Jake_Ellison

I mentioned the imprisonment of Japanese Americans. Do you think I am justifying it, by doing that?

A neat, pretty obscure Christmas Song I heard. I like the fact that it deliberately avoids mentioning any magical creatures: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBQ0Gl5E8xM

Nop.

I have by no means learned everything there is to know about the subject, but in the five to ten minutes I've spent on the website you linked to, I found these facts: 1. The website itself is focused on finding a carbon neutral solution, which points to them being ideologues (environmentalists) rather than objective. 2. They are in no way concerned with whether this is cheaper than oil, which currently costs around 44 dollars a barrel, and which would of course be the only concern of every private entity with the capability to explore this solution. That tells me that they envision the US government in charge of developing this idea. 3. Most of their links (for information) are news sources which are very unreliable in matters of science: The NY Times, The Guardian, some Indian paper. 4. The only link they have directly to a research institute (Arizona State Univ.) turns out to be a very disappointing source indeed: it's a government funded program probably hidden away in the debts of the US Defense Budget, likely a result of the powerful environmentalist lobby in Washington. It is especially despicable that they are using money which we are told goes to the military, for the defense of the country: In light of all this, I think it would take some stellar practical results and serious interest from private industry specialists first, for me to pay any more attention to "fuel from algae".

Hostility or animosity, which one is it? Hostility probably implies a desire to fight, and since they didn't have that, who cares about their feelings? The point is they admitted defeat, and the war was over. Your logic is that they admitted defeat because the war was over, however that doesn't explain why the war ended. I'm curious to see how you explain that. My reasoning is that the war ended because they admitted defeat, which is the only means of ending any war: Total defeat of the enemy. What really irritates me is that you call me naive, and then you back up your claim with this well thought out statement: "Japanese were not in the habit of becoming suicide bombers".

I don't know what you're suggesting: If I were to look at your post and interpret it without assuming that you are on the US side in this, or even without considering that you are most likely an Objectivist, I would have to conclude that you are questioning the legitimacy of the American military taking prisoners in this conflict. However, I must consider the context of your post, so I am lost. Please clarify, what do you think the military should do instead of holding people at Gitmo, given the current political context? Are you suggesting issuing warrants and arresting them? (or rather waiting for them to surrender, since the military cannot act abroad without a formal declaration of war, which we don't have, as you just said)

Really? Well, they must be really special and different from the norm, because in WW2 we detained Japanese Americans, firebombed Japanese and German civilians in Tokyo and Dresden, pulverized their children in Hiroshima, and not one of them turned out to be hostile to America afterward, in fact they suddenly became as friendly as little puppies. This theory that we are creating our own enemies by somehow wronging them is the most ridiculous and despicable I've heard, ever. The people responsible for any suffering because of our response to terrorism are those who initiated force, period. I don't care if the victims are babies or pregnant mothers, as long as the military is acting in good faith, to defend America, they should not be forced to walk on eggshells. We are loosing the war as it is, can you imagine if they had to start collecting DNA samples into little plastic bags, and witness testimony form the neighbors, every time they capture someone on the battlefield?

What possible science could you have read which suggests that numbers, tools and language could be something infants are born with? What numbers? Roman numerals, binary, ten base, 16 base? Which language? English? (which is, in its current form, a few hundred years old) Latin? Greeek? Click laguage? What tools? Can they drive? Hammer? Use a plow? The notion that an infant can be born with any of this knowledge contradicts everything we know about evolution, and the time it requires. Most numbers are only a few thousand years old for God's sake, languages even younger. How exactly did they become part of a human's "programming" so quickly, given all we know about the time it takes for evolution to make even small changes?

The war is against Islamic Terrorists. I don't think the enemy was properly identified, or that we are fighting the right way, but it is unfair to suggest that we're officially at war with a tactic. We do have an enemy, and the war could end, if this enemy surrendered. Of course that won't happen if we keep up the current policies, but that doesn't mean the war is nonsense, it is in fact absolutely real. Gitmo is necessary, because the only alternative would be to try captured enemies in civilian courts, and hold them in civilian prisons. That's not a reasonable way to fight against fanatical suicide bombers and mass murderers. Plus, the detainees are not going to be held forever without a trial: everybody agrees that they should eventually be tried, there's only disagreement on the nature of these proceedings. Suggesting that Bush wants to hold people forever, that's why he isn't willing to define the enemy and the war properly, is a bit much.

Huh. I do it about 4-5 times a week, so I guess I could be borderline. Although I haven't noticed any changes, I better look into this : What's the evidence? P.S. I once heard a very good doctor(MD) discuss this, and he did mention there's evidence suggesting this is true, but he said it's nowhere near conclusive. In fact he said the benefits of masturbation (in moderation) outweigh the drawbacks. This was a few years back. Another thing I heard(this is mostly just hearsay though) is that most sex-addicts in fact don't ejaculate quickly, they tend to masturbate for a long time rather than often.

I don't necessarily have more faith than you in the military. (although I probably do:) However, I have a lot lower expectations of war. I think war is a horrible thing, which causes huge amount of suffering, including a lot of collateral damage, and therefor should only be used as a last resort. It's just that in this case we had no choice: they hijacked civilian planes, knocked down buildings, killed three thousand people, and are currently aiming to destroy our way of life and impose theirs on us. I like the way DavidOdden phrased it: "an extreme threat justifies extreme measures".

I agree with the principle you are stating here: there should be no "above the law" exception in any war. I should have said that in my response. However, I might disagree with you on what the laws governing our military in war should be. I'd love to hear your opinion on that first: Should they be allowed to detain enemy combatants without a trial? (until the end of the war) Should they be allowed to assassinate enemy leaders wherever they may hide? Should they be allowed to interrogate prisoners through any means necessary in some cases? Should the commanders have all possible tactics of war available for use at their discretion? etc.

I disagree with the premise that "the only justified resort to war is a response to actual aggression", or with the idea that this is our traditional understanding of war. The US gov. always had the same mandate: to protect its citizens. The idea that in the past America only responded to threats after the fact is a ridiculously obvious distortion of history. Of course in the case of Militant Islam and its supporters across the world, they already attacked us on 9/11, so preemptive war is not even an issue. However, to answer your question fully, if hypothetically we found out that the IRA (or Northern Ireland for that matter:) is planning an attack against us (or just threatening, like bin Laden did in '96), we'd be perfectly justified in attacking them too, preemptively.

Whatever. They've been picked up on the battlefield, and are being sorted out. I trust that the military will just let the harmless (or "innocent") ones go. However, I certainly don't expect them to keep me up to date with what they are doing there. My only expectation of them, and properly so, is that they win the war. They should of course do that while remaining honorable, but that is something for them and their commanders to define and oversee. My responsibility is to pay for adequate training so that they can learn to be honorable. (If I believe they don't receive adequate training, I can write my congressman about that.) However honor is most certainly not something I(or the public) am qualified to judge them on, or even decide what it means. That of course doesn't mean Abu Graib was perfectly fine in my book: those who committed despicable acts there were punished by the military itself. All I am saying is that Gitmo needs to be left up to the military (and the Commander in Chief) as well.

No, the words used appear to be quite rational, perfectly in order. So do all the arguments in favor of intelligent design for instance. The only thing missing, in both cases, is any shred of evidence to support all those otherwise perfectly reasonable-sounding claims: Facts: Successful people masturbate, and almost no one who masturbates spends more than an hour a day doing it. Wrong. In fact it most likely helps especially young people to discover themselves before being thrown into a stressful situation where they need to perform. Being more prepared the first time means they are more likely to have a good experience, hence a positive psychological effect. I'd love to see some evidence for that. I for one haven't noticed any such "change in sexual responsiveness". The only reason why anyone would have a problem with enjoying his or her life due to reasonable amounts of masturbation(even daily) is guilt. Stupid, religious guilt that stems from being subjected to psychological abuse as a child. If you want your children to lead a happy, guilt free life, keep them away from church, not masturbation or porn.

I agree with Mr. Ignatieff on two counts: 1. There needs to be a balance between congressional/judicial oversight and the need for swift executive action(and in some other areas that are legitimately considered related to "civil liberties" - warrant-less wiretaps, preventive detention of American terror suspects etc.) 2. There is a real danger of a much bigger attack taking place on American soil, and many libertarians are downplaying it. However, I don't see what the treatment of foreign, enemy combatants at Gitmo or elsewhere, has to do with civil liberties. We are at war, and the military's job is to win this war, not worry about the rights of the enemy. The enemy has no rights or liberties. What the CIA does on foreign soil, whether it' assassinations or rendition, does not fall under the jurisdiction of the judiciary: it is a matter to be handled by the executive, with some review by Congress. In other words I strongly disagree with this phrase (from Ignatieff's article): Sure, some standards should apply, but what those standards are does not concern the American public, or the judiciary. It concerns only the military, and the people in charge of the military: the President and select members of Congress (of the appropriate comities). And it most definitely has nothing to do with the issue we are discussing: civil liberties. As you already hinted in your post, I disagree with the idea of sacrifice being necessary. In some cases, of extreme danger, we may trade some of our liberties in exchange for something more valuable: our lives. Any such trade should of course be temporary, if it is done via the legislature an expiration date should be placed on any law that is passed in this sense. Also, our first instinct should not be to give up anything, but rather to inflict as much violence as it is necessary on the enemy abroad, in order to win the war as quickly as possible. Once this is done, we can talk about trading in some civil liberties, for a limited time, if it is absolutely necessary. But this is all theoretical. In the real world, at the present time, I don't think further measures, beyond the Patriot Act, are necessary. Instead we should take more decisive action against our enemies and the countries that support them. [edit]Also, I think the Patriot Act contains a lot of infringements that are not only unnecessary, but in fact useless as far as security is concerned.

Well, the content of a picture isn't the outside world either. It's just an exact copy of the outside world. Same with consciousness. Why would you dispute that the outside world isn't "contained inside"(the content of) consciousness? Or at least don't tag the world with the "outside", while claiming it's inside my head.

There's no need to guess, here's an account of what he did exactly: Alan Greenspan vs. Ayn Rand and Freedom

Don't mistake pragmatist with demagogue. He's not going to do what he thinks will work, he'll do what he thinks people will like.

Alan Greenspan betrayed capitalism when he chose to reign over the Fed over two decades ago, so I'm not about to defend him. However, the quotes from the article prove nothing: they mean that in a mixed economy some specific regulatory changes can hurt the situation, even if they are meant to decrease regulation. (For instance, if in the Soviet Union the State would've deregulated the cleanup efforts after Chernobyl-allowing private ownership of the site-, but left everything else the same, the results would've been even worse. No one would've chose to build that concrete dome around the site, just for the increase in property-value on their land) That's actually a true, and very obvious, statement, so a perfectly good Objectivist could make it, not to mention it's not something within the realm of any philosophy. It is only proof of one thing: central planners always fail (not that any more proof was necessary) , even someone generally considered brilliant, such as Greenspan. However, it is completely unrelated to Ayn Rand, and even philosophy in general.

I don't recall the US asking for permission from India (or Israel) when we went into Afghanistan. Who knows why they asked, and who knows what answering yes involved? I'm pretty sure Bush didn't threaten to attack India if they took action, he just didn't guarantee them unconditional American support no matter what India did. Why should the US jeopardize its relationship with Pakistan just to lend some political support to a weak, unprincipled Indian government, who decided to act like a child and depend on someone else for its defense? We have a manhunt going on in Pakistan, the last thing to do is piss off Musharaff and the Pakistani army by holding the hand of their mortal enemy, while they are doing a few useless air strikes near the border, not for self defense, but just to appease the hawks at home. (What possible use could some random, limited air strikes with Indian weapon systems have? Not even the US can get bin Laden from the air.) It is annoying how these politicians imply that they need "US permission" to act militarily once they are in office, forgetting how during their campaigns they were all quite anti-American, blaming Western capitalism for poverty in the Third World. Olmert shouldn't rely on American support either. In fact he should bomb Iran (if they really can pull off an effective attack) as soon as possible.

I think the churches are alienating a really important demographic by opposing the chocolate Jesus. Usually they would jump at any chance to attract those hot young altar boys.

I agree with you completely. By moderate I just mean non-militant, tolerant of other beliefs. (I don't consider soft jihadists moderate for instance, even if they are trying to impose their religion on others only through political means. They still are the enemy.) I'm definitely open to using a different word, I just didn't think of one. I guess every Muslim (like every Christian) tries to spread the faith, but the means through which they do it is important: I don't know that we have a word for those who do it only through words, but never through force (direct or via the State).

I wouldn't even go as far as to say that fundamentalist Islam is our enemy. I'm sure there are plenty of nut job sects out there who mind their own business. As long as they don't come in conflict with us, or in contact with the enemy, they are not the enemy. The enemy is militant (or expansionist) Islam, which seeks to take over (Muslim) nations and conquer new territories (in Kashmir, Russia, Israel, China, etc), and threatens our interests around the world, which we should crush, along with the countries that choose to harbor them. As far as me taking a neutral, or even friendly position toward people who are neutral or friendly to me, I'd love to see some demonstration of how that means sanctioning their stupid belief system. Am I also sanctioning catholicism by hanging out with a catholic? You don't seem to understand the basic principles of individualism. I have no desire to belong in any of the two or three categories of people your ideology allows for, nor will I ever refer to people as you define them.

So what? Everyone agrees with that. Do you think we should do something about it militarily, if some province in Nigeria decides to implement Sharia? Are they trying to impose it on us? As far as a majority of muslims wanting it, that's hard to tell, but not the point. Moderates in the West don't want it, in fact it's why they moved.