[quote]aussie486 wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
The only nation to ever use the nukes is America. If anything the rest of the world should demand they disarm.
Pig’s arse they should, their use was justified, u should thank your lucky stars that America exists.
[/quote]
The bombs killed 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki mostly civilians. Plus the radiation deaths since. Who’s next?
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
aussie486 wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
The only nation to ever use the nukes is America. If anything the rest of the world should demand they disarm.
Pig’s arse they should, their use was justified, u should thank your lucky stars that America exists.
The bombs killed 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki mostly civilians. Plus the radiation deaths since. Who’s next?[/quote]
How many did the Japanese kill? I have seen estimates of Chinese civilian casualties of 9 to 16 million people. I don’t know how many were due to direct Japanese action.
How many would have died had we invaded their home islands?
Chomsky ignores these trivialities and rages against the US for daring to kill people while stopping the poor Japanese.
It stuns me that people do not understand this.
[quote]Spry wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
We started Vietnam? The Vietnamese first kicked the French out, remember?
Perhaps, but shit, you invaded a sovereign country because they were commies.[/quote]
Which country was that? Cuba?
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
aussie486 wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
The only nation to ever use the nukes is America. If anything the rest of the world should demand they disarm.
Pig’s arse they should, their use was justified, u should thank your lucky stars that America exists.
The bombs killed 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki mostly civilians. Plus the radiation deaths since. Who’s next?[/quote]
Put yourself in the place of our President Truman: Estimates are that 500,000 American young men will die conquering Japan. The invasion of Kyushu (my old man was on Okinawa waiting to hit the beach on Kyushu)was going to cost at least 150,000 lives.
You’ve got a weapon that’ll end this fucking insane war and not cost one American life.
Push that fucking button, Harry.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Try google.[/quote]
Forgive me for having higher standards.
If I’m to believe anything that a google search spits out, Elvis is still alive, the earth is flat, 9/11 was an inside job. Chomsky, depending on what link you click, is either an anti-Semitic Neo-Nazi or a pawn of Israel doing some dirty deeds in an incomprehensible conspiracy.
So, I’ll ask you once again: Do you have the Professor on the record denying the killing fields of Cambodia? Or is that just another of those scams that makes everybody who criticizes Zionism a Holocaust denier and every critic of American foreign policy a Cambodian killing fields denier?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Try google.
Forgive me for having higher standards.
If I’m to believe anything that a google search spits out, Elvis is still alive, the earth is flat, 9/11 was an inside job. Chomsky, depending on what link you click, is either an anti-Semitic Neo-Nazi or a pawn of Israel doing some dirty deeds in an incomprehensible conspiracy.
So, I’ll ask you once again: Do you have the Professor on the record denying the killing fields of Cambodia? Or is that just another of those scams that makes everybody who criticizes Zionism a Holocaust denier and every critic of American foreign policy a Cambodian killing fields denier?[/quote]
Read his own writings. The net is full of it. He greatly downplays the mass murder because it goes against his preaching of all things evil in SE Asia was a result of US policy. He refuses to admit the scale of the horror and the fact that if the US didn’t pull out of SE Asia it likely would not have happened.
His writings are full of this type of thinking.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:
Moral relativism doesn’t exist. Things are either right or they are wrong. Moral relativism is just a way to intellectualize debauchery, it is a farce, it only exists in peoples minds who thrive on excusism.
…why is government sanctioned murder ‘right’ and plain 'ol murder ‘wrong’?
[/quote]
It isn’t.
It isn’t.
[quote]
…why is the expansion of one beliefsystem [democracy for instance] ‘right’, but an influx of another ‘wrong’?[/quote]
It isn’t…I do not get where you are confused. Where did you get this stuff?
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:
Moral relativism doesn’t exist. Things are either right or they are wrong. Moral relativism is just a way to intellectualize debauchery, it is a farce, it only exists in peoples minds who thrive on excusism.
…why is government sanctioned murder ‘right’ and plain 'ol murder ‘wrong’?
…why is it when your government tortures it’s ‘right’, but when the enemy does it, it’s ‘wrong’?
…why is the expansion of one beliefsystem [democracy for instance] ‘right’, but an influx of another ‘wrong’?
So true.
Back in the 90’s I was all for America to kick ass in the Gulf. After reading Chomsky, watching No End In Sight and a few other documentaries, I’m starting to see American foreign policy as the biggest threat to peace. The Australians just follow like pawns as we fuck the planet up.
[/quote]
Would you have preferred Iraq take over Kuwait?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Spry wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
We started Vietnam? The Vietnamese first kicked the French out, remember?
Perhaps, but shit, you invaded a sovereign country because they were commies.
No, the commies invaded the sovereign country and we tried to keep them out.[/quote]
They also asked for our help…We were there by invitation…The handling of the war was what went horribly wrong.
[quote]entheogens wrote:
I define relativism as the view that there is no absolute power to which we may appeal for behaviour/laws/ethics.
[/quote]
“Relativism” is an ideology, an updated “nihilism.” It does not preach tolerance of different truth claims. Rather, relativism is a pose that denies that any truth exists at all. If you caught the irony in that last statement - that’s good, because now you might be sensitized to the cynical double-talk at work in relativism.
The same old bullshit re-hash of junior-high historical narratives that are, at bottom, thinly-veiled screeds on the Church & religion generally. Your outright bigotry (re: intolerance) towards Benedict says far less about him - a good & wise & loving man - than about the painfully apparent lacunae in your ideologically-charged education.
Wrong again. The opposite of relativism is meaningfulness. The opposite of a relativist is a person leading a meaningful, committed life, the life of someone who actually believes in something.
Strawman if I ever saw one.
[quote]
However, democracy should not be so democratic that it allows democracy to be usurped? We, in the West, should not be so relativistic that we will allow a despotic power to eliminate relativism. It’s not a question of ridding ourselves of relativism. It’s a question of degree.[/quote]
I’m just quoting this for the giggle factor. Wtf are you talking about?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…why are some of you concerned about the changing of culture?
[/quote]
Because Western culture (a set of values and norms and political/legal frameworks, etc.) - which infuses much of europe, north america, australia, etc. - is one of the greatest achievements of mankind. If you don’t see its value, try living in the non-western world for a period of time.
All cultures evolve - yes. But towards what positive values? And what are we discarding? I’m not even sure that most westerners understand very well their own history and culture - and so may not even be aware of what we are discarding in this mania for “change.”
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Try google.
Forgive me for having higher standards.
If I’m to believe anything that a google search spits out, Elvis is still alive, the earth is flat, 9/11 was an inside job. Chomsky, depending on what link you click, is either an anti-Semitic Neo-Nazi or a pawn of Israel doing some dirty deeds in an incomprehensible conspiracy.
So, I’ll ask you once again: Do you have the Professor on the record denying the killing fields of Cambodia? Or is that just another of those scams that makes everybody who criticizes Zionism a Holocaust denier and every critic of American foreign policy a Cambodian killing fields denier?[/quote]
Here are some links:
"In Distortions at Fourth Hand [1] , Chomsky and Herman assure us that anything wrong in Cambodia was the fault of the USA, that there was decisive evidence proving the innocence of the Khmer Rouge, evidence which, alas, �??space limitations preclude�?? them from presenting.
“…if you listen to what bin Laden says, it’s worth it.”
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/moonbatcentral/2005/04/happy-anniversary-noam-chomsky.html
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/review-atc.html
I guess now we are moving to “historical relativism”? Making histroy say only what you want it to?
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…why are some of you concerned about the changing of culture?
Because Western culture (a set of values and norms and political/legal frameworks, etc.) - which infuses much of europe, north america, australia, etc. - is one of the greatest achievements of mankind. If you don’t see its value, try living in the non-western world for a period of time.
Every culture changes in one way or another, and attempting to prevent change is foolish imo.
All cultures evolve - yes. But towards what positive values? And what are we discarding? I’m not even sure that most westerners understand very well their own history and culture - and so may not even be aware of what we are discarding in this mania for “change.” [/quote]
It’s “Change we can believe in!” LOL!
[quote]pat wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:
Moral relativism doesn’t exist. Things are either right or they are wrong. Moral relativism is just a way to intellectualize debauchery, it is a farce, it only exists in peoples minds who thrive on excusism.
…why is government sanctioned murder ‘right’ and plain 'ol murder ‘wrong’?
It isn’t.
…why is it when your government tortures it’s ‘right’, but when the enemy does it, it’s ‘wrong’?
It isn’t.
…why is the expansion of one beliefsystem [democracy for instance] ‘right’, but an influx of another ‘wrong’?
It isn’t…I do not get where you are confused. Where did you get this stuff?[/quote]
…you oppose war? You oppose torture? You oppose the forceful imposition of a different beliefsystem on cultures?
If you are a moral man who sees everything in terms of right and wrong without relative aspect to both, you’d answer yes to those questions. But i’m guessing that isn’t the case?
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
…
[/quote]
You have no clue what relativism is. Read up:
[quote]pat wrote:
It’s “Change we can believe in!” LOL![/quote]
Creepy, isn’t it? Was there ever a more utterly vacuous slogan? Why people don’t gag when they hear that sort of thing is beyond me. “Change!” - it’s one of those unexamined “values” lurking behind the relativism pose.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…why are some of you concerned about the changing of culture?
Because Western culture (a set of values and norms and political/legal frameworks, etc.) - which infuses much of europe, north america, australia, etc. - is one of the greatest achievements of mankind. If you don’t see its value, try living in the non-western world for a period of time.
Every culture changes in one way or another, and attempting to prevent change is foolish imo.
All cultures evolve - yes. But towards what positive values? And what are we discarding? I’m not even sure that most westerners understand very well their own history and culture - and so may not even be aware of what we are discarding in this mania for “change.” [/quote]
…personally, i find it hard to be proud of something i haven’t contributed anything too. The fact i was born in a country that’s part of ‘the West’ is not my fault or accomplishment, and i couldn’t care less about my country’s history…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…personally, i find it hard to be proud of something i haven’t contributed anything too.
[/quote]
So you can’t value anything unless you have participated in creating it. You do realize how that sounds, don’t you? Are you sure you want to say that?
Bingo. Thank you Ephrem. There, my friends, is precisely why the West has, perhaps, a very dim future. I couldn’t have characterized better how the West is drowning in its own apathy, an apathy surely born of it’s own nihilistic relativism.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…personally, i find it hard to be proud of something i haven’t contributed anything too.
So you can’t value anything unless you have participated in creating it. You do realize how that sounds, don’t you? Are you sure you want to say that?
The fact i was born in a country that’s part of ‘the West’ is not my fault or accomplishment, and i couldn’t care less about my country’s history…
Bingo. Thank you Ephrem. There, my friends, is precisely why the West has, perhaps, a very dim future. I couldn’t have characterized better how the West is drowning in its own apathy, an apathy surely born of it’s own nihilistic relativism.
[/quote]
…why do you equate pride with value? Why not respond to what i actually wrote? Taking pride in something that i did not participate in, or contributed too, that’s something i find hard to do, but that doesn’t mean i can’t value something for what it is…
…you make selective reasoning look easy K, it’s a shame it only emphasizes what you need to believe instead what it actually means…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:
Moral relativism doesn’t exist. Things are either right or they are wrong. Moral relativism is just a way to intellectualize debauchery, it is a farce, it only exists in peoples minds who thrive on excusism.
…why is government sanctioned murder ‘right’ and plain 'ol murder ‘wrong’?
It isn’t.
…why is it when your government tortures it’s ‘right’, but when the enemy does it, it’s ‘wrong’?
It isn’t.
…why is the expansion of one beliefsystem [democracy for instance] ‘right’, but an influx of another ‘wrong’?
It isn’t…I do not get where you are confused. Where did you get this stuff?
…you oppose war? You oppose torture? You oppose the forceful imposition of a different beliefsystem on cultures?
If you are a moral man who sees everything in terms of right and wrong without relative aspect to both, you’d answer yes to those questions. But i’m guessing that isn’t the case?
[/quote]
You are making presumptions about me that aren’t true. However, I don’t really give a shit ff you believe me or not. In given circumstances things are either right or they are wrong. That is not a relative thing.