The danger in ascribing unitary motives to a group, let alone an individual is that it ignores the reality that groups and people are all made up of a number of sometimes conflicting, sometimes competing drives. Very few humans have unified their mind so that it really acts as one. I can't claim that, though I'm working on it. Most of us are made up of many different inner voices. Not dissasociated, like they are in MPD, but different. Consciousness is the consensus, or sometimes whichever voice can grab hold of the hardware.
Let me put it like this, say you have two equally plausible life-myths under consideration. And by 'you' I mean the average person not catchblue22, because I already know you'd answer differently. Both of these stories explain you and your actions, and provide a way that you can feel good about yourself, as if you are a hero, or at least someone special. Both say you have to answer to no one but yourself. One story seems to require you to lead a life of introspection, sacrifice, and uncertainty. The other tells you you can be selfish, make money, and seek fame and privilege. Which of these stories do you think the average person would choose?
Let's be more specific. Lets say the average person who was born in a position of wealth and privilege already, because that skews it, doesn't it? Someone born into uncertainty might be more likely to pick the other story. We know what will happen, what a person like that is likely to choose. Because the second story satisfies more of those different parts of their mind. It's a convenient and very easy story to believe in.
That's also why cults like scientology are so successful, and why books like The Secret sell so well.
I feel genuine sadness for you. I'm sorry that you feel as though you have to fight all the time, because everyone else is. I and a lot of people I know don't feel that way at all, just to give you some perspective. I lost my left eye in a mugging and I still feel that way. The world doesn't have to be about fighting, you can actually trust people.
Okay, now I see the problem. We're using "we" in two different contexts. I'm using it to mean "the people in control of America" and you are using it to mean "Americans." Of course most Americans went to war for what they saw as good reasons! Those may be reasons why they supported the war, but they never had any real say in whether we were going or not, and of the people who did have a real say, many of them agreed for very bad reasons indeed.
Though I agree with you that Islamo-fascism is a threat, and is not a good way of achieving world peace (to say the least!) I don't think it's that big of a threat. I've traveled all over the world and spoken to many Muslims. The Islamo-fascists no more represent the majority view than the Christo-fascists represent the majority view of Christians. If anything, the Christo-fascists are far more dangerous because they are so close to the reigns of power of the largest and most powerful military in the world.
Hoo, boy. Turning off the oil taps would definitely fuck with the world's economy, for sure. But, the thing that I have come to realize is that nations, peoples and religions rarely fight each other. The rich and powerful of the world are engaged in a great game. We are their pawns. While it looks like they are fighting each other, when it comes down to it, that is a game. They are fighting to stay on top, and us on the bottom.
My point? They will never make a move in the great game that weakens their position against us, the little people. No matter how much it would hurt their opponents. That's just the way the game is played, and any ruling class person who defects and takes the side of the little people is anathema, outlaw, outside the rules of the game.
So the oil owners will never turn off the taps because it hurts their position vis a vis the rest of us, even if it wins them some points in the game. There would be too much chaos, rioting, and overturning of established orders all over the world. The powerful in the rest of the world would put aside all differences and gang up on the outlaws to restore order.
I agree 100% that abandoning Iraq right now would be as morally bankrupt as I believe going in was in the first place. We have a duty to help fix what we broke. Unfortunately, I think we went in for all the wrong reasons, and it hasn't made the world safer. I really believe we had Saddam contained to the point where the only ones he could possibly hurt were his countrymen. And there are planty of places around the world where much worse men have done much worse to their people, and we look the other way. Look at East Timor and Indonesia, we helped the bad men there because they have oil.
There are many reasons we went to war with Iraq. Saddam's attempted hit on Bush Sr. A son shadowed by a greater father seeking to prove himself to daddy. The need for a new enemy to justify our rabid military spending. The need for an enemy to justify removing civil liberties at home. Control of oil. A base in the middle east. China. Money, money and more money.
If we really wanted to rebuild Iraq, we would have given contracts to local companies. It is as if I went in to your store, broke all your merchandise, and then rather than paying you for it, I paid myself for it. Not quite fair.
I don't think the UN is as bad as you make it out. I'm no pie in the sky idealist anymore, so I don't think it's perfect, but it is not run by people as bad as Saddam. Come on, that's just a little over the top, don't you think?
I want justice for the entire world, too. Hey, I'll make you a deal. I'll try to keep an open mind and entertain the idea that even people who have very different ideas about how to go about achieving that aren't necessarily complete morons or self serving and deluded assholes, if you do the same, what do you say? I'm getting too old for flame wars that only keep people like you and I from cooperating to come up with better solutions.
The military is not needed to bring oil to American consumers. But it is being used. If it weren't being used to keep the owners of most of the world's oil reserves on their toes, those owners could more effectively collude to keep production down and prices up. As it is, they are afraid of the consequences. Sorry, I'll only follow you so far on that one.;-)
If not for our military adventures in the Middle East, and our contributions to Israel (don't even start, I'm no mood to argue about Israel, just saying, we give them wads of cash and military support) then the owners of most of the worlds oil would have an easier time colluding and raising the price. Does that make sense? We keep them on their toes, militarily, and slap down anyone who fucks with our oil. That costs money. As a result, they can not collude to keep production down and prices up as easily because they are scared of the potential consequences.
Even if we haven't, and I would need to see proof, that's not the point. It's about long term profit and control. It's about who gets the contracts for rebuilding the oil infrastructure, it's about who gets to invest in that infrastructure and therefore who gets control and future profits.
You are a smart person Ross, I've debated you enough to know that. I can't believe I'm having to explain basic realities of power and economics to you. I know it's a painful truth to look at. Do you really suppose that I hate my country so much that it brings me joy to contemplate this shit? I love America, let me be perfectly clear here. It burns my insides to have to think of this as even being a possibility. Frankly, I wish my premise were a load of bullshit as much as you do. But we do not live in Care-a-Lot town with happy little elves and flying ponies, we live in the real world, and it's ugly and brutal sometimes, sorry.
But that's not what happened. This is about control. Oil is an oligopoly. Those who control the oil control the price. Why do you think reconstruction is taking so long? It's a way of metering out the finite supply to get the most money. You don't need military intervention to get oil, you can just buy it! You need military intervention to get control of oil, and maximize profits from it.
I don't want to argue about this, and I'm not going to start calling you names or suggesting your ideas are "twisted." I'm too fucking sad for personal reasons to enjoy a good flame war right now.
There have been hundreds of dictators as bad or worse than Saddam. Nice backhanded way of tying him to 9/11 without actually doing so, by the way. That's what comparisons to Pearl Harbor will do, and you know exactly what you're doing making them, I know you aren't stupid. We haven't done anything about any of those dictators if there weren't US interests at stake, in fact, we've supported quite a few. Look at the history of Central and South America if your mind is open to being changed. If not, don't bother. Or look at Africa, or Indonesia, for that matter.
We had Saddam completely contained. There was no way he was a threat to anyone outside his country. And as I mentioned, there are plenty of other countries we could be helping. I know it hurts to believe that, instead of the pretty myth of America, the good-guy cavalry riding over the hill to save the world, we have instead America, the world wide thug bent on advancing the interests of America's wealthy through violence. Believing the first requires no action, and so is easy. Believing the second would gall most anyone with a conscience into doing something about it. That's why many people choose not to believe that possibility. I'm not saying that's you, possibly you have better, more logical reasons. But you should look inside yourself, just to make sure.
That doesn't even make sense. I will try to answer what I think your question is, but it is phrased so poorly, and if I understand it right, so illogical, that I can't be sure. It seems you are trying to draw a distinction of some sort here. You are saying that the military cost is not part of the cost of oil. And you are agreeing that "war for oil" means "increasing the amount that defense contractors and oil companies make." But then, you totally, utterly lose me by claiming that point two proves point one.
The military cost is part of the true cost of oil. It is a necessary part of making it available at the cost it is currently. The military industrial complex makes money off of war no matter what. And the oil companies profit. What is the contradiction?
You seem to think that when people claim that "we" went to war for oil, that means that the US went to war for cheaper oil for its citizens. That is not what we mean. We mean that the rich and powerful took us to war to procure a reliable source of oil to sell to US citizens for outrageous profits. See the difference? There is no we. There is them getting rich, and you getting fucked.
And it's not just oil. We have outsourced much of our armed services to private contractors. The military industrial complex is having a field day, and making record profits. Citizens are scared into accepting all sorts of draconian restrictions. Huge bundles of cash simply disappear. The wealthy and well connected profit. And we lose rather than gain security.
I don't hate nearly as much as it looks like. Hate is toxic to the soul. I shouldn't have used that word, as I don't really mean it. What I really meant is that I am frustrated and I feel hopeless against a seeming tidal wave of hypocrisy and faith based "thinking." Thank you so much for reaching out, I need to be reminded that I don't always come across the way I'd like to, in my higher self.
I would say that for many people, adulthood is a long recovery from childhood. For some, it's recovery from adulthood, too. My wife of seven years just left me, perhaps a little of my recent bitterness comes from that, you think? In the last ten years, I've lost my left eye in a mugging, had good friends screw me out of tens of thousands of dollars because they got hooked on speed, had a business fail because of it, lost my best friend without knowing for sure whether it was a murder or a suicide, seen my friends beaten and imprisoned for feeding the homeless in public, been dumped out of three perfectly good long term relationships, and through it all I've managed to keep my heart open and loving. I've managed to forgive everything that's happened to me. I don't dwell on the past.
I would love to be your friend, I'm marking you as such now. One of my best friends, he's my age, and rooms with my mom. She calls him her adopted son. He's gay, ex-military, Native American, and Republican. Hehe, I can be good friends with anyone. He has the same stance on many issues that you do, and he and I have had some great all-night debates.
I really try not to see anyone as an enemy, but it's funny how the heart works. I found it easier to forgive the men who took my eye from me than, say, my ex. I have forgiven her now, but it took four days. That given the fact that she left me for another man and told me she was leaving me by phone, from a bar. So actually, I'm very good at forgiving. With all the shit that's happened to me, I need to be, or I would have torn myself up by now.
What happens on the Internet is that I forget that there are actual people behind the words. If anything, I hate the ideas, not the people. And I only hate the ideas because I see them as destructive to human happiness. I need to try a little harder to remember that there are actual people writing those words, and that many of them are at least as thoughtful and well meaning as I, they've just had different experiences and come to different conclusions about the best path to peace and freedom in the world.
And that is what I want: peace and freedom for all humans. Not for any altruistic reasons, heavens no. Because I enjoy seeing happy individuals being free. And because wounded, desperate, scared humans scare the crap out of me. You never know what they might do.
Very nice. You're not a troll and you don't let your buttons get pushed easily. I come on a little strong at times, here in the wild and woolly world of the web. More so than I ever would in a face to face conversation. I've built up a pretty thick skin and I figure, people want to play out here, they should have one too. So I forget sometimes and go a little overboard.
I try really hard to keep it just on this side of civil, though. About the worst I'm guilty of most of the time is poisoning the well, which I did to you a little bit, in an underhanded way. Sorry. I mean, I know that not everyone who disagrees with me is amoral, self centered, and stupid. Intellectually, anyway. Sometimes I can't help but feel the opposite, especially if I think someone is attacking me or mine. Damned monkey mind.
For instance, if someone makes blanket moral statements about progressives or liberals, I'm likely to take a guess at their position and make blanket moral statements right back. Even though I'm really more of an anarchist.
Now let's see, your positions:
government-run schools should be abolished, capitalism is moral, selfishness is amoral and inherent, altruism is a myth, and "progressives" are often racist. Oh good lord. I very well could have been one of the dread "progressives" here who's laid into you. Of course, if you had responded the way you did right now, I would have backed off and we could have had a conversation about it.
Let me run down my responses here. I know you said you didn't want a debate, that's fine. But I was surprised that you aren't quite the person I'd initially assumed, I figured I'd give you the same opportunity to be surprised.
Government run schools are necessary because public education is a public good that everyone benefits from, so to prevent free-riders, everyone needs to pay. The free market system breaks down in three situations: externalities, imbalance of information, and natural monopolies. If an outside agency does not step in and correct these situations, a positive feedback loop can develop which will destroy the freedom of the market itself.
Capitalism is amoral, as economic pressures can be just as real and just as deadly as political or conventional force. If I have all the food, capitalism says it is moral to let you starve if you can't pay. Well, the free market says that, but we are kind of conflating the two here to begin with, I think. I say it is amoral to let you starve, not moral. I know that everyone walks away from an open transaction feeling as though they have gained, but I can force you into "choosing" to let me rape you rather than starve, if I control all the means of production. You now have food, I've had sexual gratification, we both gain, right? Wrong.
Selfishness is amoral and inherent. Altruism is a form of selfishness. No disagreement there. However, altruism is also inherent, programmed into us by our genes for our species survival, rather than our personal survival. Altruism comes from three root causes: the tit for tat algorithm, kin selection, and the handicap principle. You can google or wiki those phrases if you're interested. Cooperation is as much a driving force of nature and natural selection as competition, if not more so. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that cooperation and altruism are two of the most competitive strategies available.
Progressives are often racists. Bet you didn't think I'd agree there, did you? I was a serious activist and organizer in my youth, and I knew it was a danger. The well off white guy going into a minority neighborhood and basically telling them, "You're all fuck ups, but never fear! I'm here to save you." That's racist. Eastern liberal establishment types profiting off of the continued existence of poverty and inequality, that's racist too.
All that is well and good, open to debate and discussion. It won't get too much of a rise out of me unless you're being a dick when you say it.
Shaman heal thyself. Now that was the line that made me like you.
Some people are so deep in their own rationalizations they can't even see themselves, only the shadow self they've built up. One prime characteristic of such people is the need to project their own deficiencies onto others. They can not admit that they abhor their own behavior, so they see that behavior as outside themselves, in others, whom they punish mercilessly.
Yes, I'm implying you might be this way, but I'm willing to be dissuaded. You seem like a smart and introspective person, so I could be wrong. What I'm worried about, primarily, is the way you seek to judge others without looking as if you are judging. It's as if you want to come across as non-judgmental, but have an inner rage that needs release.
So you excoriate "progressives," lumping all people who want to change the world for the better into a single monolithic category, and cleverly imply they are all deluded by faith based thinking and prone to rage and violence. Let me quote back a relevant passage for you, I've found that some people are so self deluded that they honestly can't remember the aweful thigns they've said just moments before:
You're on the path to ruin. The "Bush is a sociopath" meme is an article of "progressive" faith. Denying it will not be productive when debating a devout "progressive" because it will only inspire rage and violence.
Remember writing that? That's a very judgmental thing to say. It is expressly designed to create the kind of rage that you claim progressives are prone to, becoming a self fulfilling prophecy. You may not be aware of this, but you exhibit many of the same characteristics as the most successful of trolls, including the "calm and rational" denial that you ever intended anything of the sort.
You can't play that game with me, I'm too smart. You can't speak out of both sides of your mouth, I will notice. You can't be a generalizing, over the top asshole and then claim to be a calm and reasonable promoter of logical discourse. So sorry. You hate faith based thinkers, so do I. But I hate hypocrites far worse. Having said that, I will admit that a small subset of people who claim the progressive label do not think things through. Faith based thinking is a problem that transcends boundaries.
One thing you must know, if you are committed to logic, is that your own acquaintances do not constitute any sort of random sample. Neither do mine. I've not had many experiences where I have called a so-called article of progressive faith into question and had them lash out at me in any way. I have seen that over and over again, hundreds if not thousands of times, from conservatives. That is my experience. Yours may be different. You don't put it that way, however, you put it in fairly absolute terms.
Now, I am not claiming that all conservatives are amoral, venal, greedy, self centered, elitist bastards. I am just saying that right now, in the USA, the conservative discourse is dominated by amoral, venal, greedy, self centered, elitist bastards. And I, at least, have been specific, rather than descending into vague generalities like you have. Perhaps you could tell us what "articles of progressive faith," when questioned, are likely to "inspire rage and violence" rather than painting everyone who wants to make the world a better place with the same broad brush, hmm?
You claim to be introspective, willing to suffer ego death to find the truth? I've done that, more times than I care to count. Complete and perfect ego death, and built up my own internal universe again, entirely from scratch. As someone who has experience in that regard, let me pass along a bit of advice. It is very, very easy to fool yourself into thinking you've done that, when all you've done is created another, more encompassing ego structure. I think you could use a little more introspection.
While I agree with you that one must be willing to change anything, down to one's core beliefs, if they are shown to be incorrect, I disagree with your characterization that this is somehow a "progressive" problem. Are you willing to change your beliefs, or is that an article of faith? In my experience, conservatives are far more likely to use facts as lamp posts, for support not illumination. This is why I find it so hard to converse with conservatives in general. But perhaps I am just stubborn and wrongheaded, they are correct, and I am just unable to see it, hmm? Wouldn't that be convenient? Because then you could hold onto your beliefs while still maintaining the illusions that you would change them, if only strong enough evidence were presented.
I'm willing to admit that everything I think about conservatives being amoral, venal, greedy, self centered, elitist bastards might be wrong. So, are you willing to accept the fact that your belief about "progressives" might be utterly and completely false and delusional, too? Because if you aren't willing to admit that possibility, I'd just as soon keep you at arms length.
I have an invisible friend in the clouds who loves me unconditionally. Even though he causes shitty things to happen to me all the time, I know it's because I was born bad and need to be punished. My invisible friend says you're a lying demon who wants to take me to this place of eternal torment my invisible friend made. He says you'll torment me eternally for the finite crime of listening to you. But my invisible friend is all knowing and all loving, so that sounds fair to me!
When a bad word enters a child's ear, it leaves a small hole that a demon can use to climb in and take over. The demon might make your child gay, or make them use drugs, or want to have sex. As a parent, you have no defense against these demons, so the government must step in to help you.
Red, you're not supposed to crush up and snort all ten drives at once, man! You need to chew on this thumb drive for a while, dude, and just chillax a little. I'll keep the ant queen off ya, there ya go.
You young whippersnappers and your fancy shell doo-dads. In my day, we had to lick a live 10Base5 cable to browse gopher and that's the way we liked it!
Slashdot Mirror
The danger in ascribing unitary motives to a group, let alone an individual is that it ignores the reality that groups and people are all made up of a number of sometimes conflicting, sometimes competing drives. Very few humans have unified their mind so that it really acts as one. I can't claim that, though I'm working on it. Most of us are made up of many different inner voices. Not dissasociated, like they are in MPD, but different. Consciousness is the consensus, or sometimes whichever voice can grab hold of the hardware.
Let me put it like this, say you have two equally plausible life-myths under consideration. And by 'you' I mean the average person not catchblue22, because I already know you'd answer differently. Both of these stories explain you and your actions, and provide a way that you can feel good about yourself, as if you are a hero, or at least someone special. Both say you have to answer to no one but yourself. One story seems to require you to lead a life of introspection, sacrifice, and uncertainty. The other tells you you can be selfish, make money, and seek fame and privilege. Which of these stories do you think the average person would choose?
Let's be more specific. Lets say the average person who was born in a position of wealth and privilege already, because that skews it, doesn't it? Someone born into uncertainty might be more likely to pick the other story. We know what will happen, what a person like that is likely to choose. Because the second story satisfies more of those different parts of their mind. It's a convenient and very easy story to believe in.
That's also why cults like scientology are so successful, and why books like The Secret sell so well.
I feel genuine sadness for you. I'm sorry that you feel as though you have to fight all the time, because everyone else is. I and a lot of people I know don't feel that way at all, just to give you some perspective. I lost my left eye in a mugging and I still feel that way. The world doesn't have to be about fighting, you can actually trust people.
Okay, now I see the problem. We're using "we" in two different contexts. I'm using it to mean "the people in control of America" and you are using it to mean "Americans." Of course most Americans went to war for what they saw as good reasons! Those may be reasons why they supported the war, but they never had any real say in whether we were going or not, and of the people who did have a real say, many of them agreed for very bad reasons indeed.
Though I agree with you that Islamo-fascism is a threat, and is not a good way of achieving world peace (to say the least!) I don't think it's that big of a threat. I've traveled all over the world and spoken to many Muslims. The Islamo-fascists no more represent the majority view than the Christo-fascists represent the majority view of Christians. If anything, the Christo-fascists are far more dangerous because they are so close to the reigns of power of the largest and most powerful military in the world.
Hoo, boy. Turning off the oil taps would definitely fuck with the world's economy, for sure. But, the thing that I have come to realize is that nations, peoples and religions rarely fight each other. The rich and powerful of the world are engaged in a great game. We are their pawns. While it looks like they are fighting each other, when it comes down to it, that is a game. They are fighting to stay on top, and us on the bottom.
My point? They will never make a move in the great game that weakens their position against us, the little people. No matter how much it would hurt their opponents. That's just the way the game is played, and any ruling class person who defects and takes the side of the little people is anathema, outlaw, outside the rules of the game.
So the oil owners will never turn off the taps because it hurts their position vis a vis the rest of us, even if it wins them some points in the game. There would be too much chaos, rioting, and overturning of established orders all over the world. The powerful in the rest of the world would put aside all differences and gang up on the outlaws to restore order.
I agree 100% that abandoning Iraq right now would be as morally bankrupt as I believe going in was in the first place. We have a duty to help fix what we broke. Unfortunately, I think we went in for all the wrong reasons, and it hasn't made the world safer. I really believe we had Saddam contained to the point where the only ones he could possibly hurt were his countrymen. And there are planty of places around the world where much worse men have done much worse to their people, and we look the other way. Look at East Timor and Indonesia, we helped the bad men there because they have oil.
There are many reasons we went to war with Iraq. Saddam's attempted hit on Bush Sr. A son shadowed by a greater father seeking to prove himself to daddy. The need for a new enemy to justify our rabid military spending. The need for an enemy to justify removing civil liberties at home. Control of oil. A base in the middle east. China. Money, money and more money.
If we really wanted to rebuild Iraq, we would have given contracts to local companies. It is as if I went in to your store, broke all your merchandise, and then rather than paying you for it, I paid myself for it. Not quite fair.
I don't think the UN is as bad as you make it out. I'm no pie in the sky idealist anymore, so I don't think it's perfect, but it is not run by people as bad as Saddam. Come on, that's just a little over the top, don't you think?
I want justice for the entire world, too. Hey, I'll make you a deal. I'll try to keep an open mind and entertain the idea that even people who have very different ideas about how to go about achieving that aren't necessarily complete morons or self serving and deluded assholes, if you do the same, what do you say? I'm getting too old for flame wars that only keep people like you and I from cooperating to come up with better solutions.
The military is not needed to bring oil to American consumers. But it is being used. If it weren't being used to keep the owners of most of the world's oil reserves on their toes, those owners could more effectively collude to keep production down and prices up. As it is, they are afraid of the consequences. Sorry, I'll only follow you so far on that one. ;-)
If not for our military adventures in the Middle East, and our contributions to Israel (don't even start, I'm no mood to argue about Israel, just saying, we give them wads of cash and military support) then the owners of most of the worlds oil would have an easier time colluding and raising the price. Does that make sense? We keep them on their toes, militarily, and slap down anyone who fucks with our oil. That costs money. As a result, they can not collude to keep production down and prices up as easily because they are scared of the potential consequences.
Ah, okay then. Misunderstanding on my part, that clears it up totally. Thanks.
Even if we haven't, and I would need to see proof, that's not the point. It's about long term profit and control. It's about who gets the contracts for rebuilding the oil infrastructure, it's about who gets to invest in that infrastructure and therefore who gets control and future profits.
You are a smart person Ross, I've debated you enough to know that. I can't believe I'm having to explain basic realities of power and economics to you. I know it's a painful truth to look at. Do you really suppose that I hate my country so much that it brings me joy to contemplate this shit? I love America, let me be perfectly clear here. It burns my insides to have to think of this as even being a possibility. Frankly, I wish my premise were a load of bullshit as much as you do. But we do not live in Care-a-Lot town with happy little elves and flying ponies, we live in the real world, and it's ugly and brutal sometimes, sorry.
But that's not what happened. This is about control. Oil is an oligopoly. Those who control the oil control the price. Why do you think reconstruction is taking so long? It's a way of metering out the finite supply to get the most money. You don't need military intervention to get oil, you can just buy it! You need military intervention to get control of oil, and maximize profits from it.
I don't want to argue about this, and I'm not going to start calling you names or suggesting your ideas are "twisted." I'm too fucking sad for personal reasons to enjoy a good flame war right now.
There have been hundreds of dictators as bad or worse than Saddam. Nice backhanded way of tying him to 9/11 without actually doing so, by the way. That's what comparisons to Pearl Harbor will do, and you know exactly what you're doing making them, I know you aren't stupid. We haven't done anything about any of those dictators if there weren't US interests at stake, in fact, we've supported quite a few. Look at the history of Central and South America if your mind is open to being changed. If not, don't bother. Or look at Africa, or Indonesia, for that matter.
We had Saddam completely contained. There was no way he was a threat to anyone outside his country. And as I mentioned, there are plenty of other countries we could be helping. I know it hurts to believe that, instead of the pretty myth of America, the good-guy cavalry riding over the hill to save the world, we have instead America, the world wide thug bent on advancing the interests of America's wealthy through violence. Believing the first requires no action, and so is easy. Believing the second would gall most anyone with a conscience into doing something about it. That's why many people choose not to believe that possibility. I'm not saying that's you, possibly you have better, more logical reasons. But you should look inside yourself, just to make sure.
That doesn't even make sense. I will try to answer what I think your question is, but it is phrased so poorly, and if I understand it right, so illogical, that I can't be sure. It seems you are trying to draw a distinction of some sort here. You are saying that the military cost is not part of the cost of oil. And you are agreeing that "war for oil" means "increasing the amount that defense contractors and oil companies make." But then, you totally, utterly lose me by claiming that point two proves point one.
The military cost is part of the true cost of oil. It is a necessary part of making it available at the cost it is currently. The military industrial complex makes money off of war no matter what. And the oil companies profit. What is the contradiction?
You seem to think that when people claim that "we" went to war for oil, that means that the US went to war for cheaper oil for its citizens. That is not what we mean. We mean that the rich and powerful took us to war to procure a reliable source of oil to sell to US citizens for outrageous profits. See the difference? There is no we. There is them getting rich, and you getting fucked.
And it's not just oil. We have outsourced much of our armed services to private contractors. The military industrial complex is having a field day, and making record profits. Citizens are scared into accepting all sorts of draconian restrictions. Huge bundles of cash simply disappear. The wealthy and well connected profit. And we lose rather than gain security.
I don't hate nearly as much as it looks like. Hate is toxic to the soul. I shouldn't have used that word, as I don't really mean it. What I really meant is that I am frustrated and I feel hopeless against a seeming tidal wave of hypocrisy and faith based "thinking." Thank you so much for reaching out, I need to be reminded that I don't always come across the way I'd like to, in my higher self.
I would say that for many people, adulthood is a long recovery from childhood. For some, it's recovery from adulthood, too. My wife of seven years just left me, perhaps a little of my recent bitterness comes from that, you think? In the last ten years, I've lost my left eye in a mugging, had good friends screw me out of tens of thousands of dollars because they got hooked on speed, had a business fail because of it, lost my best friend without knowing for sure whether it was a murder or a suicide, seen my friends beaten and imprisoned for feeding the homeless in public, been dumped out of three perfectly good long term relationships, and through it all I've managed to keep my heart open and loving. I've managed to forgive everything that's happened to me. I don't dwell on the past.
I would love to be your friend, I'm marking you as such now. One of my best friends, he's my age, and rooms with my mom. She calls him her adopted son. He's gay, ex-military, Native American, and Republican. Hehe, I can be good friends with anyone. He has the same stance on many issues that you do, and he and I have had some great all-night debates.
I really try not to see anyone as an enemy, but it's funny how the heart works. I found it easier to forgive the men who took my eye from me than, say, my ex. I have forgiven her now, but it took four days. That given the fact that she left me for another man and told me she was leaving me by phone, from a bar. So actually, I'm very good at forgiving. With all the shit that's happened to me, I need to be, or I would have torn myself up by now.
What happens on the Internet is that I forget that there are actual people behind the words. If anything, I hate the ideas, not the people. And I only hate the ideas because I see them as destructive to human happiness. I need to try a little harder to remember that there are actual people writing those words, and that many of them are at least as thoughtful and well meaning as I, they've just had different experiences and come to different conclusions about the best path to peace and freedom in the world.
And that is what I want: peace and freedom for all humans. Not for any altruistic reasons, heavens no. Because I enjoy seeing happy individuals being free. And because wounded, desperate, scared humans scare the crap out of me. You never know what they might do.
Buddha's prophet, in my case, happened to be a very cute lady named Meg, and if by "death" you mean le petite mort then yes.
I try really hard to keep it just on this side of civil, though. About the worst I'm guilty of most of the time is poisoning the well, which I did to you a little bit, in an underhanded way. Sorry. I mean, I know that not everyone who disagrees with me is amoral, self centered, and stupid. Intellectually, anyway. Sometimes I can't help but feel the opposite, especially if I think someone is attacking me or mine. Damned monkey mind.
For instance, if someone makes blanket moral statements about progressives or liberals, I'm likely to take a guess at their position and make blanket moral statements right back. Even though I'm really more of an anarchist.
Now let's see, your positions: government-run schools should be abolished, capitalism is moral, selfishness is amoral and inherent, altruism is a myth, and "progressives" are often racist. Oh good lord. I very well could have been one of the dread "progressives" here who's laid into you. Of course, if you had responded the way you did right now, I would have backed off and we could have had a conversation about it.
Let me run down my responses here. I know you said you didn't want a debate, that's fine. But I was surprised that you aren't quite the person I'd initially assumed, I figured I'd give you the same opportunity to be surprised.
Government run schools are necessary because public education is a public good that everyone benefits from, so to prevent free-riders, everyone needs to pay. The free market system breaks down in three situations: externalities, imbalance of information, and natural monopolies. If an outside agency does not step in and correct these situations, a positive feedback loop can develop which will destroy the freedom of the market itself.
Capitalism is amoral, as economic pressures can be just as real and just as deadly as political or conventional force. If I have all the food, capitalism says it is moral to let you starve if you can't pay. Well, the free market says that, but we are kind of conflating the two here to begin with, I think. I say it is amoral to let you starve, not moral. I know that everyone walks away from an open transaction feeling as though they have gained, but I can force you into "choosing" to let me rape you rather than starve, if I control all the means of production. You now have food, I've had sexual gratification, we both gain, right? Wrong.
Selfishness is amoral and inherent. Altruism is a form of selfishness. No disagreement there. However, altruism is also inherent, programmed into us by our genes for our species survival, rather than our personal survival. Altruism comes from three root causes: the tit for tat algorithm, kin selection, and the handicap principle. You can google or wiki those phrases if you're interested. Cooperation is as much a driving force of nature and natural selection as competition, if not more so. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that cooperation and altruism are two of the most competitive strategies available.
Progressives are often racists. Bet you didn't think I'd agree there, did you? I was a serious activist and organizer in my youth, and I knew it was a danger. The well off white guy going into a minority neighborhood and basically telling them, "You're all fuck ups, but never fear! I'm here to save you." That's racist. Eastern liberal establishment types profiting off of the continued existence of poverty and inequality, that's racist too.
All that is well and good, open to debate and discussion. It won't get too much of a rise out of me unless you're being a dick when you say it.
Shaman heal thyself. Now that was the line that made me like you.
Yes, I'm implying you might be this way, but I'm willing to be dissuaded. You seem like a smart and introspective person, so I could be wrong. What I'm worried about, primarily, is the way you seek to judge others without looking as if you are judging. It's as if you want to come across as non-judgmental, but have an inner rage that needs release.
So you excoriate "progressives," lumping all people who want to change the world for the better into a single monolithic category, and cleverly imply they are all deluded by faith based thinking and prone to rage and violence. Let me quote back a relevant passage for you, I've found that some people are so self deluded that they honestly can't remember the aweful thigns they've said just moments before:
Remember writing that? That's a very judgmental thing to say. It is expressly designed to create the kind of rage that you claim progressives are prone to, becoming a self fulfilling prophecy. You may not be aware of this, but you exhibit many of the same characteristics as the most successful of trolls, including the "calm and rational" denial that you ever intended anything of the sort.
You can't play that game with me, I'm too smart. You can't speak out of both sides of your mouth, I will notice. You can't be a generalizing, over the top asshole and then claim to be a calm and reasonable promoter of logical discourse. So sorry. You hate faith based thinkers, so do I. But I hate hypocrites far worse. Having said that, I will admit that a small subset of people who claim the progressive label do not think things through. Faith based thinking is a problem that transcends boundaries.
One thing you must know, if you are committed to logic, is that your own acquaintances do not constitute any sort of random sample. Neither do mine. I've not had many experiences where I have called a so-called article of progressive faith into question and had them lash out at me in any way. I have seen that over and over again, hundreds if not thousands of times, from conservatives. That is my experience. Yours may be different. You don't put it that way, however, you put it in fairly absolute terms.
Now, I am not claiming that all conservatives are amoral, venal, greedy, self centered, elitist bastards. I am just saying that right now, in the USA, the conservative discourse is dominated by amoral, venal, greedy, self centered, elitist bastards. And I, at least, have been specific, rather than descending into vague generalities like you have. Perhaps you could tell us what "articles of progressive faith," when questioned, are likely to "inspire rage and violence" rather than painting everyone who wants to make the world a better place with the same broad brush, hmm?
You claim to be introspective, willing to suffer ego death to find the truth? I've done that, more times than I care to count. Complete and perfect ego death, and built up my own internal universe again, entirely from scratch. As someone who has experience in that regard, let me pass along a bit of advice. It is very, very easy to fool yourself into thinking you've done that, when all you've done is created another, more encompassing ego structure. I think you could use a little more introspection.
While I agree with you that one must be willing to change anything, down to one's core beliefs, if they are shown to be incorrect, I disagree with your characterization that this is somehow a "progressive" problem. Are you willing to change your beliefs, or is that an article of faith? In my experience, conservatives are far more likely to use facts as lamp posts, for support not illumination. This is why I find it so hard to converse with conservatives in general. But perhaps I am just stubborn and wrongheaded, they are correct, and I am just unable to see it, hmm? Wouldn't that be convenient? Because then you could hold onto your beliefs while still maintaining the illusions that you would change them, if only strong enough evidence were presented.
I'm willing to admit that everything I think about conservatives being amoral, venal, greedy, self centered, elitist bastards might be wrong. So, are you willing to accept the fact that your belief about "progressives" might be utterly and completely false and delusional, too? Because if you aren't willing to admit that possibility, I'd just as soon keep you at arms length.
Look, up in the sky! It's a bird, it's a plane, no, it's the joke going over your head.
I have an invisible friend in the clouds who loves me unconditionally. Even though he causes shitty things to happen to me all the time, I know it's because I was born bad and need to be punished. My invisible friend says you're a lying demon who wants to take me to this place of eternal torment my invisible friend made. He says you'll torment me eternally for the finite crime of listening to you. But my invisible friend is all knowing and all loving, so that sounds fair to me!
When a bad word enters a child's ear, it leaves a small hole that a demon can use to climb in and take over. The demon might make your child gay, or make them use drugs, or want to have sex. As a parent, you have no defense against these demons, so the government must step in to help you.
Red, you're not supposed to crush up and snort all ten drives at once, man! You need to chew on this thumb drive for a while, dude, and just chillax a little. I'll keep the ant queen off ya, there ya go.
You young whippersnappers and your fancy shell doo-dads. In my day, we had to lick a live 10Base5 cable to browse gopher and that's the way we liked it!
Why are you so scared of women's sexuality? I was making an insensitive joke, but you are just bitter. You need to get laid more.