|
|
Damacon_Ace
Famous Hero
Also known as Nobris Agni
|
posted February 13, 2003 03:37 AM |
|
|
Just for the information that the world is currently on. Recently a wish by Germany and France was given to the UN stating out that UN peacekeepers should be let into Iraq to keep the peace and to avert possible war from the US and its allies (including Britain and Australia). However, the US has scoffed at the notion, saying that Iraq is already dedicated to hurt America and Co. But, in my sense, I am sure that Iraq would let in peacekeepers to protect his country because he would then have the UN on his side and when America and Co. attack his country they will have to attack the UN as well for the resources they cringe on.
Well Dargon, PH, Wolfman, Bort and Lews, I know you all are serious debaters on this topic, but I do consider this Iraqi war a serious threat to the world.
Personally, I am against a war without the UN support. If the UN supports an attack on Iraq, though, then I am with the UN.
____________
No one knows my true nature here...
|
|
Snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
|
posted February 13, 2003 09:30 AM |
|
|
What's wrong with being NM? 
*sorry, couldn't resist...* 
Quote:
... I do consider this Iraqi war a serious threat to the world.
Personally, I am against a war without the UN support. If the UN supports an attack on Iraq, though, then I am with the UN.
Why is that so, since you consider this war a serious threat to the world? Er... not that it's really important...
____________
Seize The Day.
|
|
reynaert
Adventuring Hero
Nicknamed the Fox
|
|
posted February 13, 2003 09:00 PM |
|
|
You seem to be talking about 2 countrys that oppose the UN: France (always has been a state that does difficult), and Germany (motives unknown). What happened to that 3th state...?
____________
http://guardiansgrove.com/
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 14, 2003 06:59 AM |
|
|
“Uhm, you also call my views relativistic, which to my understanding is exactly the opposite (open-minded to an extend where everything vanishes into arbitrariness)”
Narrow mindedness entails EVERY philosophy. An anarchist…can cling to a narrow mind that “all order/government is wrong”. A relativist can become just as narrow minded in their dogma “there are no moral absolutes”. People kid themselves when they think that they are necessarily “open minded”…their “open minded” mantra becomes but another narrow minded perspective. Study any social science and you will find over and again that things that start out as “open minded” or as a revolution of sorts, quickly develop into a dogma.
Quote
“Dogmatic views discourage doubt and criticism.”
That is the point…a relativist typically becomes full of self-righteousness and very proud in their pseudo-intellectual claim that there is no morality. They in fact start with that claim as their foundation…and they usually never go back to question their own foundation. I have yet to meet or read from a relativist whom actually questions their own dogmatic certainty that there are no absolutes…they are typically quite puffed up on their own sense of superiority and “open mindedness” as they turn their noses up at the “simple minded” people who believe in absolutes…they don’t doubt their foundational belief. Psychologically speaking it actually would be impossible to be so “open minded” as the relativist likes to convey…the anxiety would devour them…moreover most relativists that I have encountered and read are hypocritical as in short order you find that they do have “absolute” moralities (murder is wrong, being judgmental is wrong, etc.)….their very psychological well being demands some absolutes or they would not be able to function in life. Only a mentally ill person such as a psychotic schizophrenic has the mental organization to truly be “open minded” on a perpetual basis.
Quote
“If you call his constantly praising your postings and his not understanding what’s being talked about important contributions, then yes.”
I can think of maybe 2-4 times that Wolfman complimented my posts in the last year to my recollection. I have complicated many people’s posts, but that doesn’t make me their “dog” as you earlier ascribed to Wolfman.
Quote
“The point I would believe here is that the opinion is only stupid in your eyes.”
First PH I was describing what I feel and think…not what I like to practice. I was actually agreeing with your post, but it seems to have maybe slipped your eye. Second…there are dumb posts…why must everything be in the eye of the beholder? For example, If someone states that the UN has vetoed resolution 1441…that would be stupid and ignorant. If someone said that UK is owned 80% by the USA that would also be ignorant. Facts are facts….and if someone gets the facts wrong then they are ignorant…if it becomes a common practice for them then their mental capacity is definitely called into question. It is only the interpretation of facts where more grace should be shown IMO.
Quote
“Nato cannot stop entirely the Hawks from using their forces to send to Turkey, so why is it being represented as such?”
You can argue “what if” till the cows come home. Fact is that France and Germany are throwing all their weight into not allowing a military defense to be placed in Turkey. That is immoral….what right do they have to do that? If Turkey loses people due to Axis of Appeaser’s arrogance then the blood will be on their hands. To tell another free and democratic nation it can’t get support for their own basic defense…. that is insane and has rings of a dictatorship mentality.
Quote
“Put it on the other side of the coin for a minute, and assume they had not used their veto. The accusations could then be leveled that they are backing off from their anti-war”
No they can stand by their principles by not sending troops or support…that is simple enough. They could abstain from a vote. There are many things they could do to stand by their “principles’ but impeding a sovereign free nation from defending itself is far past being anti -war.
Quote
“I think what defines the height of NM is not having an opinion and sticking to it, but the lack of ability to see that others have valid opinions and stances on an issue based on their experiences and interpretation of what they consider the important aspects of the issue.”
I fully agree…and likewise many times I have told Bort he has stated his position well and I respect his views….even if they are wrong;P
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 14, 2003 12:01 PM |
|
|
If someone gets the facts wrong they are ignorant? Maybe, maybe they just put a different interpretation on those facts. Many of the facts discussed are, like statistics wildly open to interpretation. Take the number of European states now backing America, on the surface and on the pro-war stance this is good, around 10 or so backing America now. In reality you could also state, using the same facts that most of the powerful European nations (France, Germany and Russia) are not in support of America and therefore those that are, well they are not relevant. Facts, like statistics are much more than just black and white as you suggest there, maybe not with those 2 extreme examples, but most facts discussed here can be taken and used by both sides.
Quote:
Fact is that France and Germany are throwing all their weight into not allowing a military defense to be placed in Turkey. That is immoral
Shalll I tell you what I think is immoral? Representing Nato as blocking any and all moves to place forces into turkey! Are you seriously thinking that if America, Britain and others wanted to place defences in Turkey they have to beg permission from the members of Nato? Is there no way around this blocking move? I think there is, but that is ignored in favour of pushing France and Germany into making a stand over the issue. America and her friends could send missiles tomorrow if it wished, they do NOT need Nato permission. To be frank it will be America and Britain’s fault if Iraqui missiles hit turkey because they are spending their time fighting France and Germany through Nato rather than ignoring Nato and sending the defences anyway. Don’t blame The Franco/German people for the problems caused by Anglo/American desires to weaken the stance of the “appeasers” by using cheap tricks and simple rhetoric that makes no real sense.
Think about it, they are not opposing using a military defence, they are opposing using their name and Nato’s forces to do so. Perfectly within their right, they are telling America to find another way, do it if you want, but our permission and Nato’s full support is not to be taken for granted.
Their intention is to prevent a war at least until the inspectors have time to do their work to the fullest. By building towards war, sending defences that are only to be used in the event of a war launched with an offensive action by the allies this would be directly against their attempts at investigation and diplomacy. They are fully within their right to block such a move in their name. By delaying the build-up to war that sending of missiles would do they are following their stance. By allowing it or not delaying it they are speeding up the process of war and therefore being hypocrites.
This could all have been solved if America and Britain had taken the French and German hints that they would oppose such a move and never asked Nato permission in the 1st place. They can send the missiles whenever they wish to without permission of anyone but the Turkish Government. The fact that they chose not to and cause this rift by forcing the issue through a vote speaks volumes in itself.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted February 14, 2003 01:46 PM |
|
|
Just an observation, I don't think there was much name calling before Lews showed up.
Anyway,
Quote:
Quote
“If you call his constantly praising your postings and his not understanding what’s being talked about important contributions, then yes.”
I can think of maybe 2-4 times that Wolfman complimented my posts in the last year to my recollection. I have complicated many people’s posts, but that doesn’t make me their “dog” as you earlier ascribed to Wolfman.
Is complimenting people on a good post and agreeing with what they have to say so wrong?
[qoute]
Reuters
Aziz Assures Pope Iraq Will Co-Operate with U.N.
Updated 7:16 AM ET February 14, 2003
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz on Friday promised Pope John Paul that the Iraqi government would co-operate with the international community on disarmament demands, the Vatican said in a statement.
The statement, issued after a private meeting between Aziz and the pope, also said the pontiff had told Aziz Iraq must "faithfully respect with concrete commitments" U.N. resolutions.
WHy is Aziz meeting with the Pope? He is not Catholic or the leader of his government, it should be Saddam who does the traveling.
On the news yesterday they were talking to some Anti-War protesters who were sending postcards to Bush. But what they don't realize is that they are sending them to the wrong person, they should send them to Saddam.
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted February 14, 2003 03:02 PM |
|
|
People, people, we all know who is to blame here...
It has been (correctly) pointed out that in the past, the US supported both Saddam Hussein and the fighters that eventually gave rise to the Taliban and to al Qaeda. However, let's think this through logically... Who propped up the US over 200 years ago in a cynical political/economic move to weaken Britain? That's right... the FRENCH!!!!!!! I mean, maybe you can argue that the US caused the whole problem with Saddam Hussein and all, but really, the French caused the whole problem with the US, so therefore it's actually the French's fault. I mean seriously, they propped us up, and now they oppose us? Freakin' hypocrites.
Think about it, it's all part of the French plot to weaken the British Empire. Look, the colonies and the homeland are working together again and who comes along trying to drive a wedge between Her Majesty and her subjects? That's right! France! We'll show them, though. We'll give them a bit of the good ole stiff upper lip and show them that we Englishmen are not so easily defeated.
Remember Agincourt!!! God Save the Queen!!!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted February 14, 2003 04:00 PM |
|
|
Wicked post mate!
On CNN, on Crossfire they said the best way to combat the bloody French on this issue is to buy Napa Valley Wine!
God Save The Queen!
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 14, 2003 04:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Narrow mindedness entails EVERY philosophy.
Hmm, yes and no ... I´d rather say that followers of every philosophy have to watch out for narrow-mindedness and dogmatism in their own thinking. Not every philosophy is dogmatic, and not every opinion is built on a dogma. This is the point where you tend to be the HC no.1 relativist, Dargon:Quote:
A relativist can become just as narrow minded in their dogma “there are no moral absolutes”.
Following your logic, a KKK member could accuse every non-racist of NM and dogmatism. 'The dogma of whites being not superior to other races.' The word´s meaning would be arbitrary.
This is a typical misunderstanding (blind spot?) on your part. I´ll try to be a little bit more detailed. The enlightener´s view is that although everyone of us has a moral system, there are no two humans with exactly the same morals to be found. It´s the main purpose of societies to make such individual systems similar to each others, so it´s quite self-explanatory that if you compare different societies, the differences may vastly increase.
Fundamentalists of every society claim that their own system of morals is absolutely "good", while their counterparts/antagonists/enemies are "evil". Bush does it, Bin Laden does it. This is not only immoral to modern humanistic standards (history shows what excesses become legitimate when the purpose was to vanquish evil itself), it´s also unconvincing. You can state that you´re representing "good", but you cannot in any conclusive way substantiate it. It´s a dogma.
You are right that "There are no moral absolutes" can be a dogmatic view, too. But it´s inaccurate and simplified. The enlightener would rather say: I have no means to find out whether there are absolute morals or not, that´s why it doesn´t make any sense to operate with them. As far as I am concerned, it does not exist. My morals are based on what´s important for me (grounded on education, socialisation, experience, ratio, etc.), I have no reason to assume that they are any more or less than that. That´s why I consider myself non-dogmatic, regarding morals.
Besides, I remember you defending the massacres against women and children done by the likes of Moses and David in Old Testament by refering to the context of the archaic time. Does that not contradict the view of a god-given sense for absolute "good" and "evil"? If you say that in the time when Jesus outet himself as a fan of slavery, slavery was okay, how can morals be absolute then? This would either mean that slavery is okay, or that Jesus was evil.
Quote:
are hypocritical as in short order you find that they do have “absolute” moralities (murder is wrong, being judgmental is wrong, etc.)….their very psychological well being demands some absolutes or they would not be able to function in life.
It seems to me that you don´t at all understand their thinking. Of course these people have morals, which are more more less binding for them. 98% of these morals may be binding as well for their neighbours. If you move 1000 kilometers to the north, west, east or south, or 30 years into the past, the number will probably slightly decrease. Guess what happens if you go further and further.
It seems quite arrogant to me, to center the universe and the time scale on one´s own internalized values.
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted February 16, 2003 03:27 PM |
|
|
|
Protestors filled about 20x3 blocks here in NYC! Favorite sign? "Who would Jesus Bomb" *giggle*
|
|
Snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
|
posted February 19, 2003 02:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Protestors filled about 20x3 blocks here in NYC! Favorite sign? "Who would Jesus Bomb" *giggle*
LOL )
____________
Seize The Day.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted February 20, 2003 12:35 AM |
|
|
I like it, but protesting is a waste of time. No one cares.
____________
|
|
reynaert
Adventuring Hero
Nicknamed the Fox
|
|
posted February 20, 2003 09:01 PM |
|
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted February 21, 2003 03:11 AM |
|
|
Yeah but they don't count, they're not important, they just get in the way.
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted February 21, 2003 04:38 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I like it, but protesting is a waste of time. No one cares.
The people who protest do.
|
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
|
posted February 21, 2003 05:44 AM |
|
|
Nice thread Melissa
Has anyone noticed that this is the first war ever over which there are no protest songs.
If John Lennon were still around this would definately not be the case.
|
|
Damacon_Ace
Famous Hero
Also known as Nobris Agni
|
|
posted February 21, 2003 10:10 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Nice thread Melissa
Has anyone noticed that this is the first war ever over which there are no protest songs.
If John Lennon were still around this would definately not be the case.
Yes, John Lennon would have been aganist this war on Iraq if he were still alive - after all, he is a HIPPIE!
____________
No one knows my true nature here...
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 21, 2003 07:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I like it, but protesting is a waste of time. No one cares.
The people who protest do.
Pity those in power don't then isn't it?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted February 22, 2003 05:05 AM |
|
|
Yeah.
PH, you just couldn't stay away could you?
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted February 26, 2003 12:52 AM |
|
|
What happened? No posts in this Forum for 2 days?
____________
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
