Originally posted by lioyankAbout little lio?
nice way of avoiding the question...
I'll play it your way SVW...
yes or no?
no ifs, ands, or buts...
just yes... or no.
then I'll answer your question.
<grin> sorry. Keep in mind that it is ok to pick the "lesser of several evils". Absolutisms get more people into war than not.
But in the question of the "war" to remove saddam....
I will take the position that it is the most moral position to remove him at any and all cost because of his proven disdain for civilization and humanity.
This is where it becomes difficult for the left. They themselves 'disdain' decency as a silly cowboy sort of notion.
I'll make it easy. But remember... You can't be a "butt monkey".
1 - The war to remove Saddam was a good thing.
2 - The war to remove Saddam was wrong.
3 - The war to remove saddam was acceptible because it was the lesser of several evils.
4 - The war to remove saddam was not acceptible because it was NOT the lesser of several evils.
I take position number 3 because of my stated reasons. Which do you take? Feel free to expand my (admittedly limited) definition list.
BTW... Lio,
When you are confronted... like I did with "little lio"... don't retreat. Use humor to best me. Use the assets of "leo" the lion and his size. Right? Humor wins more arguments than reason because most people see humor. Not many see reason.
So just use "The King" to swat me down. You will get a big grin from me.
Originally posted by StarValleyWynow we're actually getting somewhere.
About little lio?
<grin> sorry. Keep in mind that it is ok to pick the "lesser of several evils". Absolutisms get more people into war than not.
But in the question of the "war" to remove saddam....
This is where it becomes difficult for the left. They themselves 'disdain' decency as a silly cowboy sort of notion.
I'll make it eas ...[text shortened]... stated reasons. Which do you take? Feel free to expand my (admittedly limited) definition list.
However, one thing I must clarify before we go any further:
"I will take the position that it is the most moral position to remove him at any and all cost because of his proven disdain for civilization and humanity."
if I am correct here, you are saying that the ends DO justify the means. I also believe that you truly believe that the WAY in which Saddam was removed from power was the most moral way, yes?
If this is indeed what you meant, then I am ready to answer your "multiple choice" question. If I am not correct in what I have stated, please clarify.
Originally posted by lioyankNot the most "moral way". The only realistic way.
now we're actually getting somewhere.
However, one thing I must clarify before we go any further:
"I will take the position that it is the most moral position to remove him at any and all cost because of his proven disdain for civilization and humanity."
if I am correct here, you are saying that the ends DO justify the means. I also believe that ...[text shortened]... r your "multiple choice" question. If I am not correct in what I have stated, please clarify.
He was insulated by the UN and those he payed to protect him.
War was the "only" way. So then I have to decide if all the killing is worth it. I say yes because of my total devotion to "freedom and liberty" of the INDIVIDUAL over the state.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI may get a big grin from you, but I wont be true to myself. Like you said yourself, we shouldn't be here for "chimp credits". I'm not trying to create a utopian society. I'm just trying to get as close as possible. I wasn't retreating. I was abstaining from returning with a deragatory comment, which for me, is harder than throwing out a cheap comment. You may think differently. Your entitled to your own opinion.
BTW... Lio,
When you are confronted... like I did with "little lio"... don't retreat. Use humor to best me. Use the assets of "leo" the lion and his size. Right? Humor wins more arguments than reason because most people see humor. Not many see reason.
So just use "The King" to swat me down. You will get a big grin from me.
And by the way, can you show me a source for the claim that humor wins more arguments than reason? 😉
3 edits
Originally posted by lioyankWhy sure. Sonny. How old are you and how many 'arguments' have you fought and won? I win a lot more by humor than by logic and reason.
And by the way, can you show me a source for the claim that humor wins more arguments than reason? 😉
Humor makes us face our deepest regrets. Reason tries to hide them.
Another famous.... etc...
Seriously. No. How can one prove the personal opinion of a single individual to be universal truth? All that I DO claim is mine and is based on "my" life. I ain't god you know.
Originally posted by StarValleyWythe only realistic way. fine. taking that into account I will now answer your question.
Not the most "moral way". The only realistic way.
He was insulated by the UN and those he payed to protect him.
War was the "only" way. So then I have to decide if all the killing is worth it. I say yes because of my total devotion to "freedom and liberty" of the INDIVIDUAL over the state.
Originally posted by StarValleyWymy answer is #5- the war to remove saddam should be tolerated because it was, ultimately, one of the only realistic approaches to remove him from power, which is a lesser of two evils. (keep him in power, or do something about it, even though it may involve some actions that may be defined as "immoral", in order to achieve the lesser of two evils, or the greater good.)
About little lio?
<grin> sorry. Keep in mind that it is ok to pick the "lesser of several evils". Absolutisms get more people into war than not.
But in the question of the "war" to remove saddam....
I will take the position that it is the most moral position to remove him at any and all cost because of his proven disdain for civilization an ...[text shortened]... stated reasons. Which do you take? Feel free to expand my (admittedly limited) definition list.
I admit my answer according to your own rule:
"Feel free to expand my (admittedly limited) definition list"
Originally posted by lioyankWell done. I grant you the very clever use of "toleration" to prove a point. And you do have a point. The closer we get to death, the less tolerant we become because of the looming victory of "unreason". It kind of puts us old farts into a nit.
my answer is #5- the war to remove saddam should be tolerated because it was, ultimately, one of the only realistic approaches to remove him from power, which is a lesser of two evils. (keep him in power, or do something about it, even though it may involve some actions that may be defined as "immoral", in order to achieve the lesser of two evils, or the g ...[text shortened]... r according to your own rule:
"Feel free to expand my (admittedly limited) definition list"
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI had to read that over twice to fully appreciate it. You admit that with age you may lose some of that tolerance you once had at a younger age because you feel the impending threat of death (not just physical but the death of your ideas with it) and feel that to do as much as you can, you must push your belief on others as hard as possible. It is harder to be tolerant as we get older. I dont blame you. I think I understand you. Let me just say this: dont lose that tolerance that you have left. It may help turn around other people's views more than you think.
Well done. I grant you the very clever use of "toleration" to prove a point. And you do have a point. The closer we get to death, the less tolerant we become because of the looming victory of "unreason". It kind of puts us old farts into a nit.
1 edit
Originally posted by lioyankWhy, thank you sir.
I had to read that over twice to fully appreciate it. You admit that with age you may lose some of that tolerance you once had at a younger age because you feel the impending threat of death (not just physical but the death of your ideas wi ...[text shortened]... It may help turn around other people's views more than you think.
I don't really want to "turn-around" anyone though. That seems like a bit of sophistry. I am what I am because of a million wrong ideas. Some of them are still ruling my mind. I don't know which they are, or I would snuff them out in a minute. Awareness is like that. We just do what we can do. Consciousness is an elusive thing. I only get in in moments. Not hours.
BTW. Well reasoned and well done. We may continue to "disagree" but we at least agree that it ain't "evil".
Originally posted by bbarrSpoken pretentiously and arrogantly as always. Amazing how a thorough college education can swell a head, isn't it??
If they annoy you, then simply ignore his posts. There is absolutely no justification for banning STANG. These are public forums, and he has a right to air his views. If we banned everyone who offended, or annoyed another, or periodically spammed, then most of us would be banned (and that includes you). Further, STANG actually supports the site by contributing to it, whereas you simply freeload.
It seems you have not read many of STANG's post, for you missed the obvious parody of his usual statements in my post.
Then comes the usual tiresome lecture about free speech. You join the crowd of people that make the error of granting a dissenter's right to speech, but not the dissenter of the dissenter. Your own argument about public forums means that I also have a right to air my views. It gives me the right to tell you to piss off when you suggest I just ignore posts.
I've noticed a funny thing about the internet. Most of the stuff on it is free. Forums? Dime a dozen. Lots of free ones out there. Plenty of free correspondence chess sites too. (http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=25511&page=2) Don't delude yourself into thinking you're somehow special because you choose to piss away 30 bucks on a correspondence chess site.
Originally posted by Valerius PoplicolaI'll let you in on a little secret. This is not a public place. This is someone's property. Therefore, all who would speak here must do so subject to certain rules (TOS) of the owner. STANG has already been forum-banned several times (and justifiably so!) for breaking the rules here.
One of the most fundamental tests of a person's commitment to liberty is not when the individual desires freedom to protect those things he agrees with; the test comes when the individual allows liberty to protect the right of others to do that which he deems disagreeable or maybe even offensive.
Nevertheless, he has improved his behavior, and this thread was more a parody of his usual statements than a serious call for his ban.
2 edits
Originally posted by STANGYea. But it is a big world. It just might survive. Maybe? It has been here for 4.5 billion years. Bush is only 58 or so. Think of the scale of truth.
Bush is a liar and a war monger. Bush, and those who support him, are a threat to the security of the world.
BTW.... I support him. I am a threat to Kofi Annan. But not to the "security of the world". Because?
I'll give you a hint. The biggest thing I ever "exploded" was a beaver dam, and I'm too damn old to even want to walk into the mountains to "explode" beaver dams. Ain't life a sad bit of art?