Forums » Off-Topic
Any kind of war is stupid, terrorism or no terrorism. The only real advantage is that it curbs our exponential population growth by a very small percent.
Were you born incredibly stupid, naive, and self-righteous? Or was it beaten into you by years of public schooling?
One could make many arguments, some better than others, about the nature and the scope of appropriate military action in a given context. But to state that "all war is dumb" is violate a cardinal rule of human existance: that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Were you born incredibly stupid, naive, and self-righteous? Or was it beaten into you by years of public schooling?
One could make many arguments, some better than others, about the nature and the scope of appropriate military action in a given context. But to state that "all war is dumb" is violate a cardinal rule of human existance: that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
I have this wonderful image stuck in my head of a horrified Momma Lecter, recoiling in terror as the doctor hands her a very small, very cynical fourty year old lawyer, and says: "Mr's Lecter, I'd like you to meet your son!"
Was it hard to get the placenta out of your Armani suit Lecter?
Was it hard to get the placenta out of your Armani suit Lecter?
Your ridiculous insult to Dr. Lecter does not constitute a relevant point in this debate. In fact, it means you're out of points.
Lecter, you apparently define terrorist more narrowly than I do. I define it as any person or organization that commits an act meant to frighten their enemy for any purpose. You are defining militant Islamic terrorists, and your point there is valid. Just remember, the only reason we treated Japanese POWs nicely is in the hope that they would treat ours nicely, and because we wanted to be better than that. They of course did not return the favor. Besides, there are those who are actively campaigning for constitutional rights for enemy combatants held in places like Guantanamo Bay. The only reason to honor the "rules" of war is to not alienate potential allies.
My comparison is that both attacks came without warning (even if one intended a slight warning), and both were done with the anticipation that there would be no retaliation.
Slime, slime, slime. Where to start. Well, exponential growth seems to have stabilized, and will likely slow in the future. Besides, if it were moral to solve a population surplus problem by removing some, why not start with idiots who declare war on America? For that matter, I might as well support gay marriage and abortion, so we can breed liberals out of our society.
"What gives anyone the right to decide the fate of thousands of people who live their own lives and have their own opinions, many of which you don't know, because they live in a certain area?"
Okay, you tell me, slime, what gave Imperial Japan the right to decide the fate of 2500 Americans on December 7th, 1941? What gave Al'Qaeda the right to decide the fate of 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001? What gave us the right to decide their fate? They did, when they forfeit their rights by starting a war.
I like disagreeing with you, Lecter, because you make me think and sometimes change my opinion. I like disagreeing with you, slime, because it means I'm not a moron.
Lecter, you apparently define terrorist more narrowly than I do. I define it as any person or organization that commits an act meant to frighten their enemy for any purpose. You are defining militant Islamic terrorists, and your point there is valid. Just remember, the only reason we treated Japanese POWs nicely is in the hope that they would treat ours nicely, and because we wanted to be better than that. They of course did not return the favor. Besides, there are those who are actively campaigning for constitutional rights for enemy combatants held in places like Guantanamo Bay. The only reason to honor the "rules" of war is to not alienate potential allies.
My comparison is that both attacks came without warning (even if one intended a slight warning), and both were done with the anticipation that there would be no retaliation.
Slime, slime, slime. Where to start. Well, exponential growth seems to have stabilized, and will likely slow in the future. Besides, if it were moral to solve a population surplus problem by removing some, why not start with idiots who declare war on America? For that matter, I might as well support gay marriage and abortion, so we can breed liberals out of our society.
"What gives anyone the right to decide the fate of thousands of people who live their own lives and have their own opinions, many of which you don't know, because they live in a certain area?"
Okay, you tell me, slime, what gave Imperial Japan the right to decide the fate of 2500 Americans on December 7th, 1941? What gave Al'Qaeda the right to decide the fate of 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001? What gave us the right to decide their fate? They did, when they forfeit their rights by starting a war.
I like disagreeing with you, Lecter, because you make me think and sometimes change my opinion. I like disagreeing with you, slime, because it means I'm not a moron.
Insult? Insult?! It was a compliment!
No points? Hell, I'll raise you on that and fill you in on a little secret:
I'm not here to debate, which... wasn't... I thought... wasn't that what you wanted?! Surely you weren't looking for another inane discussion on the state of the world viewed through some myopic, middle-american lens...
Or were you?
No points? Hell, I'll raise you on that and fill you in on a little secret:
I'm not here to debate, which... wasn't... I thought... wasn't that what you wanted?! Surely you weren't looking for another inane discussion on the state of the world viewed through some myopic, middle-american lens...
Or were you?
The irony hurts.
Chaos, you should not whine about Lecter being insulted and do the same a few paragraphs later.
Besides, by your definition, the US Government, Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps (and every government maintaining an armed and/or police force) are all terrorists, as well, since you wrote "I define it (terrorist) as any person or organization that commits an act meant to frighten their enemy for any purpose."
Edit to Snax's edit (you should go visit Dan Kim's site again. Your nickname keeps throwing me off): I fear I have become too much of a cynic to see the threads in here as debates.
Chaos, you should not whine about Lecter being insulted and do the same a few paragraphs later.
Besides, by your definition, the US Government, Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps (and every government maintaining an armed and/or police force) are all terrorists, as well, since you wrote "I define it (terrorist) as any person or organization that commits an act meant to frighten their enemy for any purpose."
Edit to Snax's edit (you should go visit Dan Kim's site again. Your nickname keeps throwing me off): I fear I have become too much of a cynic to see the threads in here as debates.
Psychological warfare, it's a good thing.
If it makes you feel better Tosh, you can call me Mistress...
I would, but I like the girl with the hat better now >_>
Where is my insult to Lecter? I said I like when he disagrees with me because his well-crafted arguments make me think. It was slime I had a snide remark for.
My bad. I meant to say that you were insulting someone, but not Lecter.
Sorry, Snax, I was born in Zegna ;)
Slime: read, consider (the general critique of pacifism/minimalism, not the specific 2d Amendment issue). http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1028682
Slime: read, consider (the general critique of pacifism/minimalism, not the specific 2d Amendment issue). http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1028682
"For that matter, I might as well support gay marriage and abortion, so we can breed liberals out of our society."
Dreaming it won't make it so, unfortunately.. Stupidity cannot be bred out of any society..
As an old man once told me, "If you are younger than 30, and not a liberal, you are heartless, if you are older than 35, and not a conservative, you are brainless."
And, another one I've heard a few times over the years. "A Conservative is a Liberal who's been mugged, and a Liberal is a Conservative that's been arrested."
Both seem to be quite true..
break19
Dreaming it won't make it so, unfortunately.. Stupidity cannot be bred out of any society..
As an old man once told me, "If you are younger than 30, and not a liberal, you are heartless, if you are older than 35, and not a conservative, you are brainless."
And, another one I've heard a few times over the years. "A Conservative is a Liberal who's been mugged, and a Liberal is a Conservative that's been arrested."
Both seem to be quite true..
break19
"For that matter, I might as well support gay marriage and abortion, so we can breed liberals out of our society."
Dreaming it won't make it so, unfortunately.. Stupidity cannot be bred out of any society..
So you're just gonna go ahead and shove all homosexuals, pro-right believers, and liberals under the stupid tree eh? Fair enough, although I think given the time of year, it could use a star. Why don't you go ahead and climb on up there break?
Dreaming it won't make it so, unfortunately.. Stupidity cannot be bred out of any society..
So you're just gonna go ahead and shove all homosexuals, pro-right believers, and liberals under the stupid tree eh? Fair enough, although I think given the time of year, it could use a star. Why don't you go ahead and climb on up there break?
Snax, I couldn't care any less what you think of me.. You think I'm a hateful SOB, I get that.. And guess what? I don't really give a flying fuck.
Liberalism = stupidity. Plain and simple..
If you weren't so far up on your high horse, you might be able to see that.
Liberals -claim- to be "open minded". lmfao. They sure don't sound very open minded to ideas coming from conservatives.
Attempt to cut down a couple of trees to build a house for a homeless guy, and some nutjob environmentalist will call you names...
All of that sounds like pure lunacy to me.. The history of the USA has been rewritten by the left to such a degree that 95% of my fellow citizens think the "true story of Thanksgiving" is "the pilgrims were starving and the indians saved them" when in fact, the pilgrims -were- starving.. because of their experiment with Communism/Socialism, and Capitalism saved them.
http://freedomkeys.com/thanksgiving.htm
Even Aristotle, in ancient times, knew that socialism is the death knell of any civilization.
"That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it." - Aristotle
Liberalism = stupidity. Plain and simple..
If you weren't so far up on your high horse, you might be able to see that.
Liberals -claim- to be "open minded". lmfao. They sure don't sound very open minded to ideas coming from conservatives.
Attempt to cut down a couple of trees to build a house for a homeless guy, and some nutjob environmentalist will call you names...
All of that sounds like pure lunacy to me.. The history of the USA has been rewritten by the left to such a degree that 95% of my fellow citizens think the "true story of Thanksgiving" is "the pilgrims were starving and the indians saved them" when in fact, the pilgrims -were- starving.. because of their experiment with Communism/Socialism, and Capitalism saved them.
http://freedomkeys.com/thanksgiving.htm
Even Aristotle, in ancient times, knew that socialism is the death knell of any civilization.
"That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it." - Aristotle
You neglect to note that the "Indians" as you put it (even though intelligent people stopped using this misnomer ages ago, a cookie if you can tell me why), lived quite successfully utilizing a form of communal living for possibly thousands of years before the good ol' pilgrims showed up.
And Thanksgiving is a lie. A tasty lie, but a lie nonetheless.
And Thanksgiving is a lie. A tasty lie, but a lie nonetheless.
Haha, break, you mean there's no good and moral way to breed out stupid. You'd become at least as bad as Hitler if you tried that. Nice quotes, I've heard them before but they're so true. I hadn't heard the Aristotle one, though, I'll have to remember it. It's interesting you bring up the Thanksgiving story, I wrote a post on that a couple weeks ago myself. Great story.
Snax, I don't want your cookie. I got in trouble when I was in fifth grade and we were talking about "native Americans," for claiming I was a native American. My extra liberal teacher (this was in Boulder, Colorado, the San Francisco of the Rockies) asked what tribe my ancestors came from and I said "I was born in Utah." She was very offended that I would think this meant I was native American, just because I was born in America, but she was an idiot. The only reason not to call them "Indians" is to not confuse them with people from India. I refuse to call them "Native Americans" because of the exclusive implications, so I say "American Indians." They're no more native to America than I am, their ancestors at some point were immigrants just as mine were.
And you really think they were all peaceful, in harmony with Earth, no crime or inequality communalists? Seriously? Did you know the American Indians from whom we supposedly cheated out of Manhattan Island for super cheap actually cheated us, since they didn't even own that island? We had to pay for it again later, to buy it from the tribe that actually owned it. Would honest, simple, peace-loving socialists do that? Thanksgiving is much less a lie than what your teachers told you about the Indians in elementary school.
Snax, I don't want your cookie. I got in trouble when I was in fifth grade and we were talking about "native Americans," for claiming I was a native American. My extra liberal teacher (this was in Boulder, Colorado, the San Francisco of the Rockies) asked what tribe my ancestors came from and I said "I was born in Utah." She was very offended that I would think this meant I was native American, just because I was born in America, but she was an idiot. The only reason not to call them "Indians" is to not confuse them with people from India. I refuse to call them "Native Americans" because of the exclusive implications, so I say "American Indians." They're no more native to America than I am, their ancestors at some point were immigrants just as mine were.
And you really think they were all peaceful, in harmony with Earth, no crime or inequality communalists? Seriously? Did you know the American Indians from whom we supposedly cheated out of Manhattan Island for super cheap actually cheated us, since they didn't even own that island? We had to pay for it again later, to buy it from the tribe that actually owned it. Would honest, simple, peace-loving socialists do that? Thanksgiving is much less a lie than what your teachers told you about the Indians in elementary school.
You bring morals into this, Chaos?
On a sidenote, being liberal means also not being fundamentalist, and completely rejecting conservative ideas would be just that. Also, I do not think being conservative is inherently bad. A doctor should be conservative, deep down, since he should conserve life. An environmentalist, Eize, should be *very* conservative. Especially the 'nutjobs' are, by the way. It's just not what *you* think is conservative.
Be careful about labeling people. Be very careful.
On a sidenote, being liberal means also not being fundamentalist, and completely rejecting conservative ideas would be just that. Also, I do not think being conservative is inherently bad. A doctor should be conservative, deep down, since he should conserve life. An environmentalist, Eize, should be *very* conservative. Especially the 'nutjobs' are, by the way. It's just not what *you* think is conservative.
Be careful about labeling people. Be very careful.
You are right about being careful about labeling, toshiro. I am using these labels the way they are commonly understood, but I don't like them either.
I wish I could call myself a liberal, since I believe in laissez faire liberalism. But if I say I'm a liberal, people would automatically assume I'm a Democrat who believes in strong central government, is against capitalism, is pro-abortion, thinks global warming from SUVs will kill us tomorrow and supports cap-and-trade idiocy, anti-gun, pro-union, etc., etc., etc. So I have to say I'm a conservative.
I'd like to call myself an environmentalist, because I believe in caring for our environment, I don't litter, I recycle aluminum cans (not paper or plastic, since that's not cost-effective), and I think we should all be responsible stewards of our Earth. But if I call myself an environmentalist, people assume again that I think the ice caps will be gone in five years (2015 is coming soon, and they're still there....), that we should break our "addiction" to oil, that nukular power is the only "alternative" that's bad because it'll kill us all, that the ozone hole is our fault, that DDT wouldn't have saved millions of African lives and that it killed all the eagles, you get my point.
And yes, I brought morals into this. It was the right thing to do to retaliate against Imperial Japan, and the world is a better place because of it. Same with Hitler. Same with Saddam. We should have been the ones to take out Castro, rather than natural causes. We should take out this idiot in Zimbabwe, among others. We should nuke Iran. We should have nominated a conservative like Mitt Romney instead of a Democrat like John McCain, so we could have beat Barack Hussein Obama.
Sarah Palin 2012!
I wish I could call myself a liberal, since I believe in laissez faire liberalism. But if I say I'm a liberal, people would automatically assume I'm a Democrat who believes in strong central government, is against capitalism, is pro-abortion, thinks global warming from SUVs will kill us tomorrow and supports cap-and-trade idiocy, anti-gun, pro-union, etc., etc., etc. So I have to say I'm a conservative.
I'd like to call myself an environmentalist, because I believe in caring for our environment, I don't litter, I recycle aluminum cans (not paper or plastic, since that's not cost-effective), and I think we should all be responsible stewards of our Earth. But if I call myself an environmentalist, people assume again that I think the ice caps will be gone in five years (2015 is coming soon, and they're still there....), that we should break our "addiction" to oil, that nukular power is the only "alternative" that's bad because it'll kill us all, that the ozone hole is our fault, that DDT wouldn't have saved millions of African lives and that it killed all the eagles, you get my point.
And yes, I brought morals into this. It was the right thing to do to retaliate against Imperial Japan, and the world is a better place because of it. Same with Hitler. Same with Saddam. We should have been the ones to take out Castro, rather than natural causes. We should take out this idiot in Zimbabwe, among others. We should nuke Iran. We should have nominated a conservative like Mitt Romney instead of a Democrat like John McCain, so we could have beat Barack Hussein Obama.
Sarah Palin 2012!
What good is selective memory?
Why should we nuke Iran?