Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Evan

Regulars
  • Posts

    130
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Evan

  1. LadyLarkInn: 1) Your presuppositions about your own identity were NOT incorrect. I just explained why to BlackDiamond (see above). 2) If you do allow the possibility of A or B (the are really restatements of the same principle in different forms) then you HAVE rejected the axiom of identity. If you are not identical to yourself, then that translates to "A = -A" which is an outright rejection of the identity axiom. Your understanding is correct which is why the first would be a bad attempt to answer your possibility. The definition of identity means that you are exactly equal to yourself in all senses no matter what the sense. You can't be indentical to yourself in some senses but not all senses. Lets list some senses that you could be equal or unequal to OTHER people in: height, weight, hair color, bust, and pant size. If you say that you are indentical to yourself in the sense that you (and yourself) have equal heights, that is true. However if you say that you are indentical to yourself in the area of height but not weight, that is a really silly proposition. You have a set weight at any given time and if we fix the time to 1:59 PM (exactly) you cannot have two different weights at the same time (which would be the only way for you to be unidentical to yourself). If we weighed you at 1:59 PM and the scale spit out 115 pounds and 125 pounds and both measurements happened at the exact same time, we would have to conclude that two objects occupying the same space were weighed (realistically we wouldn't accept such a contradiction, we would just throw out the scale or check its calibration). In essence, being indentical to yourself in some ways and not others means you are "similar" to yourself which is just a whacky thing to say and totally unjustifiable. Restricting the axiom of identity to the logical realm disconnects logic from reality and denies the necessity that logic as a language be capable of describing reality. A is A is a logical statement. If we confine that to the realm of logic, that denies that there are things in reality that can be substituted in for the variables (like pizza for example...you can substitute it into the logical sentence to say "Pizza is pizza"). You can't find (in reality) an example where one object's given identity contradicts itself. Thus, it is denied in the logical realm as well. Empirical law. You cannot have an empirical verification of ANYTHING without acknowledging that the things that are being identified (for the purpose of empirical verification) have set identities that are internally non-contradictory. Let's say that we want to empirically prove the statment 2+2 = 4 If we get two apples and two oranges and want to see if we have a total of four units of fruit , that is an empirical example that demonstrates that the logic of the statement is true in the real world (the argument is sound). For such an empirical example to serve as a mechanism of determining validity, we must implicity acknowledge that the symbol "2" and the word "Two" refer tothe amount of apples and oranges we have collected. Denying indentity rejects that anything can be proven empirically (because for empirical proof to actually prove anything, the indentities used within the proof can't change midstream and suddenly refer to different objects). Without the ability to validate anything, we have no way of separating the phrases "empty logical truism" from "empirical proof." In fact, at that point, they might as well mean the same thing because the terms in the phrases are vacuous.
  2. Well, the nature of physical desire means that for you to physically desire someone, there has to be a reason. There has to be something that you are responding to. If a guy gets physically aroused looking at a woman, there is something his body is responding to. That doesn't necessarily mean that a horny guy is reponding to values he indentifies and responds to in the woman. I can think of TONS of examples of guys looking at a beautiful woman and getting aroused without knowing anything about the woman other than the fact that she is gorgeous. In such an example, the fact that a guy identifies a woman as gorgeous and gets aroused is a response to that identification, but a persons physical appearance isn't necessarily a product of rational values, but just the fact that *some* values are present...so a guy really doesn't have enough information if he sees a woman and gets aroused but knows nothing about who she is. The reason WHY he doesn't have enough information is because there are women who just have good genetics that give them good features. There are also women (and men) that try to look good not for themselves, but because they have a fear of being scorned if they don't (which makes the maintainence of physical attractiveness at that point a response to other people and not something that is entirely self motivated). I can think of an example of a sober guy having sex with a physically beautiful woman solely for the purpose of orgasm despite not knowing much about that woman. Thus, I agree with JMegan that in such a case, the interaction would definitely be hasty because your information about the person is limited, thus your desire is more prone to be subjective and not based on a proper and thourough realistic indentification of the person you are desiring in that case. Is it immoral if you don't seek out a clear picture of the situation? That is what I think is the important question here.
  3. Black Diamond: The only thing I see that LadyLarkInn might have not done correctly in the formulation of her statments is perhaps her decision to use the word "with." The proper formulations of Lady's statements should have been "I am identical to myself" and "objective reality is identical to itself" and NOT "I am identical WITH myself" or "objective reality is indentical WITH itself." The words "with" and "to" are very close in meaning, but if you take semantic offense to them because they might not necessarily be exact synonyms, I can understand that. I'm not sure that your disagreement stems from perceived semantic difference between the words "to" and "with" so I'm going to work off from the premise that even if LadyLarkInn had said, "I am identical to myself" that you would still have uttered the same disagreements. Here is why such a position would definitely incorrect if it is indeed the position you truly hold. That is actually incorrect. LadyLark is correct when she says, "I am indentical to myself." The words "I" and "me" have the linguistic property of referring to the same object if both sentences are uttered by the same person. Thus, "I" and "myself" can be substituted for each other. Here is an example of a hypothetical dialogue that illustrates this point: Jack = "Hello, my name is Jack." Ted = "Hey, Jack, my name is Ted." Jack = "I really like pie, Ted. Ted = "Here is some pie, Jack. Help yourself!." Jack = "Thanks Ted, I'm happy to help myself." Look at my use of the bolded words. It should seem clear that from Jack's perspective he can use the words, "I" and "myself" interchangably. If Jack utters the word "myself" and is referring to anyone OTHER than himself, he is using the word incorrectly. If Jack says, "I'm happy to help myself" and he means, "I'm happy to help Sally" then Jack is confusing his identity with Sally which is a bit schizophrenic and destroys any possibility of communicating ideas intelligently. In fact, the word "myself" is just a pronoun for the any person who uses the word "I" to describe himself. Here is the defintion of "myself." Main Entry: my·self Pronunciation: mI-'self, m&-, Southern also -'sef Function: pronoun 1 : that identical one that is I -- used reflexively <I'm going to get myself a new suit>, for emphasis <I myself will go>, or in absolute constructions <myself a tourist, I nevertheless avoided other tourists> Indentity is reflexive. When LarkLadyInn says, "I am identical to myself" the terms "I" and "myself" refer to the same object (LarkLadyInn). If you say, "I am identical to myself" then "myself" cannot mean anyone other than yourself. Person X cannot say, "I'm identical to myself" (where "myself" means "Ted") unless Person X really IS Ted. Make sense? Once again, you are wrong and for the same reason. Look at LadyLark's statement, "objective reality is identical with itself." Here are 4 sentences that are exactly alike: 1) objective reality is identical to itself. 2) objective reality = itself 3) objective reality = objective reality 4) A is A (or A = A) Sentence 1 is exactly the same as the axiom of identity (sentence 4) in form and meaning. The way we go from Sentence 1 to Sentence 2 is by realizing that the indentity sign (also known as the "equals sign") MEANS "is identical to." If I say 2+ 2 = 4, that means Two units plus 2 units is identical to four units. You make the jump from step 2 to step 3 by understanding that the word "itself" describes the reflexivity of a labeled object. You can say "Microsoft Office" to connote Object A (which in essence labels Object A "Microsoft Office"). Thus, you can say, "Microsoft Office is itself" or "Microsoft Office is identical to itself" or "Microsoft Office = Microsoft Office." They are all reformulations of the same basic identity axiom (A is A) at work.
  4. That reminds me of how Hank Rearden's sexual history is described in Atlas Shrugged. Until Hank Rearden starts sleeping with Dagny, he has never had true sexual pleasure in his life past the brute physical stimulation of the sex act. -E
  5. Dr. Yaron Brooks latest editorital titled, "Do not apologize for cartoons of Mohammad" has the following exerpt: So perhaps that is why Muslims in the U.S aren't antsy in the least? We have a government that has appeasing elements that agree with the Muslims in principle on issues like these. The U.S isn't willing to go all out and utterly reject Islamic crap at it's philosophically crappy root. The Danish newspapers DID do that and the results are written all over the wall. Perhaps that is a useful thing to think about.
  6. I'm going to use the underline function to highlight A is A's arguments and then I will respond to them immediately afterwards. I care. You attempt to dismiss the comparison of Muslim fanatics to Japanese fanatics on the grounds that the latter were rationally defending secular goals while the former are pure worshippers of death as an end in itself. Both depictions are caricatures intended to obliterate obvious similarities. Even if I agree (for the sake of argument) that the Japanese were JUST as death worshipping as fanatic Muslim. So what? The situation in World War II STILL wasn't remotely comparable to what FatDogs suggested, which is what this debate centers around. We didn't nuke Japan with 4 million Japanese on our own soil. We interned 120,000 or so Japanese 2/3 of which were American citizens. So those Japanese that we DID have on our own soil weren't going to radicalize against American in retaliation for Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they source of Japanese radicalism in Japan was secular statism that was mixed with Shintoism (which historically is similar to hippy Buddhism and NOT like aggressive Islam). The Japanese on American soil didn't have nationalist feelings for Japan because many of them weren't raised in that environment and had allegiance to the United States. From Wiki: Lieutenant Commander Kenneth Ringle, a naval intelligence officer tasked with evaluating the loyalty of the Japanese American population, estimated in a 1941 report to his superiors that "better than 90% of the Nisei [second generation] and 75% of the original immigrants were completely loyal to the United States." A 1941 report prepared on President Roosevelt's orders by Curtis B. Munson, special representative of the State Department, concluded that most Japanese nationals and "90 to 98 percent" of Japanese American citizens were loyal. He wrote: "There is no Japanese `problem' on the Coast ... There is far more danger from Communists and people of the Bridges type on the Coast than there is from Japanese." FBI director J. Edgar Hoover opposed the internment of Japanese-Americans. Refuting General DeWitt's reports of disloyalty on the part of Japanese Americans, Hoover sent a memo to Attorney General Francis Biddle in which he wrote about Japanese-American disloyalty, "Every complaint in this regard has been investigated, but in no case has any information been obtained which would substantiate the allegation." and However, a sizable number did volunteer to serve from the camps, including in the famed and highly decorated 442nd Regimental Combat Team which operated in Europe (not Japan, as some believe). This unit was the most highly decorated in United States military history. Most notably, the 442nd was known for saving the 141st or the "lost battalion" from the Germans. No greater example of fortitude and courage was shown during World War 2. Thus, your historical comparison has no way of possibly working. The situations just weren't comparable. What is important to note is that regardless of how fanatical the Japanese were in JAPAN, the American Japanese were not radicalized because the source (philosophically speaking) of their radicalization was NOT the Shinto religion (which unlike Islam IS a peaceful religion), it was the introduction of nationalist/statist elements when Shinto was made a state religion by the Japanese government. Also from Wiki: Following the Meiji Restoration, Shinto was made the official religion of Japan, and in 1868 its combination with Buddhism was outlawed. During this period, it was felt by numerous scholars of kokugaku that Shinto was needed in order to unify the country around the Emperor as the process of modernization was undertaken with all possible speed. The psychological shock of the Western "Black Ships" and the subsequent collapse of the shogunate convinced many that the nation needed to band together if it was going to resist being colonized by outside forces. As a result, Shinto was used as a tool for promoting Emperor (and Empire) worship, and Shinto was exported into conquered territories like Hokkaido and Korea. In 1871, a Ministry of Divinities was formed and Shinto shrines were divided into twelve levels with Ise Shrine (dedicated to Amaterasu, and thus symbolic of the legitimacy of the Imperial family) at the peak and small sanctuaries of humble towns at the base. The following year, the ministry was replaced with a new Ministry of Religion, charged with leading instruction in "shushin" (moral courses). This was a major reverse from the Edo period, in which families were registered with Buddhist temples, rather than Shinto shrines. Priests were officially nominated and organized by the state, and they instructed the youth in a form of Shinto theology based on the official history of divinity of Japan's national origins and its Emperor. As time went on, Shinto was increasingly used in the advertising of nationalists’ popular sentiments. In 1890, the "Imperial Rescript on Education" was passed, and students were required to ritually recite its oath to "offer yourselves courageously to the State" as well as protect the Imperial family. The practice of Emperor worship was also further spread by distributing imperial portraits for esoteric veneration. All of these practices were used to fortify national solidarity through patriotic centralized observance at shrines. This use of Shinto gave to Japanese patriotism a special tint of mysticism and cultural introversion, which became more pronounced as time went on. Such processes continued deepening until the Showa Period, before coming to an abrupt halt in August 1945. Somewhat ironically, the invasion by the West so feared at the start of the Meiji era had come at last, due at least in part, to the radicalization of Japan permitted by its religious solidarity. The actual beliefs of Shinto are quite peaceful and have historic ties to Buddhism. It wasn't Shintoism that made people death worshipping crazies in Japan (how many militant Buddhists do you know of historically speaking?), it was the statist crap perpetuated by the Japanese government. That manipulation of Shinto did NOT occur in the U.S which made the American-Japanese philosophically immune to the perversion of Shinto in America which is why they didn't radicalize. The situation with the Muslims is not REMOTELY comparable. The same can be said of a Kamikaze pilot; he, too, will not be alive to enjoy the homeland he is defending. Whether the motivation is a glorified place in heaven or avoiding dishonor, the fact remains that both parties choose death as a means to their goals. I see no basis for dismissing this similarity out of hand. See above. The justification for terrorism most often cited by Muslims is the presence of Israel on “Muslim land”. Osama bin Laden's primary rationale for declaring war against the west is our presence on "Muslim land". The goal of restoring the caliphate – a central goal to the combat wing of Islam – is a desire to retake what they consider “Muslim land”. The pilgrimage to Mecca – i.e. the requirement to return to “Muslim land” at least once in one’s life – is a central tenet and requirement of Islam. And when they pray five times daily, where do they face? Mecca, the Muslim holy place. These facts do not support your contention that a homeland is unimportant to most Muslims. The fight for a Muslim "homeland" is taking place in Palestine. The fight to kick out Americans from Saudi Arabia isn't done so the Muslims can have a "homeland" unless the Muslims in question are Saudis. Terrorists from Yemen aren't fighting for their homeland...they HAVE a homeland...it is called Yemen. I'm taking issue with your blanket use of the term "homeland." In the case of Japan, there is a single Japanese homeland and it is called Japan. For Islam, the center of the religion is in Saudi Arabia with the two main holy sites being Mecca and Medina. That is the "spiritual" homeland versus the physical homelands that many Muslims don't not share (a Jordan Muslim's homeland is Jordan whereas an Iraqi Muslim's homeland is in Iraq, obviously). That is a distinction YOU failed to make which is why I said that not all Muslims are fighting for a homeland in the physical sense that the Palestinians are fighting for land. Only Palestinians can be compared to the Japanese who were fighting for a physical piece of land. The rest are fighting for a spiritual idea...the idea of Sharia, the expulsion of all Americans from the region, etc. You can see for yourself by reading Bin Laden's fatwa here. But a recurring theme I hear from Muslims is that suicide bombings are justified because this is the only way to fight back against the technologically superior forces of America and Israel. Ok, sure. That doesn't mean that they view suicide bombings as a "last resort" but whatever. It just means that they are unwilling to use other means. But a recurring theme I hear from Muslims is that suicide bombings are justified because this is the only way to fight back against the technologically superior forces of America and Israel. Why would you need to demonstrate a willingness to kill to make a threat of deportation credible? If you are simply kicking people out of the country you don't need to show that you are going to kill hundreds of thousands of people. I think illegal Mexican immigrants know that deportation IS a credible threat if they are caught by INS and we didn't need to nuke Mexico to show such a willingness to act. This is largely irrelevant however, because you admit that nuke weapons don't serve as a deterrent for Muslims on our own soil which makes your Japanese comparison entirely irrelevant. The situations are completely different. The Japanese capitulated to the overwhelming use of military force because they were all in the same region of the world and were NOT scattered amongst the globe and in America's midst. Are American Muslims mindless followers of Islam who will overnight become insane, maniacal suicide bombers when the Koran or a fatwa so instructs – or are they capable of reason and restraint, able to distinguish a proper American response from an improper one? You depict them as the former when issuing blanket warnings about the “costs” of “radicalizing” them – but then you retreat to the latter to explain their current behavior. It is difficult to believe that both depictions are true. No, I don't depict them as the former when issuing blanket statements about them. What I DO say is that Muslims that USE their mind and read the Koran will inevitably be lead to the conclusion that being a Muslim has a certain identity. A is A remember? Such Muslims will realize that an improper use of nuclear force (like FatDogs suggested) would be an attack on their religion and for many of them an attack on their "homeland" (as you put it). The Koran specifically instructs faithful Muslims to come to the defense of their religion if it is under attack from a military threat. That is called jihad. For a thinking Muslim, the choice becomes simple: abandon your religious identity in the face of an attack (ignore the Koran and what it instructs as well as your Imams, etc) or respond AS a Muslim. What do you really think is more likely? I never once said that American Muslims would be mindless followers of Islam that decide to become terrorists due to collectivist influence. The choice to be a terrorist is an individual choice. Now, if you rule out all evidence of Muslim behavior available to us at present, if you declare that there is not a scintilla of evidence available on this subject, neither historical nor present day, then you have ruled out all evidence for evaluating your claim. I haven't ruled out "all" evidence. I have ruled out using past historical examples to draw FALSE parallels. You can't make inferences about a certain situation based on historical examples if the historical examples share little in common with the current situation. THAT is what I'm disagreeing with quite clearly. I'm not ruling out "all evidence." Go back to the topic as you yourself stated: The topic here is an evaluation of your assertion that under certain conditions, American Muslims will "radicalize". The evidence I say proves my point is the fact that there are millions of practicing Muslims in the United States. That religion has a given identity. Go look at your screename. A IS A. To be a Muslim is to have a certain identity...to believe in a certain set of beliefs. Those beliefs stem from the Koran. Muslim's religious identity is explicitly tied to the Koran and that is factual evidence. Thus, based on such an identity I'm making a logical connection that Muslims will act according to their nature. That is called a hypothesis. We both agree that the situation we are debating has NOT happened. I'm saying given condition X (using FatDog's foreign policy), Y will happen (American Muslims will radicalize) for Z reason (the fact that Islam itself DEMANDS such radicalization as part of it's religious identity). YOU are saying given condition X (using FD's foreign policy) Y will NOT happen (American Muslims will NOT necessarily radicalize) because of Z reason (the fact that you can't find such an example in history). Both of our claims are tantamount to informal logical syllogisms (If X then Y due to Z). The only difference is that my claim is based on a logical evaluation of the situation. The situation has evidence that we can evaluate such as what Islam entails (the beliefs) and how religions inspire radicalism when attacked (many historical examples). Contrary to your big time misrepresentation, that IS evidence and I'm not dismissing "all evidence" when it comes to this debate. I'm dismissing your attempts to admit bad examples into this discussion and try to call it evidence. In courts of law, certain evidence is admissible and inadmissible. In debates, the same is true. Some stuff just isn't topical or just won't show anything. If we both admit that we haven't seen a historical example of the EXACT nature of what we are discussing, then we can't look to history for parallels. Thus, we must look to logic to make inferences about what will most likely happen due to the fact that entities must act according to their nature. Let me give you an example. Let's say the year is 1960 and we are both debating whether or not the Soviet Union will collapse economically. I say, "No, the Soviet's economy will not collapse because it is Communist. America's economy collapsed during the Great Depression and IT wasn't Communist." You say, "Wait a minute, you have no historical precedent to back your contention up. There has never been a Communist state until the U.S.S.R. Communism is new historically speaking. There is no historical evidence; you are comparing apples and oranges." I reply by saying, "You are dismissing all historical evidence past and present to validate your point. You must be bringing up the arbitrary." Gee, whiz. Sound familiar? In a situation such as the above, the only way to debate the future of any given policy is to either 1) Look at the past and draw conclusions OR 2) If no past examples suffice or there aren't any historical parallels to be drawn, analyze the nature of the entities in question because such entities MUST act according to their natures. In other words, you can make a LOGICAL inference based on a logical hypothesis. This is what Ayn Rand did on the very topic of Communism. She stated (quite accurately) that Communism was a variation in form of the tribal collectivist junk that had existed historically for quite some time with equally bad results (which is why the West progressed and the people embodying the tribal spirit were indigenous people living in hovels compared to the enlightened west with the skyscrapers of New York City). The nature of Communism is such that it could be compared to other variations of tribal/collectivist philosophies (which is what Ayn Rand did to debunk Communism). However, Islam has a unique nature which warrants that it be discussed separately outside of past historical examples (unless the historical examples directly involve Islam or the behavior of Muslims...not Japanese kamikaze pilots). I'm doing #2 because #1 just is NOT sufficient in this case. That doesn't mean I'm dismissing all evidence or going into the realm of the arbitrary. I'm just debating what constitutes proper evidence in this case. Historical evidence does not suffice and I have already explained why a bazillion times. That would make it an arbitrary claim, i.e. one for which no supporting or contradicting information is available. No, actually it wouldn't make it an arbitrary claim. An easy way to disprove my logical inference (X policy results in Y due to Z reasons) would be to prove that the nature of Islam would NOT mandate that American Muslims pick up jihad as a response to FatDogs policy. Proving that Islam would NOT warrant such radicalization would by logical extension show that most Muslims would not become radicalized which would directly contradict my point. I'm not asserting a non-falsifiable claim. In cases where you are debating what would happen, all you have is logic and the nature of entities to analyze unless you can bring in a historical example that is topical. If you can show me a historical example in which a country used massive force against a fanatical religious group outside of its borders while having 1% of its domestic population (which also subscribe to the same religion which is by its very nature, radical and fanatical as even FatDogs admitted) subscribe to that religion...I would like to hear it. THAT would constitute proof. Let me give you a hypothetical scenario. If England nuked the Vatican in response to the IRA's terrorism, do you honestly think the Catholics in England (or the rest of the world) would NOT radicalize? That would be a comparable situation (which obviously hasn't happened) which would constitute proper evidence that would invalidate my claim. If you can find me an example like THAT that shows that a domestic population stays inert and does nothing in response to the use of a WMD (btw...nuke weapons have only been used twice against enemy populations so your historical examples probably will by nature be scarce), that would qualify as evidence. You would have to show that the religion or belief was also as radical as Islam is to start out with (Catholics might radicalize but such radicalization might not entail taking up weapons or bombs) as well, but that is neither here nor there. Your Japan example is weak because the country that used the overwhelming force didn't have a domestic population of Japanese that subscribed to the same brand of ideology as the kamikaze pilots in mainland Japan. American Muslims are still Muslims. They still treat the Koran as the primary source of their ideology. Japanese-Americans were not part of the same group as the Japanese we were attacking. Are you familiar with the Objectivist concept of the arbitrary? Yup. Are you? I have not advocated historicism, at least not insofar as it means “historical determinism”. ( In fact, if anything in this discussion reflects a belief in determinism, it is your depiction of Muslims.) So denouncing it as “silly” and invoking John Galt is simply irrelevant to what I have actually said. What you actually said was: history does not support your overall contention, which is: the use of overwhelming force against our enemy will cause those who live in our midsts to turn into suicidal maniacs. History is replete with examples that demonstrate that it is appeasement and appearing weak that emboldens one's enemies and causes more of them to take up arms against you, not the overwhelming use of force to stike at his home base. I am not aware of a single example where the use of overwhelming force (such as the United States possess) causes the fence sitters to join the war for the other side. My response involving John Galt was not at all irrelevant. You are claiming that you aren't aware of a single historical example to back up my point and you are claiming that is somehow important. It isn't. John Galt didn't follow what the rest of history's intellectuals had done. He shrugged. There was no historical precedent for that. Just because there is no historical precedent of anyone "shrugging" does NOT mean that I would be wrong for suggesting (prior to John Galt) that man was incapable of taking that action. I don't depict Muslims in a deterministic fashion whatsoever. I say that Islam has a given nature and that entities must act according to their nature. That isn't determinism, it is reality. It is the law of cause and effect. Causes come from the nature of the elements involved. In OPAR Leonard Peikoff gives the example of a game of pool. The nature of the pool ball is what allows the balls to move each other (subside an egg and you get a different outcome). Saying that a pool ball must necessarily move when it is hit by another pool ball to the exclusion of other outcomes (like turning into a tuna casserole) is not deterministic. Nor have I said that “just because” history does not support your idea, it is false. But the fact that history does not support your idea is at least potentially relevant. No, it isn't relevant. If I was a philosopher prior to Ayn Rand (hypothetically speaking) in 1913 that said, "Mankind doesn't have to put up with the crap people throw at him, he can philosophically 'shrug' due to the nature of man and what that entails," I wouldn’t' be wrong simply because there is a lack of historical examples of men shrugging. If men (due to their nature) have options X,Y,Z at their disposal and history only shows mankind engaging in behaviors X and Y, that doesn't erase the fact that they still are able to engage in Z behavior. The historical argument in that context has no relevance whatsoever. The fact that history doesn't support my idea is not relevant in the least because the situation that we are discussing hasn't ever really existed in any comparable fashion in history. I find it curious that on the one hand you adamantly maintain that you do not advocate appeasement -- yet at the same time, you are anxious to show that appeasements historical record of failure does not apply to your predictions about Muslim behavior. If you are not advocating appeasement, why do you care about its historical record? The reason why appeasement's historical record of failure doesn't apply to my predictions about Muslim behavior is because my predictions aren't centered on an instance of appeasement. That is why I care about the historical record of appeasement. I want to make it excruciatingly clear that I'm against appeasement 100% because you are 100% correct about appeasement failing historically speaking. Appeasing Muslims (domestically or foreign) right now would be tantamount to ceding our right to self-defense (as you said). I don't argue that we appease ANYONE. That is why I'm "anxious" to show that appeasements historical record of failure doesn't apply to my predictions about Muslim behavior. Quite simply, appeasement has nothing to do with what we are talking about which is why the history of appeasement has nothing to do with my predictions. I'm only concerned with keeping the debate clean of your numerous straw men and bad examples. The burden is not on me to disprove your assertion. It is on you to support it. I have supported it. The quote that you are responding to has me labeling exactly WHY Muslims would act in a certain manner. You have NO way to account for any sort of a deterrent mechanism, etc. If you HAVE an alternative theory that better accounts for things, I would love to hear it. Since you don't, I think we can let my evidence stand. Here is exactly what I said on this issue: You are telling me that a country with 4 million Muslims won't probably have any radicalization among its members due to randomly nuking a Middle Eastern country? For Christ's sakes, nuking a Middle Eastern country would definitely give ANYONE the idea that Islam is under attack militarily. Muslims are instructed via the Koran to fight in defense of Islam. That is what jihad IS. Unless American Muslims magically decide to abandon their religious identity, I can't see why it wouldn't be inevitable. What exactly do you think would act as a deterrent? What the heck would STOP them from picking up a gun and taking it into Wal-Mart or a bank to exact revenge for nuking the Middle East? What would STOP them from retaliating with suicide bombs? Read the article I linked to and THEN come back to this debate. Muslims see death as a value if it is death given for Islam because such a death makes them martyrs and gives them benefits in the afterlife according to their religion. What better cause to die for than avenging their Muslim brethren in the Middle East that just got nuked because they couldn't police terrorist Muslims in England? You couldn't HAND Muslims a better cause on a platter. . I think what I said on the subject is a pretty good logical substantiation that it is in the nature of Islam to respond to attacks and that FatDog's foreign policy would be an attack in the eyes of Muslims. Furthermore, I sense another shift on your part. The “radicalization” of a small portion of the population is a significantly different problem than the specter of all 4 MILLION of them blowing themselves up or showing up at Wal-Mart with a gun. 4 million Muslims ARE a small portion of the U.S population...1% to be exact. I'm not seeing the "significant difference" but whatever. You are the one drawing mindless distinctions. I never implied that all 4 million Muslims would become radicalized or show up at Wal-Mart. The point I was making is that there are a lot of Muslims in the U.S and if only ½ of 1% of Muslims decide to take up arms, that is still 20,000 people. So again, you need to clarify your position: how many do you expect to detonate and under what conditions? I can't logically speculate to exactly how many will take up arms. I can definitely give you the conditions though. The people that would take up arms against America as a result of FatDog's foreign policy proposition are the ones that honestly buy into Islam and take it literally. I don't know how many that would be. If 1/2 of 1% took up arms that would be 20,000 people (1% of 4 million is 40,000). I would be willing to posit that more than 20,000 out of 4 million are firm believers in the literal word of the Koran which does indeed mandate that if the religion is attacked then jihad is the proper response (and proper jihad is smiting off the head of the infidels whenever and wherever you see them). Personally, I think the behavior of American Muslims under current conditions is relevant and constructive. For one thing, I think it shows that you are painting with too broad a brush when you characterize all Muslims as being equally committed to the worship of death. Consider the recent nonsense of the cartoons of Mohammed. Muslims in Pakistan are burning the Danish embassy and rioting in the streets. Nothing of the sort is going on here in America. Why not? What is to STOP them from joining their Muslims brothers in such riots? Something accounts for this difference; what do you think it is I think you are using another bad example. What stops American Muslims is that there is a substantive difference (in terms of the religion being "under attack") between a damn cartoon and a nuclear weapon. American Muslims ARE different from their Middle Eastern counterparts in that they are willing to make that distinction. I have always said so. That is why I proposes that non-radical American Muslims would radicalize (i.e. = become more radical) whereas a great majority of the world's other Muslims are already radical. I'm not painting with too broad of a brush. Jeez. Read what I write for a change. It would be useful for you to explain the distinction between your argument and “lets go easy so we don't radicalize the Muslims", because frankly I don't see such a distinction. You have exhorted me to "consider the costs" of "radicalizing" the American Muslims -- but if you declare that this consideration is not to have any affect on our actions, what is the point? If you are not arguing, in any sense at all, for a "lets go easy" approach, then what is the relevance of this whole "radicalization" issue to my proposed course of action? When I say that we need to consider the costs, all I mean is that we should understand what is going to happen as a result of our actions (a simple evaluation of cause and effect). We need a realistic picture of the situation. During the Cuban missile crisis event, we needed to evaluate the costs of our foreign policy and keep that in mind so that way we had the full and proper context of reality in our minds. If you ignore the fact that costs exist, you are evading reality and your actions will reflect that. Such identification is the difference between moral courage and stupidity. Go back to the Cuban missile crisis example. If our president had been a person that didn't admit that there are possible costs of our foreign policy (standing up to the Russians) must ignore the fact that Russia had the option of using nuclear warfare as a result of our hard-line stance. Such an evasive person doesn't understand what is at stake when it comes to making decisions. Such a person is more likely to act in a manner that is out of synch with reality. Perhaps such a president would make a preemptive nuclear strike against Russia because he didn't take into account the fact that the U.S would be destroyed by the Russian counterattack. Such a person is stupid, foolhardy, and rash. Then compare that person to John F. Kennedy. He understood that standing up to Khrushchev could bring us to the brink of nuclear annihilation. He understood that the results of his actions could leave an American city in smoldering ruins. He understood these costs and understood that DESPITE these costs, the costs would be greater if we backed down and gave in to the Russians. J.F.K was morally courageous because he acted according to the full picture of reality (costs, risks, etc). The hypothetical president that didn't account for costs was an idiot who might or might not end up acting in our best interest . That is the point that I'm making and that is what the relevance is to your approach. I'm clearly not saying that you should "go easy" on anyone (let alone the Muslims). You just have to understand what will happen as a result of any given policy. They have an entire field of mathematics dedicated to this fact...it is called game theory. Look it up if you don't understand its relevance to political science. Evaluating costs is important so you can shape your approaches to given problems. For example, perhaps if we used FatDog's foreign policy we could deal with the threat of the Muslim response by using statist policies (like concentration/internment camps) or mass deportations (which would punish law-abiding Muslims along with the potential terrorists)? I mentioned this in my response to FatDogs and he never responded back. I don't agree with the use of statist policies that I proposed, but I proposed them to highlight the fact that we would have to do something to protect ourselves. The overall point is, you must take into account what costs ARE if you are to make effective decisions. If you acknowledge that some Muslims will indeed take up arms against America as a result of a given foreign policy, that means you need a contingency plan to deal with that. You should drop the pretense of being an injured party. I did not accuse you of advocating appeasement. Like hell you didn't accuse me of it! Here is exactly where you accused me: So the "lets go easy so we don't radicalize the Muslims" argument is weak at best.' You are accusing me of advocating a "let's go easy" approach to Muslims which IS appeasement no matter how many ways you want to dance around it. At least have the courage to stand behind your own accusations or apologize for them. You equated my arguments with an appeasing approach and said that my arguments were therefore weak. Don't you dare try to say that A is NOT A and try to hold the pretense that you have any personal integrity or right to hold the screename that you do. Here is the definition of appeasement from Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary (www.refdesk.com): ap•pease Pronunciation: &-'pEz Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): ap•peased; ap•peas•ing Etymology: Middle English appesen, from Middle French apaisier, from a- (from Latin ad-) + pais peace -- more at PEACE 1 : to bring to a state of peace or quiet : CALM 2 : to cause to subside : ALLAY <appeased my hunger> 3 : PACIFY, CONCILIATE; especially : to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles synonym see PACIFY Hmmmm. Let's see. Does a "lets go easy so we don't radicalize the Muslims approach" (what you accuse me of) fall in line with being conciliatory or conceding at the sacrifice of principles? Yes, it clearly does. You ARE accusing me of appeasement and unjustly so. Unless you apologize, you can drop the pretense of being an Objectivist or a person of integrity. You can also drop the "A is A" screename because if you honestly insist that there is no contradiction between what you said and the defintion of appeasement, then you have no moral right to use such a screename. You can also expect me to cease this debate immediately unless you concede the fact that you did indeed accuse me of appeasement. The evidence is excruciatingly clear and written in your own words. I merely pointed out that history does not support your notion that the use of overwhelming force causes the fence sitters to join the other side; history shows the opposite No, history does NOT show the opposite because you have yet to give me an example of fence sitters even being present in the country that used military force (there weren't Japanese "fence sitters" living in America when we dropped the atom bombs against Japan...so that argument is 100% useless). Since you have declared history irrelevant to this issue, why should you care what it shows? See above. This is a nice straw man argument, because I don't think FatDog advocates the use of “goofy” tactics against nations that have “NO” ties to terrorism. You have jumped on his unfortunate choice of the word “Arab” instead of “Islamic” and on the fact that he did not specify the sequence in which he would attack, and twisted these as ungenerously as possible so as to be able to claim that he advocates the random nuking of countries without regard to their relationship to terrorism; so, unless I have missed something in one of his posts, you have seriously mischaracterized his position into one that, superficially, seems to justify your response. I don’t know what you think that accomplishes or proves. You continue to egregiously misrepresent FatDog's position, and you are mischaracterizing this debate by pretending it is focused solely on a blatantly irrational proposal which, as far as I can tell, no one has advocated. 1) Look, FatDogs advocates nuking one country and then threatening to nuke another one if global terrorism doesn't cease. That IS a goofy tactic even if both countries are connected to terrorism. If you nuke Syria and then threaten to nuke Saudi Arabia if all global terrorism doesn't stop...you are holding Saudi Arabia responsible for factions that exist and operate outside of its borders. You are saying that if someone blows up a building in France that Saudi Arabia automatically gets held responsible. That IS goofy and I'm not twisting anything here. I'm using FatDog's own proposition. Since you clearly have problems with reading comprehension, I will post what FatDogs said once again with the important parts bolded (that is important...pay attention): "Simplest solution really is to just nuke one Arabic country after another on the basis that if the Muslims dont' completely stop terrorism after the first bomb then we drop a second . Eventaully I think they will get the point." 2)Even if you DO nuke strictly "Islamic" nations, that ignores the fact that there are countries that have a lot of Muslims that aren't "Islamic" countries. Are you going to nuke France if their Muslims start acting up? How about Washington D.C if the Muslims start rioting? Obviously, you aren't going to resort to nukes in those cases. However, those Muslims (Muslims living outside of countries in which the majority population is Muslim) are just as responsible for terrorism. So regardless, FatDog's plan (ordering Muslim nations to stop terrorism or risk nuclear anhiliation) does absolutely nothing to address Islamic terrorism that exists in countries in which the majority population is non-Muslim (like France for example). FatDog's didn't specify what tie was important or relevant. Is simply funding a terrorist group enough to nuke the country? If so, then we should be nuking Saudi Arabia DESPITE the fact that their military poses no threat to us whatsoever and we could achieve the same goals without using nukes. 3)I haven't twisted anything. I'm going by what FatDogs himself wrote. What would you suggest, "A is -A?" Would you prefer that I use mystical conversations with the spirits to derive FatDog's "true" meaning? FatDogs corrected himself and said that we are talking about Islamic countries, but that still begs tons of questions as I have repeatedly pointed out. FatDogs hasn't provided ONE example of what kind of a tie or how strong such a tie would have to be to warrant nuking a country and then threatening another one. You on the other hand have suggested nuking Iran because they are an actual threat (they are developing WMDs). I support your position on Iran. I don't support FatDog's vagaries that are completely indefensible in every way. I agree with you, it IS unfortunate that FatDogs was so damn unclear. However, that is what I have been debating with all along and what I have taken issue with the entire time. I'm using what HE brought to the table. You interject and want to change the standard from what he actually said and claim that me quoting his OWN words is somehow twisting his intent. How else do you derive intent outside of what people actually say? You snidely commented, "Do you really think you know what every Muslim believes? " I now ask you, Do you know what FatDogs really believes? If so, how do you know that outside of what he actually said? Divine revelation? A private conversation? The alignment of the stars? FatDogs has had many days to clarify his positions. He has also responded to me with numerous posts as well. So I'm not as forgiving as you are, sorry. MY intent and interpretation of his arguments was quite clear from the beginning and he replied without clarifying or changing his position in any respect other than changing his word choice from "Arabic" to "Islamic" (which still misses the point). You seem to be under the impression that mere repetition of an assertion lends it weight, especially when accompanied by words in ALL CAPITALS, which is the equivalent of raising your voice. I'm raising my voice because volume stresses and emphasizes the important points. By using all caps, your eyes are drawn to a particular segment of text which stresses their importance. You clearly have problems digesting relatively simple points, so if I were talking to you in real life I would make sure to go extra slow and raise my voice at the appropriate times so that way maybe someday you too would put 2 and 2 together to equal 4. I know that for some people it takes awhile, but I'm extremely patient. I don't believe the fact that repeating an assertion makes it true as that is a logical fallacy. However, I do believe in reasserting arguments that haven't been addressed adequately to highlight the fact that your responses have been inadequate. It makes a very good point, namely my arguments still stand unchallenged. If you care to change that pattern of behavior, you could start making good arguments or rather...start making arguments, period...in which case we would be involved in a real debate. I am struck by this passage in particular: “Do you think that American-Muslims wouldn't make the same connections mentally if we nuked the middle east? Do you think that they wouldn't use their religion as an excuse to be violent? Why wouldn't they? It isn't like they all value their lives to begin with nor is it like their religion values human life.”So, how many American Muslims would you say do not value their lives? And how do you know?I think you are making the mistake of equating Islam and Muslims. Islam is inherently anti-life because it is anti-mind. But there is no reason to believe that every Muslim believes and practices all of Islam's tenets. 1) How many American Muslims don't value their lives? That depends on how many Muslims believe exactly what the Koran says. That depends on how many American Muslims really believe in Islam. 2) How do I know? Erh. You agree that Islam is anti-mind. It is more than that, though. Read the article I have linked to numerous times. Islam is much more than an anti-mind philosophy like Communism. Islam also advocates wanton coercion and values death explicitly. Communism is anti-life because it is anti-mind and being anti-mind leads to eventual death. Islam is anti-life because it literally values death in service of Allah. There is a distinction that you aren't able to make because you don't have the knowledge to make such a distinction. Read the article then get back to me. 3) I never said that every Muslim believes and practices all of Islam’s tenets. What I actually said was, "It isn't like they all value their lives to begin with" That clearly states that I believe that some American-Muslims do not value their lives because I state that all do not value their lives. The only way to prove that all American-Muslims do value their lives is to prove that they are in fact are NOT Muslims and don't believe in the Koran at all which I think is a harder proposition than you realize. Do you really want to argue that? I see nothing in FatDogs statements that argues for random nuking; he did not specify the order in which he would attack, but that is far from an explicit advocacy of random attacks. It would be random in the sense that it would be unconnected with the actual terrorism in question. As I said, nuking Syria out of the blue for funding terrorism and then threatening to nuke Saudi Arabia if terrorism ignores the fact that there are terrorists that are outside of Muslim nations' control. This is another example of painting with too broad a brush. The leaders of the Islamic nations, as well as the leaders of the various terrorist organizations, cannot be confused with the small percentage of the rank and file that are actually willing to become suicide bombers. One virtually never sees these leaders taking such actions. In fact, they have made a career out of exhorting others to sacrifice without doing it themselves. You are correct, you don't see Muslim leaders becoming suicide bombers. They do encourage others to make such sacrifices. I also I agree with that. However, I'm not confusing the leaders with the rank and file. I'm arguing that Muslim leaders would definitely support jihad against FatDog's proposition because Islam DEMANDS it as a religion. Read the article I linked to, and come back to this debate. Until you do, I'm banging my head against a wall trying to get through to someone who clearly knows very little about the ideology in question (Islam) and how it is philosophically different from other destructive collectivist variants. If all Muslims worshipped death as an end in itself, we would not have a problem; they would all commit suicide and that would be the end of it. But even the suicide bombers go to great lengths to insure that they die on their terms and at the time and place of their choosing. They are afraid of death -- if it is a death on our terms. And that is what we can threaten them with: death that does not defend Muslim land and does nothing to protect Islam. That is not a death they would welcome; if it were, they would inflict it on themselves today.[/ To a Muslim, death in battle (on the enemy’s terms) is still martyrdom. It isn't martyrdom is they are sitting at home eating potato chips and watching Law and Order, no...I agree. The only way to ensure that their deaths are NOT on their terms is to commit genocide. Is that what you are suggesting? Otherwise, we can threaten the middle eastern Muslims, but we still haven't put fear into the heart of the American Muslim that is plotting terrorist attacks in Chicago that is sitting at home watching Law and Order. He isn't afraid because he is plotting and planning on his terms and expects to die on his terms at some point. The only way to put fear into such a man is to preemptively exterminate him. Do you see any other way? What is at issue here (among other things) is whether the proper use of overwhelming force against our enemies will cause the fence sitters to join them in battle against us or encourage them to remain sidelined. That is the question I first raised and it is the question I have continued to ask. It is in this context that I have raised historical examples. No, the proper use of overwhelming force against our enemies will probably not cause the fence sitters to join us. Your historical examples fail in this context as well, though because in cases where proper force has been used (like the example of Japan you brought up) there weren't fence sitters in America so your parallels still suck. What is most important here is the fact that we AREN'T debating the reaction to a proper use of force. That was never FatDog's position (his position is anything but proper) and that is not what this debate has been about. This is why I repeatedly accuse you of being off topic. Besides...even IF the proper use of force (like nuking Iran) would cause fence sitters to join battle against us (like American Muslims) we must not surrender our principles and compromise. I don't encourage appeasement, so discussing the response to a proper use of force is utterly irrelevant. I never claimed that the response to a proper use of force was relevant beyond simply getting a realistic picture of the situation(read = my J.F.K example). We don't disagree in the realm of "the proper use of force." The only thing we could possibly debate is whether or not FatDog's initial proposition is "proper" or not. I have made quite a substantial number of arguments arguing it isn't. In conclusion, I'm not really getting much from this debate. I used two hours of my life on this post. I didn't come away with more knowledge or really anything gained. I can't see you contributing anything of relevance because so far, you haven't. So forgive me if I don't hasten to respond to your posts. If you say something insightful or make an interesting point, I will respond. Otherwise, I'm content to let this debate (or lack thereof) stand and let people weigh the arguments for themselves. I'm not interested in hearing you repeat the same junk for the 5th time and I'm not interested in making the same replies (that keep remaining unaddressed, substantively speaking) for the 5th time. Such an endeavor is counterproductive to both parties. -E
  7. Yes, EXACTLY. Thank you for saying succinctly what I have been trying to say for numerous posts.
  8. That is what A is A was saying as well. I already addressed this with him so I guess I must repeat myself for the bajillionth time. Next time I suggest you read the thread entirely and understand what is going on before you interject on anyone's side. Here is what I said to A is A who made nearly the exact same claim as you did: historicism is absolutely silly philosophically speaking. Didn't John Galt buck the historical trend(philosophically speaking)? Isn't that part of the point [of Atlas Shrugged]? Trying to say that just because history doesn't support a certain idea misses the boat entirely. What happens if an entirely new circumstance happens that doesn't have historical precedent? What do you use to make inferences then? For example...the Cold War dynamic was something that was new (historically speaking) due to a NEW technological development (nukes). I have proven that Islam is quite distinct in its form as a religious philosophy apart from other historical philosophies. THAT is why your historical examples ARE bad examples. You can't infer anything from them. Who cares that you cannot think of one instance when military force caused support for enemies of the country that used such military force? The reason WHY you can't think of such examples is because you (and A is A) are straw manning MY position. I'm arguing quite clearly that the current context is REALLY different than anything else you will find in world history. Nuclear weapons have only been used against human beings twice in the history of the world. We have never in our history randomly nuked a country and then threatened to nuke another country if they didn't do what we asked (which is what FatDogs suggested and what I disagreed with). I said quite clearly that nuking a middle country and then threatening the rest of the middle east would radicalize Muslims that don't live in the middle east (the majority of Muslims don't live in the middle east). You can't think of historical examples to disprove what I'm saying because the hypothetical foreign policy that FatDogs suggested has never been tried before historically speaking. In all of the historical examples you and A is A have used...the countries that have used overwhelming military force against their enemies didn't have 1% of their population consist of "the enemy" with the enemy being philosophically as death worshipping as Islam. I have clearly shown how Islam is the worst death worshipping philosophy on the planet right now. Comparing it to Shintoism or Communism is NOT going to work. Give me an example where any country randomly used a WMD against the middle east and the Muslims in the country that used the WMD didn't radicalize. You can't because no such historical example exists. THAT is why trying to draw historical parallels is a silly waste of my time and the time of everyone who reads this board. Who cares? I'm not debating that overwhelming force doesn't work or is ineffective...if I was then I wouldn't support nuking Iran, would I (which I clearly did in my last post to A is A)? This is how you and A is A are straw manning MY position and why both parties need to stay on topic if any sort of worthwhile debate is to take place. You cluttered up the board with historical examples that have nothing to do with the debate. The whole point of me saying that the Assasins weren't even really Muslims was to show that you aren't on topic here. If someone else jumps onto this debate and says, "historically speaking...ovewhelming use of military force is why Poland fell to the Germans" that is a factual statement. It doesn't have any relevance to this debate, though because Germany didn't have 4 million death worshipping Poles in it's midst when it used crushing force against Polland. Thus, we can't debate whether or not such overwhelming military force lead to polarization (no pun intended) among the country that used the military force. Such an example is useless and does nothing for the debate. For a historical parallel to be drawn...the variables in play must be parallels. If for example you say, "Historically speaking...there were 4 million Communists in Country X and County X (which is a non-Communist country) randomly used a WMD on Russia and threatened to nuke China afterwards and the Communists in Country X did NOT radicalize or take up arms against country X" THAT would be an example that is relevant and could be debated. That example would at least be relevant because Communism is a death worshipping philosophy (like Islam), we have the foreign policy that FatDogs suggested (randomly nuking the death worshipper's countries and threating another country) , and we also have the result of such a foreign policy (whether or not the death worshippers radicalized and took action or if they stayed benign).THOSE are the important variables in play here. You are using examples that lack all of the variables and trying to draw historical parallels to prove my point wrong. You can't see why your examples are blatantly incorrect and a total straw man of my position? If you used the example involving Communism that I just provided , I would argue that Islam is a worse ideology and is MORE death worshipping...so there would be a debate. However, it would be a topical debate and not a debate of straw men. Sure. Ok. You made your point. I agree with it. That isn't what this debate has EVER been about which is why I say that such examples are a waste of my time. I never disagreed or argued that overwhelming force hasn't been effective. You are correct. I'm arguing against your arguments which don't pertain at all to the debate. When I straw manned your arguments, I gave them more credibility than they deserved. I honestly thought that you were making an attempt to draw historically parallel without much knowledge of history which is why I tried to show that your historical examples weren't really good ones if you were trying to make a parallel that concerned the actual debate in question. I didn't realize that you knew your history and were injecting historical examples to prove a point that was and is entirely irrelevant to this debate. That was MY fault. I shouldn't have given you such a benefit of the doubt and should have pressed you for clarification (in which case it would have become readily apparent that your examples prove absolutely nothing and have nothing to do with the debate between A is A and myself concerning FatDog's foreign policy proposition). I don't disagree with your contention that overwhelming force works militarily and I have NEVER disagreed with that. I can think of numerous examples myself that would support your contention that overwhelming force works militarily speaking. Such examples do nothing for the debate because that isn't what the debate is about. You and A is A are trying to draw bad philosophical parallels between events that share NOTHING in common with what is being debated (whether or not randomly nuking a middle eastern country and threatening another would radicalize the Muslim segements of the United States' population.). You so far have contributed nothing to the debate and have cluttered up the board with bad historical parallels that do nothing to disprove my overall point. My tone is a valid response to that. I addressed this in my last post to A is A. Here is what I said: I doubt they will ever fear us. Fear is a product of valuing something that is tied to life. People that really embrace a death worshipping philosophy are the most fearless people you will ever meet because they have nothing of value to lose. In fact, they stumble over themselves to give it up in the name of holy martyrdom.
  9. Scottkursk: You said that the last time people tried to ban guns that it, "didn't work." I went to the link you posted about the Morton Grove case in Illinois. Here is what it says: "On June 8, 1981, the Morton Grove Village Board of Trustees passed the history -making ban on handgun possession, as well as the sale of handguns. The Village Board's 4-2 vote led the Village into nation-wide prominence as the first community to ban the possession of handguns within its boundaries. This decision subsequently became the battleground for pro-gun and anti-gun factions across the country and worldwide. The ordinance survived three separate legal challenges. One suit was heard in the Illinois State Supreme Court and another, the U.S. Court of Appeals. On October 3, 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, leaving intact the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals which ruled that Morton Grove's handgun ban did not violate citizens' right to keep and bear arms according to the Second Amendment. Gun control legislation continues to be a hot topic of debate at all levels of government -- local, state, and federal. Morton Grove, Illinois, remains at the forefront of this debate. " Then I went to the timeline that was on that website (Here is the link) and found that I couldn't find anything that overturned the Morton Grove law (the timeline goes up to 2001). So why do you say it didn't work based on the Morton Grove thing? Did The Morton Grove ordinance finally get overturned in the last 5 years?
  10. No, I'm NOT making that assumption. If you actually read what I wrote, I said quite clearly that Muslims aren't BORN terrorists (and not all Muslims ARE terrorists anyways). Muslims make choices when they decide to become terrorists. Those choices are almost ALWAYS supported by their religion. A lot of Muslims don't worship death at all and then they use personal loss (like a family member getting killed) augmented by the Koran's teachings to justify their violent behaviors. I never once implied that ALL Muslims worship death consistently. In fact, the whole point of this debate has been me trying to prove that NON-radical Muslims (read = Muslims that don't worship death consistently) would become radicalized at a capricious use of nuclear force. If I was assuming that all Muslims worshipped death ALL the time, there wouldn't be any debate on my part because there would be no way to radicalize Muslims at all because their radical nature would be a metaphysical given. It obviously ISN'T a given and they don't all worship death consistently, which is why such a debate can take place at all. In short? You are 100% wrong. From Wikipedia's article on Hulagu "Hulagu easily destroyed the Lurs, and his reputation so frightened the Assassins that they surrendered their impregnable fortress of Alamut to him without a fight." and From Wikipedia's article on the Assasins: "Their Muslim contemporaries were extremely suspicious of them; in fact they were described in terms (Batini) which suggested they were only nominally Islamic. This constant religious estrangement would eventually see them go so far as allying with the Occidental Christians against Muslims on a number of occasions. It is even suggested that they attempted to negotiate their own conversion to Christianity with Amalric I of Jerusalem, but were foiled by Templar machinations, perhaps on the basis that this would exempt them from onerous taxes on non-Christians in the Holy Lands, which were profitable for the knightly orders. Plainly, their connection to mainstream Islam was tangential at best." In short? Your historical examples are equally bad as A is A's. 1) Alexander the Great was born in 356 BC. Islam didn't even START as a religion until around 600 AD Thus, Alexander's conquest of the Persians is 100% irrelevant as the Persians weren't remotely Muslim at the time of their conquest. 2) The Roman conquest of Carthage happened 300 years before Islam even existed. 3) The Spaniards EXPELLED all of the Muslims from Spain and pushed them back militarily out of Europe. There weren't any Muslims really left in Spain to radicalize. Moroever, the dark ages were more or less Islam's golden age. Islam had many learned scholars at the time and wasn't the religion it is today. If you really do have innumerable other examples to support your contention, I suggest you bring those up now because your current examples hold absolutely no water so to speak. As of now, history isn't on your side either .
  11. A is A: I don't think it was based on reason, but who cares? Some people in Russia still support the memory of Stalin and fight to erect statues in his honor...do they do so based on reason? No. There are definite degrees that separate how bad certain philosophies. I would argue that Islam is probably the LEAST rational of any, including the Shinto religion. The real power of the emperor as far as WWII goes has always been questioned and is definitely questionable as military decisions were made by advisors and generals. Moreover, the absolute rule of the emperor as a "god" (or anything else for that matter) wasn't always the case in Japanese history. Individual daimyo ruled for quite some time and later ruled collectively as the shogunate. The Meiji restoration is what brought the emperor BACK to power and he might have been labeled a god (it was actually written in the Japanese Constitution of 1889), however....the emperor's rule was far from absolute. The historical influence of Shintoism on Japan is negligible compared to the influence of Islam. Islam has been around for FAR longer and has WAY stronger ties to the actual governments of the countries in question than Shinto EVER has. No, Muslims won't necessarily tell you that they are fighting for their homeland unless we are talking about Palestinian Muslims. What Muslims WILL tell you is that they are fighting for a martyr's death which will place them in a glorified place in heaven instead of living here on earth which is far superior in their eyes. A fight for a homeland is a secondary concern to suicide bombers....after all, they aren't going to be alive to enjoy it. Unless they are Palestinian Muslims, they aren't probably fighting for a homeland to begin with. As for what they value enough to fight for the death? The answer is death itself...aka "martyrdom." The values that the Japanese had were LIFE based values. The same isnt' true for the Muslims. There IS a bright line. Moreover, Muslims won't tell you that suicide bombings are a tactic of last resort because that just isn't what they believe. They point to the Koran which tells them to smite the infidels and attack. You need a better understanding of Islam as a distinct philosophical poison apart from other collectivist variants (socialism, communism, religion, etc). I HIGHLY recommend reading the following article: Islam On Trial: The Prosecution's Case Read the article and it should become readily apparent how Islam is separate and distinct as a death worshipping philosophy than any other historical example you could possibly bring up. Yes, HOWEVER the point I was making is that the Japanese and Muslim comparisons are unwarranted. The Japanese were localized to the same region and it wasn't our OWN territory. The issue is AMERICAN-Muslims radicalizing due to American actions. American Muslims LIVE in America and can stage terrorist attacks/suicide bombings from inside the country. They aren't "over there" so to speak. So the fact that we can drop nukes anywhere on the globe is absolutely irrelevant to the issue of radicalized American Muslims. The point is, the 4 million American Muslims living in this country know damn good and well that we aren't going to use nukes within our own borders because if we DID, we would inflict greater losses on our own civilian population than the Muslims could ever hope to inflict. Thus, nuclear weapons are NOT a deterrent to wannabe American-Muslim terrorists anymore than the deterrence effect of nukes was felt by Timothy McVeigh. The Japanese were deterred by nuke weapons. You can even argue that Saudi Arabia or Iran would be deterred by nukes. You CAN'T argue that radical Muslims living in the U.S will be deterred by nukes. No, such a process of radicalization hasn't happened, I agree. Perhaps because we didn't nuke a Muslim country capriciously/randomly? Look, there is a CLEAR difference between defending ourselves and fighting terrorism (which several if not most American Muslim groups condemn) and using nuclear force. Bombing Libya (who supported the terrorist attack on the Pan Am flight) or defending Kuwait from an aggressor (an aggressor who was a secular Sunni) or going after terrorists (Afghanistan) or liberating Iraq are VASTLY different propositions than going to a map of the middle east and randomly pointing to a country then saying, "Lets nuke this one." I can see a pretty big difference, yet for some reason you think American Muslims are incapable of identifying such differences? Yes, appeasement is bad...but once again, you are in the realm of the non-topical. I'm not talking appeasement nor have I ever. I'm talking FatDog's initial proposition that we start randomly nuking Middle Eastern countries and issuing ultimatums. Saying that we refrain from such behavior is NOT appeasement. Besides, historicism is absolutely silly philosophically speaking. Didn't John Galt buck the historical trend philosophically speaking? Isn't that part of the point? Trying to say that just because history doesn't support a certain idea misses the boat entirely. What happens if an entirely new circumstance happens that doesn't have historical precedent? What do you use to make inferences then? For example...the Cold War dynamic was something that was new (historically speaking) due to a NEW technological development (nukes). I have proven that Islam is quite distinct in its form as a religious philosophy apart from other historical philosophies. THAT is why your historical examples ARE bad examples. You can't infer anything from them. You are telling me that a country with 4 million Muslims won't probably have any radicalization among its members due to randomly nuking a middle eastern country? For Christ's sakes, nuking a middle eastern country would definitely give ANYONE the idea that Islam is under attack militarily. Muslims are instructed via the Koran to fight in defense of Islam. That is what jihad IS. Unless American Muslims magically decide to abandon their religious identity, I can't see why it wouldn't be inevitable. What exactly do you think would act as a deterrent? Frickin' A...stay on topic! I'm not talking about appeasing ANYONE. Yes, appeasement sucks. I never said, "let's go easy so we don't radicalize the Muslims." So yes, that argument is weak. It isn't MY argument, however, so try to stay on topic or this debate just wastes my time and is useless. Yes, other countries have worse problems with Muslims. I agree. Whopee de doo. Those countries DO appease Muslims. We don't. We don't see problems, they do. Wonderful. You are saying that by refraining from using nukes at random on middle eastern countries that I'm somehow an appeaser. That is a GROSS representation of my argument. If there is a definite threat from a middle eastern country, we have every right to attack in our self defense and we SHOULD without regard for appeasing ANYONE. However, the statement I disagreed with was from Fat Dogs. Do I really need to repeat it again? Apparently I do because you keep making the same bad insinuations that I'm some sort of moral coward or that my arguments are tantamount to moral cowardice (appeasement). HERE is the statement I disagreed with: "Simplest solution really is to just nuke one Arabic country after another on the basis that if the Muslims dont' completely stop terrorism after the first bomb then we drop a second. Eventaully I think they will get the point." You see that? FatDog's argues that we should just start nuking Arab nations (not all of which sponsor terror by the way) and hold them accountable for actions committed and sustained outside of their borders. What the hell does Syria have to do with terrorism supported and directed from Iran? Unless there is PROVEN coordination between and among Arab states that supports terrorism, there is NO reason to tie global terrorist activity to ONE nation. Saying, "I'm going to hold Syria accountable for all of the world's terrorism by threatening them with a nuke and if terrorism doesn't stop I'm going to nuke Lebannon" is absolutely goofy. It is counterproductive and is based on a sort of collectivist ethic that holds one group accountable for the actions of another group that it doesn't necessarily have control over. MOROEVER, as I have proven...the largest populations of Muslims exist OUTSIDE of the middle east! So what the hell purpose does nuking the middle east have when you have 4 million Muslims in the U.S? Do you really think nuking a country 5,000 miles away is going to stop radical American Muslims from engaging in terrorism? How about terrorist Muslims in England? FatDogs suggests that we keep nuking MIDDLE EASTERN countries if Muslims don't stop terrorism. What about non-middle eastern Muslim terrorists? If you can't see the fact that FatDog's argument has a hole you could drive a frickin' semi through than I don't know what I could say to give you sight. What the heck would STOP them from picking up a gun and taking it into Wal-Mart or a bank to exact revenge for nuking the middle east? What would STOP them from retaliating with suicide bombs? Read the article I linked to and THEN come back to this debate. Muslims see death as a value if it is death given for Islam because such a death makes them martyrs and gives them benefits in the afterlife according to their religion. What better cause to die for than avenging their Muslim brethren in the middle east that just got nuked because they couldn't police terrorist Muslims in England? You couldn't HAND Muslims a better cause on a platter. Why not nuke the Kabba for Christ’s sakes. Do you think THAT wouldn't radicalize Muslims? I think that if the U.S nuked the Vatican, there would be Catholics that would be radicalized in the U.S. Would they take up arms or blow themselves up? Probably not because Catholicism isn't quite as bad as Islam. However, they WOULD radicalize. Islam is a violent religion and when Muslims radicalize they generally don't radicalize peacefully. People aren't always born a terrorist. People make CHOICES to do suicide bombings, etc. Sometimes all it takes is for someone's sister to get blown up by an Israeli helicopter that missed it's mark to bring people to the breaking point. I'm not excusing terrorists...I'm saying that they make choices. Are those violent choices be based on excuses? SURE. If a Palestinian guy's sister is killed by an Israeli military mistake...that doesn't justify or excuse violence. However, such death can be used as an excuse that is SUPPORTED by religious doctrine which gives the excuse legitimacy (at least in the eyes of the people that become terrorists). A man that might not ordinarily pick up a gun becomes emboldened because suddenly he sees "Allah" as being on his side morally speaking and he wants vengeance for his family. I'm sure there are people who haven't even lost anything (no family members, etc) that just are violent people that use Islam as an excuse to blow stuff up or hurt people. Do you think that American-Muslims wouldn't make the same connections mentally if we nuked the middle east? Do you think that they wouldn't use their religion as an excuse to be violent? Why wouldn't they? It isn't like they all value their lives to begin with nor is it like their religion values human life. Islam is ANTI-life. How would nuking the religion NOT be perceived as a direct attack on Islam? Such an attack would HAVE to be fought by jihad because that is what the Koran commands Muslims to do! Unless they are cowards or they aren't really Muslim, they would NOT be able to just ignore such a blatant attack on their religion. Such attacks would be widely condemned by Muslim leaders here in America and abroad and fatwas would be issued. I can't imagine any Imam NOT urging jihad if you started nuking the middle east. Sorry, it just wouldn't happen. Yes, I posted that nuking the middle east would NOT achieve its desired end if it was done AS FATDOGS suggested. Look...HE argued one thing and YOU argue another. HE argued for randomly nuking middle eastern countries. YOU argue for nuking in self-defense against countries that threaten us. Can't you see that my argument is NOT with you? It wasn't then and it isn't now. I repeat, I never once said that we should cede our right to self defense or that we should allow Iranian nukes........There is NO such implication in my posts anywhere. I said that nuking the middle east wouldn't achieve the desired ends. The purpose of using nukes is to protect our own self interest and to defend this country. That end can only be met if the use of nuclear weapons is for the purpose of self defense. The capricious use of nukes that FatDogs suggested is what I have been arguing against all along, NOT using nukes as a defensive weapon against aggressors (like Iran). In cases where we are being threatened (like Iran), I don't think domestic costs can be considered in the way you are meaning. The must be recognized, but they must not be given any weight. If Russia hypothetically attacks us, we MUST consider the domestic costs of nuclear retaliation. We must recognize that A is A and that the law of causality MUST be observed. If we press the red button, Russia would nuke us back. Avoiding that fact or avoiding looking at that fact is an act of evasion. However, that doesn't mean that we cede our right to self defense. It doesn't mean that we DON'T press the red button. It just means that we do so with the full realistic picture of what is going to happen when we do. That is ALL I'm saying. As for my earlier posts, they were in response to FatDog's proposition which is substantially different than yours (random aggression as opposed to self-defense). It makes them a legitimate target, yes. It doesn't mean that a nuclear response is smart AT ALL. What we SHOULD do is freeze their assets and seize their oil fields to prevent them from FUNDING terrorism. Their military is not a sufficient threat to justify the use of nuclear weapons. As I said, the Saudi military is a joke. They aren't a direct threat to us. They pose a threat because they fund people who ARE a threat. Thus, to solve the issue you take away their ability to do such funding and you get rid of the government while making it clear that ANYONE that comes into power and tries to pull the crap that the Saudis have pulled will face the full force of the U.S military. Amen. I have no problem with sending Iran back to the stone age. It would send a hell of a message, wouldn't it? I don't think we would really have to send such a message twice. Such a message is also JUST because it addresses a credible threat (unlike nuking random nations like Saudi Arabia or Syria). 1) No, they will never like us. 2) I doubt they will ever fear us. Fear is a product of valuing something that is tied to life. People that really embrace a death worshipping philosophy are the most fearless people you will ever meet because they have nothing of value to lose. In fact, they stumble over themselves to give it up in the name of holy martyrdom. The issue is not making them fear us, but making them know that they have no realistic chance of winning and showing our commitment to our position. If Muslims really DO seek nuclear annihilation (let's make the assumption that we go ahead and nuke Iran as you suggested) and continue to support terrorism whole heartedly, I see NO reason why we shouldn't oblige them.
  12. Actually, I CAN say that a lot of people want cocaine as evidenced by economic data and that is empirical fact. Supply and demand are part of economic models that DO explain what products are valued and what ones aren't. More importantly, I never said that just because something is wanted that it is justified. I'm an Objectivist, not a hedonist or a collectivist. Chill out. X is a variable. It means you can substitute in various reasons in place of the variable. In this case the point I was making is that for YOU to assume that people want children for any reason in particular is silly. There are a variety of potential reasons for wanting children. For you to assume that people want children for X reason and X reason ONLY is ignoring reality. You are ignoring the many potential contexts and reasons that could possibly exist. The reason why I say you are making an assumption here is that you assume that having a child and following your self interest is mutually exclusive. In fact...you say: if you are an Objectivist, it seems to follow that, 1.) having children is an altruistic act to further the human race, You are leaping to conclusions without justifying how you got there (in other words, you are making an assumption). For something to be considered an act of altruism, a personal sacrifice has to be made that is incompatible with your self interest. To say that from an Objectivist viewpoint having children is considered a sacrifice committed at a personal loss for the benefit of the human race is something that you have the burden to prove. What in Objectivism suggests that having children is done for anyone's benefit other than the couple that decides to have the child? Why would an Objectivist equate child rearing with "furthering the human race?" That sounds more like collectivist tripe than anything else. If I were to have a kid, it sure as hell wouldn't be so I could benefit anyone but me. I wouldn't take on a massive responsibility like child rearing as a charity act for my girlfriend or so the human race can continue. I'm not obligated to serve as a reproductive slave to anyone and I sure as heck don't believe that the only possible way to view childrearing is as an action done on someone ELSE'S behalf. By blurring that distinction, you are leaving us no criteria to separate a surrogate mother (a person who agrees to have an infertile couple's child) who allows herself to get pregnant for religious/altruistic reasons (to further the human race) and a couple that wants a child because such a child would bring them personal happiness. The fact that you are blurring the distinctions between those two examples is wrong because a person can want a child for personal happiness based on objective reasons in a sense that is distinct and different from wanting something hedonistic like cocaine use (to use your example). First off...What creates children? Sex, obviously. To Objectivists, sex is a profoundly selfish and moral endeavor between couples that love each other deeply. It is a response to the most deeply held values that both partners possess that allow for such intimacy. A lot of trust is required to be naked in both body and soul before another person. Such trust isn't paid for cheaply unless you have no personal standards. The price of trust is value. When such trust is paid for, sex is a natural step that allows trusting partners to experience physical and emotional ecstasy from each other's bodies. Keep that context in mind and I will go through all the possibilities you list. 1) Having a child to create a living individual in your own likeness and the likeness of their spouse is definitely a purely selfish reason. For an egoist who values their own image (physically and morally) and the image of their spouse, there can be no more selfish of an act than creating a unique individual that possesses elements of the two most important people in the world (yourself and your partner). Children are a byproduct of such a joyous act (sex) and are created by a merging of the essential building blocks of our physical identities (dna). Children are biological/physical extensions of the couples that had sex.. It is selfish to want to be able to look into the eyes of your little boy (or little girl) and see personal and physical elements of both you and your spouse. 2) To spread their seed? No, that is not a purely selfish reason if by "spreading their seed" you mean having sex for no other reason than continuing the human race. Having a child to continue the human race is an altruistic/collectivist proposition. It places the human race (tribe) above any individual motives or values. The human race as a whole has NO inherent objective value. Individuals are the only unit of human being that possess objective value or lack of value. 3) To bring joy into a parent's life is definitely a legitimate selfish reason to have children. I will now go through all the potential ways a child can bring a parent joy that YOU listed and I will analyze each one of them. -by acting like the parents a child can bring joy Sure. If you value your life and the way you act because you know that it is the product of a life loving moral philosophy, then if your child acts in the same manner, it will bring you joy as long as your child understands what is truly important: the philosophy that makes acts of valuing and life on earth possible (Objectivism). That stage of development (moral/intellectual) doesn't generally occur until later maturity, though. -By subordination a child can bring joy to parents. I'm not sure what you mean here. Explain. -By creating life, children bring joy to parents. If you mean that children bring joy to parents in the form of grandkids...then that has potential to be joyous or a disaster, lol. If you mean that the simple act of creating life (sex) and bringing life into the world is joyous, then the answer is yes. Children are born with a clean slate (or as Peikoff would say, tabula rasa). This fact means they represent the utmost of human potential. They ARE the faces without pain, fear, or guilt. Such faces can be shown what life is and what it means to love life. Children ARE alive. They grow and can be taught what values are and if they are taught correctly...they can end up being a source of joy, pride, accomplishment, love, and fun for parents. I can imagine an Objectivist wanting to be able to personally influence such a blank slate for the purpose of companionship (interpersonal bonding/love) and as a celebration of their OWN lives. It is selfish to want to teach the byproduct of a joyous land lasting sexual/romantic union everything worth knowing and everything that makes life wonderful. -By making a parent proud, children can bring joy to parents. This is true. What is the source of parental pride, though? The source of pride is seeing a child grow from a blank slate to an autonomous moral creature. Seeing a child progress in positive manners brings pride to parents because at first it is like a demonstration of a lesson well learned. You see a child apply GOOD philosophy and produce GOOD things for themselves in their own lives. You see the capacity for happiness that is possible because of your hand in such moral/intellectual development. -Children can bring joy to parents by taking care of them in their old age. No. That isn't a way in which kids can bring joy to their parents. That makes the parents dependent upon another person for their own survival and care. Dependence on another person is NOT a source of joy. Parents could probably do lots of things if they didn't have the responsibility of children. However, they could also do a lot of things WITH children. You once again assume that having a child isn't what a parent genuinely wants. Why is this? Why CAN'T children be part of a person's selfish dream? Ask any student, getting good grades is an enormous sacrifice at times. Simply having to sacrifice in the sense that you mean is NOT a bad thing. Anything of value requires sacrifice in the sense that you have to WORK for values. You can't obtain values by osmosis. Having a GOOD MARRIAGE is a sacrifice at times because you have to put up with crap you wouldn't have to put up with if you were by yourself. You are using the word sacrifice as a synonym for "hardship" or "tough proposition." Lots of things in life are tough or hard. It doesn't mean that they aren't valuable. What makes a sacrifice IMMORAL is if you sacrifice a HIGHER value for one of a lower value. Some of the reasons you listed ARE irrational. HOWEVER...if they are irrational...then they can not be simultaneously "self interested." That is a contradiction in terms. Check your premise. Whether or not the reasons that you listed that WERE rational are outweighed by NOT having children is a matter of personal choice and personal opinion. The act of weighing values is done on an individual level. The rational self interested reasons that you listed that you claim are outweighed by not having children are outweighed by YOUR values and decision calculus. Hugh Ackston had rationally selfish reasons for being a philosopher to the exclusion of other possible professions. Richard Halley had rationally selfish reasons for being a musician to the exclusion of being a philosopher or other career choices. For Halley, being a musician "outweighed" being a blacksmith. That is a matter of individual choice and neither choice is more moral or immoral if it is rationally chosen. Ayn Rand's personal choice has nothing to do with whether or not having children is an equally moral proposition to not having children. They can both be equally moral decisions just like Richard Halley's decision to be a musician and Roark's decision to be an architect. -Evan
  13. *dies laughing.* I hadn't thought about the offense thing. Oh man that made me really laugh. That wench should totally be fired.
  14. http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=ap-1...ov=ap&type=lgns Unfortunate how the "little people" (the other team) are already bitching instead of commending her for her achievment. from the article: and about what the previous record holder went through when SHE made history: How disgusting! If I was an athlete, I would LOVE to have the opportunity to play against a champion caliber person like either one of these girls. If she is walkin' all over your team, you can at least tell your kids someday that "I played against a WNBA caliber athlete when I was in high school." It definitely makes for a good story and moreover, there is no shame in getting your butt handed to you by a worthy opponent.
  15. A is A: Right. We also had allies in that war as well that were *fighting* the Japanese in those other countries. As I said, the Japanese were *localized* and the source of the war was NOT religious. We put Japanese-Americans in internment camps which is what you also fail to mention here. Yes, I know about Japanese Kamikazes, etc. They also weren't inspired by religion. Bushido is not a religious concept. Death worshipping philosophy? Not quite. The death part only came in if life was seen as being unwinnable or honor was broken. The Japanese even then didn't have the idea that death was something to happily push for unless it was in the pursuit of honor, etc. Honor is a concept attached to value. Keep in mind that the Japanese were also fighting IN DEFENSE of their homeland (admittedly after they attacked us). They valued something and they fought for it to the death. The willingness to die for a value doesn't mean that you worship death. It also Islamists on the other hand are more than just willing to die for their cause they value. They seek out ways in which to martyr themselves as a way of getting a special ticket to heaven. That isn't comparable to the Japanese philosophy at ANY point in their history. Japan was obviously able to be cowed because we had the ability to hold nuclear weapons over their head after we used two of them to show that we could kill ridiculous amounts of Japanese with no cost to American soliders. That only works when you enemy is contained to one region. Moreover, the Japanese we DID intern here in the United States numbered 112,000. We didn't HAVE 4 million Japenese people living in the United States. The situations just aren't comparable. I think interning 4 million Japanese would have been a much different prospect first of all. Second of all, globally speaking there have NEVER been 1 BILLION Japanese spread out over the planet united by a religion that tells you to seek out death and live horribly as a way of getting into heaven. I agree. How do you propose we should have anhilitated them? I'm not seeing your point. ONCE AGAIN, Bushido and other honor related concepts were not religious in nature and are no way comparable to death worshiping Islam. Death was always seen as a last resort and was only encouraged in extreme cases. The Japanese had also just been released from internment camps around that time and most of them lost a great deal of property as well as money. 2/3 of the Japanese interned were also U.S citizens meaning that they weren't as attached to Japan as people dying to defend their homeland against an invading U.S military. The vested interests of American Citizens that were ethnically Japanese versus Japanese citizens that were being militarily overwhelmed were obviously quite different. You are comparing apples and oranges again. Perhaps that is because you are using bad historical examples . NO. I never proposed we give veto power to ANYONE, let alone Muslims in this country. Go back and read what I actually said. The purpose of my post was to highlight a cost that nobody seems willing to acknowledge. I never said that the presence of American Muslims should be enough to stop us from using our right to self defense. We DO have a right to self defense. HOWEVER, capriciously nuking a country is NOT self-defense unless a country poses an active threat. Such agression has domestic COSTS. That is my point. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be willing to bear those costs if necessary, but we should at least acknowledge the possibility that such costs are there. I don't see why you and FatDogs are so rabid in your defense of Muslims. I don't see why you are stumbling over yourselves to suggest that American Muslims would somehow be above terrorism if we randomly nuked a middle eastern country or that they could switch their alligience (as their religion instructs them to do) to a support of jihad within the United States when under attack. You guys seem ultra-defensive as if admitting that there is a risk factor involved somehow means we should just sit back and twiddle our thumbs while we are under attack or give up our right to self defense. There is NO such implication in my posts anywhere. I agree. You aren't saying anything new or saying anything contrary to what I have said. I never once said that we should cede our right to self defense or that we should allow Iranian nukes. I agree. Your point is entirely irrelevant to this discussion because I never advocated that we let American Muslims dictate the method or timing of when we defend ourselves from threatening regimes...but I agree with it. Erh. The Israeli military? Targetted bombing by the U.S? The U.N is inept, stupid, and immoral. Diplomacy with terrorists is the moral equivalent of compromise and should be avoided like the plague. What will stop Iran is military force against MILITARY targets which I advocate. I DON'T advocate that we sit around and do nothing. In fact, personally...I think we have waited WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too long. I think we should have declared war on them the minute they declared their intentions. I say we should destroy their military and remove their government and make it known that anyone else who tries to pull any of this Ayatollahesque bull**** will get a boot to the face courtesy of America or Israel. I have no problem with nuking the military and destroying Iran's ability to harm anyone. I DO have a problem with callous displays of force that are more symbolic in nature, however (like nuking civilian populations which serves little military function and definitely does nothing to make us more safe). Nuking civilians in Tehran (ala Hiroshima) is unnecessary. Killing people does NOT kill ideas. The more useful approach would be to destroy Iran's capacity to make war and eject the mullahs from Iran and then offer Iran the options Douglas McArthur offered Japan. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the way you think Iran should be anhilitated? I think if we used my plan of action, we could actually have a chance at something of value. Yes. I agree 100%. WRONG. from FatDogs: The costs ARE things like domestic terrorism. Those are REAL costs. I'm saying that we should acknowledge those costs and at least look at them. I'm not saying that should mean that we just kick back and do nothing. Sure, we should take out REAL threats to our security. Iraq was NOT one of those threats. Iran IS one of those threats. So we take out Iran's capacity to threaten us (or Israel) and that is a GOOD thing. However, threatening to nuke the entire middle east is silly. Some of the countries aren't worth the price of the nuclear weapons we would be using to eliminate them. Why waste bullets and wantonly kill when crap countries like Saudi Arabia don't pose a real threat to anyone? You guys do realize that the Saudi military is a JOKE, right?
  16. To elaborate on WHY it isn't true, there is no reason why child bearing and self-interest are mutually exclusive. The idea that they are seems to suggest that there is no possible universe in which children can be wanted by both parents which is just silly. A LOT of children are wanted by their parents and a lot of people want children as evidenced by fertility clinics, adoption agencies, etc. Assuming that a person wants a children for X reason is also silly. Do some people harbor the disgusting altruistic idea that they want to have children for the good of the tribe or some such primitivist nonsense? Sure. I'm sure some wackos hold that view. Do some people want children for purely selfish reasons? Sure. Do some people hold a mix of altruistic and selfish feelings? Sure. There isn't anything indicating that a person must want a child for altruistic reasons by nature of holding that desire, however. A variety of premises are possible so assuming that child rearing is inherently a self-less act ignores the many potential reasons that go into the decision calculus that people use when deciding whether or not to have a baby.
  17. A is A: 1) Because Islam is a death worshipping philosophy that is comparable to dark ages Catholicism. People who see death as a value and are happy to achieve it via suicide bombings are way more likely to opt into more violent courses of action instead of surrender. Besides...in EVERY case you mentioned the enemy was not a religious one and was contrained to one nation. Vietnam was the only possible exception among your examples in my eyes because the Ho Chi Minh trail went into Cambodia and Laos which was obviously more than one country. However, those countries were in close proximity. Islam is different. Muslims aren't just in one place. 2) We have kicked out the Baathists from Iraq more or less. The odds of beating the U.S military on the ground in combat are hopelessly low if you are a crappy force like the insurgents. Do you see that as making them think that Jihad against America is a disasterously losing proposition? Hell...every one of those terrorists on the planes during 9/11 LOST their lives. What more can you the U.S offer to take away from them that they aren't already willing to give? Nuclear weapons aren't going to be used within our own borders, so that AUTOMATICALLY gives American Muslims an instant opportunity (all 4 million of them) to start strapping bombs on their chests knowing full well that THEY aren't going to be nuked. Of course I don't advocate that. You are giving me a set of hypothetical conditions that haven't been met yet. Assuming that the Iranians develop nukes, yes we should nuke them. Hopefully it doesn't get to that point, but if it does...we have no choice. HOWEVER, in the status quo...the conditions you just put forth (Iran having nukes) aren't present. So should we just nuke Iran right now out of the blue and then start threatening other Muslim nations like FatDogs suggested (which is what I was debating by the way). I also object to your term "placating." Placating suggests pandering to someone else's self interest like a humble servant. I'm NOT suggesting that we refrain from nuking a country capriciously to serve the best interests of the Muslims in this country. I'm suggesting that randomly nuking a middle eastern country would have costs that people like FatDogs simply don't think about or refuse to acknowledge. Hunterrose: I agree 100%. That was the point I was making. We didn't go into an easy situation from the beginning which implies that from the outset we could derrive that there were going to be high costs associated with this nation building. No. My point in bringing up the American story was to show that EVEN with our Western/Enlightenment roots, it wasn't an EASY road to democracy. I agree 100%. The point I'm trying to make is that a country that has secularized a lot (like Turkey) and is closer to being in a philosophically *comparable* position to the 13 colonies has a chance at creating a democracy. A country like Iran does NOT...no matter how many Ayatollahs you overthrow. Besides...some of your specifics are just wrong. 100 years experience with a proper political state? England? Huh? The reason why they left was because England was statist and persecuting hard core Puritans by throwing them in jail arbitrarily. Statist and imperialist England was NOT a proper state morally speaking. Right now the Iraqis have the help of a significantly more powerful government as well that liberated them. So what is the real difference? Men like Washington and Jefferson? YES. I agree. The philosophical element is missing which is why simple liberation isn't enough to actually pave the way for democracy. It is why we are fighting a losing battle over there and why we will always be fighting a losing battle over there unless the country magically secularizes a LOT overnight and the leaders/people that drafted the Iraqi Constitution recognize the importance of separating church/state. The other point that I want to re-emphasize is the fact that it is quite possible that we will create a government with VOTING mechanisms in place. However, if the people aren't philosophically ready for better leaders than Ayatollah Kohmeini then those kind of guys are all you are going to get voted into office which mitigates any potential benefits of establishing democracy in the country (because we get the same situations). YES. My point exactly. There are a crap load of costs involved when it comes to setting up a democracy in such a philosophically backwards country like Iraq. Are those costs worth bearing despite the fact that you admit that unless democracy is only worthwhile if you have people who will vote for a George Washington over a Momar Quadafi? Hitler was elected via democractic mechanisms as well as countless left wing Latin American dictators. The only possible justification of the costs we MUST bear to establish democracy is if it will bear fruit. There is a pretty famous Jefferson quote, "The tree of liberty must often be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Simply having freedom isn't enough. Simply having democractic mechanisms in place isn't enough. The tree of liberty must be getting us where we want or else we have wasted the blood of many a patriot for a poisoned fruit. Keep in mind that we are seeding the Iraqi experiment with the blood of American patriots. Is this our fight? Is this our obligation or our responsibility?Are we our brother's keeper in this situation? Should the American tax payers have the extra financial burden of bearing the billion dollar costs of such a farce just so we can sleep well in our beds knowing that we are giving the Iraqis enough rope to hang themselves if they so chose? Should we be committing the lives of thousands of American soldiers so Iraq can crap on their new found democracy by electing an impotent figure head or a ruthless Ayatollah? I was being facetious. I know that the M. plan was to prevent the same conditions that existed after WWI (the poverty, destruction) that lead to WWII. 1) You must be kidding. France wasn't aquainted with good government at that time. The French revolution was from 1789-1799 or so and before that you had a statist monarchy. Robspierre took power in 1794 and started killing Jacobins. Napoleon was born in 1769 and took power in November of 1799. here are some links if you need a refresher on your French history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_Bonaparte http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_French_Revolution 2) Look at how many troops he deployed on his last campaigns (Russia included) as well as the fact that some of his moves hurt France economically. Napoleon was the first to use a conscripted Army...so actually he did hurt the average French citizen quite a bit. Guzman was definitely a socialist Check out the link and look at his land redistribution policies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_pbsuccess from the article : This is much like the Weapons of Mass Destruction baloney we used as a premise for invading Iraq. The point I'm making is that we didn't stick around and rebuild Guatemala in our own image or even attempt to do so. We messed up by going there in the first place just like Iraq. However, we didn't spend bajillions of dollars trying to establish democracy over there. They worked things out on their own (admittedly they DID have a civil war) and are now a pretty stable (if not poor) country.
  18. I think Kobe is probably inarticulate, but probably not as bad necessarily as one might think. Kobe's 80 point game or Wilts 100 point game are anomolies. I think Kobe was trying to be like, "Look...it was cool and all...but overall performance and TEAM performance are more indicative of good trends when it comes to evaluating athletes." I would bet that saying "embarassed" is Kobe's way of saying, "the focus and attention are makin' me a bit uncomfortable here." Why would he say that? Well...you want to be known for your season long performance. You also want to be known for staying a top player and not just having one phenomenal game. Michael Jordan never had a game like Kobe's...but check out his stats and they are beyond impressive. Kobe wants to be remembered like MJ over the long haul and not just as a guy getting hype for ONE good game. Kobe is known for being one heck of a basketball player overall, so he probably wants the media to focus on THAT and not just a game that was probably a once in a lifetime thing (not something that he has a pattern of doing, obviously). I'm doubting that Kobe meant "embarassed" in the sense that he wished he hadn't HAD that 80 point game. He is probably just embarassed about the hype and the media focus. Can you REALLY blame him? Also...keep in mind that the guy is an ATHLETE. He isn't a philosopher or a professional speaker. People in the general population aren't as exacting when it comes to using precise language or being articulate. That is a BAD thing, but sometimes people say stupid stuff when put on the spot by a cameraman and a news anchor. It happens. I know I'm speculating as to how Kobe meant what he said and I'm not trying to offer my interpretation as definitive. In fact, maybe Kobe DID mean that he wished that he hadn't have stood out so much (in which case... shame on him!). I just don't think that the implications of some off the cuff remarks from a possibly inarticulate athlete during some random interview (in which he might not have thought through the full implications of his word choice) are necessarily as damning as one might initially think.
  19. My bad. I went off of your Wikipedia link that showed the gloabl distribution of Muslims. The percentage of Muslims in the U.S is like 1.4% or something like that which translates to just over 4 million. 10% was a number you used and I accidentally repeated it. I agree that most of those Muslims aren't "super radical" however the point I'm making is that you would radicalize THESE SEGEMENTS and move them from into not actually sanctioning OR participating in acts of terrorism to actually participate in active Jihad against Americans. I'm not sure what The Nation of Islam has to do with anything to be honest, but perhaps you will explain the importance in your next post.
  20. FatDogs: I WAS AGREEING with your original point that Islam is THE problem and Islam directly causes problems all over the globe. here was your original quote: " Islam IS the problem. What country with Islam doesn't have major problems? In India look at the conflict between the Muslims and Hindus. Check out the situation in Darfur which is being perpetrated by muslims. In the Philippines the muslims kill the Christians. These are just some of the conflicts in which Muslims are currently involved in and that doesn't even count the current Al-Qaida (Islam) vs the US. They have no respect for the rights of others and are HAPPY to take it away from others whenver possible. " Lol. I know you aren't writing a treatise, but I was adding examples to your repetoire and they are no more irrelevant to you than Muslims in the Philippines killing Christians (unless you live there and are Christian The essential element in honor killings and the examples you provide ARE indeed the same. As you so eloquently put it, "They do not respect other's rights." I was trying to help you get a better and more scholarly/academic grasp on Islam than what ARI op-eds or 1 page papers offer. I was agreeing with your original point, NOT attacking it. I wasn't even critiquing the fact that you didn't include things like honor-killings. I was just mentioning them in case you didn't know about them (because a lot of people in the U.S.A don't know about what they are). What constitutes "widespread protest" and how are we to derrive this information given the fact that a majority of the countries in question are ones in which political activities aren't exactly free to say the least? btw...I recommend checking out This link. It is a list of some condemnations from American Muslim organizations against 9/11 and other acts of terrorism. The list is by no means comprehensive, but you can see that there ARE Muslims that don't condemn acts of terrorism. HOWEVER, what do you think THOSE people would think if the U.S dropped a nuclear bomb on a middle eastern country killing 50-100 times the amount of civilians as Bin Laden did on 9/11? Right. However, 10% in the United States means 4 MILLION people. That is larger than the entire state of Palestine. How do you propose to deal with that fact? So what do you propose? Concentration camps? Exporting our Muslim population (some of which ran from oppression and don't support terrorism any more than I do) back to a country we plan to nuke? Shipping them to a free country that doesn't want them? Do you want to forgo the Star of David badges Hitler made the Jews wear and opt in for a Star and Crescent? Seriously...what is your plan? How do you propose to "get rid" of all of the Muslims? The only way to do so is to become a statist country and kill all people that are Muslim or send them elsewhere. Assuming they have legal citizenship status...that is a pretty damn dangerous trend to set into motion. Initiate the use of coercive force against people who have a particular belief set who have not initiated the use of force against anyone is a really crappy thing to do. Do you think that Objectivists could sleep safe in their beds at night after such policies were enacted? After all...if we opposed U.S government collectivism...we TOO could be nuked, liquidated, or exported off to some country that is about to be nuked. Such a mindset ("get rid of them all") throws any conceptions of "rights" right out the window. Hunterrose: Sure. I agree. The way to determine the cost-effectivity of establishing a democracy is to evaluate 1) Whether or not the democracy is going to be a puppet government (not cost effective or much of a solution) 2) Whether the people have the philosophical tools necessary to make democracy (rule by the people) a worthy value that prevents re-occurent situations 3) The obstacles (factions, infrastructure, etc) facing people responsible for the actual on-the ground establishment of democracy (the troops, workers, and businessmen that are doing the rebuilding or democratization). Part of what determines how acceptable the costs are when dealing with the obstacles to democracy is what the estimation of 1 and 2 are. If we determine that the people are philosophically ready for democracy and the implementation can be achieved without installing a puppet government...the lives lost will probably end up worth it and won't be on the level that we are seeing in Iraq. In such cases, if people really ARE ready for creating a stable democracy...they probably won't put up with crap like the insurgency in Iraq because it would be philosophically incompatible with their democractic/philosophical ideals. I think in such cases, you wouldn't see whole TOWNS that house insurgents, etc. I think you would see people that are a lot more willing to root out terrorism by informing on known terrorists and their locations, etc. Thus, in such a case...the war would be a lot more "winnable." It isn't like we have lost so many people in Iraq. The numbers aren't what concerns me, but the fact that the progress we are making seems all for naught. Kind of like Vietnam. As soon as we leave, what prevents Iraq from becoming another Iran? As soon as we left Vietnam, South Vietnam fell to the Communists. What stops Iraq from being a comparable situation? That is why I think the criteria I listed are important for making such a determination. In such cases where criteria 1 and two aren't met...the costs of bombing will ALWAYS be less because human lives won't be wasted for a lost cause. We won't be wasting troops in an unwinnable conflict. No, I don't necessarily agree. When I say bombing, I mean removing the dictator from power via all out war against the agressor and the group that supports such an agressor. If that means taking out the Baath party via bombings, fine. In such a case, you get the Baathists on the run and destroy their capabilities to make war on the U.S or get into power via coercive means. That opens up the playing fields to competing factions (Shiites, Kurd). Does that create civil war? Sure. Are we really preventing civil war by virtue of being in Iraq? I doubt it. Ethnic conflict will probably happen anyways. Does anyone want to see a Guatemala-like situation happen? NO. OperationPBSuccess which took out the Communist government in power paved the way for the ethnic slaughter of 200,000 Mayans. We created a power vacuum. If such a power vacuum causes a genocide...the elements were already there to begin with. The U.S had to fight it's own civil war and we TOTALLY had factions right after our war of independence (federalists, anti-federalists, etc). OUR constitution was a long time coming. We earned ours. It wasn't handed to us. Neither was France's independence. Notice...the Brittish weren't concerned about restoring democracy to France when Napoleon (a dictator) started trying to take over everything. They were only concerned about preventing him from coercing people. Magically...that approach seemed to work wonders. Nation building wasn't a concept until post WWII when Europe was in ruins and we decided to extend our big friendly hand via the Marshall Plan.
  21. I agree 100%. Ideally...we capture him, get oodles of information, and then wack him. -E
  22. From This Article on Yahoo News I really hope someone knocks this piece of crap off the most wanted list and onto the "killed in action" list.
  23. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1329362959167995041 This song is a music video of a performance by an Aussie group called Tripod. The song is comedic in nature, but performed very well. The singers all have really good vocal ability. The content is also pretty funny. Enjoy!
  24. Yes, Islam is definitely the problem. If you want a much better and much more *detailed* article on Islam than ARI's superficial treatment I suggest this one:Islam On Trial: The Prosecution's Case There are way more problems than you mentioned including honor killings which have become a notable problem even in Britain. Or the rioting in France. HOWEVER, your statements fail to take into account some pretty important stuff. Islam is radical yes. Islam is a religion. Are all Muslims radical? NO. A lot of Muslims in the U.S.A , England, etc that make up that 1 Billion total are NOT engaged in terrorism or blowing stuff up. Islam is an extreme religion by nature. Not everyone practices it to the extreme, however. In fact, most Muslims in the west do NOT advocate Wahabbist ideals or support Bin Laden. They aren't all clamoring for Sharia either. Some are extreme just like there are some Christians in the U.S.A who would love to make it a Puritanical theocracy (think Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, etc). The point I'm making is that you would radicalize NON radical Muslims by just nuking a random country in the middle east. People that *were* content to just live their life as is would probably think that the U.S had initiated World War III and that it was their duty to defend what they believe in much in the same way a Catholic would feel if we nuked the Vatican. The United States hasn't seen suicide bombs. Do you really think that there wouldn't be Muslims who were content to live in peace that WOULDN'T strap bombs on their chest if we decided to start attacking Muslim countries with nuclear weapons? Probably not. I don't know about you, but having to worry about suicide bombs when I go to StarBucks IS a cost of such a rash policy (nuking Muslim nations). Trust me, I have no love for Muslims and I really don't have a problem with such a policy. I just don't think that it would achieve the desired end. Hunterrose: Sure. However, it is only in our best interest if those Iraqis that don't have a specifically evil implementation of democracy are the MAJORITY. Democracy is rule by the majority of people. If the good guys aren't in the majority, aiding them will be sweet and thoughtful...but it ain't gonna do a damn thing come election time. Otherwise, the only way to help such good Iraqi's is to use military force to back them up...in essence, putting in a puppet government. Such governments are a further excuse for terrorism and anti-American sentiment. They just don't work. Look at the Shah of Iran when England/The U.S put him in or how about the numerous Latin American dictators we helped put in?
  25. Eh. It is more than that. Liberal logic i(HA...if you can call it that) is that exceptions must be made for the developing world. Their idea is that the industrial revolution happened without anyone complaining about pollution and the industrial revolution essentially created the "developed" world. Thus, the underdeveloped world must be allowed to pollute as much as they please with wanton abandon so that way "the people" can get to a position of equality with the developed world and that way they aren't abused by the big bad hegemonic west *rolls eyes*. After all, it would be unfair and racist to insist that the South Americans cease pollution when we started out as "evil polluters". . <----(more sarcasm). There is also the fact that liberals know damn good and well that when you are concerned with feeding your children and yourself in a poor country (that has a lot of natural resources) you aren't going to listen to any smelly hippy telling you to let your kids starve while saving some endandgered butterfly or some such crap. They KNOW that their unreasonable demands would get them laughed at. Just let some Latin American really take off and I think you would see just how fast the liberals change their tune and demand environmental regulation.
×
×
  • Create New...