Debates
13 Feb 06
13 Feb 06
4 edits
It has taken me YEARS to discover the meaning of being a pseudo liberal, but I have finally dont it. This is amazing. I guarantee that this thread will blow your mind because it is so unbelievable!
(a) = Innocent Child
(b) = Killer/Rapist
(c) = Government/Democracy
So then these two events occur.
Event1 = (b) kills (a)while enjoying his hobbie.
Event2 = (c) apprehends and kills (b)
Now here is where it gets really weird.
Pseudo Libs now feel free to do the following math:
Event1 = Event2
Think about that for a moment. I know it doesn't make sense and a rational person will think it so absurd as to be a lie. But it is what defines a pseudo lib.
Ok. Here we go with another test pattern.
[1a] = innocent iraqi citizen.
[1b] = a terrorist
[1c] = iraqi government solder/coalition soldier
Event1a = [1b] kills [1a]
Event2a = [1c] kills [1b]
Pseudo libs agains assert that Event1a = Event2a.
Now we can go a step further and define another event...
Event3a = [1b] kills [1c]
Pseudo libs justify Event3a. They think it is just fine because of the definiton of "war". It took me a long time to see how they can justify and support terrorists, but once I realized that pseudo's see all killing as the SAME THING, then it sort of makes sense. It ain't rational and it displays an ignorance and indifference that boggles the mind, but it is what defines all lefties who oppose Iraqi freedom and resent the removal of Saddam.
I am amazed. I hope you analyze this and let me know where I am wrong.
In fairness, I guess we need the following:
Event4a = [1c] kills [1a]
This ... we hope occurs less than often and is ALWAYS an accident of war. If not then the INDIVIDUAL(S)[1c] needs to be properly punished.
[1c] gets a "pass" that [1b] doesn't get based on the concept of "democracy". The soldier of a lawfull nation is fighting on behalf of [1a] and the terrorist is fighting on behalf of itself,ie, for ONLY [1b]
Mike
13 Feb 06
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI never said that I advocate no action. In no way do I or anyone I know support terrorism through inaction.
I can easily say that pseudo libs oppose the war because they do. What this thread is about is TRYING to understand their reasoning. If you have a better valid explanation of why they support the terrorists through inaction... please share it.
Or are you saying that inaction is a valid reaction to terror?
The title of this thread is what pseudo's believe. "War against evil is Bad War". Am I wrong?
Violent action is not the only type of action.
Here is one of the main reasons I am against the war in Iraq. Recently in an English coursework, I wrote a persuasive piece against the British government's anti-terror bills and related legislation. I hope you don't mind if I quote from it:
"Here is an example of the aforementioned government terrorism: Dictionary.com defines “terrorism” as “The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.” If we look at the war on Iraq, we see that it was in fact illegal under international law, something which the United Kingdom claims to subscribe to. Therefore, the British government is itself guilty of the “unlawful use of force or violence by an organised group against people with the intention of coercing a government, for political reasons”. At one stage, Tony Blair was justifying this definitive terrorism on a daily basis. Under the auspices of the proposals, we have grounds for the arrest of the Prime Minister on the grounds of justifying terrorism."
If you have so much support from this war, why are you still at home? You may talk the talk, but do you walk the walk?
War against evil is not necessarily a bad war. Unfortunately, the nature of war is inherently evil, but it is occasionally the only option. For example, I believe that Allied involvement in the Second World War was well justified. I believe that the First Gulf War was the right war (although the American government had an ulterior motive in the protection of black gold).
13 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyAn Additional Point: So you believe that murder by the state is justified based on an imperfect concept of "democracy". Would you say the democratic system is perfect? If not, where does it leave your stance that murder by the democratic government is justified simply by it being carried out by said government?
[1a] = innocent iraqi citizen.
[1b] = a terrorist
[1c] = iraqi government solder/coalition soldier
In fairness, I guess we need the following:
Event4a = [1c] kills [1a]
This ... we hope occurs less than often and is ALWAYS an accident of war. If not then the INDIVIDUAL(S)[1c] needs to be properly punished.
[1c] gets a "pass" that [1b] behalf of [1a] and the terrorist is fighting on behalf of itself,ie, for ONLY [1b]
Mike
Keep in mind that the opinions of the majority are not always the most righteous.
I refer you to the democratic elections in Germany in the '30s.
13 Feb 06
Originally posted by Positional PlayerThank you. This is much more rational and helps me understand your reasoning.
I never said that I advocate no action. In no way do I or anyone I know support terrorism through inaction.
Violent action is not the only type of action.
This is self evident and need not be contended. An honest intellectulization requires that we add a bit of complexity to it however. What non-violent actions do you propose to replace violent actions that will enable us to face/defeat/negotiate with terrorists? That is fair. You can't dismiss the BEST method just because you don't like it.
Here is one of the main reasons I am against the war in Iraq. Recently in an English coursework, I wrote a persuasive piece against the British government's anti-terror bills and related legislation. I hope you don't mind if I quote from it:
"Here is an example of the aforementioned government terrorism: Dictionary.com defines “terrorism” as “The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.” If we look at the war on Iraq, we see that it was in fact illegal under international law, something which the United Kingdom claims to subscribe to. Therefore, the British government is itself guilty of the “unlawful use of force or violence by an organised group against people with the intention of coercing a government, for political reasons”. At one stage, Tony Blair was justifying this definitive terrorism on a daily basis. Under the auspices of the proposals, we have grounds for the arrest of the Prime Minister on the grounds of justifying terrorism."
Again, this needs complexity. It is simplistic. Before you can name a "lawfully elected democracy" as a "terrorist organization", it is your duty to destroy the notions, thus the VALIDITY of nationhoods operating as democracies. You jump right over the notion of legitimate force, ie, "war of nations" and group said nation -- in your case the UK to the same moral legitimacy as Al Queda. Do you have the right to do this without first destroying with argument the legitimacy of the UK?
If you have so much support from this war, why are you still at home? You may talk the talk, but do you walk the walk?
lol. I'm too old. But I did try to serve during the Viet Nam war. I joined the army and got kicked out because of a skin disease.
War against evil is not necessarily a bad war. Unfortunately, the nature of war is inherently evil, but it is occasionally the only option. For example, I believe that Allied involvement in the Second World War was well justified. I believe that the First Gulf War was the right war (although the American government had an ulterior motive in the protection of black gold).
Didn't the war turn into a fight against Terror? I think it did, and I knew it would. I never saw the (current Iraq) war as mattering a bit as far as wmd or Saddam. I saw it as "a terrorist state" and it is our duty to oppose it so as not to support terror through inaction. I feel the same today about Iran. Am I wrong there too?
13 Feb 06
Originally posted by Positional PlayerSee my post directly above this one for an expanded critique of your failure to destory this notion in your written piece. It is YOUR duty to destroy the notion of "Democracy"... not mine. I embrace it.
An Additional Point: So you believe that murder by the state is justified based on an imperfect concept of "democracy". Would you say the democratic system is perfect? If not, where does it leave your stance that murder by the democratic government is justified simply by it being carried out by said government?
Keep in mind that the opinions ...[text shortened]... always the most righteous.
I refer you to the democratic elections in Germany in the '30s.
13 Feb 06
Originally posted by sasquatch672LOL
Mike - this is no1marauder's logic exactly. You nailed him. Not sure the "pseudolib" label fits, though - I was thinking more along the lines of "America-hating Europhilic spineless ninny". But whatever.
How are you? as to the marauder and the general class of marauders who rape, pillage and perform sodomy on the rule of law by nations... I don't want to hurt his tender feelings. He always tends to just leave in a huff, accusing me of being an 'animal'. So I will only say that his lack of abilities are admired by all who oppose goodness and right. And that is probably half the world at this point in time. So who am I to judge?
13 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYou state that violence is the "best" solution. In what way are you different from cleric Abu Hamza who advocates violence against infidels? His justification is religious where is yours is yours is politcal/ideological. Remember that the violence is the problem that we are trying to deal with.
Thank you. This is much more rational and helps me understand your reasoning.
[b]Violent action is not the only type of action.
This is self evident and need not be contended. An honest intellectulization requires that we add a bit of complexity to it however. What non-violent actions do you propose to replace violent actions that will enable terror through inaction. I feel the same today about Iran. Am I wrong there too?[/b]
A very good point about the lack of the effectiveness of violence is Israel's revenge of the Munich kidnapping. It sure did Israel a lot of good, didnt it?
What non-violent actions do I propose? Peaceful Talks. Trying to find some common ground and working from there. This has been shown time and time again to be the most successful method in the majority of cases. In the cases of war against a nation, a definable identity, violence may work. But against "terror", something which by definition cannot be defeated, terror being an abstraction. I reiterate my previous point of peaceful negotiations beging the best way forward. Another historical example: the IRA.
I do not dismiss something simply because I do not like it. I look at the facts, and the past results from a method. A lot can be applied to the modern world from the study of history.
I do dispute the validity of tribal nationhood, but that is not the issue we are discussing here. I DO dispute the actions of the coalition governments in going into Iraq because it is plain and simple criminal.
A war against terror was it? Hmm, it seems to have failed then. IT is very hyppocritical of a government which utilises torture to use "terrorism" to justify any action.
13 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWhy is it my duty to destroy the notion of democracy?
See my post directly above this one for an expanded critique of your failure to destory this notion in your written piece. It is YOUR duty to destroy the notion of "Democracy"... not mine. I embrace it.
I do not oppose democracy as it is currently the best system we have available. However, just becase it is "the best" does not mean that it is infallible. The actions of the democracy are not always correct.
I'd like to say I'm sorry about that the ridiculous amount of typoes. I'm writing and thinking very hurriedly as I am currently engaged in trying to write war poetry coursework.
Also, I shouldn't have made the remark about joining up. Sorry.
13 Feb 06
........................................................................................
It has taken me YEARS to discover the meaning of being a pseudo liberal, but I have finally dont it. This is amazing. I guarantee that this thread will blow your mind because it is so unbelievable!
...........................................................................................
Not really.
You've hit on the age-old argument between Liberals/Progressive Seculars v /Conservatives/Theists .. Moral Equivalence v Absolute Truth.
Here are some of the principles involved in this belief.
1. A god has no control nor exerts any influence in the world today, whether he created the world or not
2. War is never the answer
3. Don’t trust your government
4. Government should play a limited role in the enforcement of morality, but a major role in the enforcement financial equality
5. Morality is relative to the personal choice of the individual and there should always be a safety net against the consequences of those personal choices.
..........................
So, yes, to these the killer of the child murderer is just the same as the child molester himself.
A killing is a killing, They are morally equivalent .. afterall, their is no evil, only choices (see #5 above)
13 Feb 06
2 edits
Originally posted by Positional PlayerYou state that violence is the "best" solution. In what way are you different from cleric Abu Hamza who advocates violence against infidels? His justification is religious where is yours is yours is politcal/ideological. Remember that the violence is the problem that we are trying to deal with.
You state that violence is the "best" solution. In what way are you different from cleric Abu Hamza who advocates violence against infidels? His justification is religious where is yours is yours is politcal/ideological. Remember that the violence is the problem that we are trying to deal with.
A very good point about the lack of the effectiv ...[text shortened]... n and simple criminal.
A war against terror was it? Hmm, it seems to have failed then.[/i]
My side in this war has killed the killers. Abu Mamzas side kills innocents. Thanks. You are a perfect proof that my statement above in Event12,1b,1c are an accurate portrayal. Whether you recognize it or not, you just equated killing evil as being evil. See the title of this thread and reread the Second set of "what ifs" above in the opening of the thread. Quite simple I will sum it up as "He is evil for killing innocent people who don't want his vision of facist government. I am not evil for opposing him."
A very good point about the lack of the effectiveness of violence is Israel's revenge of the Munich kidnapping. It sure did Israel a lot of good, didnt it?
This is a logical fallacy. Your assertion doesn't follow from your argument. You try to again equate "israel" to "munich terrorists" by an invalid assertion. Would Israel ever have "revenged" anything without the CAUSAL action of the terrorists? How could they? But to the point... this is not a related response and you are commiting a "red herring" mistake in logic.
What non-violent actions do I propose? Peaceful Talks. Trying to find some common ground and working from there. This has been shown time and time again to be the most successful method in the majority of cases. In the cases of war against a nation, a definable identity, violence may work. But against "terror", something which by definition cannot be defeated, terror being an abstraction. I reiterate my previous point of peaceful negotiations beging the best way forward. Another historical example: the IRA.
See my previous posts about facing a benevolent enemy. The IRA did negotiate. Will Al Queda? Not to date. Who would you send to negotiate and how long would they remain alive and free? This is another short-coming of pseudo libs. They fail to even read the literature and determine the motivations and goals of their sworn enemies. Bush is an easy target. The press provides all the easy hate reading that they need. It is much more difficult to research the September Document of Bin Laden (sometimes called the Afghanistan Declaration of War) to see who the real enemy SHOULD be. Would you be happy to convert to Islam and live by Shiria?
I do not dismiss something simply because I do not like it. I look at the facts, and the past results from a method. A lot can be applied to the modern world from the study of history.
I know this is not so. You have already stated that WWII was a good war. And you failed to tell me how Hitler is more evil than Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri.
I do dispute the validity of tribal nationhood, but that is not the issue we are discussing here. I DO dispute the actions of the coalition governments in going into Iraq because it is plain and simple criminal.
I say you are dead wrong. It is about the nation of Iraq having the same freedoms that you poo poo and I cherish. Thanks for proving my point about Libs equating killing evil to evil.
A war against terror was it? Hmm, it seems to have failed then.
I'll take it as another Freudian slip. Don't you mean that "we" have failed? You don't support terrorists. Remember?