I can't argue as well as you doesn't mean I'm wrong!" were my favorite phrases.

My views were heartfelt (still are) and thought out but unconscious because nobody had challenged them. I was missing insight by lack of contrast. And when someone reduces what you thought were irreducible assumptions, the basis of your entire outlook, well, it's just a very uncomfortable place to be!

That's why I really want to talk to Drakon. He (I presume "he") has obviously thought for a long time about a lot of things, and believes and feels deeply. But he's also too close to his own viewpoint to be able to think about it. A little distance is a good thing.






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

Thursday, July 15, 2004 12:02 AM

PURPLEBELLY


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
He (I presume "he")

No. Really? How can that be?

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

Thursday, July 15, 2004 12:07 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


heh heh heh

Well, either you're sleepless in Seattle or in a very different part of the world!

But I've had people trying to figure out my gender before and many have guessed wrong, so in MY mind it's always an open question until somebody declares, shows a pic, and attaches biometric data including gene sequencing! And even then I'm not sure!!!

So, where ARE you?

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

Thursday, July 15, 2004 12:08 AM

DRAKON


Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I'm not sure how we got here from there. But here's my summation of the responses to my original question. Drakon has proposed that members of the political party not in power demonize members of the political party in power because they feel helplessness and frustration. SPLibertarian has proposed that demonization is more a smoke screen put out by both sides to accentuate false differences and mask the similarities. (I hope that I have summed this up accurately). I tend to lean more towards SPLibertarian's explanation simply because I feel Drakon has only captured a portion of the demonization. For Drakon's explanation to be correct, we should have only seen demonization coming from the Republicans during the Clinton administration and demonization coming from the Democracts during the Bush administration. But from my perspective I have seen no real change in who is doing the demonizing. Liberal and neo-con are both used as swear words. People on all sides are throwing out the label "traitor" (which, in my mind, is a sure sign of demonization). Hell, this thread is headed in that general direction.
I see a difference in hte demonization. And since you brought up the word traitor...

I have seen this applied two ways toward the minority party. The first way is consistent with the definition in the Constitution, aiding and abetting the enemy in a time of war. Some folks see what the left is doing as trying to weaken us, inhibit our effectiveness in fighting against the terrorists and jihadis, get us to give up, appease, or in some other way, simply not fight those who would kill us. If someone is trying to kill you, and you don't stop them, they win and you are dead.

Its like the old saying goes, For evil to prevail, all good people have to do is nothing. Or the riddle of steel from the Conan movies, Steel is nothing compared to the hand that welds it. If the hand refuses to weld it, the weapon ain't going to do a bit of good.

Intentions, motiviations, perceptions, none of that mental stuff matters. Its what consequences of the actions generate that counts, that makes it treason, even if the person does not intend it to be.

The other way its been used is by looking at liberal rhetoric over, well, its history. We see stuff about how the little guys, the proletariat, and peasants should rule their own destinies and not be under the thumb of some aristocracy (whether its a spiritual, military, or hereditary aristocracy is largely irrelevant.) The general idea that is there should be no aristocracy who has too much power over the rest of the populace.

Back in 1998, Congress passed, and Clinton signed a resolution that made regime change in Iraq the offical policy of the US government. At that time, Saddam had tossed out the UN weapons inspectors, and shot at US planes attempting to enforce the no fly zones. After the first Gulf war, the Shi'ia and the Kurds attempted to get rid of Saddam, but failed and were slaughtered en mass. The mass graves that have been uncovered are a testiment to that effort.

The fact that liberals and the left cannot support Bush's reasons for this latest effort in Iraq is hardly surprising. But the fact they can find NO reason, even reasons with what we are told are their own principles, that is far more disturbing. It gives the appearance that todays liberals are not for the liberation of the Iraqi people. It gives the appearance that liberals have betrayed their principles, committed treason against themselves and their own ideal.

Again the reasons for their disapproval is not that important. (The change from 1998 to now is curious, but also irrelevant) The effect of their policies would be to leave Saddam in power. With the economic sanctions weakening, with Saddam turning the UN Oil for Food program into an Oil for Palaces and Weapons program, (with the aid of bribed UN officals) it is easy to see where that would leave the state of the world, and the Iraqi people. With Saddams ties to various terrorist organizations, with his desire for WMDs, with his previous history of use of chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds, that leaves the world in a more dangerous place.

Granted, war is risky, stability is usually desirable in global politics. In this case, such stability was not going to last for long, Saddam was a threat to us, the region and his own people. He had established an aristocracy in all but name, with total power to rob, rape and murder the Iraqi people. There is reason to believe he would be more than willing to do that to other nations he would someday use his military to conquer. Look at what he did to Kuwait.

Yet for some reason, liberals could no longer support the liberation of Iraq.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Thursday, July 15, 2004 12:21 AM

CAPNHARBATKIN


Sorry for jumping in so late here.

I've just spent 2 hours reading and considering this thread and I have a real problem with Drakon stating things over and over and over again as facts with no offered proof.

I can't believe no one has called him on any of the dozens of unsupported assertions he's made. I'll just take two around the prison scandal as a start...


Drakon's Assertion:
"Second, again we are talking about bad guys, folks who have gassed Kurds, killed both civilian Iraqis and US troops, terrorists and thugs. "


My offered evidence that this is not true:

" Many of the prisoners abused at the Abu Ghraib prison were innocent Iraqis picked up at random by US troops, and incarcerated by under-qualified intelligence officers, a former US interrogator from the notorious jail told the Guardian."
( http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1211374,00.html)


"Military officials said 70% to 90% of the Iraqis swept up for interrogation were arrested by mistake, the International Committee of the Red Cross reported."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-06-09-our-view_x.
htm



Drakon's Assertion:
"...this was all being handled by the military courts long before we ever heard about it, or saw one picture"

My offered evidence that this is not true:

"Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, also shares in the shame. Myers asked “60 Minutes II” to hold off reporting news of the scandal because it could put U.S. troops at risk. But when the report was aired, a week later, Myers still hadn’t read Taguba’s report, which had been completed in March. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also failed to read the report until after the scandal broke in the media"

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2903288.php

(BTW: Gotta love that as a source!)

"Secretary Rumsfeld has clung so blindly to his own vision that even after the media began to publicize the atrocities at Abu Ghraib, he said last week that he had not yet read an official Army report on the Abu Ghraib abuses --- a report that had been completed in March."
http://www.rochester-citynews.com/gbase/Gyrosite/Content?oid=oid%3A260
5


Drakon, you said in one of your posts that someone argued poorly. Where's your proof for your many, many assertions?

I love the topic and love some of the posts and I'm rationalizing that the lack of evidence means we're discussing philosophical issues but someone has to call you one your blantant BS.


I can't ready any more of this thread... I'm going to bed.

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

Thursday, July 15, 2004 12:24 AM

DRAKON


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I just recently read Drakon's newest posts and I did get a sort-of frantic, manic underlying mindset. Either 'THIS' OR ALL HELL'S GONNA BREAK LOOSE ! Patriot Act or DOOM! Invade Iraq or FACE DEATH ! And sometimes it was in nearly these words. I hope Drakon doesn't take offense, but it seems uncomfortable.
The fact that it is unpleasant does not mean it is not an inaccurate perception of the reality we face.

All Hell did break loose on 9-11. And either we fight back, or things could get a LOT worse.

As for the Patriot act, having read it, I don't see anything in it that is much of a problem. The cops still need a warrent to do anything, such as "sneak and peak" searches, and the like. There is nothing in there that has not been a power of the government before, for organized crime cases and the like. The fact that these same tools are now applied to terrorist investigations, I don't see as a problem.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Thursday, July 15, 2004 12:26 AM

CAPNHARBATKIN


oh... almost forgot one more thing:

Quote:

Drakon:
Lets face facts. If we wanted to, we could end any problem with the Middle east in about an hour. We have the power to simply glass the entire area, kill every living thing from Morocco to the Indian border. We can, but we ain't done it yet. And I hope it never comes to that. But i do see situations where it might.


If that's your solution to END a problem, then I don't think any of us need to patronize you anymore with pseudo-intellectual discourse.



Now, how's about we get on with this increasingly eerie-ass day

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

Thursday, July 15, 2004 12:30 AM

DRAKON


Quote:
Originally posted by Honey:
Mental health care professionals have three words to describe persistently splitting the world into black and white: "Borderline Personality Disorder," a.k.a., chronic inability to mature.

Just sayin'. Look into it.

Thanks for your "concern" but you have nothing to worry about. As far as maturity, if you an examples of what maturity is, I'll pass. Trying to blow off my arguments because you don't like them, well that don't sound too mature to me.

And accusing those who disagree with you of some sort of pyschological problem, to dismiss their views and their voice, well that does not strike me as too mature either. I think the term is "projection"

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Thursday, July 15, 2004 12:52 AM

DRAKON


Quote:
Originally posted by CapnHarbatkin:
oh... almost forgot one more thing:

Quote:

Drakon:
Lets face facts. If we wanted to, we could end any problem with the Middle east in about an hour. We have the power to simply glass the entire area, kill every living thing from Morocco to the Indian border. We can, but we ain't done it yet. And I hope it never comes to that. But i do see situations where it might.


If that's your solution to END a problem, then I don't think any of us need to patronize you anymore with pseudo-intellectual discourse.
I think you misunderstand. It is within the capabilities of the US to do just that. What is lacking is the political will. I can see circumstances creating that will in the American public. Of us simply giving up on the Arab population, deciding that those who say that democracy and Islam are incompatible, (like al-Zarqiwi tells us) and since they pose a continuing danger to ourselves and our loved ones, we do what is necessary.

For something like 200 years, Carthage kept attacking Rome, invading the Roman Empire, and generally being a pain in the butt. Rome got fed up with it, and destroyed the city, killed or enslaved its population and dispersed the survivors throughout the empire. And salted the earth, so the city could never ever be rebuilt. It may have been brutal and repulsive and well I am sure you can come up with all sorts of negative descriptions. But one inarguable fact is that Carthage was never a problem again.

I don't want it to come to that. And I doubt you or anyone else does either. That is why the middle east is going to have to change. And soon too. Combine suicidal terrorist tactics with WMDs and you have a major problem. A few people can wreck death and destruction on a large population, on scales undreamed of in human history.

If the situation gets desperate enough, if the governments that use terrorism to deflect their population's anger away from their home grown problems don't change, it may create the will needed to commit such a horrible act. That is one reason why Iraq must succeed.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Thursday, July 15, 2004 2:11 AM

PURPLEBELLY


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, where ARE you?

UK, border with France.
I'm here at lot lately because my Usenet feed's got slow, that's my story anywho.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/poetry/outloud/cope.shtml

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

Thursday, July 15, 2004 2:38 AM

DRAKON


Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
To me his argument is really the embodiment of demonization, which is to say polarization, which is to say thinking always in terms of black and white. I'm thinking that Drakon's argument is really a fundamentalist one. Fundamentalism is characterized by very strict definitions that the fundamentalist doesn't think are strict at all because, to him, that's just the way things are. Fundamentalists have a very mystified idea of all those words that Signy wants him to define. They mean what they mean, everybody knows that--everybody who isn't dumb, or mental, or playing word games.
Being a fundamentalist would imply religion at some point wouldn't it? Not being religious, nor even Christian, I don't think it fits.

As far as words go, well, I do recognize they are symbolic representations of things. I do know the difference between rocks and the word "rocks". If I use a term in a non-standard fashion, I will define it. When I use them in the standard fashion, and get this "well what does the word 'life' mean?" stuff, well, thinking through all the possibilities, I have come to the conclusion that this was just some game that Signy was playing. He appears intelligent and an English speaker. So far I have not seen anything to indicate otherwise.

I don't see demonization as a product of polarization. There can be good faith disagreement as toward goals and means. Just because you have different ideas does not make you evil. At least that is my view. I see that some do not share that view.

Maybe we are talking different things here. I see demonization as ascribing immoral intentions and/or actions to the other party. Demons are evil. Demons destroy, make people miserable, and kill them. They make things worse. We assign values like "good" and "evil" to actions and intentions, sometimes based on some code of behavior. I prefer the consequentialist approach, the morality of the action is in its effects. It has fewer problems than other methods I have seen.
Quote:
What came to mind were hate and naivete. The lefties are nothing if not kind and gentle and compassionate, aren't they? And if you call a conservative naive, he'll just laugh and blow smoke in your face, right?
I don't think this is right. First off, there is an anti-intellectualism backlash that is growing amongst conservatives. We see that the liberals have taken over the colleges and universities. We get the impression that a lot of what they are producing as deep insight, is useless, ineffective. We see so called smart people hung up with definitions of simple words, wanting to argue them, instead of dealing with the real world problems. It is as if they have forgotten that the purpose of all this mental gymnastics is to aid folks in their daily lives, their constant interaction with the real, physical world. Conservatives prefer a more "common sense" approach.

As for the left, as opposed to liberal, that is a different story. It comes out of Marx's flawed economics, and how he thought the world should be run. Also a confusion he had, (which I think for its time is understandable. You have to remember that Marx did his writing at the beginning of the industrial revolution, when a lot of folks were leaving the farms and heading to factory jobs in the city.) of the new cultural structures that were emerging. He saw them as too much like the old system.

Marx saw the rising burgeious as essentially indistinguishable from the old style bi-polar class structure. He saw them as the new aristocracy, and the proletariat as the same as the peasant class of old. He saw capitalims as maintaining the same class structure as before, with folks who owned the land (and soemtimes the people) ruling, while the peasants toiled on.

Anyway, this is an abbreviated version, this is already too long by far. Essentially Marx did not think the class structure would last, or work for long. And he imagined a world where "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," workers paradise, etc. The problem was how to get there?

So we have the concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" missing the essential point that a dictatorship is just another class system. A small group making the decisions for all the rest, regardless of what the rest think of things. And too often, the new boss was the same as the old boss, if not worse.

Now, there are very few Marxists in the world any more. There are hosts of folks who still see things in terms of class struggle, as private property as the problem of why some have so much and others have so little. There have been mutations and evolutions along this political ideological line for some time, in response to changing world events, flaws in the system, (again I cannot recommend Hayek enough) etc. Some call themselves socialists, or progressives or what have you.

Generally speaking, you have a point. The left tries to side with the proletariat, the "lower classes" against what they see as an aristocracy or burgeious of some type. part of that does derive from a more compassionate approach toward their fellow man. (And there is the Custer factor as well. There will always be more prols than aristocrats. ) But part of that is opposition to what they see as threats. You can't have a classless society if you have two (or 3) classes.

Now, I started this by distinguishing the left from liberal. Here we get into definition of terms. The term "liberal" originally meant someone who was either 1) for liberty, individual freedom from government coercion in their daily lives, and/or 2) someone who wanted to change the way things were. Change the political or cultural structure. The latter as opposed to "conservative" who want to continue doing things the "old fashion way".

In pre-democratic Europe especially, it is easy to see how liberal and leftist could become intertwined. And how an American conservative can be called a Nazi (which was a system pretty much like communism except the ruling class was engineers and technicians, rather than unskilled laborers) by someone who confuses European cultural structures for American ones.

Anyway, That is a brief (no really) thumbnail of how some on our side see things. We see modern day lefties as confusing the political and cultural structures here in America as identical to the ones that have existed in Europe. Which leads them to think that American conservatives are trying to conserve the same things as European ones had in the past. Instead of a completely different paradigm. That misunderstanding also contributes to the demonization from the left. Which gives rise to the old saw about how liberals think conservatives are evil, and conservatives think liberals are stupid.
Quote:
After 9/11 the left really pushed their own agressive rage way way down, and projected it on the right. I think that fueled a lot of the whole, "We deserved it" rhetoric that was flying around before a lot of the families in New York even knew if their loved ones were still alive. It was spooky. So I think a lot of formerly left leaning folk out there kinda moved away from the left. They felt their rage and owned it instead of burrying it and a lot of them supported the "War on Terror" because it spoke to them.
I am not so sure. There are some (Hitchens comes to mind) on the left who do support the war. But I think a lot of folks on the left see the struggle as one of the oppressed striking back against an aristocracy, us.
Quote:
But at the same time, and to a larger and larger degree it seems, the right live in the imagination of their President.
I don't think so. There are a lot of conservatives who don't like many things Bush is doing. But speaking for myself, I realize that in a time of war, disunity encourages the enemy, gives them a morale boost and the idea that if they just keep at it, maybe they will win.

What you are seeing I think is a "sample problem" We're going to defend the President's actions in the war because we see it as the right thing to do. We won't chew him out publically, because that would be bad for the war effort. So you see the support, you won't see the critisism. And so it is natural for you to come to the conclusion you just did.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Thursday, July 15, 2004 2:53 AM

DRAKON


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
That's why I really want to talk to Drakon. He (I presume "he") has obviously thought for a long time about a lot of things, and believes and feels deeply. But he's also too close to his own viewpoint to be able to think about it. A little distance is a good thing.
I am a he, last time I checked. And I have spent a lot of time on owl shift, and before that, midwatches in the Navy, where it is dull and boring (and thank goodness. Excitement means you are being shot at, or shooting. And with 16 nuclear missiles, you really don't want to do much shooting)

Why think about these things? Sooner or later you have to come to a conclusion, decide this is how the world works, and try it out. If you are wrong, you can see that, from the consequences of your actions. If they ain't what you expected, then you have a bug in your model, and you can fix it, based on new sensory data. And go on from there. If things work out, that is a pretty good indication you were right.

I see thinking as, well, the one thing humans have going for them. The way a lion has his strenght, or a cheeta his speed. Its a tool to help us survive as individuals and as a species. Off line simulation is far safer than doing things in the real world.

But, it can work against you. You get hung up in word games, or indecision for any reason, your jammed. The 'verse keeps rolling and you become unable to respond, to act. Usually this results in the 'verse running over the top of you, which ain't a lot of fun.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Thursday, July 15, 2004 4:39 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:
Originally posted by CapnHarbatkin:
Sorry for jumping in so late here.

I've just spent 2 hours reading and considering this thread and I have a real problem with Drakon stating things over and over and over again as facts with no offered proof.

I can't believe no one has called him on any of the dozens of unsupported assertions he's made. I'll just take two around the prison scandal as a start...


Drakon's Assertion:
"Second, again we are talking about bad guys, folks who have gassed Kurds, killed both civilian Iraqis and US troops, terrorists and thugs. "


My offered evidence that this is not true:

" Many of the prisoners abused at the Abu Ghraib prison were innocent Iraqis picked up at random by US troops, and incarcerated by under-qualified intelligence officers, a former US interrogator from the notorious jail told the Guardian."
( http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1211374,00.html)


"Military officials said 70% to 90% of the Iraqis swept up for interrogation were arrested by mistake, the International Committee of the Red Cross reported."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-06-09-our-view_x.
htm


Thanks Capn, I know that a lot of what Drakon asserts as fact is bs, but as you've seen, his posts are soooooo very long and each one contains soooooo many outrageious details that it's hard to pick any one out. And URL's are not my strong suit.

So I've tried to approach the discussion in terms of principles. Besides, in my experience, discrediting someone's post and offering proof really just causes the discussion to go off in a "my sources can beat up your sources" kind of direction, you know?

So anyway, Drakon has said repeatedly that the liberal opposition to war with Iraq is inconsistant with the liberal sympathy for "the little guy." That a "true" liberal would support ouster of Saddam. Well, I hate to say it, but I think the reality of our situation is a little more complicated than Drakon would like.

Be advised: I'm gonna use a really wonkey, Oprafied analogy to make my point.

Okay. Say you live in an apartment house and right across the way lives a woman who's boyfriend beats her. You've seen the police over there more than once but you can tell that the woman refuses to press charges, so the boyfriend is never arrested. When the cops leave, he beats her all the more for calling the cops.

So you decide to be a hero. You go over there yourself and beat the living crap out of the boyfriend and tell him that if he ever comes back you'll kill him.

So right off the bat things start to get crazy. First off, this woman doesn't even thank you! I mean, you put your life on the line for her (okay, not really, you're a black belt in karate and the guy was drunk, but still!) You could see the look of relief on her face when you first came in and pulled her brutal boyfriend off of her, but she turns around and starts screaming at you to stop hurting her boyfriend and she jumps on you and starts smacking you around the head. Then, when you rebuild her coffee table which he broke and put in a new window that he punched out, she just glares at you, like you're some kind of invading army!

So you leave her alone to sort out her new life now that you've ousted her evil boyfriend.

Then what happens? First of all, her very oldfashioned family start coming by to berate her about not having a man. Her whole community rises up against her for being some kind of faithless wife. And before you know it, she's shacked up with a new abusive boyfriend. Now is this boyfriend worse than the old one, or better? Who knows?

What you do know, is that you were a short-sighted jackass to think you could barge into her life and change it without taking into account the long term issues and cultural sources of her problem.

This is why many of us could predict exactly what is going on in Iraq today, when the administration couldn't. And this is how a nice liberal person, with some knowledge of human suffering and the need to fight your own battles, could oppose the war in Iraq as a terrible, barbaric waste of time and lives that only makes us look like brutes. The End.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

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

Thursday, July 15, 2004 4:57 AM

HONEY


HKCavalier wrote:
"So I was thinking: What is it that liberals are busy disowning about themselves and projecting onto conservatives? And what do the conservatives deny in themselves and blame the liberals for?"

Pathology is pathology, no matter what the political slant. No one party-leaning has a greater claim to it than the other. Not saying "all liberals" or "all conservatives" are pathological! Just some...

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

Thursday, July 15, 2004 5:15 AM

HONEY


Drakon wrote:
"Trying to blow off my arguments because you don't like them, well that don't sound too mature to me. "

You can't honestly believe that. I've stopped the discussion with you because you continue to mischaracterize my position -- as you have just done again. It's like banging my head against a wall -- it's only "mature" to figure out it ain't doing any good to discuss this with you and then quit doing it.

If anyone out there would like to discuss the actual facts and would like to figure out ways to salvage the situation so that we can reclaim the title of "good guys" honestly, please feel free to engage me in this thread or any other. Drakon, I am formally inviting you to not participate, due to your track record with me.

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

Thursday, July 15, 2004 6:08 AM

TOMSMEAGOL


I apologize in advance for the length of this post.

Drakon--

Believe it or not, I'm going to start this post by defending you...

Quote:
Quote:
Mental health care professionals have three words to describe persistently splitting the world into black and white: "Borderline Personality Disorder," a.k.a., chronic inability to mature.


And accusing those who disagree with you of some sort of pyschological problem, to dismiss their views and their voice, well that does not strike me as too mature either.


I agree. That was a very cheap shot and totally invalidated the original poster's criticism of you.

However, you also said in your reply...
Quote:
Trying to blow off my arguments because you don't like them, well that don't sound too mature to me.


Gee, Drakon, isn't that basically what you've been doing this entire time? That's a bit hypocritical of you, I'm afraid.

Quote:
For something like 200 years, Carthage kept attacking Rome, invading the Roman Empire, and generally being a pain in the butt. Rome got fed up with it, and destroyed the city, killed or enslaved its population and dispersed the survivors throughout the empire. And salted the earth, so the city could never ever be rebuilt. It may have been brutal and repulsive and well I am sure you can come up with all sorts of negative descriptions. But one inarguable fact is that Carthage was never a problem again.


That's true. Carthage wasn't a problem again. But does that make it right? If your brother constantly picks fights with you, destroys your belongings, and heaps non-stop verbal abuse upon you, does that mean you're justified to kill him so he won't do it anymore?

Quote:
I don't want it to come to that. And I doubt you or anyone else does either. That is why the middle east is going to have to change. And soon too. Combine suicidal terrorist tactics with WMDs and you have a major problem. A few people can wreck death and destruction on a large population, on scales undreamed of in human history.


I'm glad you don't want it to come to that. And I agree, WMD in the hands of terrorists is not a good thing.

Quote:
If the situation gets desperate enough, if the governments that use terrorism to deflect their population's anger away from their home grown problems don't change, it may create the will needed to commit such a horrible act. That is one reason why Iraq must succeed.


I disagree. I don't think we would ever devolve to mass genocide. If we did, we would be no different than Nazi Germany. And I agree that Iraq needs to succeed. I think we probably have very different definitions of success, but I agree that it would be wrong for us to allow it to fall into a state of chaos.

Quote:
First off, there is an anti-intellectualism backlash that is growing amongst conservatives. We see that the liberals have taken over the colleges and universities. We get the impression that a lot of what they are producing as deep insight, is useless, ineffective. We see so called smart people hung up with definitions of simple words, wanting to argue them, instead of dealing with the real world problems. It is as if they have forgotten that the purpose of all this mental gymnastics is to aid folks in their daily lives, their constant interaction with the real, physical world. Conservatives prefer a more "common sense" approach.

Anyway, That is a brief (no really) thumbnail of how some on our side see things. We see modern day lefties as confusing the political and cultural structures here in America as identical to the ones that have existed in Europe. Which leads them to think that American conservatives are trying to conserve the same things as European ones had in the past. Instead of a completely different paradigm. That misunderstanding also contributes to the demonization from the left. Which gives rise to the old saw about how liberals think conservatives are evil, and conservatives think liberals are stupid.

I am not so sure. There are some (Hitchens comes to mind) on the left who do support the war. But I think a lot of folks on the left see the struggle as one of the oppressed striking back against an aristocracy, us.


How are your statements above not in themselves demonization? You accuse the left of spouting hurtful and stereotypical rehtoric, yet you yourself use it as a "valid" argument.

Quote:
You mistake my defense of the President as a call that there should be no critisism. I will insist that it be relevant, and constructive, as opposed to what has been dished out so far. But that is not what I have been facing.

What you are seeing I think is a "sample problem" We're going to defend the President's actions in the war because we see it as the right thing to do. We won't chew him out publically, because that would be bad for the war effort. So you see the support, you won't see the critisism. And so it is natural for you to come to the conclusion you just did.


Contradict yourself much? How can you say first that it is OK to criticize the president (albeit if it's relevant and constructive) and yet later claim that it is wrong to ever criticize the president publically? And by the way, regardless of whether you think you're contradicting yourself or not, I happen to strongly disagree that the president is not open to criticism, even in a time of war. If the president does something that I feel is inappropriate or incorrect, I have the right as a citizen to disagree with him, even in a public place. If the framers of the constitution hadn't felt the same, they wouldn't have felt the need to include the first amendment.

Quote:
And I have spent a lot of time on owl shift, and before that, midwatches in the Navy, where it is dull and boring (and thank goodness. Excitement means you are being shot at, or shooting. And with 16 nuclear missiles, you really don't want to do much shooting)


Well, that certainly explains one thing. The military teaches its soldiers to see in terms of black and white, because in a combat situation, you HAVE to see that way. However, Drakon, it's unfortunate that you haven't learned to mix in shades of grey in your palette now that you're in the civilian world. 'Cause that's just the way the non-military world is--shades of grey.

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

Thursday, July 15, 2004 6:34 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Drakon, you spent far too much time with 16 nuclear warheads, thinking about horrible things with no reasonable feedback for your musings. I hope to God you still AREN'T babysitting those warheads 'cause friend, you need a change.

It's not the panic that in your posts that troubles me, or the fact that you blatantly mistake the facts. Everyone gets frightened (staring into the void too long will do that) and everyone makes mistakes. It's the "hamster on a hamster wheel" quality of your posts- you reiterate the same concerns over and over, impervious to either facts or logic. I can show you, point for point, where you're wrong and you'll turn around within two posts and reassert the same thing.

Am I concerned with the same things you are? YES, I AM. You're not the only one who thinks about security. I think about it a LOT. I was NOT AT ALL surprised by 9-11 because for the previous five years I'd breathed a sight of relief each year and think "Well, we ducked another one." I actually warned fellow bbxers about biowarfare just two weeks before the anthrax letters- a warning that got me followed by the FBI for a couple of days, seeing as how I am also a scientist. I would not be surprised about a radiological or chemical release in the upcoming months. (But I hope that doesn't happen! O'wise I'll be disappeared by Homeland Security!)

But I also realize that at the technical/ security end there's only so much the USA can do, unless we want to turn ourselves into a clone of Stalinist Russia. Even Israel can't deal 100% with the "Palestinian problem". I think it was the Shin Bet that stated the only ones who can stop Palestinian suicide bombings are the Palestinians themselves. The answer is not JUST more and better security because every security measure has a counter-measure.

Nobody here is arguing that we should just kick back and let terrorism continue. But what we need are EFFECTIVE tools against terrorism.


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

Thursday, July 15, 2004 11:30 AM

DRAKON


Quote:
Originally posted by TomSmeagol:
That's true. Carthage wasn't a problem again. But does that make it right? If your brother constantly picks fights with you, destroys your belongings, and heaps non-stop verbal abuse upon you, does that mean you're justified to kill him so he won't do it anymore?
I really hate saying this, but right or wrong ain't got nothing to do with it. It is a fact of nature, you put almost any life form in a desperate enough situation, they will fight back to the best of their ability, with anything and everything they got.

Look, I don't want that to happen any more than anyone else. But I can foresee it coming to that, if things get bad enough. That is one reason why success in Iraq is so important. It will prevent that kind of genocide. It will prove Zarqiwi wrong, that Islam and democracy are not incompatable, that their culture can be made less of a threat to us, without destroying it utterly.

What will it take to get there? I wish I could say. If someone told me 4 years ago that some folks would commit suicide by crashing planes into a skyscraper, killing thousands, I would have thought you were crazy, that nobody was that stupid or insane. I'd like to think I am wrong here, that no matter what happens, what atrocity is visited upon us, that it will never come to that. But again, I am not so confident as before. I have had that frightening sentiment expressed to me a number of times already.
Quote:
I disagree. I don't think we would ever devolve to mass genocide. If we did, we would be no different than Nazi Germany. And I agree that Iraq needs to succeed. I think we probably have very different definitions of success, but I agree that it would be wrong for us to allow it to fall into a state of chaos.
There would be one big difference. We would be alive, while Nazi Germany is still dead. And it would be justified as a matter of necessity. Everyone would hang their head, and cry about it. But in the end, it will be chalked up to, "well they shouldn't have started it."

Quote:
How are your statements above not in themselves demonization? You accuse the left of spouting hurtful and stereotypical rehtoric, yet you yourself use it as a "valid" argument.
In this piece, I was attempting only to describe what I see as a common perseption amongst conservatives. I was trying very hard not to make a judgement call here, but only describe the perception. That is the way a lot of us see things. And that perception is what you have to fight against, if you want to change it.

Now whether that perception matches reality, that is another topic for discussion. It was a bit simplified, and still rather long winded, but I think it is a more or less acurate picture how the political left and liberals are seen by conservatives in general.
Quote:
Contradict yourself much? How can you say first that it is OK to criticize the president (albeit if it's relevant and constructive) and yet later claim that it is wrong to ever criticize the president publically? And by the way, regardless of whether you think you're contradicting yourself or not, I happen to strongly disagree that the president is not open to criticism, even in a time of war. If the president does something that I feel is inappropriate or incorrect, I have the right as a citizen to disagree with him, even in a public place. If the framers of the constitution hadn't felt the same, they wouldn't have felt the need to include the first amendment.
Yes, you have every right to say whatever you want. That ain't the issue. Do you want to change things? Do you want to help? Do you want them to listen to you, or do you want to get blown off for any number of reasons?

You are not going to change anyone's mind against their will. You have to be persuasive. You have to give them the impression that you are not a moonbat, that you are not implicitly working for their destruction.

So whether it is your right or not, is immaterial. Some things work, some don't. And ain't no law going to change that.
Quote:
Well, that certainly explains one thing. The military teaches its soldiers to see in terms of black and white, because in a combat situation, you HAVE to see that way. However, Drakon, it's unfortunate that you haven't learned to mix in shades of grey in your palette now that you're in the civilian world. 'Cause that's just the way the non-military world is--shades of grey.
I don't see it that way. At the end of this, things are going to be different, one way or the other. You talk about your rights, you want to keep them? Or would you rather live under Shara law? You want to be alive, or dead? Do you want us to win, or lose. It is that simple.

I think in general, we're all trying to create the same kind of world, although it might differ in minor details. We may have a difference of opinion in means to achieve that end. Since none of us have a crystal ball (that actually works), the only way we have of determining what will work, is to try something and see how it plays out. That is life.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Thursday, July 15, 2004 11:43 AM

DRAKON


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
(But I hope that doesn't happen! O'wise I'll be disappeared by Homeland Security!)
Grin, and I am the paranoid one.

You are having difficulty convincing me, partly because I've read Usama statements, and those of Zarqiwi, and others on the other side. You can do the same. They are on the web these days. Those guys want us dead, or in submission to their ideals of how life should be. Ideals that, well, I don't think I would survive long under. Probably most folks around here would not.

And I would strongly disagree that you have ever laid out any kind of point by point rebuttal. I have gotten plenty of snide comments, whining, and word games. But not really a whole lot in the way of argument, or logic.
Quote:
But I also realize that at the technical/ security end there's only so much the USA can do, unless we want to turn ourselves into a clone of Stalinist Russia. Even Israel can't deal 100% with the "Palestinian problem". I think it was the Shin Bet that stated the only ones who can stop Palestinian suicide bombings are the Palestinians themselves. The answer is not JUST more and better security because every security measure has a counter-measure.
There is one that does not have a counter measure. I have outlined it earlier. It is a horrible one, and one that I think you and I can agree we would not want to see happen.

You are right, they have to change. Israel's wall has proven pretty effective, but even a 90% percent drop in suicide attacks is not 100%. Now how do you bring about that change?
Quote:

Nobody here is arguing that we should just kick back and let terrorism continue. But what we need are EFFECTIVE tools against terrorism.
I agree completely. We already have one, but like I and others have said, we don't want to use it. We need more.

Which again is the reason why Iraq has to succeed as a democratic and free nation.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Thursday, July 15, 2004 3:51 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Ok, let's take a few points, starting at the most recent and moving backwards.


Quote:
I really hate saying this, but right or wrong ain't got nothing to do with it. It is a fact of nature, you put almost any life form in a desperate enough situation, they will fight back to the best of their ability, with anything and everything they got.... If someone told me 4 years ago that some folks would commit suicide by crashing planes into a skyscraper, killing thousands, I would have thought you were crazy, that nobody was that stupid or insane.


Two major points here. First of all, if you're as realistic as you say, didn't the WTC/ Embassy/ Cole bombings kind of clue you in to the fact that people out there really really hate us? Did you think that a 3000 mile ocean was going to stop them? I know about Sharia law, I was against "the mujahadeen" in Afghanistan when they were presented by the media as wonderful friends and fierce freedom fighters. I think most of the people in this thread are a damn sight smarter than you think. YES, people hate us. I AGREE, they will stop at nothing. NO, we wouldn't want to live their kind of life. So stop pointing and gibbering- WE KNOW ALREADY!

The other point-
"It is a fact of nature, you put almost any life form in a desperate enough situation, they will fight back to the best of their ability, with anything and everything they got."

So, I guess this means that terrorists are desperately fighting back with everything they got? No... wait... that's not supposed to apply to them... it only applies to us because we're the good guys.

The point is that you use one yardstick to measure "us" and another to measure "them".


Quote:
In this piece, I was attempting only to describe what I see as a common perseption amongst conservatives. I was trying very hard not to make a judgement call here, but only describe the perception. That is the way a lot of us (conservatives) see things. And that perception is what you have to fight against, if you want to change it...Do you want to change things? Do you want to help? Do you want them to listen to you, or do you want to get blown off for any number of reasons?


You assume that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Wurmser, Abrams, Bolton, and Rice share your views, that they give a crap about what either of us think, and that they will continue to be in power. Absent any that, why in hell would I even be worried about "helping" them?

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

Thursday, July 15, 2004 4:01 PM

RUE

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


Summary of one topic

DRAKON (asserts binary nature of choices - offers limited examples)
In a lot of cases, it is a binary choice. Should taxes go up, or down? Should guns be banned or not? Should abortion be legal or illegal? Is this idea right or wrong? Or even is this idea more right (correct, consistent with reality, functional) than that one. Life or death are mutually exclusive. Happiness and misery ditto. If you are one, that automatically rules out the other.

SPLIBERTARIAN (disputes binary nature of choices, proposes existance of other choices )
Binary choices are a construct. By presenting an issue in an either/or manner, any other equally legitimate possibilities have already been discounted.

DRAKON (reasserts binary claim for life and death)
While life and death are binary choices, no matter how you want to deconstruct it, happiness is more of a spectrum.

HKCAVALIER (proposes mixed systems where several options/facets may exist simultaneously)
Happiness and misery are mutually exclusive? One doesn't have to take the bitter with the sweet? Is it taxes up or down or whose taxes go up or down? abortion: legal in all cases? legal after the second trimester? legal in cases of rape or incest? legal for minors as well as adults? legal without parental consent? an absolute, across-the-board ban on guns?

DRAKON (reasserts binary position, generalizes from personal)
You are either alive or dead. You are either happy [or not] Is overall the good worth the bad? That is my experience. I see them as simple. I do not see (a grey scale) as reflecting reality.

(dismisses and mischaracterizes the question)
Even admitting that the 'real question" is whose taxes, its still the same basic question here. Should they go up, or down

DRAKON (recites previous examples)
Taxes raised or lowered, overall it reduces back to a binary choice
(mischaracterizes the debate)
my opponent had not proven whether there were **not** binary issues but a different set of binary options

SPLIBERTARIAN (reiterates multiple choices)
binary question leaves out equally legitimate points [and] options have been artificially eliminated
the answers are often "worse" and "more worse", which leads me to look outside of the binary system

SIGNYM (characterizes either/or thinking, provides examples of alternatives)
Drakon, I think that your viewpoint is restricted by "either/ or" thinking. "But if the rules keep you from protecting and defending yourself" forcing the discussion into an "either/or" mode (you can have only protection OR freedom but not both)

DRAKON (defends binary as pragmatic and a way of divining 'fundamentals')
because I find it an effective means of living. Boiling problems down to as small as possible components, boiling issues and questions down to their fundamentals .....

And so on. Drakon, we are not internet-deaf. Shouting (more or less) the same thing over and over at us isn't going to help. We hear you. We are willing to discuss topics. But you seem to have nothing else beyond reasserting the same assertions, and offering the same tired examples. And also, mischaracterizing what other people say, 'demonizing' the opposition etc.

Part of the reason why you don't recognize grey is b/c you fudge it into the way you frame your either/or proposals. You 'weight' the choices. You select the balance point. And you select the time frame. In one case you will set the choice as 'any possible chance', in another case not. Your balance point changes between utility to further your own happiness to 'us winning', and other places in a vast territory. And you select between short-term goals, mid-term goals and long-term goals at whim.

Your 'binary process' in not binary (or digital), it's analogue. Only the conversion takes place so automatically in your head, you don't know it.

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

Friday, July 16, 2004 12:32 AM

DRAKON


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You assume that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Wurmser, Abrams, Bolton, and Rice share your views, that they give a crap about what either of us think, and that they will continue to be in power. Absent any that, why in hell would I even be worried about "helping" them?
This illustrates one of the big problems with the whole demonization thing. Whether you like it or not, they got the job now. And there is a pretty good chance they will end up with that job for the next four years. Recent polls indicate its still about a 50 50 split in the country, right now. You may end up stuck with them.

And if you approach your political opposition with this kind of attitude, no they won't care what you think. Whats more, you run the very real risk of shrinking your side's support, as people look at your views, and your manner of discussing them, and write them off. Is that what you want? You don't get the votes, you are going to be stuck with them. You keep up this demonization, folks will think your not quite right in the head, and that will not only discredit you, but your views and your political side. Then you won't get the votes.

And since they have the job, it comes back to which side you want to win. Not in November but in the war. You can help them do their job, and I think the answer is obvious why you would want to. That is if you are really concerned about the war.

You've tried to blow off my concerns as paranoia and fear earlier. There is still two craters in Manhatten that demostrate the rationality of my concern. So that does not work too well.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Friday, July 16, 2004 12:47 AM

DRAKON


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Summary of one topic

DRAKON (asserts binary nature of choices - offers limited examples)
In a lot of cases, it is a binary choice. Should taxes go up, or down? Should guns be banned or not? Should abortion be legal or illegal? Is this idea right or wrong? Or even is this idea more right (correct, consistent with reality, functional) than that one. Life or death are mutually exclusive. Happiness and misery ditto. If you are one, that automatically rules out the other.
That is a pretty good summation. Its like the color of my car, which is green. Being green automatically excludes it from being red, blue, or any other color.
Quote:

Part of the reason why you don't recognize grey is b/c you fudge it into the way you frame your either/or proposals. You 'weight' the choices. You select the balance point. And you select the time frame. In one case you will set the choice as 'any possible chance', in another case not. Your balance point changes between utility to further your own happiness to 'us winning', and other places in a vast territory. And you select between short-term goals, mid-term goals and long-term goals at whim.
I don't think that is what I have done. I don't think I have mischaracterized anyone here, just called them as I see them. You missed a good chunk on the lack of utility inherent in this "shades of grey" thinking, which is the real problem. It locks up the decision loop. It prevents actions and ensures that you end up with unexpected consequences.

I know I am repeating myself, but since you did not bring this up in your summation, I thought it important to reinterate it again.

At some point, you have to have to choose, and in fact, even if you don't choose, that still has consequences just like the choices you do make. Getting stuck in this "shades of grey" thinking does not look like a good idea, does not look like an effective way of dealing with life's issues, big or small.

Besides which, it is the actions that have consequences. All the mental stuff (which is the cause of which action you take) is nice, it hopefully gets you where you want to go. But in the real world it don't mean a thing. If you flip the light switch, whether your intention or desire was to turn on the lights, does not matter. The lights come on.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Friday, July 16, 2004 3:22 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Drakon, I have time for ONE comment right now:

Show me a single post where I blew you off as paranoid. Quote right here, or I start deducting credibility points.

FAW! I hate people who lie!

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

Friday, July 16, 2004 4:59 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I'm going to add one thing to that post. Just so you realize that this isn't an open-ended challenge, I expect to see that post by Sunday noon Zulu time. Without that post, by your own black and white extreme way of looking at things, you either lied or you're incompetent to judge reality.

I'll get to those other points later today.

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

Friday, July 16, 2004 5:08 AM

RUE

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


You missed a good chunk on the lack of utility inherent in this "shades of grey" thinking, which is the real problem.

If I tried to control a system that way it would be unstable. There's a reason for things like potentiometers (and even their 'digital' equivalents.)

Proportional is a valid concept in 'the real world'.

In any case, I HAVE discussed various topics in great detail. But you just blow by that. (When DOES a human individual come into existance, Drakon?) So I'm back to my original assessment of you. This is not an 'oops' kind of thing, you deliberately disable honest discussion.

As far as I'm concerned, you and I have nothing to discuss.

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

Friday, July 16, 2004 6:35 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


WELL DANG, RUE! You bring up a good point and I'm kicking myself for not having seen it! After all, my SO is an electronics engineer who designs control and measurement systems for research, and you'd think that by now I would have proportional controllers and power supplies firmly fixed in my brain!

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

Friday, July 16, 2004 9:35 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Ok, so continuing...

Quote:
This illustrates one of the big problems with the whole demonization thing. Whether you like it or not, they got the job now. And there is a pretty good chance they will end up with that job for the next four years. Recent polls indicate its still about a 50 50 split in the country, right now. You may end up stuck with them.

And if you approach your political opposition with this kind of attitude, no they won't care what you think. Whats more, you run the very real risk of shrinking your side's support, as people look at your views, and your manner of discussing them, and write them off. Is that what you want? You don't get the votes, you are going to be stuck with them. You keep up this demonization, folks will think your not quite right in the head, and that will not only discredit you, but your views and your political side. Then you won't get the votes.


I'm going to take this conversation sideways. ASSUMING that all of YOUR assumptions are true- that Cheney et al want to make the world safe for Americans, that they give a fig about what you or I think, that "establishing democracy" in Iraq is an essential part of the plan ... How would you judge their effort so far? What should they have done differently, if anything? What would you tell them to do in the future? What would be your milestone or milestones? Would the first UN-observed election be OK, or would you be looking for evidence of a stable, self-sustaining democracy? The growth of a middle class?

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

Not sharing your assumptions, your faith and trust in Cheney et al is the same as "demonization"??? Only a person who's wobbly in their faith would pull that kind of rhetorical horsesh*t. You can do better than that! Provide me with some evidence that Cheney et al are really on the side of the angels. PLEASE don't do it by pointing to Osama/Zarqawi and saying "It's either Cheney or DOOM!!!"

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

Friday, July 16, 2004 2:45 PM

DRAKON


Since you and Rue, have already written off my ideas and opinions, what is the point of continuing?

So far, Iraqis are free of Saddam. That is a big plus. The costs of this war, I have to admit are far less than I expected, and despite operational constraints, and the constant ankle biting from some quarters, pretty good. Not excellent, nor perfect. Far better and quicker than reconstruction in Japan and Germany after WW2.

Al Sadr's uprising is gone, Iraqis are now producing more electricity than they did prior to the war, and are on their way to establishing a democracy. Yes there are still terrorist attacks, kidnappings and problems. But compared to the sucesses, pretty good.

Now, as for your point about "rhetorical horsesh*t". I am calling them as you present them to me. You might argue that you are doing the same. You don't think they care one whit about any of us, me, you, the Iraqis, or anything. You should explain how you come to this conclusion. Mind reading? You will have to explain how this is not demonization to me. Hopefully you can do it in a more civilized, less bullying tone.

Since you are employing the methods you are using in this debate, it is hard for me to take you seriously.. And your lack of civility, make me think that you are the one who is in an insecure position, as far as judging reality. If you had actual arguments, or logic, you could produce it. And leave the invective aside. But instead you demand, and threaten to write me off if you don't get what you want. When your very posts prove you have already done so.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, November 28, 2024 17:48 - 4779 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:32 - 1163 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:10 - 45 posts
Salon: How to gather with grace after that election
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:04 - 1 posts
End of the world Peter Zeihan
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:59 - 215 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:58 - 1540 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:46 - 650 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:41 - 4847 posts
Dubai goes bankrupt, kosher Rothschilds win the spoils
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:31 - 5 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:29 - 7515 posts
Jean-Luc Brunel, fashion mogul Peter Nygard linked to Epstein
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:27 - 14 posts
All things Space
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:17 - 270 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL