Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Osama bin Laden dead

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

A religion (as such) need not result in the deaths of thousands; there are religions out there that _consistently_ preach non-violence (e.g., Jainism). Thus I find the logic (religion is anti reason therefore it involves force) in Sky Trooper's last post to be flawed. (Of course I may be equivocating between force and violence here--but I don't know that Jainism believes in force either.) Even if I am correct and there are religions that do not advocate force, much less violence: Islam sure as hell isn't one of them.

Edited by Steve D'Ippolito
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A religion may have a non-violent ethical stance, but it's epistemology is still one of faith (aka. anti-reason). Therefore, it's ethics will be undermined by it's epistemology.

Even in trying to be consistent ethically, it can be shocking how quickly a non-violent ideology can become violent. For example, the ecology movement, which promotes non-violence towards "all of earths creations" has quickly developed into actual violence against humans in order to protect animal "rights" (ie. The Earth Liberation Front, the EPA).

It just happens that the ethical code of Islam is the codification of the life of a tribal thug/criminal (Mohammed), and it's epistemological method is faith, which makes for a particularily nasty combination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Son says bin Laden sea burial demeans family: report"

I suppose a burial under the rubble of the World Trade Center towers doesn't demean anyone.

Edit: Osama bin Laden should have been captured alive, stripped naked, duct-taped to a chair on the ground floor of a tall building rigged for implosion, with a pressure-button for the detonator in his hand, his thumb on the button. Set up a video camera connected to the internet. See how long he can keep the button held down. His life; let him take it as he has taken the lives of others, with the whole world watching.

Edited by Trebor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faith and Force were proven by Ayn Rand to be inseperable corallary's.

Proven? What was proven? A one to one relationship, or force is inseparable from faith, or vice versa? Perhaps a Venn diagram would be helpful here. There are radically pacifist faiths, most notably Jainism, but also Islamic Sufis and Christian Quakers, that are incompatible with force and which lack a history of resorting to it. These faiths generally don’t thrive, cultures based on them are easily conquered so to survive they generally have to coexist with others. However their history and continued existence does serve to refute the assertion that faith qua faith is inseparable from force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Osama bin Laden should have been captured alive, stripped naked, duct-taped to a chair on the ground floor of a tall building rigged for implosion, with a pressure-button for the detonator in his hand, his thumb on the button. Set up a video camera connected to the internet. See how long he can keep the button held down. His life; let him take it as he has taken the lives of others, with the whole world watching.

I'm glad to live in America where we don't do these kinds of things. I would expect to see this in Afghanistan or Iraq perhaps, where life is more barbaric and less civilized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I didn't say that it should have been done in America.

I am not one of those who say that we stoop to the level of a murderer if we kill him. And I do not think that treating bin Laden as he has treated others (WTC, for example) means that we lower ourselves to his level or that we become barbaric and uncivilized or less civilized.

Was it civilized or barbaric to use carpet bombings in WWII or the atom bomb on Japan?

Was it civilized to bury bin Laden at sea in accord with precepts of Islam?

Given who we're fighting, we're not going to win against them by being "civilized."

Edit: War is not police action within a civilized society.

Edit: They, our enemies, know this. We apparently do not.

Edit: Clarity and spelling

Edited by Trebor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was it civilized or barbaric to use carpet bombings in WWII or the atom bomb on Japan?

No. The goal there was to kill the enemy. We killed bin Laden and thus the goal was accomplished. Capturing him only to make the killing of him a public spectacle would be the barbaric part.

Was it civilized to bury bin Laden at sea in accord with precepts of Islam?

Yes, and it was politically smart. Not only did we avoid a whole bunch of political wrangling about who was going to get his body (perhaps allowing some fanatics to parade his corpse through the streets to rile up the masses), but we likely prevented pissing off a whole bunch of other muslims that are far less dedicated to our destruction.

Given who we're fighting, we're not going to win against them by being "civilized."

Given who we're fighting, do you think making a public spectacle of the death of their leader would make the cow down and throw in the towel? I think it would have quite the opposite impact, as well as angering far more moderate muslims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It started bothering me that I had said, although it's true: "Well, I didn't say that it should have been done in America."

I think it should have been done in America, more than any other place. WTC was in America after all. Find some old building here in America slated for destruction and use it. Of course, this is mere wishful thinking.

I had asked: "Was it civilized or barbaric to use carpet bombings in WWII or the atom bomb on Japan?

RationalBiker replied: "No. The goal there was to kill the enemy. We killed bin Laden and thus the goal was accomplished. Capturing him only to make the killing of him a public spectacle would be the barbaric part.

I disagree. It was civilized. It was pro-civilization just as is killing someone in self-defense, if need be, pro-life and pro-rights.

The goal and the reason to use carpet bombing and atomic bombing was to win the war. Killing the enemy in such a ruthless manner was the means of winning the war. Killing bin Laden in such a manner would be ruthless and offensive. We've tried ten years of appeasement; it's long been time that we took the offensive. I disagree that it would be barbaric. Barbaric is as barbarians do. Extremism, regardless of how ugly and brutal, in the fight for civilization is not barbarism.

I had asked: "Was it civilized to bury bin Laden at sea in accord with precepts of Islam?"

RationalBiker replied: "Yes, and it was politically smart. Not only did we avoid a whole bunch of political wrangling about who was going to get his body (perhaps allowing some fanatics to parade his corpse through the streets to rile up the masses), but we likely prevented pissing off a whole bunch of other muslims that are far less dedicated to our destruction."

As I said, it is wishful thinking on my part. I do not believe it would have ever happened in this (or any other) country; we're too busy appeasing our enemy.

Why be concerned about "pissing off a whole bunch of other muslims that are far less dedicated to our destruction"? They either see the justice in our destroying our enemies, or they do not. If not, they are not our allies.

Those "muslims that are far less dedicated to our destruction" should have to decide what side they are on, civilization or barbarism.

I had said: "Given who we're fighting, we're not going to win against them by being "civilized."

RationalBiker replied: "Given who we're fighting, do you think making a public spectacle of the death of their leader would make the cow down and throw in the towel? I think it would have quite the opposite impact, as well as angering far more moderate muslims."

No, I don't think it would make our enemies "cow down and throw in the towel." But, it would at least move us in that direction.

I appreciate that you value civilized behavior and wish to live in a civil, rights-respecting society with standards of decency. However, such a society cannot exist if it will not ruthlessly defend itself if need be. And need be.

Edit: Added a needed "of."

Edited by Trebor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RationalBiker replied: "No. The goal there was to kill the enemy. We killed bin Laden and thus the goal was accomplished. Capturing him only to make the killing of him a public spectacle would be the barbaric part.

I disagree. It was civilized. It was pro-civilization just as is killing someone in self-defense, if need be, pro-life and pro-rights.

Actually, I meant to say "Yes" but with the rest of what I wrote.

I don't have a problem with ruthlessly killing the enemy. I have a problem with making the killing of the enemy a public spectacle.

Why be concerned about "pissing off a whole bunch of other muslims that are far less dedicated to our destruction"?

Because as you have noted, we've had a difficult time thus far dealing with the problem. If we have more people dedicated to being a part of that problem, the problem becomes even more difficult.

However, such a society cannot exist if it will not ruthlessly defend itself if need be.

Except that we are still existing and we are not being unnecessarily ruthless. I'm drawing a distinction between being ruthless in killing the enemy and making an unnecessary public display of it. Killing the enemy is necessary, dragging their entrails through the street or posting their head on a spear at the gate is not.

I don't think it is smart in this day and age to shake your fist (globally speaking) oblivious to the rest of the world as if there will be no consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, such a society cannot exist if it will not ruthlessly defend itself if need be.

One can be ruthless, relentless and lacking in undeserved mercy without becoming a brutal, unthinking beast.

I don't think you fully realise the implications of what you are advocating.

Are you sure that your naked/strapped/torture/blowing up on national television scenario is enough?

Maybe we need to rape all his female relatives and cut the tongues out of his children's mouths while we're at it?

Civilization dictates that there be limits on what can be rightfully done.

There can be no true equivalency in taking a life to pay for a life.

He's killed thousands and he has only one life to take. Stop trying to create a scenario wherein he truly pays for what he has done.

No one possesses the currency tangible or spiritual to pay for such crimes.

Killing him may not "be enough" but it is the extent of what we get to take from him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with ruthlessly killing the enemy. I have a problem with making the killing of the enemy a public spectacle.

Are there conditions, is there a context, in which you would not have a problem with making the killing of the enemy a public spectacle?

Again, my whole fantasy of what I think should have happened to Osama bin Laden is wishful thinking.

Ultimately, what should have been done to him, whether or not to make a public spectacle of his death, etc., I would leave to military experts who are dedicated to destroying and defeating the enemy. But that's the caveat, that they be dedicated to winning and ending the war. The proper purpose of a government is to protect the rights of the individuals within that country. In war, it's proper function is to, with the minimal of costs, defeat the enemy so that there is no longer a threat. Whatever that takes, including if need be public displays of brutality, is legitimate. Giving bin Laden a Islamic-proper burial, including the washing of his body in preparation, is an insulting slap in the face of civilization. Appeasement will not lead to a polite war; it will lead to more American deaths.

Because as you have noted, we've had a difficult time thus far dealing with the problem. If we have more people dedicated to being a part of that problem, the problem becomes even more difficult.

Why have we had a difficult time thus far dealing with the problem? As is said, identifying the nature of the problem is half of the solution.

It's been ten years. What shall the next ten, twenty, thirty or more years be like. What should it be like? What do you want it to be like for yourself, for America? As it is, with an on-going war draining wealth and costing the lives of a great number of soldiers, accepting life in siege? If it were your decision, what would you do to end this war?

Except that we are still existing and we are not being unnecessarily ruthless. I'm drawing a distinction between being ruthless in killing the enemy and making an unnecessary public display of it. Killing the enemy is necessary, dragging their entrails through the street or posting their head on a spear at the gate is not.

Yes, we are existing in the current state. A state that is not static, but dynamic. We're going to continue to be at war, expending wealth and soldier's lives. Is this good enough? We are existing in a growing welfare state. Are you okay with that?

Existing is not the ideal, and we are in motion, either moving towards or away from what would be ideal. Is existing good enough?

I don't think it is smart in this day and age to shake your fist (globally speaking) oblivious to the rest of the world as if there will be no consequences.

Why? In what type of day and age would you think it appropriate to shake your fist (globally speaking) oblivious to the rest of the world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can be ruthless, relentless and lacking in undeserved mercy without becoming a brutal, unthinking beast.

I agree.

I don't think you fully realise the implications of what you are advocating.

What implications do you think I am missing?

Are you sure that your naked/strapped/torture/blowing up on national television scenario is enough?

Maybe we need to rape all his female relatives and cut the tongues out of his children's mouths while we're at it?

It's not a matter of anything goes. But, whatever it takes to defeat the enemy, win and end the war, I support in principle.

The cost of not defeating our enemies is wealth and the lives of our soldiers (and fellow citizens), etc. How many America deaths are acceptable to you?

Civilization dictates that there be limits on what can be rightfully done.

I agree.

There can be no true equivalency in taking a life to pay for a life.

He's killed thousands and he has only one life to take. Stop trying to create a scenario wherein he truly pays for what he has done.

No one possesses the currency tangible or spiritual to pay for such crimes.

Killing him may not "be enough" but it is the extent of what we get to take from him.

Irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no conditions that currently come to mind, though I'll hold short of saying there are none.

As far as the existing comment, I was merely using your verbiage. You said we couldn't but we are. If you want to clarify what you meant by that, I'll answer that.

I'm not here to discuss other time periods, I'm talking about now, with the world as it is "this day and age".

The gravity of taking human life, enemy or otherwise, is not lost on me even if it is lost on my enemy. Basing my civility on my enemies lack of civility seems second-handed to me. Even if his culture and beliefs have made him a savage, I should not allow that to make me a savage.

While I agree with you that we should be more proactive in seeking out and killing the enemy, it would be false to assume that making that killing a public spectacle is the only other way go handle it, you seem to be presenting that as "its either this way or that way". We can be more brutal and more proactive without entertaining your wishful thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a matter of anything goes. But, whatever it takes to defeat the enemy, win and end the war, I support in principle.

The cost of not defeating our enemies is wealth and the lives of our soldiers (and fellow citizens), etc. How many America deaths are acceptable to you?

What we disagree on apparently is your notion that if we hold brutal torturous public executions of sick naked old men (as opposed to just putting a bullet in their heads-which I fully support) terrorists will just give up, our soldiers can all come home and we will be safe again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought of a context in which the public display of brutality may well be appropriate; in prison where one lives with other like-minded savages and the only way to earn respect is by demonstrating brutality.

That would seem to be how someone would have to view the world to advocate such a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as the existing comment, I was merely using your verbiage. You said we couldn't but we are. If you want to clarify what you meant by that, I'll answer that.

A man with a fatal but curable illness exists and will continue to exist until he dies. It would be better, if he wants to continue to exist beyond the inevitable death due to his illness, were he to get the needed treatment. Appeasing enemies does not bring "Peace for our time."

I'm not here to discuss other time periods, I'm talking about now, with the world as it is "this day and age".

The point of asking was to understand what it is about "this day and age" that gives rise to your conclusion.

The gravity of taking human life, enemy or otherwise, is not lost on me even if it is lost on my enemy. Basing my civility on my enemies lack of civility seems second-handed to me. Even if his culture and beliefs have made him a savage, I should not allow that to make me a savage.

Savage? I have no idea what you mean by savage. The carpet bombing and atomic bombing in WW2 was not savage? War is not savage unless it is visible to the public in general?

While I agree with you that we should be more proactive in seeking out and killing the enemy, it would be false to assume that making that killing a public spectacle is the only other way go handle it, you seem to be presenting that as "its either this way or that way". We can be more brutal and more proactive without entertaining your wishful thinking.

I did not say that making "that killing a public spectacle is the only way go handle it." That it seems to you that I am presenting it as "its either this way or that way," I cannot do anything about. You've taken offense with what I said I wish would have happened. Okay, I did not get my wish, even though it was made after the fact, when it was impossible. Be pleased that bin Laden was given an Islamic proscribed burial — although I've read that some Islamic clerics are disputing even that.

The wishful thinking is in thinking that it is civilized to treat the uncivilized as though they are civilized.

"War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over." — General William Tecumseh Sherman

"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want." — General William Tecumseh Sherman

"It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it." — General Robert E. Lee

Edited by Trebor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A man with a fatal but curable illness exists and will continue to exist until he dies.

Okay, perhaps it would be easier to do this;

What exactly do you mean by this statement?

However, such a society cannot exist if it will not ruthlessly defend itself if need be.

I ask, because as stated, it is not true; we continue to exist. You apparently mean something more than "exist", even though you used the word "exist". To avoid confusion, if you don't actually mean the word "exist", please tell me what word you really mean.

Appeasing enemies does not bring

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that killing bin Laden did not appease our enemies. I'm thinking they probably were not happy with that at all. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that all the soldiers who have been over there killing the enemy have not been appeasing them. There is a difference between "appeasing the enemy" and not pursuing the war effort as vigorously as one could.

The wishful thinking is in thinking that it is civilized to treat the uncivilized as though they are civilized.

The wishful thinking here is that the manner in which a dead body is handled is of any consequence to the dead body. On the other hand, how the dead body is handled can have great consequence (IMHO) to us in the eyes of the rest of the world, both civilized and uncivilized, as these actions would not only be observed and judged (and acted upon) by the uncivilized.

Dictionary.com;

sav·age/ˈsavij/

Noun: (chiefly in historical or literary contexts) A member of a people regarded as primitive and uncivilized.

Does that clarify what I mean by savage? I used a noun, you used an adjective.

At any rate, I do not seeing us reaching any agreement as to the propriety of public displays of Jigsaw-esque treatments of our enemies. I will simply reiterate, I'm glad to live in a country where that is not the practice. If I want to see public torture and punishment, I'm move to that bastion of freedom and liberty called Saudi Arabia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, perhaps it would be easier to do this;

What exactly do you mean by this statement? ["However, such a society cannot exist if it will not ruthlessly defend itself if need be."]

I ask, because as stated, it is not true; we continue to exist. You apparently mean something more than "exist", even though you used the word "exist". To avoid confusion, if you don't actually mean the word "exist", please tell me what word you really mean.

Seriously? If it was not clear in the context, I mean (and meant) "exist" as in continue to exist. If I am concerned about my existence, I'm concerned about my continued existence. To you, is it really possible to be concerned with one's existence, yet be indifferent to one's continued, future existence? Perhaps those on their deathbed have such a view, but such a distinction, in this context, on this issue, seems pointlessly and purposefully obtuse. If I am concerned about the existence of America, the United States, that it exists, I am concerned that it continue to exist as well as in what manner it continues to exist.

To make a big deal of the distinction between exist now and continue to exist seems disingenuous. Perhaps I'm wrong. However, if it helps, okay, you got me. I said "exist"; I did not say "continue to exist." My mistake. You win!

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that killing bin Laden did not appease our enemies. I'm thinking they probably were not happy with that at all. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that all the soldiers who have been over there killing the enemy have not been appeasing them.

Nor do I think that such actions are appeasement. However, that such actions are not appeasement, does not mean that there is no appeasement in other actions.

There is a difference between "appeasing the enemy" and not pursuing the war effort as vigorously as one could.

It depends. You seem to agree that the US is "not pursuing the war effort as vigorously as [it] could." The question is, why is the US not doing so? "Could" is the key word. It implies that we have the means, but do not use them. If we have the means, then why are we not using the means as vigorously as we could?

"Not pursuing the war effort as vigorously as one could" is to sacrifice wealth and lives. I consider that to be a form of appeasement. You apparently do not, but, as with you, at any rate, I do not seeing us reaching any agreement.

The wishful thinking here is that the manner in which a dead body is handled is of any consequence to the dead body.

You seriously think that I think that? For the record, lest I be accused of being inaccurate in statement, I never claimed "that the manner in which a dead body is handled is of any consequence to the dead body." I do not think that anything matters to the dead.

On the other hand, how the dead body is handled can have great consequence (IMHO) to us in the eyes of the rest of the world, both civilized and uncivilized, as these actions would not only be observed and judged (and acted upon) by the uncivilized.

Unless I misunderstand you, the concern for how the uncivilized view us and react to us is appeasement. Why be concerned with or accommodate an uncivilized enemy?

Does that clarify what I mean by savage? I used a noun, you used an adjective.

No, it does not. But...

At any rate, I do not seeing us reaching any agreement as to the propriety of public displays of Jigsaw-esque treatments of our enemies. I will simply reiterate, I'm glad to live in a country where that is not the practice. If I want to see public torture and punishment, I'm move to that bastion of freedom and liberty called Saudi Arabia.

I do not see us reaching any agreement either.

"War is at its best barbarism." — General William Tecumseh Sherman

Foreword to the 2001 Edition of Benjamin Netanyahu's book, Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat the International Terrorist Network

End States Who Sponsor Terrorism by Leonard Peikoff

“Just War Theory” vs. American Self-Defense by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein

Edit: added link

Edited by Trebor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously?

Yes, otherwise I would have put a winky or a smilie face afterwards. Past that I'll ignore the personal attacks/insinuations.

If I am concerned about the existence of America, the United States, that it exists, I am concerned that it continue to exist as well as in what manner it continues to exist.

Your concern for whether or not we will continue to exist is not shared by me with regards to what we are discussing.

To make a big deal of the distinction between exist now and continue to exist seems disingenuous. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Yes you are, so please leave the personal attacks out of it. You should note that where you quoted me above I said "we continue to exist". As to whether it's been made a "big deal" or not... meh.

"Not pursuing the war effort as vigorously as one could" is to sacrifice wealth and lives. I consider that to be a form of appeasement. You apparently do not, but, as with you, at any rate, I do not seeing us reaching any agreement.

Probably not.

Unless I misunderstand you, the concern for how the uncivilized view us and react to us is appeasement. Why be concerned with or accommodate an uncivilized enemy?

You keep missing where I point out there are also CIVILIZED people in the world stage that pay attention to how we do business. Secondly, depending on who you are referring to as uncivilized, I addressed that before. It appears to me that making even more immediate enemies is of no concern to you, but it is of concern to me. If you are concerned with the continued existence of the US (as you have stated you are), you might also consider just how many more people we want to make our enemies, uncivilized or CIVILIZED. If you want to characterize all such considerations as appeasement, then yes, we disagree on what appeasement is.

No, it does not.

I can't help further then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, otherwise I would have put a winky or a smilie face afterwards. Past that I'll ignore the personal attacks/insinuations.

The whole issue with what did I mean by my use of "exist" was simply confusing. I thought I had answered. I still do not understand what was the issue.

As for the "personal attacks/insinuations," there were none. I stated how it seemed to me and I even said that perhaps I was wrong. But the fact is, you do seem purposefully difficult and unclear.

In your previous post you had ended, in part, with, "At any rate, I do not seeing us reaching any agreement as to the propriety of public displays of Jigsaw-esque treatments of our enemies."

Given that you had stated that you did not see us reaching any agreement, I took it that you had shut the door on further discussion. Since you had made other comments, within the limits of knowing the discussion with you was over, I addressed the other things you said.

Your concern for whether or not we will continue to exist is not shared by me with regards to what we are discussing.

Okay. I accept that you don't share my concern. It doesn't make any sense, however. I can't remember where it was, but in another thread a few weeks ago, you expressed a good deal of concern about the future of this country given the great number of irrational people around (or something like that). Now, everything seems just fine with you.

Yes you are, so please leave the personal attacks out of it. You should note that where you quoted me above I said "we continue to exist". As to whether it's been made a "big deal" or not... meh.

I do not know what "meh" means.

You are seeing personal attacks where there are none. (Perhaps I've seen some as well.) I found it very difficult, in this brief discussion, to even understand what point you were making or what you were challenging. I still do not.

]You keep missing where I point out there are also CIVILIZED people in the world stage that pay attention to how we do business. Secondly, depending on who you are referring to as uncivilized, I addressed that before. It appears to me that making even more immediate enemies is of no concern to you, but it is of concern to me. If you are concerned with the continued existence of the US (as you have stated you are), you might also consider just how many more people we want to make our enemies, uncivilized or CIVILIZED. If you want to characterize all such considerations as appeasement, then yes, we disagree on what appeasement is.

...

I can't help further then.

As best I can tell, you and I simply have a profound disagreement on what constitutes appeasement (among other things).

If you (or anyone else) are interested, the "Just War Theory" vs. American Self-Defense article (by Brook and Epstein) I mentioned previously explains the appeasement I'm referring to.

So too does Dr. Peikoff's talk, "America versus Americans" which you can watch (video) here or listen to (audio) here.

I could not hope to do a better job of explaining the relevant appeasement than those two sources.

Edited by Trebor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. I accept that you don't share my concern. It doesn't make any sense, however. I can't remember where it was, but in another thread a few weeks ago, you expressed a good deal of concern about the future of this country given the great number of irrational people around (or something like that). Now, everything seems just fine with you.

Look at my statement you just quoted and check your premise here.... I'll highlight the relevant area.

Your concern for whether or not we will continue to exist is not shared by me with regards to what we are discussing.

That does not logically imply that "everything seems just fine".

Let me give you an example of what attacks/insinuations I'm referring to;

It seems disingenuous to deny that you've made any attacks or negative insinuations against me.

Don't mask your failure to understand my position with suggestions that I'm being obtuse, disingenuous or suggestions that I'm being less that honest in our disagreement. If you don't consider those things "attacks", fine, but I'm asking you to please stop doing those things. I am being serious, I am not being disingenuous, and I'm not being deliberately obtuse. If you don't understand something, don't blame it on me by casting dispersions on my character.

I found it very difficult, in this brief discussion, to even understand what point you were making or what you were challenging.

We disagreed on the propriety of public displays of torture, brutality and killing of our enemies. I thought I was clear on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simple solution to this is to just agree to disagree. And I do disagree with you, just as you disagree with me.

This tedious dispute you have made (like what do I mean by "exist" or do I think that the dead care about how their body is handled, etc.) is pointless, irrelevant, tedious, inane and tiring.

You think that what I've suggested (my wishful scenario with respect to the honorable bin Laden) is wrong and would have bad consequences, that it would have been uncivilized.

I think, as best I can tell what it is that you think should happen, that you do in fact advocate appeasing our enemies and that it will have bad consequences. You think that I'm advocating bad things, and I think that you're advocating bad things.

You say that you think that I seem disingenuous ("to deny that [i've] made any attacks or negative insinuations against me"). I don't take that as a personal attack, but perhaps, in another context, something to sort out. When I use the same expression, you take it as a personal attack. I see a double standard.

Since I cannot predict what you'll take as a personal attack but since you demand that I stop personally attacking you, I think that the best solution is for me to just no longer have any discussions with you.

So, best wishes, but goodbye.

Edited by Trebor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I didn't say that I thought you were being disingenuous, I provided an example sentence (which is why I lead into that sentence by telling you it was an example but you seem to only read parts of what I write) for you to consider were it levied against you. What I understand you to say is that you don't mind being accused of being disingenuous. Got it. But providing an example is not a double standard, it's an attempt to illustrate something you seemed not to understand.

As for the conversation being tedious and inane, how long you choose to stay in it if that is what you felt was your decision, not mine. Also, I'm not sure why you consider bin Laden to be an honorable man, but whatever. I think he was a terrorist who deserved to be killed. :)

Yes, we continue to disagree and I'll stop conversing with you on matter at this point.

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...