The 'Jihad' Rant: Prove Me Wrong (warning: might be offenisve)

POSTED BY: HiroStone
UPDATED: Sunday, December 28, 2025 08:00
VIEWED: 22653
PAGE 4 of 11

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

DRAKON

Saturday, February 21, 2004 11:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
ok. i can agree with a system where people are free to choose. But what if something understands the concept but chooses to be bound to a master - would that be a flawed decision, would that be wrong? Can we accept that? That's what I was talking about. Of course, I've selected an extreme case where someone *seeminly* chooses to reject the basic principles of it for themselves. But look at Singapore, look at the English, look at Canadians. They all have different types of government based fundamentally on human freedom - just not our brand of it. Still works. People are still free, just not the same kind of free. I don't think people should be subjected to a sort of tyranny that we have around the world in history and today - but I don't think that our sort of freedom is well suited for the entire world either. People can choose to not be completely free - if they so wishes to. We in this country are choosing that right now - we have chosen to be not as free in our thoughts, our words, and our actions. We have chosen to give up a little bit of all of that freedom.

I am really not getting you at all. It may be that we are confusing political structures with the freedoms those structures are designed to guarantee for their citizens. And I am not at all sure what you mean by what freedoms we have "given up" in this country. But then, it could be that I have no availed myself of the freedoms that you are talking about.

Let me ask a question. Lets say you take a picture of you making what appears to be a bomb. (It could be a promo for a video project you are doing. Something completely harmless.) You send it out to get developed. The photoclerk calls the cops and they come and talk with you. Does the very act of investigating you and what you are doing infringe on your freedoms?

If YOU choose to be a slave, that is your business. (And in SF I hear business is booming, but that is another subject entirely

) If you choose for ANYONE ELSE to be a slave, well then we got problems. It is exactly that kind of political structure that has to be stamped out if we are ever to keep ourselves safe, or aid the Iraqis in making a successful nation.

We can group freedoms into some broad catagories. There is the "freedom to think". Well, there is no government in the world that can stop you from thinking. It goes on inside your skull, and multiple personality disorders aside, you are all alone inside your skull. No one has the ability to monitor, let alone control what you think.

There is freedom of action, which can be subdivided further. There is the freedom to speak, communicate. And there is the freedom to take physical action, such as hammering nails or beating people up.

Freedom of speech is pretty important, a key ingredient in any functioning political structure. Without it, you get a very static and inflexible government unable at adjusting to new situations, even blinded to such challenges. But it does require tolerance, (not necessarily acceptance) of ideas and opinions and manners of expression that you may find disagreeable, even repugnant.

[And of course, freedom to speak does not mean a freedom to force others to listen, or pay for your speech. You have the right to talk, I got just as much right to change the channel and ignore you.]

Freedom of action has to be limited in any society to some extent. And the exact dividing point is where we can get into all sorts of arguments. If everyone simply picked up what they wanted, with no respect for property rights, well you can see how that can be a bad thing.

And from what I have been reading, this is the issue right now in Iraq. Some want more and more controls on actions, and some want less. We're opposing some implementations of sharia in Iraq, of putting it into their constitution, simply because there is a very good case to be made that it is too restrictive. And that it would effectively enslave women, and non-Muslims.

Also, I think the American system (or Swiss) would prove more

DRAKON

Saturday, February 21, 2004 11:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
One can only hope that eventually the whole world turns atheist and religious dogma and strife only exists as a subject for academic debate

Humans are an ornery lot. They will just find something else to fight and fuss about. Like philosophy, or politics. Communism, while atheist, wasn't exactly peaceful.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

HOTPOINT

Saturday, February 21, 2004 11:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
Humans are an ornery lot. They will just find something else to fight and fuss about. Like philosophy, or politics. Communism, while atheist, wasn't exactly peaceful.

"Visualise the most ferocious, hostile land-dwelling creature imaginable and then intelligence give it. Truly there you have a human" Alan Dean Foster A Call to Arms

Communism, or rather Marxist Dialectical Materialism, became as much a religion as any other. It was the faith the practitioners had in "historical inevitability" that drove them to act as they did. They thought the end justified the means

Never trust a believer. They're only one step away from burning you at the stake for an opinion they think is a fact. A cynic might still burn you but they usually need a better reason

...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First

DRAKON

Saturday, February 21, 2004 11:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Look, I am not saying that we haven't gone anywhere either, but I am saying that spending a long long time doing something while spending lots of effort, sweating & presevering doesn't equate to a quality product nor does the sweating itself deserve any prize. From a purely meritocracy standpoint - only the result matters. Is it something of quality? Well, that is also in the eye of the beholder. What kind of cake I think might taste good isn't necessarily what you might like (or choose) to eat. See, you can almost always break down an argument into choices of Chocolate, Vanilla, or Peanut Butter & Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough with Pralies and Mocha Fudge swirl.

Life is not a stable state. Folks die all the time. Sometimes its because someone kills them, sometimes its a disease that rots their insides out. Sometimes its an accident.

Surviving for a long time means that you have been able to not succumb to any kind of disease or rot, no one has been successful at killing you, and you have avoided all the pitfalls and trials and tribulations that occur in life. It means that you have eaten something besides just chocolate, vanilla, and peanut butter. You may have had any or all of them in the past, but you have eaten enough healthy food that you are still here.

The same is true of governments. Many different governmental systems have been tried. A lot of them (especially totalitarian ones) have failed, and killed a lot of people in doing it. Some have survived. Right now, the US has not only survived, but far from being a weak 200 year old man, its the most powerful nation on the planet, and according to some, more powerful than any nation that has ever existed in human history.

[Not just militarily, but also economically, politically, technically (scientifically) and culturally.]

Now, some see success as a sign of cheating. I don't. I see it more from an engineering perspective. If it works, it is because whoever designed it knew what they were doing. Understood nature (both the laws of nature as well as human nature) to a degree to create a thing that would perform the desired function. Even if that person could not explain it, rationalize it, or even understood how or why, even if it were just a guess, it don't matter. Something that works, works.

To put it another way, in combat, the side that knows the most, wins. Knows the most not only about enemy troop positions, strength, morale, capabilities, location, supplies, but his own as well. That give the commander the ability to direct his forces, his weapons more precisely, and cause more damage to the enemy than the enemy can do to him. He is able to pick his battlefield far better than his opponent.

I am not saying that might makes right. I am saying the exact opposite. Right makes Might. Knowing more about yourself, and your opponent, than your opponent gives you a distinct advantage, especially on the battlefield.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

DRAKON

Saturday, February 21, 2004 11:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HiroStone:
Give someone who needs it a couple of dollars out of my pocket for no other reason than charity?

Nope.

There are two different moral theories at work. (Well three but I think most folks reject Nietszche's itineration)

One of them is altruism, which says that one "should" act in the best interests of others. Even if it kills you. You put Others first and foremost.

Unfortunately, this is not a good evolutionary strategy. It means when the lions come, he eats you, and leaves the selfish bastards behind.

The other is selfishness. (Or if you prefer, "enlightened self interest") You work for your own interest, to preserve your own life and happiness.

Screwing over other people gives them the impression that you cannot be trusted, and that can hamper your ability to work with them to achieve a goal you want. In extreme cases they may think, and be rationally justified, that you are a threat to their lives and happiness and take pains to protect themselves. Like feeding YOU to the lion. This is the problem with Neitzche's "uberman" concept, and his flipped altruism where everyone should serve MY needs.

Because screwing over people is not in your self interest, (and also can be logically excluded for other more abstract reasons) selfishness does not mean treating everyone like crap. It does mean treating them, well, like you want to be treated.

It means working in your own best interest, but respecting the valid interests of others. (If that other has an interest in strangling you, well, I would not consider that valid.) It means treating folks as if they are people just like you.

In Kant's altruism, (at least as I understand it) if you get any benefit from being nice, then it spoils the moral character of the action. I disagree very strongly, but then I am not an altruist. I see the benefits of giving to charity, or simply being nice, that I get. And that re-enforces those charitable actions.

Lets face it. Doing a good deed, even if there is no physical reward, or material benefit, it feels good. Mercy, charity, and love, even sacrifice can feel pretty good at times. That in itself is a benefit. And therefore, according to (my understanding of) Kant, not nice.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

HOTPOINT

Saturday, February 21, 2004 11:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:

its the most powerful nation on the planet, and according to some, more powerful than any nation that has ever existed in human history.

[Not just militarily, but also economically, politically, technically (scientifically) and culturally.]

America is currently number one but measured as a percentage of the worlds economy or technological (industrial) superiority 19th Century Britain for one was proportionally far stronger. In terms of economic dominance America actually peaked in the late 1940's/Early 1950's when it accounted for about 40% of the worlds economy on its own. It now accounts for just over 20%

At one point the British Empire exceeded 50% (the joys of both having a huge Empire and being the first nation to go through the industrial revolution)

Just putting things into perspective. Pax Romana and Pax Brittania both fell and the core nations were proportionally stronger in many ways than Pax Americana is today

"Nothing is so weak or destabilising as a reputation for power which is not based on ones own resources" Cicero

...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First

DRAKON

Saturday, February 21, 2004 12:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
Just putting things into perspective. Pax Romana and Pax Brittania both fell and the core nations were proportionally stronger in many ways than Pax Americana is today

Well I think there is a very big difference between those two and America. First off, WE DON'T WANT AN EMPIRE!

It took something like 9-11 to drag us kicking and screaming, (and some of us are still screaming) back to the sand box to finally remove Saddam. We want to go back to sleep, complain about pointless stuff, watch celebrities implode on tv and such. Or simply do business, buy and sell stuff with the rest of the world. We don't want to tell anyone anything how to run their lives.

Yes, Saddam was a butcher, and his people did suffer. But as long as he was not 9percieved to be) a threat to us, we, well not caring is not the right word, but we were not willing to do anything about it.

In general, we don't tell folks what kind of government they can or cannot have, unless there is a threat to us. When there is no threat, no problem.

I am not sure what your numbers are based on. I have heard that the US's 10 trillion dollar a year economy is larger than the rest of the G-7 combined. California alone is battling France for 6th place as the largest economy of the world.

But one point that should be noted is that while as a percentage of the whole, the US may be sliding. But in absolute numbers it ain't. Its not that everyone else is getting a bigger slice of the pie. Its that we are all getting more and more pie.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

DRAKON

Saturday, February 21, 2004 12:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
Never trust a believer. They're only one step away from burning you at the stake for an opinion they think is a fact. A cynic might still burn you but they usually need a better reason

Hmm... this seems to touch on epistemology, on which I could (and have) write tons. But I feel I have been posting too much of late as it is, so maybe we can table this for another day. This board is beginning to swamp me.

I will agree that communism was a religion, but it was an atheistic one, devoid of God. Well sorta. Stalin, Pol Pot, and the Kims all seem to disagree.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

JASONZZZ

Saturday, February 21, 2004 3:54 PM

I don't disagree that the US have achieved something, albeit I still won't take the standpoint that merely having survived 200 years is an achievement (I would state the same argument but you can read it above and here quoted below). And I am not going to point to the much longer running histories of Egyptians, Romans, Mayans, Incans, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and others as civilizations, nations/people go have had Dynasties and Kingdoms as forms of government much more longer running than we have *and* have had held economic, political, cultural, *and* technological success (in their days) that would far exceed what the US have done so far.

I see the point of pride for the US, but 200 years is but a bat of an eyelash compared to the rest of
humanity. Strolling down the "historic" waterfront of Boston make me raise a pint, but strolling thru all of the medieval bldgs in France , England, China, Moracco, and Japan made me wonder with awe.

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Look, I am not saying that we haven't gone anywhere either, but I am saying that spending a long long time doing something while spending lots of effort, sweating & presevering doesn't equate to a quality product nor does the sweating itself deserve any prize. From a purely meritocracy standpoint - only the result matters. Is it something of quality? Well, that is also in the eye of the beholder. What kind of cake I think might taste good isn't necessarily what you might like (or choose) to eat. See, you can almost always break down an argument into choices of Chocolate, Vanilla, or Peanut Butter & Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough with Pralies and Mocha Fudge swirl.

Life is not a stable state. Folks die all the time. Sometimes its because someone kills them, sometimes its a disease that rots their insides out. Sometimes its an accident.

Surviving for a long time means that you have been able to not succumb to any kind of disease or rot, no one has been successful at killing you, and you have avoided all the pitfalls and trials and tribulations that occur in life. It means that you have eaten something besides just chocolate, vanilla, and peanut butter. You may have had any or all of them in the past, but you have eaten enough healthy food that you are still here.

The same is true of governments. Many different governmental systems have been tried. A lot of them (especially totalitarian ones) have failed, and killed a lot of people in doing it. Some have survived. Right now, the US has not only survived, but far from being a weak 200 year old man, its the most powerful nation on the planet, and according to some, more powerful than any nation that has ever existed in human history.

[Not just militarily, but also economically, politically, technically (scientifically) and culturally.]

Now, some see success as a sign of cheating. I don't. I see it more from an engineering perspective. If it works, it is because whoever designed it knew what they were doing. Understood nature (both the laws of nature as well as human nature) to a degree to create a thing that would perform the desired function. Even if that person could not explain it, rationalize it, or even understood how or why, even if it were just a guess, it don't matter. Something that works, works.

To put it another way, in combat, the side that knows the most, wins. Knows the most not only about enemy troop positions, strength, morale, capabilities, location, supplies, but his own as well. That give the commander the ability to direct his forces, his weapons more precisely, and cause more damage to the enemy than the enemy can do to him. He is able to pick his battlefield far better than his opponent.

I am not saying that might makes right. I am saying the exact opposite. Right makes Might. Knowing more about yourself, and your opponent, than your opponent gives you a distinct advantage, especially on the battlefield.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs

JASONZZZ

Saturday, February 21, 2004 4:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
Just putting things into perspective. Pax Romana and Pax Brittania both fell and the core nations were proportionally stronger in many ways than Pax Americana is today

Well I think there is a very big difference between those two and America. First off, WE DON'T WANT AN EMPIRE!

Unfortunately, as good as the US's intentions are, I don't think the rest of the world has the same view. The rest of the world not only thinks, but believes very strongly that the US is acting as a big bully, a big expansionist Empire.

I think the comparison with Pax Romana is that there have been much larger, much stronger, and much longer running forms of governments as governments go. Both the ruling party *and* the people in those times thought their form of government was the best and they were right and just in *their* might as well. That's is the perspective. The US certainly do have its people indoctrinated into believing that the constitution and every *is* fiat no-holds-barred best damn thing since sliced bread. Engage a debate with a British, or someone from Canada (closest neighbor, and I didn't pick Mexico since for odd reasons, US people think they are a less than equal nation without a need for sovereignty) and they will tell you that they simply just don't understand why we need all these thing - why do you need guns? Some of our responses might be "Well, you haven't struggled the way we have" (Actually no one currently alive struggled at Boston, Baltimore, or Philadelpha ).

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:

It took something like 9-11 to drag us kicking and screaming, (and some of us are still screaming) back to the sand box to finally remove Saddam. We want to go back to sleep, complain about pointless stuff, watch celebrities implode on tv and such. Or simply do business, buy and sell stuff with the rest of the world. We don't want to tell anyone anything how to run their lives.

I disagree with that. The US have many fine examples of economic embargo with many many countries in the world (Cuba comes to mind as something completely pointless). The US engage in economic sanctions. The US routinely delve into other countries affairs. The US huddle twice yearly with its peers to set policies that have tremendous crushing effects for much smaller non-nuclear capable nations (we can argue about the reality of this, but this is exactly the perception for the "outer" worlds).

I know the US has been hurt by 9-11 events, I know and feel the US feels justified in doing everything its doing right now. It's just that's not how everyone else out there feels. Everyone else (except for Tony Blair) thinks that the US are a big bully and have been for years. They see the US wearing its big 10 gallon hat, chaps, boots, foot-wide buckle, chewing on tobakee, pistols-a-blazing coming in like a bull in a china shop and declaring that Marshall Dillon is in town now, "Folks better start dressing up like us real damn cowboys and act like real damn Ameeeericans, and Howdy Pertner!"

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:

Yes, Saddam was a butcher, and his people did suffer. But as long as he was not 9percieved to be) a threat to us, we, well not caring is not the right word, but we were not willing to do anything about it.

In general, we don't tell folks what kind of government they can or cannot have, unless there is a threat to us. When there is no threat, no problem.

I am not sure what your numbers are based on. I have heard that the US's 10 trillion dollar a year economy is larger than the rest of the G-7 combined. California alone is battling France for 6th place as the largest economy of the world.

But one point that should be noted is that while as a percentage of the whole, the US may be sliding. But in absolute numbers it ain't. Its not that everyone else is getting a bigger slice of the pie. Its that we are all getting more and more pie.

"Wash, where is my dam

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