Holy Crap, I Liked Fox News

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:Or is the question even meaningful… if there is no supra human court beyond which there is no appeal.

…i say there isn’t one. How would you go about establishing that there is one?

It is no more possible for me to “establish” such a thing to you than it is for you to “establish” the opposite. Both are positions of faith relying for essential elements of their system on that which must be assumed before the conversation commences. Epistemology is the only arena that is either meaningful or necessary when addressing ultimate questions. Whatever position is taken there will unavoidably dictate all others.

It is also what I was referring to when I said it is not possible, at least for me, to have that debate effectively on an internet forum.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I say there is one… and only one.[/quote]

…ones conscience is the only guide for most of us, altough i am glad there’s religion to guide those who find it difficult to be consciencious. The biggest drawback to that is ofcourse the ease with which religion can then manipulate the ‘morality-disabled’…

…i find it stupifying that there are people who have to rely on external morality for guidance, or to lead a good life, but i’m just rambling. Thank you for being civil!

182

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:

…ones conscience is the only guide for most of us, altough i am glad there’s religion to guide those who find it difficult to be consciencious. The biggest drawback to that is ofcourse the ease with which religion can then manipulate the ‘morality-disabled’…

…i find it stupifying that there are people who have to rely on external morality for guidance, or to lead a good life, but i’m just rambling. Thank you for being civil!

[/quote]

wow - I feel so much better that you think people’s conscience is enough to prevent evil from existing in the world- whew, let’s get rid of all the religions and rely on this alone!!

pardon me if my facetiousness got tangled up in your utopia . .

You and I have fundamentally different views of mankind - you actually think man can be kind, loving, peaceful as a natural default - while I on the other hand believe that man left to his own devices is fundamentally selfish, hateful and violent.

You see religion as the cause of man’s evilness, I see religion as the cure for man’s evil.

You see the failing of religious people to live up to their faith as proof that religion is useless - I see it as proof that when man does not rise up to the level of conduct inherent in his faith - he is merely acting in keeping with the human default condition (evil).

I too would love to see a world where man lived honorably, decently and in peace with other men - but in the thousands of years of human history -this has never existed and the only places where such a condition has even been remotely obtained - you can thank the power of faith for raising man up to a greater level.

I will give you just one historical fact - what was the most powerful motivator that ended the European (and eventually the American) slave trade? Why, one man living up to the standards of his faith, William Wilberforce.

When man does rise above his natural condition due to the power and influence of godly faith - all of mankind is better for it.

183

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
wow - have we really become a bunch of pansies or what? We are afraid of causing a murderous bastard a few moments of discomfort in order to prevent his compatriots from killing more of us?

Are we so scared of our own government that we are afraid to give it this little bit of leeway in a strictly military setting to protect us? Rome would go into martial law and appoint dictators in times of national war -

And that worked out well…[/quote]

yes it did - thanks for noticing.

OH, you meant the rise of the Caesars and the eventual collapse of the Roman empire . . .wow, great way to simplify history down and ignore facts. You da man!!

184

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Extreme measures have been taken in the field in every foreign conflict we’ve ever been in. I do really think that people have subconsciously substituted the word opponent for enemy.

Enemies MUST be defeated… period… by any means necessary. Especially when facing feral uncivilized animals like this. Defeat is absolutely not an option and they will not be playing by our rules.

Funny, we’ve faced MUCH more serious, existential enemies than Islamic terrorism (Nazism, communism, etc.) and triumphed without using torture.

Edit: In fact, the fact that we did NOT torture and were clearly on a higher moral plane than our enemy was one of the primary reasons for the fall of Soviet communism.[/quote]

LMAO - wow - if only I were so naive. What must it be like to live in a world of half-truths and over-simplified generalizations.

It would be like Christmas all year long and I could have all of the bourbon I wanted and the rum would never be gone. I could ride the merry-go-round all day and Roxy wouldn’t beat me any more . . or any less . . . Fidel would stop leaving nasty voice mails on my phone . . .

Dude - seriously?

It is one thing to fight a conventional military engagement with armies and controlled territories, etc. Obviously, we have no problem defeating conventional armies in set battle, as evidence by our military triumphs in this arena.

Fighting an unconventional, non-state, secretive enemy is an entirely different situation. The reason that terrorism succeeds is by nature it secretive, deceptive and hidden acts - the only way to fight terrorism is by infiltrating it and learning its secrets - hopefully in time to prevent the atrocities they are planning.

If you can equate fighting the Germans in WW2 with combating islamic terrorists - well, obviously you did. that’s amazing!

The USSR collapsed because we were merely more moral than they were- it couldn’t have had anything to do with our better system of government, our more powerful military, our unwillingness to back down or the promised technology of missile defense which would have negated the only real power they had - nuclear annihilation, our infiltration of the soviet military hierarchy or any of the hundreds of small victories won in the field of espionage and counter-espionage . . . nope - it was all brought about because the USA did not torture people, yep that’s it . . . who didn’t we torture - did we actually capture some soviet soldiers on the field of battle?

The only time I have been so naive was when Phil promised me that flying to Columbia to pickup some coffee had nothing to do with his need to pay off debts to the cartel - silly me . . .

185

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Extreme measures have been taken in the field in every foreign conflict we’ve ever been in. I do really think that people have subconsciously substituted the word opponent for enemy.

Enemies MUST be defeated… period… by any means necessary. Especially when facing feral uncivilized animals like this. Defeat is absolutely not an option and they will not be playing by our rules.[/quote]

So glad I joined your tribe!! Tiribulus’ tribe rocks!!

186

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Extreme measures have been taken in the field in every foreign conflict we’ve ever been in. I do really think that people have subconsciously substituted the word opponent for enemy.

Enemies MUST be defeated… period… by any means necessary. Especially when facing feral uncivilized animals like this. Defeat is absolutely not an option and they will not be playing by our rules.

Funny, we’ve faced MUCH more serious, existential enemies than Islamic terrorism (Nazism, communism, etc.) and triumphed without using torture.

Edit: In fact, the fact that we did NOT torture and were clearly on a higher moral plane than our enemy was one of the primary reasons for the fall of Soviet communism.

LMAO - wow - if only I were so naive. What must it be like to live in a world of half-truths and over-simplified generalizations.

It would be like Christmas all year long and I could have all of the bourbon I wanted and the rum would never be gone. I could ride the merry-go-round all day and Roxy wouldn’t beat me any more . . or any less . . . Fidel would stop leaving nasty voice mails on my phone . . .

Dude - seriously?

It is one thing to fight a conventional military engagement with armies and controlled territories, etc. Obviously, we have no problem defeating conventional armies in set battle, as evidence by our military triumphs in this arena.

Fighting an unconventional, non-state, secretive enemy is an entirely different situation. The reason that terrorism succeeds is by nature it secretive, deceptive and hidden acts - the only way to fight terrorism is by infiltrating it and learning its secrets - hopefully in time to prevent the atrocities they are planning.
[/quote]

No, the way that terrorism succeeds is when a free society overreacts and causes massive self-inflicted wounds. Like, say, Iraq. The damage we can do to ourselves by overreacting to terrorism is FAR greater than any physical damage terrorists can do to us.

[quote]
If you can equate fighting the Germans in WW2 with combating islamic terrorists - well, obviously you did. that’s amazing!

The USSR collapsed because we were merely more moral than they were- it couldn’t have had anything to do with our better system of government, our more powerful military, our unwillingness to back down or the promised technology of missile defense which would have negated the only real power they had - nuclear annihilation, our infiltration of the soviet military hierarchy or any of the hundreds of small victories won in the field of espionage and counter-espionage . . . .[/quote]

I said “one of the primary reasons.” I did not say it was the only reason.

Speaking of history … could you explain these espionage victories and our infiltration of the Soviet military hierarchy to me? Because you don’t seem to know what you’re talking about. The CIA performed somewhere between poor and awful during the Cold War. The only significant agents we had were walk ups, defectors who turned themselves in with no prior contact. And those, again, were often the result of the superior moral force of our side.

187

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:

No, the way that terrorism succeeds is when a free society overreacts and causes massive self-inflicted wounds. Like, say, Iraq. The damage we can do to ourselves by overreacting to terrorism is FAR greater than any physical damage terrorists can do to us.

I said “one of the primary reasons.” I did not say it was the only reason.

Speaking of history … could you explain these espionage victories and our infiltration of the Soviet military hierarchy to me? Because you don’t seem to know what you’re talking about. The CIA performed somewhere between poor and awful during the Cold War. The only significant agents we had were walk ups, defectors who turned themselves in with no prior contact. And those, again, were often the result of the superior moral force of our side.[/quote]

Really? - the only scenario in which that works is when they are NOT inflicting casualties at the rate of, oh I don’t know - say 157 of our deaths for every one of theirs. You are equating causing discomfort to an enemy with the deaths of thousands? Apparently the lives of ordinary citizens is not worth the discomfort of one terrorist in your mind. And we have damaged ourselves how exactly?

Your view also fails to take into consideration the potential for WMD’s and the catastrophic impact that would have. You can keep your view - I’ll take my chances with stopping the dirty bomb and saving millions - you can keep your precious sanctity and hug all of the terrorists for me - OK?

Apparently -fighting your enemies is beneath you - don’t worry, the rest of us will protect you too . . . you’ll never have to get your hands dirty with the realities of the real world. Stay safe and comfy on your high chair of dubious morality.

And when the facts are finally opened to the public, you will be surprised at just how good we actually did against the Soviets. Never heard of disinformation have you?

Wasn’t is Sun Tzu who said “when strong appear weak and when weak appear strong?” But perhaps strategic thinking is a stretch for some . . .

188

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:

No, the way that terrorism succeeds is when a free society overreacts and causes massive self-inflicted wounds. Like, say, Iraq. The damage we can do to ourselves by overreacting to terrorism is FAR greater than any physical damage terrorists can do to us.

I said “one of the primary reasons.” I did not say it was the only reason.

Speaking of history … could you explain these espionage victories and our infiltration of the Soviet military hierarchy to me? Because you don’t seem to know what you’re talking about. The CIA performed somewhere between poor and awful during the Cold War. The only significant agents we had were walk ups, defectors who turned themselves in with no prior contact. And those, again, were often the result of the superior moral force of our side.

Really? - the only scenario in which that works is when they are NOT inflicting casualties at the rate of, oh I don’t know - say 157 of our deaths for every one of theirs. You are equating causing discomfort to an enemy with the deaths of thousands? Apparently the lives of ordinary citizens is not worth the discomfort of one terrorist in your mind. And we have damaged ourselves how exactly?

Your view also fails to take into consideration the potential for WMD’s and the catastrophic impact that would have. You can keep your view - I’ll take my chances with stopping the dirty bomb and saving millions - you can keep your precious sanctity and hug all of the terrorists for me - OK?

Apparently -fighting your enemies is beneath you - don’t worry, the rest of us will protect you too . . . you’ll never have to get your hands dirty with the realities of the real world. Stay safe and comfy on your high chair of dubious morality.

And when the facts are finally opened to the public, you will be surprised at just how good we actually did against the Soviets. Never heard of disinformation have you?

Wasn’t is Sun Tzu who said “when strong appear weak and when weak appear strong?” But perhaps strategic thinking is a stretch for some . . .
[/quote]

189

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:

Wow - I am so stunned and demoralized by the perspicacity of your erudite response. I am thoroughly defeated- waving the white flag. You have assumed the mantle of the winner of all discussions by your amazing application of a movie scene to prove that I am completely handsome and better looking than Tom Cruise with the oratory genius of Jack Nicholson - and I look stunning in uniform too!!

Seriously - this was your response? an indirect accusation that I can’t handle the truth? There are a lot of things I can’t handle - 17 straight Four Horsemen for one, and that skydiving in active volcanoes thing for another - but that has little bearing on the discussion at hand.

We could discussion my habit of snorting the red pepper flakes at Pizza Hut or my fascination with the recreational use of water-based explosives or even my amazing non-existent collection of shrunken heads. We could go on for hours about the myriad ways of extracting syrup from Mrs. Buttersworth or the stunning application of shrink wrap to a host of domestic issues - but what would any of that have to do with the topic at hand?

But shirley, I digress . . . .

190

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:

Wow - I am so stunned and demoralized by the perspicacity of your erudite response. I am thoroughly defeated- waving the white flag. You have assumed the mantle of the winner of all discussions by your amazing application of a movie scene to prove that I am completely handsome and better looking than Tom Cruise with the oratory genius of Jack Nicholson - and I look stunning in uniform too!!

Seriously - this was your response? an indirect accusation that I can’t handle the truth? There are a lot of things I can’t handle - 17 straight Four Horsemen for one, and that skydiving in active volcanoes thing for another - but that has little bearing on the discussion at hand.

We could discussion my habit of snorting the red pepper flakes at Pizza Hut or my fascination with the recreational use of water-based explosives or even my amazing non-existent collection of shrunken heads. We could go on for hours about the myriad ways of extracting syrup from Mrs. Buttersworth or the stunning application of shrink wrap to a host of domestic issues - but what would any of that have to do with the topic at hand?

But shirley, I digress . . . .[/quote]

I like your funny lines…You’re much more readable than Trib. Keep up the good work. Besides, you’re GIVING the truth! It’s not that you can’t handle it, silly.

(and… Don’t call me Shirley…)

191

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:

…ones conscience is the only guide for most of us, altough i am glad there’s religion to guide those who find it difficult to be consciencious. The biggest drawback to that is ofcourse the ease with which religion can then manipulate the ‘morality-disabled’…

…i find it stupifying that there are people who have to rely on external morality for guidance, or to lead a good life, but i’m just rambling. Thank you for being civil!

wow - I feel so much better that you think people’s conscience is enough to prevent evil from existing in the world- whew, let’s get rid of all the religions and rely on this alone!!

pardon me if my facetiousness got tangled up in your utopia . .

You and I have fundamentally different views of mankind - you actually think man can be kind, loving, peaceful as a natural default - while I on the other hand believe that man left to his own devices is fundamentally selfish, hateful and violent.

You see religion as the cause of man’s evilness, I see religion as the cure for man’s evil.

You see the failing of religious people to live up to their faith as proof that religion is useless - I see it as proof that when man does not rise up to the level of conduct inherent in his faith - he is merely acting in keeping with the human default condition (evil).

I too would love to see a world where man lived honorably, decently and in peace with other men - but in the thousands of years of human history -this has never existed and the only places where such a condition has even been remotely obtained - you can thank the power of faith for raising man up to a greater level.

I will give you just one historical fact - what was the most powerful motivator that ended the European (and eventually the American) slave trade? Why, one man living up to the standards of his faith, William Wilberforce.

When man does rise above his natural condition due to the power and influence of godly faith - all of mankind is better for it.[/quote]

…you jump to too many conclusion for me to refute here mr. Steele, so i won’t bother, but if you hinge your quality of religious morality on one man to prove that religion has indeed brought a positive change to this world, would you care to adress all the immoral things man has done in name of your religion?

…besides, i don’t think true altruism exists. We do the things we do because it makes us feel a certain way. It doesn’t matter what kind of container we pour this feeling in, beit religion or humanism, ultimately we are motivated by whether it makes us feel good or bad…

…we are animals, i agree to that. And perhaps we are the only species of animal that has the ability to transcend his animal nature, and decide to apply our that power to further mankind as a whole, instead of his specific clan. But we can’t manage this through religion; at its core religion is divisive. History proves this. At one point in time we will have to come to the conclusion that our current ways of doing things simply doesn’t work, if we want to have a sustainable future. Overcoming our limbic brain impulses is the first hurdle, but i fear with people like you and those who think like you, that’s still a too big a hurdle…

192

[quote]ephrem wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:

…you jump to too many conclusion for me to refute here mr. Steele, so i won’t bother, but if you hinge your quality of religious morality on one man to prove that religion has indeed brought a positive change to this world, would you care to adress all the immoral things man has done in name of your religion?

…besides, i don’t think true altruism exists. We do the things we do because it makes us feel a certain way. It doesn’t matter what kind of container we pour this feeling in, beit religion or humanism, ultimately we are motivated by whether it makes us feel good or bad…

…we are animals, i agree to that. And perhaps we are the only species of animal that has the ability to transcend his animal nature, and decide to apply our that power to further mankind as a whole, instead of his specific clan. But we can’t manage this through religion; at its core religion is divisive. History proves this. At one point in time we will have to come to the conclusion that our current ways of doing things simply doesn’t work, if we want to have a sustainable future. Overcoming our limbic brain impulses is the first hurdle, but i fear with people like you and those who think like you, that’s still a too big a hurdle…

[/quote]

I blame the tequila for all of my jumping . . .

I would definitely love to address all of the immoral things man has done in the name of my religion - as soon as you can point out any other members of the High Doaist-Buddhist-Pagan-Baptist Church of Ron the Magnificent (i know - really long name for a church - I thought about calling it the First Church of Me - but Big O already has copyright on that one.) - seriously - because I thought I was the only one . . . “there can be only one” - that’s one of our (my?) most sacred texts.

I don’t believe I predicated my statements upon any specific church, religion, doctrine, etc. I made a specific statement regarding the great amount of good accomplished by those who do act in the name of faith. - now you refute that-are you saying that they actually did not do the things that they actually did? Or are you saying that their faith had no role in their good deeds.

If that were true - then the things we believe cannot act upon the decisions we make - so religious people act non religiously and non-religiously people act religiously and dang you have some screwy ways of looking at the world . . .

I never said we were animals- that’s your religion, not mine.

And don’t worry about my limbic brain impulses - I’m defeating them with massive amounts of vodka - I will be more perfect than anyone else including you - just try to keep up with me- I’m on bottle number . . . .aww dang -lost count - have to start over . . .

Anyway - so without my limbic brain impulses - i won;t have to worry about being loving, experiencing love - or any other host of bad human-type emotions - I won’t even be able to form meaningful relationships with the rest of you non-vodka-evolved humans - so you all can just wither and die with all of your emotions and relationships . . . what was your point again? - that we will treat each other better if we outgrow the limbic brain impulse - really?

193

…i will leave you with a couple of quotes from Robert McNamara, former Defense Secretary: someone who was deeply involved in WW2 and the Vietnam war:

* Why was it necessary to drop the nuclear bomb if LeMay was burning up Japan? And he went on from Tokyo to firebomb other cities. 58% of Yokohama. Yokohama is roughly the size of Cleveland. 58% of Cleveland destroyed. Tokyo is roughly the size of New York. 51% percent of New York destroyed. 99% of the equivalent of Chattanooga, which was Toyama. 40% of the equivalent of Los Angeles, which was Nagoya. This was all done before the dropping of the nuclear bomb, which by the way was dropped by LeMay's command. Proportionality should be a guideline in war. Killing 50% to 90% of the people of 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional, in the minds of some people, to the objectives we were trying to achieve.

* LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?

…you should watch the documentary The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara if you haven’t already, it’s rather good. Anyway, goodbye…

194

[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …you jump to too many conclusion for me to refute here mr. Steele, so i won’t bother, but if you hinge your quality of religious morality on one man to prove that religion has indeed brought a positive change to this world, would you care to adress all the immoral things man has done in name of your religion?

…besides, i don’t think true altruism exists. We do the things we do because it makes us feel a certain way. It doesn’t matter what kind of container we pour this feeling in, beit religion or humanism, ultimately we are motivated by whether it makes us feel good or bad…

…we are animals, i agree to that. And perhaps we are the only species of animal that has the ability to transcend his animal nature, and decide to apply our that power to further mankind as a whole, instead of his specific clan. But we can’t manage this through religion; at its core religion is divisive. History proves this. At one point in time we will have to come to the conclusion that our current ways of doing things simply doesn’t work, if we want to have a sustainable future. Overcoming our limbic brain impulses is the first hurdle, but i fear with people like you and those who think like you, that’s still a too big a hurdle…

[/quote]

You are just the kinda guy I love debating in real life, meaning not on an internet forum. That is no demeaning, dismissive statement of scorn by the way. I mean that sincerely. You’re an intelligent guy, but you’re attempting to build a construct financed entirely with capital borrowed from my bank. I sincerely wish a few of us here lived close enough to meet in person.

195

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i will leave you with a couple of quotes from Robert McNamara, former Defense Secretary: someone who was deeply involved in WW2 and the Vietnam war:

* Why was it necessary to drop the nuclear bomb if LeMay was burning up Japan? And he went on from Tokyo to firebomb other cities. 58% of Yokohama. Yokohama is roughly the size of Cleveland. 58% of Cleveland destroyed. Tokyo is roughly the size of New York. 51% percent of New York destroyed. 99% of the equivalent of Chattanooga, which was Toyama. 40% of the equivalent of Los Angeles, which was Nagoya. This was all done before the dropping of the nuclear bomb, which by the way was dropped by LeMay's command. Proportionality should be a guideline in war. Killing 50% to 90% of the people of 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional, in the minds of some people, to the objectives we were trying to achieve.

* LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?

…you should watch the documentary The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara if you haven’t already, it’s rather good. Anyway, goodbye…[/quote]

gee - thanks for not answering my questions - guess searching for better understanding isn’t part of your “code of discussion”

but hey - I don’t blame you for taking off onto a tangential discussion of what constitutes morality - if that’s what you want to focus on here - kewl with me.

2 points - First - can’t stand McNamara - I think he was an idiot (personal opinion - not admissible in a court of law) and that weird concept of proportionality in combat is one good proof.

Second - why do I have to defend some other person’s view of what is or is not immoral based on an unclear standard attached to a decision process I was not even remotely involved in?

What’s the point of the introduction of this reference? Are we now discussing the morality of decisions made by people 60 years ago? Heck, lets dredge up some other classics like the Assyrian conquests or maybe the Punic wars - How about the Islamic invasions of Europe? Do you feel it was moral for Alexander to cut the Gordian Knot? Was it appropriate for Saladin to put all of the Arab Christians in Jerusalem to the sword?

We got from abandoning the limbic brain impulses to here just how exactly?

Oh, never mind - you left . . . .

196

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
ephrem wrote:
<<< …you jump to too many conclusion for me to refute here mr. Steele, so i won’t bother, but if you hinge your quality of religious morality on one man to prove that religion has indeed brought a positive change to this world, would you care to adress all the immoral things man has done in name of your religion?

…besides, i don’t think true altruism exists. We do the things we do because it makes us feel a certain way. It doesn’t matter what kind of container we pour this feeling in, beit religion or humanism, ultimately we are motivated by whether it makes us feel good or bad…

…we are animals, i agree to that. And perhaps we are the only species of animal that has the ability to transcend his animal nature, and decide to apply our that power to further mankind as a whole, instead of his specific clan. But we can’t manage this through religion; at its core religion is divisive. History proves this. At one point in time we will have to come to the conclusion that our current ways of doing things simply doesn’t work, if we want to have a sustainable future. Overcoming our limbic brain impulses is the first hurdle, but i fear with people like you and those who think like you, that’s still a too big a hurdle…

You are just the kinda guy I love debating in real life, meaning not on an internet forum. That is no demeaning, dismissive statement of scorn by the way. I mean that sincerely. You’re an intelligent guy, but you’re attempting to build a construct financed entirely with capital borrowed from my bank. I sincerely wish a few of us here lived close enough to meet in person.[/quote]

…well, if you ever decide to visit Europe, the drinks are on me!

197

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…i will leave you with a couple of quotes from Robert McNamara, former Defense Secretary: someone who was deeply involved in WW2 and the Vietnam war:

* Why was it necessary to drop the nuclear bomb if LeMay was burning up Japan? And he went on from Tokyo to firebomb other cities. 58% of Yokohama. Yokohama is roughly the size of Cleveland. 58% of Cleveland destroyed. Tokyo is roughly the size of New York. 51% percent of New York destroyed. 99% of the equivalent of Chattanooga, which was Toyama. 40% of the equivalent of Los Angeles, which was Nagoya. This was all done before the dropping of the nuclear bomb, which by the way was dropped by LeMay's command. Proportionality should be a guideline in war. Killing 50% to 90% of the people of 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional, in the minds of some people, to the objectives we were trying to achieve.

* LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?

…you should watch the documentary The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara if you haven’t already, it’s rather good. Anyway, goodbye…

gee - thanks for not answering my questions - guess searching for better understanding isn’t part of your “code of discussion”

but hey - I don’t blame you for taking off onto a tangential discussion of what constitutes morality - if that’s what you want to focus on here - kewl with me.

2 points - First - can’t stand McNamara - I think he was an idiot (personal opinion - not admissible in a court of law) and that weird concept of proportionality in combat is one good proof.

Second - why do I have to defend some other person’s view of what is or is not immoral based on an unclear standard attached to a decision process I was not even remotely involved in?

What’s the point of the introduction of this reference? Are we now discussing the morality of decisions made by people 60 years ago? Heck, lets dredge up some other classics like the Assyrian conquests or maybe the Punic wars - How about the Islamic invasions of Europe? Do you feel it was moral for Alexander to cut the Gordian Knot? Was it appropriate for Saladin to put all of the Arab Christians in Jerusalem to the sword?

We got from abandoning the limbic brain impulses to here just how exactly?

Oh, never mind - you left . . . .[/quote]

…i admit, those quotes are slightly unrelated, but they do pose the question: What makes actions immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win? I know my answer, and i know your answer and we won’t agree on who’s right or wrong, so i’m leaving it at that if you don’t mind. Cheers!

198

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
you’re attempting to build a construct financed entirely with capital borrowed from my bank.[/quote]

Can…not…decipher…metaphor…help…

I’ve thought the same. There are many advantages to discussing things online - time, thoughtfulness, etc. - but it also allows more room for people to play little games, in a way they couldn’t in person. Plus, nothing replaces hashing something out over a beer…or two. The old germanic tribes when they needed to discuss something would do it twice: First inebriated, for vigor; and then sober, for reasonableness. heh.

199

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
you’re attempting to build a construct financed entirely with capital borrowed from my bank.

Can…not…decipher…metaphor…help…

I sincerely wish a few of us here lived close enough to meet in person.

I’ve thought the same. There are many advantages to discussing things online - time, thoughtfulness, etc. - but it also allows more room for people to play little games, in a way they couldn’t in person. Plus, nothing replaces hashing something out over a beer…or two. The old germanic tribes when they needed to discuss something would do it twice: First inebriated, for vigor; and then sober, for reasonableness. heh. [/quote]

I agree wholeheartedly - especially with the drinking . . .

200

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
ephrem wrote:
<<< …you jump to too many conclusion for me to refute here mr. Steele, so i won’t bother, but if you hinge your quality of religious morality on one man to prove that religion has indeed brought a positive change to this world, would you care to adress all the immoral things man has done in name of your religion?

…besides, i don’t think true altruism exists. We do the things we do because it makes us feel a certain way. It doesn’t matter what kind of container we pour this feeling in, beit religion or humanism, ultimately we are motivated by whether it makes us feel good or bad…

…we are animals, i agree to that. And perhaps we are the only species of animal that has the ability to transcend his animal nature, and decide to apply our that power to further mankind as a whole, instead of his specific clan. But we can’t manage this through religion; at its core religion is divisive. History proves this. At one point in time we will have to come to the conclusion that our current ways of doing things simply doesn’t work, if we want to have a sustainable future. Overcoming our limbic brain impulses is the first hurdle, but i fear with people like you and those who think like you, that’s still a too big a hurdle…

You are just the kinda guy I love debating in real life, meaning not on an internet forum. That is no demeaning, dismissive statement of scorn by the way. I mean that sincerely. You’re an intelligent guy, but you’re attempting to build a construct financed entirely with capital borrowed from my bank. I sincerely wish a few of us here lived close enough to meet in person.

…well, if you ever decide to visit Europe, the drinks are on me!

[/quote]

Fair enough,