Why Do Europeans Hate Us?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
262

[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote: …i don’t care what the arguement is, let alone follow someone else’s. I never understood the principle of politics where voting for one party gives you the right to no longer care what happens to those who lost the election.

I get that if one tribe conquers a piece of land at the expense of another, they live happily ever after [until they get defeated]. But when the entire planet is at risk of becoming uninhabitable due to our selfish actions, there’ll be nothing left to enjoy, is there?

…the Human Genome Project traced via mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome, our shared ancestors. All of us humans can be traced back to a man and a woman that lived a long time ago. Society is family, beit the ultimate disfunctional family ofcourse…

But maybe you should care for the argument, because your approach does not consist of feeding the poor but of forcing others to feed them.

Ayn Rand is saying that she was hardly born to be forced at gun point to slave for people that are less well off than her.

Her philosophy does not require the use of violence, yours inevitably does.

Therefore my point that your moral instincts lead to theft, coercion and murder if applied on a large scale.

…see, i’ve never said i follow a certain philosophy or creed, nor have i ever quoted someone to clarify my point of view. Your conclusions do follow a path that infers i’m an adherent of someone else’s viewpoint, and those conclusions are therefore invariably incorrect. I can’t tell any difference between our current state of worldy affairs and the consequences you attribute to a more social and humane stance towards people in general. Do you agree that a change is needed? A change from the cynical me-first-and-other’s-be-damned approach to life? Because from where i’m sitting, that causes the largest scale of theft, coercion and murder in history…[/quote]

Actually it doesn´t.

To truly get the most out of life you need to cooperate and at least intelligent egoists know that.

It is people who preach the gospel of Christianity, Islam, Communism or even Democracy with the sword, supposedly for the good of those killed or terrorized who know no bounds in their cruelty because they are doing the work of the Lord.

Or in other words, I tghink the wrold would enourmosly benefit if people just left each other alone.

263

[quote]orion wrote: ephrem wrote: …see, i’ve never said i follow a certain philosophy or creed, nor have i ever quoted someone to clarify my point of view. Your conclusions do follow a path that infers i’m an adherent of someone else’s viewpoint, and those conclusions are therefore invariably incorrect. I can’t tell any difference between our current state of worldy affairs and the consequences you attribute to a more social and humane stance towards people in general. Do you agree that a change is needed? A change from the cynical me-first-and-other’s-be-damned approach to life? Because from where i’m sitting, that causes the largest scale of theft, coercion and murder in history…

Actually it doesn´t.

To truly get the most out of life you need to cooperate and at least intelligent egoists know that.

It is people who preach the gospel of Christianity, Islam, Communism or even Democracy with the sword, supposedly for the good of those killed or terrorized who know no bounds in their cruelty because they are doing the work of the Lord.

Or in other words, I think the world would enourmosly benefit if people just left each other alone.[/quote]

…why are you trying to asociate me with religious nutters? I’m all for cooperation, but do we cooperate to further mankind for the benefit of this planet? I don’t think so, but if you do, please let me know how this is done exactly…

264

[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote: ephrem wrote: …see, i’ve never said i follow a certain philosophy or creed, nor have i ever quoted someone to clarify my point of view. Your conclusions do follow a path that infers i’m an adherent of someone else’s viewpoint, and those conclusions are therefore invariably incorrect. I can’t tell any difference between our current state of worldy affairs and the consequences you attribute to a more social and humane stance towards people in general. Do you agree that a change is needed? A change from the cynical me-first-and-other’s-be-damned approach to life? Because from where i’m sitting, that causes the largest scale of theft, coercion and murder in history…

Actually it doesn´t.

To truly get the most out of life you need to cooperate and at least intelligent egoists know that.

It is people who preach the gospel of Christianity, Islam, Communism or even Democracy with the sword, supposedly for the good of those killed or terrorized who know no bounds in their cruelty because they are doing the work of the Lord.

Or in other words, I think the world would enourmosly benefit if people just left each other alone.

…why are you trying to asociate me with religious nutters? I’m all for cooperation, but do we cooperate to further mankind for the benefit of this planet? I don’t think so, but if you do, please let me know how this is done exactly…

[/quote]

I am not trying to associate you with anything, it is just that whenever I hear “let us work together to better mankind” it comes from someone endorsing an ideology that includes coercing people who do not see the light concerning what is “best” for mankind.

If you want to form a group of others to make the world a better place, fine. If you want to use the government or any other entity that is founded on organized violence your solution is probably worse than the problem.

266

[quote]Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:

Or in other words, I tghink the wrold would enourmosly benefit if people just left each other alone.

Horrendous spelling (or typing) aside, where do you draw the line for this? Should one “leave alone” the bully who is picking on the weaker person?

I find it rather strange that someone who constantly rails against others’ behavior (assumedly in attempt to change said behavior) would advocate “people leaving each other alone.”

I am tempted to say, “Would you please leave us Americans alone?”[/quote]

How could I if you are the bully?

268

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Where do you draw the line? When is it ok to NOT “leave people alone?” You are advocating leaving others alone, and doing it on a board where you constantly work to change people (or at a minimum, their views).

How do you reconcile your behavior here (i.e., attempting to convince others that YOUR view is the “correct” one) with “I tghink the wrold would enourmosly benefit if people just left each other alone?”[/quote]

Yeah, right! We all know expressing one’s opinions is the same as dropping bombs on their heads…

P.S: It is internationally accepted that the US uses bully tactics. Lots of highly ranked officials working for the American government (CIA, Pentagon, Congress, etc…) acknowledge that this is the case.

269

As complicated as this all seems really it comes down to it is human nature to hate. Humans are a great ape that learned to survive and thrive using the ruthless pack animal strategy of dogs. There is a reason dog is mans best friend.

No matter how hard anyone tries you will always polarize and alienate someone no matter how you behave and what you stand for.

Pack animals always seek to dominate each other and fight for the title of alpha and no matter who dominates the human pack there will always be wannabes with the certainty that their form of domination would be better.

Opposable thumbs stereoscopic vision and a clever and expensive brain has made this urge to dominate quite the interesting and horrifying reality of technological warfare.

It is noble to object to war and oppression, empire and violence but the truth is to do so is to really object to human beings themselves.

If we are to avoid our own self destruction it will not be because we have eliminated hate but learned to channel it effectively and rationally.

Some women or weak men or truly dedicated spiritual anomaly’s may want to pretend this hate fueled and lustful desire to dominate the pack doesn’t exist within humanity and we are actually naturally good but unfortunately reforming this natural urge in humanity’s alpha males is about as likely as me convincing my cat to stop killing mice.

But I am a pessimistic misanthropic recluse. I would love to be proven wrong.

271

[quote]Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:
Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:

Or in other words, I tghink the wrold would enourmosly benefit if people just left each other alone.

Horrendous spelling (or typing) aside, where do you draw the line for this? Should one “leave alone” the bully who is picking on the weaker person?

I find it rather strange that someone who constantly rails against others’ behavior (assumedly in attempt to change said behavior) would advocate “people leaving each other alone.”

I am tempted to say, “Would you please leave us Americans alone?”

How could I if you are the bully?

Would you please just answer what I asked, and skip the pithy one-liners?

Where do you draw the line? When is it ok to NOT “leave people alone?” You are advocating leaving others alone, and doing it on a board where you constantly work to change people (or at a minimum, their views).

How do you reconcile your behavior here (i.e., attempting to convince others that YOUR view is the “correct” one) with “I tghink the wrold would enourmosly benefit if people just left each other alone?”[/quote]

Violence is ok against attackers?

Aggression against aggressors?

If you would just build your little police state without dragging other people into it, it would be a terrible shame but no cause for concern for everybody else.

If you had read all my posts above it would also have occurred to you that my “leave people alone” was about violence and coercion, not about words.

273

[quote]Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:

Violence is ok against attackers?

Aggression against aggressors?

If you would just build your little police state without dragging other people into it, it would be a terrible shame but no cause for concern for everybody else.

If you had read all my posts above it would also have occurred to you that my “leave people alone” was about violence and coercion, not about words.

MY little police state? Not sure what you’re talking about (or why you are even addressing such comments to me). I’ve never had anything to do with such a thing.

Oh, I see! That was just your raging hatred for America peeking out to say “hi.”

Now, to return to the original point: So, you DO believe that it’s ok to interfere at will in other people’s business and attempt to exert influence on them, so long as it’s not “violence or coercion?”

And you DO believe that it’s ok to NOT “leave others alone” if you feel someone is being victimized, even if the situation has nothing to do with you?

Do I have that right?
[/quote]

Absolutely.

If you want to turn that into a mandate to slaughter people to “liberate” them, no.

274

[quote]Chushin wrote:
PS One of these day I’m going to total all the times you’ve used the phrase “dropping bombs on their heads.” Probably would outnumber the number of bombs actually used in Iraq – unless we include those set off by Muslim extremists. [/quote]

lol, that and “going around invading other countries.”

276

[quote]Chushin wrote:

  1. You’d have no problem with the US backing a given candidate for elected office (in another country) with money, logistical support, propaganda, etc., since there is “no violence or coercion” involved. This wouldn’t violate your definition of “leave others alone.” [/quote]

If it’s a neighboring country, knock yourself out.

Here’s a better idea: Don’t support the bullies in the first place.

Lots of tyrants would be toast without Washington’s money and weapons (Mubarak, Al-Sauds, etc.)

As long as you don’t do it with bombs, tanks, jets, etc. I see no problem with it.

Sadly, the US has a history of quietly overthrowing (or quietly attempting to overthrow) democratically elected regimes.

278

[quote]lixy wrote:
Chushin wrote:

  1. You’d have no problem with the US backing a given candidate for elected office (in another country) with money, logistical support, propaganda, etc., since there is “no violence or coercion” involved. This wouldn’t violate your definition of “leave others alone.”

If it’s a neighboring country, knock yourself out.
[/quote]

Who made this rule?

Is it because many Muslim countries are engaged with terrorism with bordering nations, thus it is ok to interfere with other countries as long as they joined by a border?

As long as it fits into your adjenda, it is ok?

Maybe Hezbollah should get the hell out of South America then.

279

[quote]lixy wrote:
Lots of tyrants would be toast without Washington’s money and weapons (Mubarak, Al-Sauds, etc.)

As long as you don’t do it with bombs, tanks, jets, etc. I see no problem with it.

Sadly, the US has a history of quietly overthrowing (or quietly attempting to overthrow) democratically elected regimes.[/quote]

3 tyrants are not a lot. There are A LOT of muslim nations and dictators in general who are NOT allies of the US.

We can’t use bombs tanks and jets, but car and suicide bombs are ok? How exactly would you want to overthrow a dictator, by giving them flowers?

We are not the only nation that has done so, and when it was done, it was because we were in a battle for our existance against the communist powers in the world.

Maybe you would prefer if the communists had won? I never hear you bitch about the crimes they have committed. Oh yeah, the old and current communist powers arm the terrorists maybe that’s why you do not condemn them.

280

[quote]Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:

Now, to return to the original point: So, you DO believe that it’s ok to interfere at will in other people’s business and attempt to exert influence on them, so long as it’s not “violence or coercion?”

And you DO believe that it’s ok to NOT “leave others alone” if you feel someone is being victimized, even if the situation has nothing to do with you?

Do I have that right?

Absolutely.

If you want to turn that into a mandate to slaughter people to “liberate” them, no.

Hmmm… “Absolutely” and “If you want to turn that into a mandate to slaughter people to “liberate” them, no.” You’re going to have to elaborate on how that’s not a contradiction. I’m trying to get to the specifics of your “leave others alone” principle.

Anyway, how about these conclusions?

  1. You’d have no problem with the US backing a given candidate for elected office (in another country) with money, logistical support, propaganda, etc., since there is “no violence or coercion” involved. This wouldn’t violate your definition of “leave others alone.”

  2. If the US had taken down Saddam, then quickly exited Iraq, it would have been a matter of just “taking care of the bully,” and you’d support that. It’s ok to itervene in others affairs if someone is being victimized.

  3. The US would be totally justifed in overthrowing the North Korean regime. So long as once Kim (the bad guy) were gone, the US left, too, we’d just be taking care of the bully…

[/quote]

I do not not really get why it is so hard to grasp for you that killing people to save them does not work.

Anyway, if the US backs whomever in an election, that would be a-ok with me IF others were allowed to do the same in the US (they aren´t) and IF the means the US need to do so consist of uncoerced donations i.e., not taxes.

Otherwise you take peoples money by force to influence other people those people never heard of before.

Which is why I excluded governments from the means to convince other people not more than one page ago.