Useful Idiots of the Day

[rikzilla]

Orwell, do me a favor, don't agree with me, ok?

Edit: To elaborate, Orwell, you're delivering a blanket insult to everyone who's disagreed with me, which demens everyone here, and then expressed solidarity with me. That's not tolerable.

You're heading up the beer quality index my friend. I shall offer you something more substantial than a Miller Lite in Vegas...a Sam Adams perhaps? Looking forward to meeting you.
-z

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You're heading up the beer quality index my friend. I shall offer you something more substantial than a Miller Lite in Vegas...a Sam Adams perhaps? Looking forward to meeting you.
-z

Likewise.

Skeptic, I know that the proof is in the pudding. I've never been in a life or death situation where killing someone else is a solution to the problem. I've been in violet situations, but nothing on that order of magnitude. I've thought about the situation, and I've decided what I'd do. I hope you've done the same. If our pre-arrainged choices are different, that's fine, but there's nothing wrong with examining the ethics of a situation that might come along, and figuring out what you'd do.

 

[RandFan]

Yeah, I have to say that I also did not understand ID's point of view. Good discussion folks. I'm schizoid myself when it comes to war. I read All Quiet on the Western Front in High school and it had a real impact. I love war and anti-war flicks.

In the end Sherman was correct, "war is hell".

Thanks ID

 

[luchog]

Likewise.

Skeptic, I know that the proof is in the pudding. I've never been in a life or death situation where killing someone else is a solution to the problem. I've been in violet situations, but nothing on that order of magnitude. I've thought about the situation, and I've decided what I'd do. I hope you've done the same. If our pre-arrainged choices are different, that's fine, but there's nothing wrong with examining the ethics of a situation that might come along, and figuring out what you'd do.

Oddly enough, I used to have a far-left friend who was fairly adamantly anti-gun. Until he was in a life-or-death situation himself. He was part of some sort of environmental protest in Montana, when a bunch of drunk rednecks decided they didn't like all those "hippy faggot" protestors around, and were going to express their displeasure with assorted blunt objects, like tire-irons and such; and only the presense of a pistol in the hands of another protestor kept that from happening.

He told me the story when he got back from Montana; and said that he was seriously re-evaluating his attitude toward gun ownership.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Oddly enough, I used to have a far-left friend who was fairly adamantly anti-gun. Until he was in a life-or-death situation himself. He was part of some sort of environmental protest in Montana, when a bunch of drunk rednecks decided they didn't like all those "hippy faggot" protestors around, and were going to express their displeasure with assorted blunt objects, like tire-irons and such; and only the presense of a pistol in the hands of another protestor kept that from happening.

He told me the story when he got back from Montana; and said that he was seriously re-evaluating his attitude toward gun ownership.

See, in that case, I'd say cops with guns there is a good idea, and the best solution, rather than one or more protesters having guns of their own. Nevertheless, I see your point.

 

[Freakshow]

ImaginalDisc, I don't know if I've told you yet, but welcome to the forum. I like having you here, even though we have disagreements on some political issues. I like the way you've been debating and posting. So...welcome!

 

[ImaginalDisc]

ImaginalDisc, I don't know if I've told you yet, but welcome to the forum. I like having you here, even though we have disagreements on some political issues. I like the way you've been debating and posting. So...welcome!

Oh, likewise. I dunno, I kinna have this fetish for logic, evidence, reason and critical thinking. Can you guess why I didn't appreciate Orwell's flyby?

 

[webfusion]

Can you guess why I didn't appreciate Orwell's flyby?

C'mon, Orwell is more fun than a barrel full of monkeys.

 

[Mycroft]

C'mon, Orwell is more fun than a barrel full of monkeys.

He is kinda fun.

 

[shalomsteph]

The Palestinians have created a no win situation. They call for Jihad and the destruction of Israel. There is no compromise in their rhetoric. The Israelis don't appear to be leaving and the Palestinian actions will not bring about the destruction of Israel.

As long as the Palestinians and their leaders refuse to see any possibility of the existence of Israel there will be no cessation to the violence.

I agree with you on this one. Sharon was foolish to give up Gaza.

Randi Rhodes is my favorite liberal "babe", though. Garafalo is OK, though...just a little too caustic for my tastes. Have you heard Rachel (Maddox?) on Air America? (Sorry, her last name escapes me and I am too lazy to google)

 

[Melendwyr]

Oddly enough, I used to have a far-left friend who was fairly adamantly anti-gun. Until he was in a life-or-death situation himself. He was part of some sort of environmental protest in Montana, when a bunch of drunk rednecks decided they didn't like all those "hippy faggot" protestors around, and were going to express their displeasure with assorted blunt objects, like tire-irons and such; and only the presense of a pistol in the hands of another protestor kept that from happening.

He told me the story when he got back from Montana; and said that he was seriously re-evaluating his attitude toward gun ownership.

And if the would-be assaulters had had a gun, presumably he would have been even more vehemently anti-gun.

Your friend was an idiot, and the anecdote about him has no weight.

 

[RandFan]

Randi Rhodes is my favorite liberal "babe", though. Garafalo is OK, though...just a little too caustic for my tastes. Have you heard Rachel (Maddox?) on Air America? (Sorry, her last name escapes me and I am too lazy to google)

No, I haven't heard her. When is she on? Rhodes is ok, I haven't listened to her that much.

 

[Orwell]

Orwell, do me a favor, don't agree with me, ok?

Edit: To elaborate, Orwell, you're delivering a blanket insult to everyone who's disagreed with me, which demens everyone here, and then expressed solidarity with me. That's not tolerable.

Sheesh, lighten up, would ya? Effin boy scout...

 

[Orwell]

Oh, likewise. I dunno, I kinna have this fetish for logic, evidence, reason and critical thinking. Can you guess why I didn't appreciate Orwell's flyby?

You apparently also have a fetish for thinking very highly of yourself.

Frankly, you sound like a humourless twat. Oh dear me, I'm making fly by comments! Bad Orwell!

Tweedledee...

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You apparently also have a fetish for thinking very highly of yourself.

No, if I thought highly of myself, I would think that my opinions were important enough to not need any bearing in reality.

P.S. Remember, atheists aren't allowed in the Boy Scouts.

 

[Skeptic]

Likewise.

Skeptic, I know that the proof is in the pudding. I've never been in a life or death situation where killing someone else is a solution to the problem. I've been in violet situations, but nothing on that order of magnitude. I've thought about the situation, and I've decided what I'd do. I hope you've done the same. If our pre-arrainged choices are different, that's fine, but there's nothing wrong with examining the ethics of a situation that might come along, and figuring out what you'd do.

I-D:

I'm not suggesting you aren't sincere in your pacifism; I'm suggesting that you should not proclaim your pacifism even if you are sincere, since it is pointless to do so when you are not in a situation when it is tested. The same of course goes for the opposite, namely, declarations of bravery and willingness to fight and die for cause X.

 

[Orwell]

No, if I thought highly of myself, I would think that my opinions were important enough to not need any bearing in reality.

Just remember one thing: this is the politics, current events and social issues section. That means that most of the debates in here involve interpretations, principles and articles of faith. Therefore, the arguments presented tend to be hyperbolic and manipulative.

P.S. Remember, atheists aren't allowed in the Boy Scouts.

Very true.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I-D:

I'm not suggesting you aren't sincere in your pacifism; I'm suggesting that you should not proclaim your pacifism even if you are sincere, since it is pointless to do so when you are not in a situation when it is tested. The same of course goes for the opposite, namely, declarations of bravery and willingness to fight and die for cause X.

Fair enough, but that's a bit like saying someone should proclaim they don't believe in an afterlife until after they're dead. It's rude and crass to run around making statements of faith unsolicited, but in this case, the subject came up.

 

[luchog]

See, in that case, I'd say cops with guns there is a good idea, and the best solution, rather than one or more protesters having guns of their own. Nevertheless, I see your point.

The problem is, how do you ensure that there are always cops around, everywhere, when you need them? And that they act properly for the circumstances and within the law?

This was a very remote location; and chances are the cops in that region would have sympathized more with the rednecks than the protestors, and may have simply turned a blind eye? (IIRC there was something about some protestors being brutalized by cops at a similar, previous protest in that same area.)

Do you turn society into a police state where there are officials on every street corner, every business, every patch of wilderness? It's simply not feasible, or even desirable. That's the reason that the principle of self-defense was so firmly established in the US Constitution and legal system by those who created them.

I was actually moving toward a pacifistic philosophy at one point in my life, about the same time I got out of the military. But the more I thought about it, the less I found myself able to be one. I found that it simply wasn't possible to be a true pacifist without becoming a parasite, or obligate victim abnegating any other rights I may have otherwise had.

"In a land of pacifists, the man with a gun is god."

 

[ImaginalDisc]

The problem is, how do you ensure that there are always cops around, everywhere, when you need them? And that they act properly for the circumstances and within the law?

This was a very remote location; and chances are the cops in that region would have sympathized more with the rednecks than the protestors, and may have simply turned a blind eye? (IIRC there was something about some protestors being brutalized by cops at a similar, previous protest in that same area.)

Do you turn society into a police state where there are officials on every street corner, every business, every patch of wilderness? It's simply not feasible, or even desirable. That's the reason that the principle of self-defense was so firmly established in the US Constitution and legal system by those who created them.

"In a land of pacifists, the man with a gun is god."

When there's a non-violent protest, and protesters get hurt or killed, that's part of the risk of a non-violent protest. Ghandi came up with the concept, he took tremendous personnal risks, and never once raised a hand to defend himself. The idea was that if people commit acts of violence against you because they are angry at your protests of injustice, that only demonstrates what an evil thing they are doing. Taking it stoically emphasis that point.

That takes cojones. When the KKK bombed Dr. King's home, he made a speach to the mob on his doorstep that no one should go seek retribution, or lift their hands against their attackers. Completely non-violent protest gets the goals of the protesters accomplished faster, and with less questionable means. No one can possibly question the dedication of a protesters who will not defend themself, and who died for their cause.