HOME | DD

Mike-Chan92 In reply to Supertruck [2012-12-20 05:44:59 +0000 UTC]

In the USA die over 10.000 People by handfire weapons. Innocent children, students, parents. and still they allow everyone to arm with them. God bless America... idiots.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

HaloGamesFan In reply to Mike-Chan92 [2013-08-16 20:16:06 +0000 UTC]

Would you rather:

Have guns in america: Your affect

Have no guns in america: The fuck!? Where's AMERICA? or Black markets. OR WORST.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Mike-Chan92 In reply to HaloGamesFan [2013-08-16 21:39:25 +0000 UTC]

I'd rather have no guns in America.
Uh, but the law, but the law, buhuhu. Cry me a river.

This is something, why the world says, america is nuts:
Even if children DIE, because they play with daddies weapon,

America says: "Well, this is fuck you. But we won't make any changes. Because fuck you, that's why!"

The black markets are there.
and worst? or worse?
Who brought up the bombs to freedom for iran/iraq?
America.

Congratulations.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

HaloGamesFan In reply to Mike-Chan92 [2013-08-16 21:57:11 +0000 UTC]

Thanks.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Quicksilver1 In reply to Crafter-Jack [2010-03-03 03:19:24 +0000 UTC]

Your full of shit. The cost of freedom is not paid to option that freedom it is to preserve and the protect it. An as for your last comment. I make them all the time, and I can't, I'm a 4F so don't make assumptions pal. If I wasn't you can bet you ass that I would be there just like every man of my family as far back as is traceable. and trust me I can trace my blood back to Adam himself.

The cost of true freedom is the cost of ignorance, hatred and pride, and the cost is paid in blood and innocence would you rather be it your adversaries of that of you and your children?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Crafter-Jack In reply to Quicksilver1 [2010-03-03 06:18:12 +0000 UTC]

Thanks for the reply. Best laugh I had this week. Maybe all year!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Quicksilver1 In reply to psi-777666 [2010-03-03 03:22:40 +0000 UTC]

When the orders are unclear the fault lies with the general, if the the orders are clear the fault lies with the soldier- sun tzu

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

himynameiznate In reply to Orofein [2007-04-15 22:16:16 +0000 UTC]

Really? Can you name one person you personally know whose freedoms have been lost because of governmental actions?

And if you don't remember your personal freedom being threatened by a terrorist, what do you call it when a terrorist organization calls for the destruction of the U.S. and the subjugation of the worlds citizens to Sharia law?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Orofein In reply to himynameiznate [2007-04-15 22:59:36 +0000 UTC]

Yes, I personally can. My grandfather, for not paying his federal income tax (which should be illegal, look up the movie "America: Freedom to Fascism") and countless others in the same situation. Anyone victim of the patriot act, which singles out by generalizing legitimate US citizens and invading their civil liberties. Also, think about the Abu Ghraib, the detainees were tortured and humiliated. There are also the people who have been taken away to Guantanamo for having distant relatives who associate with terrorist organizations.

I call a terrorist organization that calls for the destruction of the US and control of the world and the citizens completely delusional. That notion, even taking over the united states would be extremely improbable, almost impossible under todays circumstances and technology. I laugh when I hear some terrorists talking about taking over the US or the world, because it just would not happen.

Blind nationalism and patriotism does nothing for this country except pit others against it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

himynameiznate In reply to Orofein [2007-05-14 00:27:22 +0000 UTC]

Sorry, I meant to specify, please tell me if you know anyone personally who has been affected by the government's response to terrorism, namely the patriot act.

Your grandfather not paying his income tax is no surprise.
It's legality may be up for debate, but he can't say he was surprised by it.

Either way, please let me know if anyone in your life has ever actually been affected by the Patriot Act. I truly doubt anyone you know has.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

himynameiznate In reply to Mr-out-law [2005-08-20 03:05:10 +0000 UTC]

Oh brother.... did the handbook say to write that?

Please, at this point, I would LOVE it if the US actually got some oil from Iraq. Where is all this oil we supposedly went over there to get?

BTW, nice icon. Ever shop at [link] ?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Mr-out-law In reply to Mr-out-law [2005-08-20 00:06:13 +0000 UTC]

Rape* pardon man english

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Quicksilver1 In reply to epiphyte78 [2010-03-03 03:24:42 +0000 UTC]

really well thank you for every thing you did, and if I could ask with what division were you attached?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

himynameiznate In reply to Jupit3r [2005-05-20 01:53:04 +0000 UTC]

That's nice. Im glad the Contrarian Manual for Lazy Thinker's is still in publication.

Maybe it needs to be updated to reflect the fact that oil prices are higher than ever, and we havent gotten ANY oil...

ug.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

himynameiznate In reply to DeMolama [2004-10-19 04:29:58 +0000 UTC]

Wow, do you guys just all copy/paste from the same NuThink handbook?

Id respect you guys all a lot more if you could generate an original thought that wasnt saturated with political buzzwords like "NeoCon allies and Fundamentalist Christian supporters".

Making statements like that prove nothing other than that you let the label do the thinking.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DeMolama In reply to himynameiznate [2004-10-19 11:10:34 +0000 UTC]

Shall I dumb it down for you?
I know that big words make some people uncomfortable. Sorry. I know that "conservatives" are more at home with terms like "evil-doers"
What I meant was "the President and the evil-doers who like him."
Is that better?

And referring to me as "you guys"...and then telling me I let my lables do the thinking. What a piece of hypocracy. I don't know a word for that that you'd be comfortable with...look it up.


Cheers.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

himynameiznate In reply to DeMolama [2004-10-19 17:37:24 +0000 UTC]

Oh lord, and again, the typical arrogant response.

You know theres a serious problem when the arguer spends more time attacking the opponents rather than the argument.

Thanks for the comment.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DeMolama In reply to himynameiznate [2004-10-19 22:14:24 +0000 UTC]

Probably wrote about 100 word response to this last message. You can use your imagination, but i will tell you true, there was no profanity. Decided it was not important.

I like the picture, honest. Like all art, the value is in the eye of the beholder, and I do like the picture, although I would guess that I take a somewhat different meaning from it than you do. It's a very powerful piece.

<arting crack deleted, again, not important>

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

himynameiznate In reply to DeMolama [2004-10-19 23:11:37 +0000 UTC]

Can I ask you an honest question?
(forget the redundancy of that....)

Do you believe in universal moral absolutes that are true regardless of time, place, culture, etc?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DeMolama In reply to himynameiznate [2004-10-20 00:47:10 +0000 UTC]

I believe that I blieve that there are things which I always find to be wrong.
I do not believe that, if a universal code of morality exists(if any idea can be said to exist), that any person knows what it is.
I am an atheist, but it's not because i do not understand religion or the religious impulse, it's just that after years of studying religion and mythology, i find them to be indistingushable except that once a culture dies out, their religion gets called mythology. All of them get significant issues right, all of them get significant issues wrong, and when you look at them broadly enough, i think they all have roughly similar ratios of wisdom to folly.
I do think that all morality is a human invention, and while morality is great, I am not sure any human concept can be said to be universal. To my mind, something that is universal, like gravity say, does not depend on an eye to behold it, so to speak. I think that morality, like art, has always been in the eye of the beholder.
Interestingly enough, the earliest objects ever discovered that can be called art, carvings and cave paintings and such, are all thought to be religious in nature.

Soooo, I guess, all things considered, the answer to your question is: No. Gravity is a universal Absolute. Morality is a concept.

Cheers

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

himynameiznate In reply to DeMolama [2004-10-20 19:17:22 +0000 UTC]

"I do not believe that, if a universal code of morality exists(if any idea can be said to exist), that any person knows what it is."

"All of them get significant issues right, all of them get significant issues wrong..."

Not to be obnoxious, but dont you see the inherent contradiction in your own statements? Im not trying to attack, but to make a point.

If morality is a human invention, and one that is whimsical to the culture, then on what basis do you have gripes with the war in Iraq?

Secondly, you're still using a moral absolute to judge other moral statements. You can say that its "just what you believe to be morally true", but if its your own private definition, you have to realize that it has no basis other than your own personal likes and dislikes.

Again, Im not trying to attack, but I just want to understand how a person could say there are no moral absolutes, and that morality is a human made concept with no real weight behind it, and yet call the Iraq war immoral, unjust, and wrong.

Seems its not the Christian Fundies being too dogmatic on this one

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DeMolama In reply to himynameiznate [2004-10-20 22:51:05 +0000 UTC]

OK, but see, it's like this.
In the same way that anyone else's morality is equally as valid as mine, mine is at least as valid as anyone else's, so I can assert it with as much conviction as anyone. Also, I'm not even sure that I can call my ethical system "morality", as it is based on experience and observation, rather than an externally formulated code that I choose to abide by. The fact that I am unwilling to say that anyone HAS to think the same way I do does not mean I cannot try to persuade you to do so. At least I'll tell you that the decision is up to you.

Also, my primary objection to the war in Iraq is not moral, it is a matter of whether or not the policy is going to be effective, which I just don't believe it will be. There are certainly moral issues involved, but I don't judge governmental policy on the basis of morality, as history teaches us that the 2 things have not much to do with each other. If morality had driven US policy in the run up to WW2, we would have assisted Poland in '39.
It seems like the strategy behind US policy in the middle east since 9-11-01 especially has been to bomb the anger out of the Jihadis. This didn'work on the Viet Cong, it didn't work on the British during the Blitz.

There is a sense of grievance against the US in large swaths of the Arab world. This is a link to a piece I wrote about just this issue. It's a true story.[link]
Whether we feel this sense of grievence to be justified or not, it IS a huge issue. Somehow, I just don't think that military force combined with lectures from American officials about how the Jihadis are misinterpreting Islam will be an effective strategy. I've also read alot of the Jihadi web pages, at least the ones that were in English, and their arguments are all backed by scriptural references that they seem to think are persuasive. I am not sure that the assertion that the Jihadis are misinterpereting Islam is any more factually correct than an assertion that the doctrine of Just(ifiable) War is a misinterpretation of Christianity. But I digress.

I don't think that we can love all these problems away, nor that it is reasonable to expect America,or any nation, to stop pursuing it's own strategic interests in the name of making everyone love them. Not only is it not reasonable to expect anyne to do this, it is naive to think it would work if you did. But I also don't think we can invade them away or bomb or torture or bribe or convince them away if we keep on doing the same stuff we've been doing for the last 50 years. Someone once defined insanity as trying the same thing over and over, and expecting different outcomes.

I guess I can give the President credit for having the courage of his convictions, which is a quality which I greatly value and frequently lament the scarcity of it. I just think that the policies which he is pursuing with that courage will prove, and are proving, counter-productive. My objection is not primarilly moral, it's just that i think it's bad policy. I'd actually be prepared to swallow some objections if i thought the policy would actually, you know, work. But I don't.

Personally, as someone who is also a history geek, I have observed that politicians like their people to think of issues in moral terms because it is alot easier to sell someone a war "to spread Liberty" than it is to sell them one one the basis of "securing access to vital resources". And it's the same in some of my pics; people will pay attention to about 10 words, so you have to hit them over the head with something simple and clear or they just tune out. Its alot easier to make an "XYZ IS WRONG!" message in that form than it is to do 15 minutes on the last 50 years of geopolitics...


Now. I have spoken at length. I get to ask you a couple of things now.
"Again, Im not trying to attack, but I just want to understand how a person could say there are no moral absolutes, and that morality is a human made concept with no real weight behind it, and yet call the Iraq war immoral, unjust, and wrong."

When did I ever say "immoral, unjust, and wrong"? Stupid, yes. A crime, sure. I may have said that, but i don't really remember using that phrase, and it doesn't sound like me. It's too cliche, and not nearly mean enough.(/me shrugs)

Is premeditated murder for profit absolutely wrong? I don't mean going back in time to kill Hitler and prevent the Holocaust. I mean intentionally and with great forethought killing someone, against their will, whom you absolutely know to be innocent of any crime and undeserving of anything except the Good Guy of the Year award, in order to gain some reward, be it $20 or a combination cure-for-cancer/clean-plentiful-energy-s ource/end-to-world-hunger ?


Cheers mate

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

himynameiznate In reply to DeMolama [2007-05-14 01:11:16 +0000 UTC]

There's a few problems here with your arguments.

1. If all ideas or morally equivalent, what is the purpose even expressing your opinion? If my ideas are just as valid as yours, and there is no real absolute definition behind it, then why disagree with mine, or say anything at all. According to you, there is no absolute reality behind moral statements, so saying something like: "Child molestation is wrong" has the exact moral truth as "All Jews should be exterminated".
So if they're morally synonymous, why say anything at all.
It would not only be ineffective, but a complete waste of time for both parties.
But by disagreeing, you are affirming that there is some reality behind each of our statements, and that one persons statement correlates to reality more closely than anothers.
You can say that you believe one is more effective than another, but all you're really saying is that you have some standard in your head, and that my idea is further from that standard than yours.
Otherwise, what would be the point of saying anything? Why not just ignore the entire discussion entirely?

2. Why should anyone care about the war's efficacy?
Here's what I see, and please correct me if I am wrong:
There is something that bothers you about the Iraq war that you think is wrong. Be it the efficacy of the war, or the killing of people, but something is making you speak out.
If you truly, deep down believed that all ideas are morally equal, and ethically the same, you would never bother to say anything.
Even if you felt that the Christian right was being hypocritical in supporting the war, you wouldn't say anything, because there is nothing wrong with hypocrisy, according to your world view. Or perhaps there is, but if you think all viewpoints are equally valid, you would take no issue with anyone elses.

Also, you said that you feel your viewpoint is just as valid as everyone elses, but if they're all equal, then they're all equally worthless.

If the truth of reality is that there is nothing else behind any of this, if it's all a mechanical system, with no real personhood behind any of this, no morality, and nothing above the material, then honestly, EVERYTHING is pointless.

And that doesn't mean I cling to religion to pretend there is a point, and that I need to feel safe. But rather that the idea is logically contradicting, and contrary to the entirety of the human experience.

Materialism can lead nowhere but nihilism. And if it's all pointless, why continue this conversation? Even if you won the debate, there is no point to it. It would mean nothing, because there is nothing to win.

3. As for your questions:

Sorry, I must have quoted one of the other posters here.

And yes, killing for profit is absolutely wrong, but there are cases where the moral good of the killing takes precedent over the moral wrong of killing.

Why do I qualify it this way? Because you're making the term profit as vague as humanly possible. Killing someone in self-defense could be seen as killing for profit (after all, you are profiting from their death, namely, keeping your life).

BTW, just because Christians (and Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, et al) think that morality is codified, does not mean that there will not be cases where the morality of something would be in question.
Even in the hard sciences, such as physics, there are debates, questions, and people of opposing view points, and if we are fine with less than 100% certainty in those cases, we should also understand that less than 100% certainty in morality does not undermine it's truth.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

himynameiznate In reply to DeMolama [2004-10-21 01:02:23 +0000 UTC]

"In the same way that anyone else's morality is equally as valid as mine, mine is at least as valid as anyone else's, so I can assert it with as much conviction as anyone."

So then, I assume there is NEVER a valid reason for fighting or war.

For instance, if Person A believes molesting a child is wrong, and Person B does not, then who is right? Is child molestation really wrong, or do we just not like it because its unsavory to us and not very pragmatic?

As for the issue of policy, that, I think, is a valid discussion that we can kindly disagree on. I personally dont think democracy and Islam will ever really coexist. And I dont think a democratic Middle East will ever truly happen like it has happened here.
But thats my belief.

I do however believe that America has a right and a responsibility to search out those who would try and destroy the US and democracy in general.

And while war may not change peoples hearts and belief systems, I dont think ignoring it will, nor do I think economic sanctions will, especially when the dice are loaded against you.

As for your questions:

Sorry about the quote. I meant it more as a general statement of what pacifists/people against the Iraq war claim.

As for the second question, yes, I believe murdering an innocent person for materialistic profit is always wrong.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DeMolama In reply to himynameiznate [2004-10-21 01:54:20 +0000 UTC]

"So then, I assume there is NEVER a valid reason for fighting or war."

I certainly never said that. This war is bad policy is what i said. I also copped to having some moral problems with this war in Iraq, but I do believe my precise words were, "Also, my primary objection to the war in Iraq is not moral, it is a matter of whether or not the policy is going to be effective, which I just don't believe it will be." I then go on to list why i think the policy is going to be ineffective and why.
When did I say that war is always wrong? When did I ever address anything having to do with war in general?

"For instance, if Person A believes molesting a child is wrong, and Person B does not, then who is right? Is child molestation really wrong, or do we just not like it because its unsavory to us and not very pragmatic?"

Well, since you ask me a loaded question, I'll give you the answer you don't think I'd dare give. They are both right. I think that if someone has never been taught that a given act is wrong, how can you hold them to a set of standards that they don't hold to? Does an alligator do evil when he eats a child? I also think that people do things that they believe to be wrong, according to the beliefes that they themselves hold. That's is doing wrong.

"I personally dont think democracy and Islam will ever really coexist. And I dont think a democratic Middle East will ever truly happen like it has happened here."

Why and why not?

"I do however believe that America has a right and a responsibility to search out those who would try and destroy the US and democracy in general."

America certainly has a right to defend herself and pursue her interests. Democracy in general is not our problem to worry about nor our gift to give. We have enough trouble keeping ours together, and peopel really don't want another nation to give them the gift of a new government. As terrible of a president as I think Bush is, I would certainly fight the Chinese if they invaded to liberate me from him. Thats what the Iraqis are doing. I am not sure you know the difference between an Al-Qaida Jihadi and an Iraqi Nationalist, or if you do that you care.

"And while war may not change peoples hearts and belief systems, I dont think ignoring it will, nor do I think economic sanctions will, especially when the dice are loaded against you."

The war will and certainly has already changed many people's hearts and minds. The US is more hated in the middle east now than we ever have been. I'm not kidding, I don't know if you remember the 80's, right after the Iranian revolution(which interestingly enough, overthrew the Shah, who was a dictator who was installed and propped up by the US government in the name of safeguarding Liberty against Communism) and during the Lebanese civil war, when people were being taken hostage every week, but I do remember it, and it was no picnic. It was the first War on Terror, and the US was not widely loved in the middle east. That was nothing. And just an ironic historical note at this point: the Iranian revolution happened in early 1979 and the anti US sentiment in the moslem world spiked; in December of 79, the Russians invaded Afghanistan. One of the big reasons that the US govt gave any assistance to the Afghan Mujahideen was to make good relations points in the Arab world. That and to defend Liberty. Look how well that worked out. I supported arming the Muj then, because I bought the rhetoric, and did not consider the long term consequences, which I am not sure that anyone did adequately, or if they had could have predicted the particular way that it did work out.

"yes, I believe murdering an innocent person for materialistic profit is always wrong."

So is there some circumstance under which it would be ok to knowingly murder an innocent? Lets say you could, with utter certainty, protect the US from all further terrorist attacks forever? If you could guarantee that 100% by giving an innocent child a painless lethal injection, would that be OK? I mean, a moral absolute is a moral absolute, right?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

himynameiznate In reply to cjdmax [2003-12-28 23:32:37 +0000 UTC]

2 things wrong with your reversed metaphor:

Not all rowers face back when rowing, and without knowing where you are from, you cannot really know where you are going.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

cjdmax In reply to himynameiznate [2003-12-31 19:59:01 +0000 UTC]

hehe.. now it's a 3 sided metaphor

👍: 0 ⏩: 0