"Living wage" assumes a lifestyle, and a lifestyle is affected by more things than just wage. Hence, it's bogus and needs to die.
Is she is earning enough money to pay her rent, groceries, and keep herself healthy?
Rent in what kind of apartment? 2 bedrooms? 3 bedrooms? Running water yes or no? Automatic dishwasher or not? Dirty city with dirty air or clean city with clean air?
Groceries? What kind of groceries? Rice and beans every day? Maybe just rice every day? Maybe rice just once per day? Maybe just millet once per day?
Healthy? What level of health care? Does she see a doctor on demand or is she added to a waiting list? How long is the waiting list? A year? Five years? Ten years?
Your quesiton is simplistic because the notion of lifestyle is complex. Lifestyle is more than just wage. You assume much because of your very, very privileged background.
No one ever said making a living wage was enjoyable, it is merely enough to keep a person stable in society. No more, no less.
What does "stable" mean? Merely emotionally stable? (People survived the holocaust, after all.) Making enough money to go to one concert every month? Guaranteed foie gras rations? Permanent tenure for everyone regardless of profession or job performance? Don't casually throw around nebulous terms and expect me to mindlessly agree with you.
I not sure why you brought demographics, John Kerry, or http://www.traderjoes.com/ into this conversation either.
I thought the "Ramble, ramble, ramble" comment made that clear, but I'll be explicit for your benefit: I was rambling. I'm guessing you agree with me that Trader Joe's clientele is NOT very diverse. I like Trader Joe's anyway. Do you?
Healthy food is MUCH MUCH MUCH more expensive than junk food.
Where did I write anything about "healthy food"?
You come back here and try to tell me that eating healthy is cheaper than eating like crap. Do it, and I will call you a dirty fucking liar, because that is exactly what you would be.
Which is more expensive by-the-pound: rice or twinkies?
I haven't found any really concrete numbers or sites, but it sounds like a living wage in china is $3/day.
The notion of a "living wage" is completely bogus and here is way.
Living according to what kind of lifestyle?
That question is left out. Instead, it is merely assumed that a certain "comfortable" lifestyle will be attained. But what, exactly is "comfortable"?
There is an interesting series in the travel section of my local newspaper about an American female expat living in Buenos Aires, Argentina. She makes a "living wage" working there. This week, she detailed the things that she dislikes about the city (next week she will list the things that she likes about living there). One of the things that she dislikes is that ATM machines don't always have money, don't always give you all the money you asked for (even if there is money in your account), and Buenos Aires is still almost a completely cash-based city. What this meant for her is that she had to visit a series of ATM machines at odd hours every single day, gathering up only small amounts of money at a time, in order to gether up enough money to pay her rent. The task of "gathering up rent money" from scattered ATMs all across town became part of her daily routine. Do you think this would hamper your lifestyle if you're used to living the the USA or in Europe where cash-on-demand is a no-brainer?
That is but one example among countless other ways to measure the value of one's own lifestyle. The fact that Americans are so fat is merely evidence that they have buttloads of free time (due to not having to spend their time on frustrating, mundane tasks) combined with an abundance of food (not to mention little knowledge of good eating). Keep in mind that the majority of overweight and obese persons in the United States are described as "living in poverty". The more wealthy you get in the USA, the thinner you get, statistically speaking. Is that weird? Not at all. It's just that our notions of "poverty" and "abundance" need to be reexamined, particularly in light of the notion of wealth envy. I.e., "I'm poor because I don't have as much stuff as my next-door neighbor!"
An interesting exit question: what are the demographics of the anarchist movement in the USA?
Demographics fascinate me... hardly any chubby dark-skinned people to be found at Trader Joe's. Lots of skinny light-skinned folks, though... in their pretty, hippie dresses and John Kerry bumper stickers on their SUVs. I like Trader Joe's. Ramble ramble ramble...
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.
Thank you for your kind words. What's interesting about what you write is how your description of yourself mirrors so closely the way I feel after so many hours of largely futile arguing on the internet. (When I use "arguing", I use it in the sense of futile arguing versus productive problem-solving.) I've written some things that I wish I could take back. I've ratcheted up my own hate for other people because I felt like their horribleness merited my righteous hate. I baited people's attacks so that I could round them up and destroy them. That's how I earned a thick skin: with e-blood. I don't feel proud about it.
If you walk away from this conversation with one and only one thing, then I dearly hope it would be the honest consideration that it's time to let go of your hatred. My only motivation in writing that to you is compassion. I don't see myself as better than you or anyone else. When it comes down to it, all of us are marching inexorably toward our shared destiny of being a buffet for worms and germs. Coming from a previous mindset where I was expecting eternal bliss after I died, my new understanding is quite the let-down. (No wonder I was so angry toward Christians for so long -- what a dupe I was.) As I get older and do my best to improve myself, I realize that this life I live is beautiful for its own sake, as it's all I have. That's the peace of mind which inspires my compassion and love for humanity, and what causes my heart to break when I see you write the words, "I hate." But I'm not asking you to let go of your hatred for my sake -- god knows I'm not worth the effort. Do it for your sake, so that you can find greater peace of mind and thus flourish. I'm reaching out to you in the only way that I know how by appealing to your need to love and be loved, by hoping that there still some of that need inside you.
For me, adulthood is the long recovery from my childhood. I wonder if you sometimes feel the same way.
I am encouraged by your response because it falls in line with what I've noticed about other people and thus makes me think that I am acquiring better understanding of human nature. I think that the reason you didn't lay into me is because you don't see me as an enemy who must be destroyed. I think you see me as an ally who, at times, provides a decent mental challenge to bright and introspective individual such as yourself. This way you can talk about your thoughts and values without attacking me. I think it's human nature to categorize other people into friends, allies, and enemies.
I like all that hippy, tipi, outdoorsy stuff that you do. I love looking at the woods and at fungi and at birds of prey. I love frogs and flowers and being outside. You lose me when you start talking about "means of production" and "common good", so forgive me for not engaging you on those topics. I think we should focus on the things we have in common so that we can build bridges instead of walls. I don't know if I'll ever be lucky enough to move from "ally" to "friend" in your standing, given how different our values are, but I'm willing to try.
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.
I don't know why this worries you, but I appreciate it, I guess. I never claimed to be non-judgmental. I judge all the time. Everyone does. I judge things good and I judge things bad. Everyone does. I think what you mean by "judgmental" is "condemning", but I condemn and criticize, too. Everyone does. I think what I'm trying to do is come across as patient and forgiving (I am) instead of rash and vicious (which I am not). You can read into my words whatever you want to read, as I have no control over what you see and what you think.
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.
First, you have to admit that "progressives" can only be changing the world for the better if you agree with "progressive" values. Since I don't agree with all of those values, I can't agree that they're changing the world for the better. It's a mixed bag. I will easily claim that they have crapped on many of the principles that they used to stand up for, such as eschewing "hate speech" (they engage in it), standing up for women's rights (they fail at then when it comes to the woman's plight in Islam), and intellectual freedom (they attempt to suppress all thought except for "progressive" thought at many universities). I also criticize the neo-conservatives for crapping on principles that they used to stand up for, such as small government, non-intervention, and defending the Nation's borders. But I am not a "progressive", not a conservative, and not a Neo-Con. These are my observations and occasionally my judgments.
Second, "all" is the word that you inserted.
You can't be a generalizing, over the top asshole and then claim to be a calm and reasonable promoter of logical discourse.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I commit to not being a generalizing, over the top asshole. Will you do so as well?
You hate faith based thinkers, so do I. But I hate hypocrites far worse.
And I remember writing that you sounded like a very hateful person. Here, you openly admit to hate. I thought that you, a "progressive", were supposed to stand up for tolerance and peace and non-violence, and I think that hatred toward other people (such as faith-based thinkers and hypocrites) is anathema toward all of those values. I do not hate faith-based thinkers. I tolerate them despite their immoral behavior. Maybe it's time for you to let go of some of that hatred you feel. I've felt hatred many times in my life and it served no good purpose. It was the poison that I took in the hopes that my enemy would die.
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 know this already. We congregate with people who are like us. Everyone does this.
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.
I'm not surprised. My limited and biased experience is that anyone who views me as an "enemy" will lash out defensively when their beliefs are challeneged. If they view me as a friend or an ally, then the discussion tends to be civil. So I've been lashed out at by both conservatives and "progressives". I've been called both a "liberal" and a "conservative", both times perjoratively. I will say that, in my limited and biased experience, the "progressives" have been more hateful than the conservatives. I t
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.
I'm not sure how to read your criticism. You could be saying one of the following:
1) "I disagree with your characterization that this is solely a 'progressive' problem."
2) "I disagree with your characterization that this is a 'progressive' problem because it's actually a conservative problem."
In either case, my response is the same: it is not solely a "progressive" problem. It is a problem exhibited in anyone with faith-based thinking, and many "progressives" exhibit faith-based thinking despite claims to the contrary ("reality-based", etc.). My previous post originally contained a line which compared denying the alleged sociopathy of W with accusing Jesus Christ of being a gay drag queen to an evangelical conservative, as I was trying to evince that I am even-handed in my criticism of faith-based thinking. I deleted the sentence out of fear that I'd be down-modded, but, given your response, I think it would have done me well to have left it intact.
Are you willing to change your beliefs, or is that an article of faith?
I can't tell if this question is snarky or serious, but I'll answer it anyway. I understand faith as "belief in something in spite of insufficient or contradictory evidence". In that case, I don't understand how being willing to change one's core beliefs can be an article of faith. The answer is "yes, I am willing" anyway.
In my experience, conservatives are far more likely to use facts as lamp posts, for support not illumination.
In my experience, both conservatives and "progressives" are equally as likely to exhibit faith-based reasoning. The principal difference I see between the two is that conservatives are honest and unapologetic about their faith-based reasoning. I don't really regard that as virtue, since they're being honest about their immoral behavior (compared to "progressives" who are being dishonest about their immoral behavior). The immoral behavior I'm referring to is faith-based thinking.
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?
Perhaps both of you are wrong. There are more than two sides to every issue, you know. Did you reflexively assume that I am a conservative because I dared criticize "progressives"? Are you, in the next breath, going to claim that you eschew unsophisticated black-and-white thinking?
I'm willing to admit that everything I think about conservatives being amoral, venal, greedy, self centered, elitist bastards might be wrong.
Wow, you sound like a very hateful person.
So, are you willing to accept the fact that your belief about "progressives" might be utterly and completely false and delusional, too?
Yes, I am willing. But first I will have to be shown the sufficient evidence. I certainly won't change my beliefs just to please you.
By the way, which of my beliefs about "progressives" do you regard as false? The fact that "progressives" exhibit faith-based thinking and lie about it, perhaps? That's the only negative thing I remember writing about them in our conversation (outside of my refusal to deny "progressives" their hard-earned scare quotes). My criticism is certainly quite a bit less damning than the broad-brush treatment you gave your reviled enemies.
Because if you aren't willing to admit that possibility, I'd just as soon keep you at arms length.
You might not have to bother. I generally avoid contact with "progressives" because they are generally orders of magnitude more openly hateful and malicious than evangelical Christians (who are generally more passive-aggressive about their hate). I feel
Just because what Bush may decide to do isn't something YOU or I like, it is something that a vast majority of Americans did like (at least at one time). That doesn't make him a sociopath. Misguided, perhaps, but not a sociopath.
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: we can't talk with individuals whose minds won't change when new facts are discovered. They use facts like drunks use lampposts: for support, not for illumination. There is absolutely no virtue in "standing up for what you believe". The real bravery comes from a person who is willing to change what they believe, even right down to their core, formative beliefs, when new discoveries arise. That is the most difficult kind of bravery because it requires us to destroy our own ego and reinvent it -- provided we survive the process. Are you willing to admit that everything you believe might be wrong, and that the morality you've stood for and fought for might actually be evil? The person who steadfastly answers "NO!" to that question is the individual I prefer to keep at arm's length.
Correlation does NOT exclude causation. Correlation does NOT exclude causation. Correlation does NOT exclude causation...it just means that more testing is needed.
So *any* correlation merits testing?
What about the correlation between being a black male and propensity to commit crime? Wouldn't it be "racist" to test that?
I keep forgetting this whole "correlation" thing has nothing to do with science. I suppose I keep getting hoodwinked by the advanced "science" degrees and government grants.
Every single person who read your post is now older. You calling that a coincidence?
My bad... I guess this proves that reading my posts, not the passage of time, causes aging. I hereby retract my claim that correlation does NOT imply causation and will probably stop posting in order to allow everyone to live forever. Or maybe being proven wrong will make me revive my mean streak and I'll make shitloads of posts to kill everyone off. I haven't made up my mind yet.
Eh, I think we're treading on fundamental philosophical differences at this point.
You're absolutely correct. My goal with you is to find some common ground between our differences so that we can see each other as allies rather than as enemies. The main points of contention between you and me, the ones that I hope one day you can bend, is that I believe that it is worth becoming more ruthless than our enemy in order to save our lives and our Western culture, whereas you would prefer to bow to values such as compassion, compliance, and cooperation whatever the cost. I believe that our enemy will make a monster out of me if I have to be in order to save our own lives whereas you believe that being a monster means life isn't worth living. I may have pegged you wrong, but it's what I run into quite often in many failed discussions with "progressives". They simply don't want to believe that sometimes ruthless and limitless violence is both necessary and right.
I would posit (but not be able to prove) that there are far, far fewer of the far-out 'kill the infidel at any cost' lot milling around out there, and a vast bulk of ordinary people who are radicalized by their circumstances. On the basis of that assumption, I come to the conclusion that improving those circumstances (through economic aid, but first and foremost by pulling up our occupation and certainly NOT by carpet-bombing their cities) is the path of least resistance to dismantling the army that is massing against us.
(Pre-argument 1: I don't understand that differences between "kill the infidel at any cost" and "radicalized" -- doesn't the desire to kill the 'other' denote a pretty radical person?)
(Pre-argument 2: The jihad position is not "kill the infidel at any cost". The jihad position is that we kafir have three choices: submit to Islam, become a dhimmi, or fight -- Sura 9:29. Notice that "dialogue" and "diplomacy" are not among the choices that the mujahedin offer us.)
In any case, you are making two different flawed arguments:
1) The "bad Muslims" are only a "tiny minority of extremists".
How tiny? 10%? 10% of 1.5 billion Muslims is 150 million people who are willing to strap bombs to children to kill us. 5%? That would be "only" 75 million people. 1%? Again, "only" 15 million. In any case, your admission that you cannot prove that there's only a "tiny minority" of bad guys is an admission to wishful thinking, an admission to pure hope. What if that hope turns out to be wrong?
2) "Bad Muslims" are bad because they are poor.
There have been so many cases of mujahedin acting out in jihad who are NOT poor and who openly state their ideological motivations to murder that I can't believe there are still people who push the "If we pay them off, they'll stop attacking us" trope. Most liberals have backed off that line by now.
I strongly suspect that you disagree with my original assumption, so of course my thoughts about a solution probably sound ridiculous to you.
Your suspicion is entirely correct, and I'm not surprised that you figured I would think that way because you admit that your position is based on wishful thinking and is easily disproved. My guess is that you are afraid to face the reality that there are millions of Muslims who give us those three chocies I mentioned above -- a world where those millions of Muslims grow stronger every day and those of us who stand up for liberty are facing a crisis in self-confidence -- a world where beloved Europe is disintegrating right before our very eyes. It must be difficult for "progressives" who are so used to having the right solutions to "social problems" and then finding that their solutions are completely inapplicable and, in fact, suicidal when faced with the reality of jihad.
Another slashdotter described the same phenomenon pretty well here.
The poster you referenced did a very good job of describing the ideological divide and, like you, was honest about their feelings
This false dichotomy of "the right wants to stop violent fundamentalists, the left doesn't" is an invention of the corporate media and the political far right
I do not think it is an invention at all. While the legacy media and far right may very well be saying that the left "doesn't want to stop violent fundamentalists", it is the left itself that is allied with the mujahedin in many cases. While that may not apply to you (and I take you at your word that you oppose the mujahedin), it does apply to those leftists who wear kaffyehs, wave "palestinian" flags, and show sympathy for Hezbollah. There seems to be a rift in the left as to whether or not sympathy should be shown toward "oppressed" muslims. Hyper-"progresssive" Ken Livingstone, disgraceful mayor of London, stands as a shining example. George Galloway, another "progressive", outshines Livingstone in his support for mujahedin. So I don't see it as a false dichotomy at all. Rather, I see it as a problem that "progressives" must face, particularly in that mujahedin hate gays, oppress women, deny freedom of conscience, support slavery, perpetrate female genital mutilation, and foment imperialism -- all of which are positions that "progressives" have traditionally stood against.
Now, it seems that the "progressive" stand against those evils is weakening as more and more "progressives" ally themselves with the stated enemy of the United States.
We _all_ want to stop them by the most efficient means we can come up with.
The "_all_" may refer to you and your "progressive" friends, but it does NOT refer to "all progressives". Ken Livingstone, George Galloway, et al are opposed to your position. They regard the USA, not jihad, as the real threat. That is why these useful idiots forge bonds with the mujahedin and act as their apologists.
For starters, I wouldn't be willing to accept a huge number of civilian casualties in order to attack the machinery of what you call political Islam.
That position of yours makes the usage of "human shields" into an effective tactic. We need to be less concerned about civilian casualities if we want to defeat the mujahedin, because they have proven again and again, through words and deeds, that our love of life and mercy is something that they are fulling willing to exploit in the pursuit of our destruction.
To the extent that military action is called for, precision would be a lot more ethical _and effective_ than scorched earth. Our Rangers and Seals can sure as hell take out a terrorist enclave before they even know which way is up, and not even wake up the next door neighbors.
Their mujahedin can strap a bomb onto a six-year-old child and blow up our Rangers and Seals and score big points with our own "anti-war" groups at home by doing so. Our enemies know this. Why don't you? They are not afraid to kill themselves and their own children to destroy us, and if killing their children makes us look bad, then they regard that as victory. The mujahedin do not love life like we do. Take a look at this to read the mujahedin in their own words.
Casualties aren't going to make them give up, hell, they're blowing themselves up!
That statement comes from your failure to understand Arabic Muslim culture. The reason they are blowing themselves up is because those type of attacks are proving to be very effective at their stated goal: getting US soldiers out of "muslim land". Their suicide attacks receive effusive reporting from gutless legacy media in the USA who would love to have the Iraq war fail in order to score political points at their hated enemy (W). Do you think that sucide attacks would continue if we immediately killed Muqtada Al-Sadr and every human within 10 miles of him, and then *systematically* laid waste to Fallujah with promises of which cities would be next unless the attacks stopped? (Do you regard our enemy as unbreak
Thank you for your response. I think that your answer, this time, is much more intelligent that your last one was. Clearly you are a deep thinker and aren't just parroting the multicultural talking points, which is what I thought you were doing before. This bodes well because I think we can have a good dialogue and that you will be open to what I have to say to you.
I, also, am not a scholar of the Koran, but that is immaterial. To claim that I'm not a scholar is a usual line of defense when I point out what the Koran and Hadith say -- "You're not a scholar, so your observation is invalid." That is an attempt to discredit what I say where I am merely pointing out how violent, imperialist Muslims use the Koran and Hadith as justification for murder, invasion, torture, and kidnapping. Jihad, in other words.
I do not like the term "terrorism" because it is a tactic. I do not like the term "terrorist" because it is subjective. I try very hard not to use those terms when I am discussing jihad. Instead, I use the terms "jihad" and "mujahid" because those are the terms that the mujahedin use. They are descriptive and accurate. That's why I wouldn't say that "all muslims are terrorists". I wouldn't even say "all Muslims are mujahedin". Obviously there are some secular Muslims who would have no problem being my friend even though it is haram to take a kafir as a friend, as many more devout Muslims have pointed out. It is true that 100% of mujahedin are Muslims, and I think every single mujahid should die. I make no apolgies about being harsh and violent toward those who wish to kill me or subjugate me because I don't agree with their religion. Any religion which teaches that deserves to be reformed or destroyed. No exceptions.
Your answers about Islam are mostly very good, and I am impressed by your response (given that I was not very impressed by what you wrote previously). To fill in your missing answers, Mohammed led 75 battles, 74 of which were offensive. Bukhari and Muslim are examples of Hadith, which are writings on the sayings of Mohammed. Without Hadith, there are some suras in the Koran which are too ambiguous to understand. The Suras are arranged longest to shortest. This is important because it obscures the fact that Sura 9, which is either the last or next to last chronologically, is near the beginning of the Koran. Sura 9 is the Sura which abrogates all treaties with the kafir and lays out the "conversion, subjugation, or death" that the Muslim prophet Mohammed commanded on all his people (and abrogates the "no compulsion in religion" Meccan sura that Muslim apologists like to employ as a defense). There is no contradiction in the Koran because of abrogation (nashk): later verses wipe out earlier ones. A hudna is a truce that Muslims make with kafir to stop fighting so that the Muslims can gain strength to attack again. There can be no treaties with kafir because Muslims submit to Allah alone. I see your question about the pope as a non-sequitur because the proper comparison would be to Jesus Christ, who explicitly commanded his followers to love their enemies (compared to Allah who told his followers to kill the kafir) and who led zero battles (compared to Mohammed who led 74 predatory attacks). Keep in mind that I am an Ex-Christian and am not trying to portray Christianity as a good and noble religion. It has a lot of warts. I should know: I am a gay man. But to claim that it is "just as bad" as Islam is retarded.
The reason why it is important to recongnize that the Muslim prophet Mohammed was a vicious, predatory brigand is because he is also recognized as a "perfect model of conduct". That is to say that everything the Muslim prophet Mohammed did is regarded as halal. The Muslim prophet Mohammed screwed a nine-year-old little girl (Aisha). This is why the Ayatollah lowered the age of consent to nine in Iran when he took control of that Islamic shithole. The prophet Mohammed had slaves. This is why slavery is still practiced in Islamic shitholes al
That is a good question. I'm afraid that the harder part is not answering that question, but first convincing a significant number of Westerners (in particular, "progressives") that political Islam has to go.
My answer is that we level Iran's cities, one by one, until Iran capitulates. Let Iran's neighbors know which one will be next until they agree that political Islam must go. The question is not whether or not we have the means to do this, but whether or not we have the will.
At the same time, there needs to be a concerted effort from "moderate" Muslims to destroy the Jihad ideology from within. So far, there is almost no such effort which raises the question at how "moderate" these Muslims really are. Instead, we get the "soft jihad" from front groups like CAIR to whom far too much credence is given by this moronic administration.
Additionally, how does the invasion and occupation of Iraq, at the time a secular dictatorship, advance that goal?
It advances that goal in no way at all. We should have leveled Iraq's cities, one by one, until they capitulated. The idiotic nation-building and futile, politically-correct effort to "win hearts and minds" is destined to fail. It is appeasement and the continued bloody resistance which drains American blood and treasure is the fruits of said appeasement.
Your response is indicative of the classic "progressive" rhetorical response to concerns about the jihad ideology. To wit: "If you are concerned about jihad, then you are completely engrossed with fear, and that means you are a willing victim to the scare mongering of the REAL enemy, which is George W. Bush and the right-wing."
In short, I regard it as militant stupidity.
We've forgotten our own home-grown terrors, like Timothy McVegh and Ted Kazinski because they look like us and they talk like us.
I have forgotten Timothy McVeigh because he is dead and Ted Kaczynski because he is safely in prison. Thus, they are no longer credible threats. Compare that to the jihad threat, which may be only a "tiny minority" of 1.5 billion people. Say, 10% of 1.5 billion people, meaning, 150 million people who are NOT dead and NOT in jail. But you weren't aiming for a fair comparison of different threats; instead, you were aiming for the rhetorical victory by means of moral equivalence with a little bit of accusation of xenophobia (read: racism) thrown in.
Instead of teaching people about islam
Interesting that you bring that up because I completely agree with you that people should learn more about Islam. But, somehow, I suspect that when you mention "learning about Islam", you are actually promoting compliantly accepting the taqiyya of the proponents of soft jihad, such as CAIR. But I could be wrong, so let's test your knowledge because I think that will reveal where your bias lies:
1. What is the Sunnah?
2. What are Bukhari and Muslim examples of?
3. What is Jizyah?
4. How are the Suras arranged?
5. What is a hudna?
6. How many offensive battles did the Muslim prophet Muhammad lead?
7. What is a dhimmi?
Then we will have a much smaller problem to deal with when it actually happens instead of a ghost enemy that is primarily our own fear that we're fighting to our own ruin.
With your head planted firmly in the sand, you don't have to look Hezbollah squarely in the eye and face the fact that "Death to America!" has been their motto for decades. They might as well be a "ghost enemy" when you choose not to see them.
After all, post 9/11, Richard Reid the infamous shoe bomber got on with explosives that might well have downed the plane. He was stopped by alert passengers, not by the bureaucracy.
Dude*, I think you meant to write that he was stopped by "Islamophobic, Zionist vigilantes who probably voted for George W. Bush". You better get some nuance before I call you a racist.
Gore / Gravel '08!!!!!!!!!!!!
(* I wouldn't actually start a post with the juvenile "dude". I'm just working on earning some "progressive" street cred. Let me know if I sound insufficiently edgy.)
the Brits spoke to the IRA, even after the IRA were terrorists, and now the IRA isn't blowing up trucks full of explosives in London. It's not as if terrorists don't have stated goals - Al Qaida have said a million times what's pissing them off, and yet we don't do a damned thing about it.
(Sarcasm on.)
Yes, this is obviously an awesome idea because the Catholic Irish and the Muslim Arabs are culturally identical. This is why if talking works with one, then talking will clearly work with the other. It's the only way!
(Sarcasm off.)
The only way to stop this is to not be a target.
That reminds me of a song. We're all geeks here, so everyone join in:
Bravely bold Sir Robin rode forth from Camelot. He was not afraid to die, O brave Sir Robin. He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways, Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin!
He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp, Or to have his eyes gouged out and his elbows broken, To have his kneecaps split and his body burned away And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Robin!
His head smashed in and his heart cut out And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged And his nostrils raped and his bottom burned off And his pen-
dave420: That's... that's... er... enough music for now lads. Looks like there's dirty work afoot.
Yes, you should, becuase you left out the singlemost important manner to combat "terror"; one that we should have started long, long before 9/11 ever happened and one that we have yet to take and continue to ignore at our own peril.
We must put a decisive end to the Jihad ideology. Political Islam must go.
There's nothing about altruism that requires self-harm
Wrong. If you benefit, then it's selfish, and that's contrary to the very idea of altruism. Therefore, if you do NOT benefit, then it's more altruistic, and self-harm goes even further and is thus even more altruistic than simply not benefiting. Isn't a person who gives their life for a particular cause honored as giving the "ultimate sacrifice" in showing "pure selflessness"? Killing yourself for others is the highest form of altruism.
I take that back. Torturing yourself to death slowly over decades is even more altruistic.
TFA simply says that there's pleasure to be had in causing some benefit to someone else.
Then it's not altruistic, since you'd be getting something out of it. To be altruistic, then it should cause you pain to benefit someone else, since then there would be no selfish gain in benefiting someone else.
what they are saying is people are only generous because it feels good.
Accept.
That is, if it did not give them that feel good feeling, they would not be generous.
Accept.
Thus, everyone is generous for their own selfish purposes.
Accept.
Ergo, everyone is 100% selfish.
Non sequitur.
The correct next statement is, "There is no action which does not contain a selfish motifivation."
Take generosity, for example. If you give money to someone who "needs" it, then A) it helps the other person instead of you (unselfish), B) it might harm you if that person then decides to use that money against you (very unselfish), and C) it makes you feel good (selfish). There is (at least) one unselfish part of generosity, and (at least) one selfish part of genorosity. And it follows with every other action you choose to take. There may be one million unselfish parts to the action you choose to take, but if there isn't at least one selfish part, then you won't take that action.
Here's a clue, people: when you see someone trying to glorify selfishness and denigrate selflessness, RUN. That person is a very selfish person, and will likely not think twice before hurting you if it profits them.
That is a very insulting statement for you to make because I specifically think you are talking about my ideas.
First, I do not glorify selfishness. I exalt rational self-interest as moral and defend selfishness as amoral. But I think that you would gladly spin that statement as my choosing to "glorify selfishness" because it serves you to have my ideas ignored, suppressed, or otherwise be unheard.
Second, because I exalt rational self-interest I specifically regard the choice to harm someone else ("harm" meaning, deprive them of life, liberty, or property through force or fraud) for the sake of my own profit as an immoral choice and the behavior of a predator. Predators do not deserve to live in society! You are likening me to that individual that I specifically hold in contempt through deliberate mischaracterization of my own ideas. The fact that I exalt rational self-interest means that I seek to make win-wins with people, not predatory behavior. I interact with other people only when the interaction makes both people stronger. I do not want to be a mugger or a leech and will not allow anyone else to mug me or mooch off me, either.
You can hate my ideas for what they are, and that is totally fine with me. It's silly of me to expect that everyone will unflinchingly accept all of my own opinions. But it is wrong of you to miscast my ideas as something they are not. Please educate yourself about my ethic before you defame it. If it sucks as badly as you think it does, then let it fail based on its own lack of merit instead of based on your failure to understand it.
It's pretty obvious if you think about it that we get a LOT out of contributing to others.
That blows holes in the "selfless" claims to "altrusism", doesn't it?
If contributing to others really was selfless, then you would get NOTHING out of it.
In fact, if would be even more selfless if you were HARMED by contributing to others.
In fact, you can take that a step further and be even more selfless if contributing others harmed not only you, but all your loved ones, too, and also helped your enemies to harm more of your loved ones.
Why not go whole hog and realize that it would be most selfless of all if contributing to others harmed you, harmed your loved ones, helped your enemies, and also violated every sense of morality that you had.
For example, if you were to spend all of your money to help the new Neo-Nazi party build and deploy a nuclear weapon against your family, millions of oppressed people, and for the purpose of increasing Neo-Nazi party power worldwide, then that action would be really, really, really selfless of you.
THAT is altruism. The fake "altruism" that people insist upon is actually really selfish in comparison, as you've admitted that you get "a LOT" out of doing it.
Why do you assume that a person teaching altruism has selfish motives?
Because it is a psychological fact. There is no action that any human being will take which does not contain a selfish aspect. In other words, if the human considers taking an action and asks himself, "What's in it for me?" and comes up with nothing, then the human will not perform that action.
I'm going to make a grand assumption here that you're a pretty liberal person. That said, would you consider donating money to the Ku Klux Klan? It would be a completely selfless action. Nothing in it for you. Totally altruistic. Donating money to poor and oppressed minorities would be more selfish of you, since it would help people that you like and that would make you feel good.
how can altruism arising from selfish motives be a bad thing if the alternative is selfishness anyway?
I never argued that altruism could arise from selfish motives as I believe such an idea is bogus. Furthermore, you assume that selfishness is immoral. It is not. Selfishness is amoral. Morality comes from our choices in how to act upon the selfshness from which we shouldn't try to escape. This is a tough concept to grasp if you've been taught that "selfishness is wrong" for your whole life. The lesson "selfishness is wrong" may be somewhat appropriate for kindergarteners (and also for those grown-ups who see great wisdom in certain books), but as people gain in understanding and wisdom than more nuanced lessons in morality are required.
Do you believe that it is always wrong to tell a lie?
"Generosity is inborn. Altruism is a learned perversion." - Robert Heinlein, quite a few years before this study came out.
To say that altruism is "learned" is too passive. It is not only learned (as one can learn things from cause-and-effect observations in the natural world). It is also taught, as in, instigated by other human beings who have their own selfish (and often sinister) motives.
Evil person: You should think about other people's needs instead of your own. Potential dupe: (recognizing the existence of 6+ billion "other people") Which other people? Evil person: (dons politician hat) That's my job to tell you whom you should think about. Pay attention! Potential dupe: But what about my own needs? Evil person: How selfish of you to ask that question! (dons social engineer hat) Now, on to the schools!
Slashdot Mirror
So some lady has to walk all over town to /get/ her money?
That's literally incredible, right? I thoguht so, too. Here's your link to the story.
What does that have to do with a living wage?
"Living wage" assumes a lifestyle, and a lifestyle is affected by more things than just wage. Hence, it's bogus and needs to die.
Is she is earning enough money to pay her rent, groceries, and keep herself healthy?
Rent in what kind of apartment? 2 bedrooms? 3 bedrooms? Running water yes or no? Automatic dishwasher or not? Dirty city with dirty air or clean city with clean air?
Groceries? What kind of groceries? Rice and beans every day? Maybe just rice every day? Maybe rice just once per day? Maybe just millet once per day?
Healthy? What level of health care? Does she see a doctor on demand or is she added to a waiting list? How long is the waiting list? A year? Five years? Ten years?
Your quesiton is simplistic because the notion of lifestyle is complex. Lifestyle is more than just wage. You assume much because of your very, very privileged background.
No one ever said making a living wage was enjoyable, it is merely enough to keep a person stable in society. No more, no less.
What does "stable" mean? Merely emotionally stable? (People survived the holocaust, after all.) Making enough money to go to one concert every month? Guaranteed foie gras rations? Permanent tenure for everyone regardless of profession or job performance? Don't casually throw around nebulous terms and expect me to mindlessly agree with you.
I not sure why you brought demographics, John Kerry, or http://www.traderjoes.com/ into this conversation either.
I thought the "Ramble, ramble, ramble" comment made that clear, but I'll be explicit for your benefit: I was rambling. I'm guessing you agree with me that Trader Joe's clientele is NOT very diverse. I like Trader Joe's anyway. Do you?
Healthy food is MUCH MUCH MUCH more expensive than junk food.
Where did I write anything about "healthy food"?
You come back here and try to tell me that eating healthy is cheaper than eating like crap. Do it, and I will call you a dirty fucking liar, because that is exactly what you would be.
Which is more expensive by-the-pound: rice or twinkies?
I haven't found any really concrete numbers or sites, but it sounds like a living wage in china is $3/day.
... hardly any chubby dark-skinned people to be found at Trader Joe's. Lots of skinny light-skinned folks, though ... in their pretty, hippie dresses and John Kerry bumper stickers on their SUVs. I like Trader Joe's. Ramble ramble ramble ...
The notion of a "living wage" is completely bogus and here is way.
Living according to what kind of lifestyle?
That question is left out. Instead, it is merely assumed that a certain "comfortable" lifestyle will be attained. But what, exactly is "comfortable"?
There is an interesting series in the travel section of my local newspaper about an American female expat living in Buenos Aires, Argentina. She makes a "living wage" working there. This week, she detailed the things that she dislikes about the city (next week she will list the things that she likes about living there). One of the things that she dislikes is that ATM machines don't always have money, don't always give you all the money you asked for (even if there is money in your account), and Buenos Aires is still almost a completely cash-based city. What this meant for her is that she had to visit a series of ATM machines at odd hours every single day, gathering up only small amounts of money at a time, in order to gether up enough money to pay her rent. The task of "gathering up rent money" from scattered ATMs all across town became part of her daily routine. Do you think this would hamper your lifestyle if you're used to living the the USA or in Europe where cash-on-demand is a no-brainer?
That is but one example among countless other ways to measure the value of one's own lifestyle. The fact that Americans are so fat is merely evidence that they have buttloads of free time (due to not having to spend their time on frustrating, mundane tasks) combined with an abundance of food (not to mention little knowledge of good eating). Keep in mind that the majority of overweight and obese persons in the United States are described as "living in poverty". The more wealthy you get in the USA, the thinner you get, statistically speaking. Is that weird? Not at all. It's just that our notions of "poverty" and "abundance" need to be reexamined, particularly in light of the notion of wealth envy. I.e., "I'm poor because I don't have as much stuff as my next-door neighbor!"
An interesting exit question: what are the demographics of the anarchist movement in the USA?
Demographics fascinate me
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.
Thank you for your kind words. What's interesting about what you write is how your description of yourself mirrors so closely the way I feel after so many hours of largely futile arguing on the internet. (When I use "arguing", I use it in the sense of futile arguing versus productive problem-solving.) I've written some things that I wish I could take back. I've ratcheted up my own hate for other people because I felt like their horribleness merited my righteous hate. I baited people's attacks so that I could round them up and destroy them. That's how I earned a thick skin: with e-blood. I don't feel proud about it.
If you walk away from this conversation with one and only one thing, then I dearly hope it would be the honest consideration that it's time to let go of your hatred. My only motivation in writing that to you is compassion. I don't see myself as better than you or anyone else. When it comes down to it, all of us are marching inexorably toward our shared destiny of being a buffet for worms and germs. Coming from a previous mindset where I was expecting eternal bliss after I died, my new understanding is quite the let-down. (No wonder I was so angry toward Christians for so long -- what a dupe I was.) As I get older and do my best to improve myself, I realize that this life I live is beautiful for its own sake, as it's all I have. That's the peace of mind which inspires my compassion and love for humanity, and what causes my heart to break when I see you write the words, "I hate." But I'm not asking you to let go of your hatred for my sake -- god knows I'm not worth the effort. Do it for your sake, so that you can find greater peace of mind and thus flourish. I'm reaching out to you in the only way that I know how by appealing to your need to love and be loved, by hoping that there still some of that need inside you.
For me, adulthood is the long recovery from my childhood. I wonder if you sometimes feel the same way.
I am encouraged by your response because it falls in line with what I've noticed about other people and thus makes me think that I am acquiring better understanding of human nature. I think that the reason you didn't lay into me is because you don't see me as an enemy who must be destroyed. I think you see me as an ally who, at times, provides a decent mental challenge to bright and introspective individual such as yourself. This way you can talk about your thoughts and values without attacking me. I think it's human nature to categorize other people into friends, allies, and enemies.
I like all that hippy, tipi, outdoorsy stuff that you do. I love looking at the woods and at fungi and at birds of prey. I love frogs and flowers and being outside. You lose me when you start talking about "means of production" and "common good", so forgive me for not engaging you on those topics. I think we should focus on the things we have in common so that we can build bridges instead of walls. I don't know if I'll ever be lucky enough to move from "ally" to "friend" in your standing, given how different our values are, but I'm willing to try.
Thanks for your reply. You seem interesting.
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.
I don't know why this worries you, but I appreciate it, I guess. I never claimed to be non-judgmental. I judge all the time. Everyone does. I judge things good and I judge things bad. Everyone does. I think what you mean by "judgmental" is "condemning", but I condemn and criticize, too. Everyone does. I think what I'm trying to do is come across as patient and forgiving (I am) instead of rash and vicious (which I am not). You can read into my words whatever you want to read, as I have no control over what you see and what you think.
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.
First, you have to admit that "progressives" can only be changing the world for the better if you agree with "progressive" values. Since I don't agree with all of those values, I can't agree that they're changing the world for the better. It's a mixed bag. I will easily claim that they have crapped on many of the principles that they used to stand up for, such as eschewing "hate speech" (they engage in it), standing up for women's rights (they fail at then when it comes to the woman's plight in Islam), and intellectual freedom (they attempt to suppress all thought except for "progressive" thought at many universities). I also criticize the neo-conservatives for crapping on principles that they used to stand up for, such as small government, non-intervention, and defending the Nation's borders. But I am not a "progressive", not a conservative, and not a Neo-Con. These are my observations and occasionally my judgments.
Second, "all" is the word that you inserted.
You can't be a generalizing, over the top asshole and then claim to be a calm and reasonable promoter of logical discourse.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I commit to not being a generalizing, over the top asshole. Will you do so as well?
You hate faith based thinkers, so do I. But I hate hypocrites far worse.
And I remember writing that you sounded like a very hateful person. Here, you openly admit to hate. I thought that you, a "progressive", were supposed to stand up for tolerance and peace and non-violence, and I think that hatred toward other people (such as faith-based thinkers and hypocrites) is anathema toward all of those values. I do not hate faith-based thinkers. I tolerate them despite their immoral behavior. Maybe it's time for you to let go of some of that hatred you feel. I've felt hatred many times in my life and it served no good purpose. It was the poison that I took in the hopes that my enemy would die.
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 know this already. We congregate with people who are like us. Everyone does this.
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.
I'm not surprised. My limited and biased experience is that anyone who views me as an "enemy" will lash out defensively when their beliefs are challeneged. If they view me as a friend or an ally, then the discussion tends to be civil. So I've been lashed out at by both conservatives and "progressives". I've been called both a "liberal" and a "conservative", both times perjoratively. I will say that, in my limited and biased experience, the "progressives" have been more hateful than the conservatives. I t
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.
I'm not sure how to read your criticism. You could be saying one of the following:
1) "I disagree with your characterization that this is solely a 'progressive' problem."
2) "I disagree with your characterization that this is a 'progressive' problem because it's actually a conservative problem."
In either case, my response is the same: it is not solely a "progressive" problem. It is a problem exhibited in anyone with faith-based thinking, and many "progressives" exhibit faith-based thinking despite claims to the contrary ("reality-based", etc.). My previous post originally contained a line which compared denying the alleged sociopathy of W with accusing Jesus Christ of being a gay drag queen to an evangelical conservative, as I was trying to evince that I am even-handed in my criticism of faith-based thinking. I deleted the sentence out of fear that I'd be down-modded, but, given your response, I think it would have done me well to have left it intact.
Are you willing to change your beliefs, or is that an article of faith?
I can't tell if this question is snarky or serious, but I'll answer it anyway. I understand faith as "belief in something in spite of insufficient or contradictory evidence". In that case, I don't understand how being willing to change one's core beliefs can be an article of faith. The answer is "yes, I am willing" anyway.
In my experience, conservatives are far more likely to use facts as lamp posts, for support not illumination.
In my experience, both conservatives and "progressives" are equally as likely to exhibit faith-based reasoning. The principal difference I see between the two is that conservatives are honest and unapologetic about their faith-based reasoning. I don't really regard that as virtue, since they're being honest about their immoral behavior (compared to "progressives" who are being dishonest about their immoral behavior). The immoral behavior I'm referring to is faith-based thinking.
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?
Perhaps both of you are wrong. There are more than two sides to every issue, you know. Did you reflexively assume that I am a conservative because I dared criticize "progressives"? Are you, in the next breath, going to claim that you eschew unsophisticated black-and-white thinking?
I'm willing to admit that everything I think about conservatives being amoral, venal, greedy, self centered, elitist bastards might be wrong.
Wow, you sound like a very hateful person.
So, are you willing to accept the fact that your belief about "progressives" might be utterly and completely false and delusional, too?
Yes, I am willing. But first I will have to be shown the sufficient evidence. I certainly won't change my beliefs just to please you.
By the way, which of my beliefs about "progressives" do you regard as false? The fact that "progressives" exhibit faith-based thinking and lie about it, perhaps? That's the only negative thing I remember writing about them in our conversation (outside of my refusal to deny "progressives" their hard-earned scare quotes). My criticism is certainly quite a bit less damning than the broad-brush treatment you gave your reviled enemies.
Because if you aren't willing to admit that possibility, I'd just as soon keep you at arms length.
You might not have to bother. I generally avoid contact with "progressives" because they are generally orders of magnitude more openly hateful and malicious than evangelical Christians (who are generally more passive-aggressive about their hate). I feel
Just because what Bush may decide to do isn't something YOU or I like, it is something that a vast majority of Americans did like (at least at one time). That doesn't make him a sociopath. Misguided, perhaps, but not a sociopath.
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: we can't talk with individuals whose minds won't change when new facts are discovered. They use facts like drunks use lampposts: for support, not for illumination. There is absolutely no virtue in "standing up for what you believe". The real bravery comes from a person who is willing to change what they believe, even right down to their core, formative beliefs, when new discoveries arise. That is the most difficult kind of bravery because it requires us to destroy our own ego and reinvent it -- provided we survive the process. Are you willing to admit that everything you believe might be wrong, and that the morality you've stood for and fought for might actually be evil? The person who steadfastly answers "NO!" to that question is the individual I prefer to keep at arm's length.
Ramble ramble ramble...
Correlation does NOT exclude causation. Correlation does NOT exclude causation. Correlation does NOT exclude causation. ..it just means that more testing is needed.
So *any* correlation merits testing?
What about the correlation between being a black male and propensity to commit crime? Wouldn't it be "racist" to test that?
I keep forgetting this whole "correlation" thing has nothing to do with science. I suppose I keep getting hoodwinked by the advanced "science" degrees and government grants.
Every single person who read your post is now older. You calling that a coincidence?
... I guess this proves that reading my posts, not the passage of time, causes aging. I hereby retract my claim that correlation does NOT imply causation and will probably stop posting in order to allow everyone to live forever. Or maybe being proven wrong will make me revive my mean streak and I'll make shitloads of posts to kill everyone off. I haven't made up my mind yet.
My bad
Correlation does NOT imply causation.
Correlation does NOT imply causation.
Correlation does NOT imply causation.
It's amazing to me that so much is called "science" which also depends solely on this logical flaw.
Eh, I think we're treading on fundamental philosophical differences at this point.
You're absolutely correct. My goal with you is to find some common ground between our differences so that we can see each other as allies rather than as enemies. The main points of contention between you and me, the ones that I hope one day you can bend, is that I believe that it is worth becoming more ruthless than our enemy in order to save our lives and our Western culture, whereas you would prefer to bow to values such as compassion, compliance, and cooperation whatever the cost. I believe that our enemy will make a monster out of me if I have to be in order to save our own lives whereas you believe that being a monster means life isn't worth living. I may have pegged you wrong, but it's what I run into quite often in many failed discussions with "progressives". They simply don't want to believe that sometimes ruthless and limitless violence is both necessary and right.
I would posit (but not be able to prove) that there are far, far fewer of the far-out 'kill the infidel at any cost' lot milling around out there, and a vast bulk of ordinary people who are radicalized by their circumstances. On the basis of that assumption, I come to the conclusion that improving those circumstances (through economic aid, but first and foremost by pulling up our occupation and certainly NOT by carpet-bombing their cities) is the path of least resistance to dismantling the army that is massing against us.
(Pre-argument 1: I don't understand that differences between "kill the infidel at any cost" and "radicalized" -- doesn't the desire to kill the 'other' denote a pretty radical person?)
(Pre-argument 2: The jihad position is not "kill the infidel at any cost". The jihad position is that we kafir have three choices: submit to Islam, become a dhimmi, or fight -- Sura 9:29. Notice that "dialogue" and "diplomacy" are not among the choices that the mujahedin offer us.)
In any case, you are making two different flawed arguments:
1) The "bad Muslims" are only a "tiny minority of extremists".
How tiny? 10%? 10% of 1.5 billion Muslims is 150 million people who are willing to strap bombs to children to kill us. 5%? That would be "only" 75 million people. 1%? Again, "only" 15 million. In any case, your admission that you cannot prove that there's only a "tiny minority" of bad guys is an admission to wishful thinking, an admission to pure hope. What if that hope turns out to be wrong?
2) "Bad Muslims" are bad because they are poor.
There have been so many cases of mujahedin acting out in jihad who are NOT poor and who openly state their ideological motivations to murder that I can't believe there are still people who push the "If we pay them off, they'll stop attacking us" trope. Most liberals have backed off that line by now.
I strongly suspect that you disagree with my original assumption, so of course my thoughts about a solution probably sound ridiculous to you.
Your suspicion is entirely correct, and I'm not surprised that you figured I would think that way because you admit that your position is based on wishful thinking and is easily disproved. My guess is that you are afraid to face the reality that there are millions of Muslims who give us those three chocies I mentioned above -- a world where those millions of Muslims grow stronger every day and those of us who stand up for liberty are facing a crisis in self-confidence -- a world where beloved Europe is disintegrating right before our very eyes. It must be difficult for "progressives" who are so used to having the right solutions to "social problems" and then finding that their solutions are completely inapplicable and, in fact, suicidal when faced with the reality of jihad.
Another slashdotter described the same phenomenon pretty well here.
The poster you referenced did a very good job of describing the ideological divide and, like you, was honest about their feelings
This false dichotomy of "the right wants to stop violent fundamentalists, the left doesn't" is an invention of the corporate media and the political far right
I do not think it is an invention at all. While the legacy media and far right may very well be saying that the left "doesn't want to stop violent fundamentalists", it is the left itself that is allied with the mujahedin in many cases. While that may not apply to you (and I take you at your word that you oppose the mujahedin), it does apply to those leftists who wear kaffyehs, wave "palestinian" flags, and show sympathy for Hezbollah. There seems to be a rift in the left as to whether or not sympathy should be shown toward "oppressed" muslims. Hyper-"progresssive" Ken Livingstone, disgraceful mayor of London, stands as a shining example. George Galloway, another "progressive", outshines Livingstone in his support for mujahedin. So I don't see it as a false dichotomy at all. Rather, I see it as a problem that "progressives" must face, particularly in that mujahedin hate gays, oppress women, deny freedom of conscience, support slavery, perpetrate female genital mutilation, and foment imperialism -- all of which are positions that "progressives" have traditionally stood against.
Now, it seems that the "progressive" stand against those evils is weakening as more and more "progressives" ally themselves with the stated enemy of the United States.
We _all_ want to stop them by the most efficient means we can come up with.
The "_all_" may refer to you and your "progressive" friends, but it does NOT refer to "all progressives". Ken Livingstone, George Galloway, et al are opposed to your position. They regard the USA, not jihad, as the real threat. That is why these useful idiots forge bonds with the mujahedin and act as their apologists.
For starters, I wouldn't be willing to accept a huge number of civilian casualties in order to attack the machinery of what you call political Islam.
That position of yours makes the usage of "human shields" into an effective tactic. We need to be less concerned about civilian casualities if we want to defeat the mujahedin, because they have proven again and again, through words and deeds, that our love of life and mercy is something that they are fulling willing to exploit in the pursuit of our destruction.
To the extent that military action is called for, precision would be a lot more ethical _and effective_ than scorched earth. Our Rangers and Seals can sure as hell take out a terrorist enclave before they even know which way is up, and not even wake up the next door neighbors.
Their mujahedin can strap a bomb onto a six-year-old child and blow up our Rangers and Seals and score big points with our own "anti-war" groups at home by doing so. Our enemies know this. Why don't you? They are not afraid to kill themselves and their own children to destroy us, and if killing their children makes us look bad, then they regard that as victory. The mujahedin do not love life like we do. Take a look at this to read the mujahedin in their own words.
Casualties aren't going to make them give up, hell, they're blowing themselves up!
That statement comes from your failure to understand Arabic Muslim culture. The reason they are blowing themselves up is because those type of attacks are proving to be very effective at their stated goal: getting US soldiers out of "muslim land". Their suicide attacks receive effusive reporting from gutless legacy media in the USA who would love to have the Iraq war fail in order to score political points at their hated enemy (W). Do you think that sucide attacks would continue if we immediately killed Muqtada Al-Sadr and every human within 10 miles of him, and then *systematically* laid waste to Fallujah with promises of which cities would be next unless the attacks stopped? (Do you regard our enemy as unbreak
Thank you for your response. I think that your answer, this time, is much more intelligent that your last one was. Clearly you are a deep thinker and aren't just parroting the multicultural talking points, which is what I thought you were doing before. This bodes well because I think we can have a good dialogue and that you will be open to what I have to say to you.
I, also, am not a scholar of the Koran, but that is immaterial. To claim that I'm not a scholar is a usual line of defense when I point out what the Koran and Hadith say -- "You're not a scholar, so your observation is invalid." That is an attempt to discredit what I say where I am merely pointing out how violent, imperialist Muslims use the Koran and Hadith as justification for murder, invasion, torture, and kidnapping. Jihad, in other words.
I do not like the term "terrorism" because it is a tactic. I do not like the term "terrorist" because it is subjective. I try very hard not to use those terms when I am discussing jihad. Instead, I use the terms "jihad" and "mujahid" because those are the terms that the mujahedin use. They are descriptive and accurate. That's why I wouldn't say that "all muslims are terrorists". I wouldn't even say "all Muslims are mujahedin". Obviously there are some secular Muslims who would have no problem being my friend even though it is haram to take a kafir as a friend, as many more devout Muslims have pointed out. It is true that 100% of mujahedin are Muslims, and I think every single mujahid should die. I make no apolgies about being harsh and violent toward those who wish to kill me or subjugate me because I don't agree with their religion. Any religion which teaches that deserves to be reformed or destroyed. No exceptions.
Your answers about Islam are mostly very good, and I am impressed by your response (given that I was not very impressed by what you wrote previously). To fill in your missing answers, Mohammed led 75 battles, 74 of which were offensive. Bukhari and Muslim are examples of Hadith, which are writings on the sayings of Mohammed. Without Hadith, there are some suras in the Koran which are too ambiguous to understand. The Suras are arranged longest to shortest. This is important because it obscures the fact that Sura 9, which is either the last or next to last chronologically, is near the beginning of the Koran. Sura 9 is the Sura which abrogates all treaties with the kafir and lays out the "conversion, subjugation, or death" that the Muslim prophet Mohammed commanded on all his people (and abrogates the "no compulsion in religion" Meccan sura that Muslim apologists like to employ as a defense). There is no contradiction in the Koran because of abrogation (nashk): later verses wipe out earlier ones. A hudna is a truce that Muslims make with kafir to stop fighting so that the Muslims can gain strength to attack again. There can be no treaties with kafir because Muslims submit to Allah alone. I see your question about the pope as a non-sequitur because the proper comparison would be to Jesus Christ, who explicitly commanded his followers to love their enemies (compared to Allah who told his followers to kill the kafir) and who led zero battles (compared to Mohammed who led 74 predatory attacks). Keep in mind that I am an Ex-Christian and am not trying to portray Christianity as a good and noble religion. It has a lot of warts. I should know: I am a gay man. But to claim that it is "just as bad" as Islam is retarded.
The reason why it is important to recongnize that the Muslim prophet Mohammed was a vicious, predatory brigand is because he is also recognized as a "perfect model of conduct". That is to say that everything the Muslim prophet Mohammed did is regarded as halal. The Muslim prophet Mohammed screwed a nine-year-old little girl (Aisha). This is why the Ayatollah lowered the age of consent to nine in Iran when he took control of that Islamic shithole. The prophet Mohammed had slaves. This is why slavery is still practiced in Islamic shitholes al
Quite agree. How do you propose we do that?
That is a good question. I'm afraid that the harder part is not answering that question, but first convincing a significant number of Westerners (in particular, "progressives") that political Islam has to go.
My answer is that we level Iran's cities, one by one, until Iran capitulates. Let Iran's neighbors know which one will be next until they agree that political Islam must go. The question is not whether or not we have the means to do this, but whether or not we have the will.
At the same time, there needs to be a concerted effort from "moderate" Muslims to destroy the Jihad ideology from within. So far, there is almost no such effort which raises the question at how "moderate" these Muslims really are. Instead, we get the "soft jihad" from front groups like CAIR to whom far too much credence is given by this moronic administration.
Additionally, how does the invasion and occupation of Iraq, at the time a secular dictatorship, advance that goal?
It advances that goal in no way at all. We should have leveled Iraq's cities, one by one, until they capitulated. The idiotic nation-building and futile, politically-correct effort to "win hearts and minds" is destined to fail. It is appeasement and the continued bloody resistance which drains American blood and treasure is the fruits of said appeasement.
Your response is indicative of the classic "progressive" rhetorical response to concerns about the jihad ideology. To wit: "If you are concerned about jihad, then you are completely engrossed with fear, and that means you are a willing victim to the scare mongering of the REAL enemy, which is George W. Bush and the right-wing."
In short, I regard it as militant stupidity.
We've forgotten our own home-grown terrors, like Timothy McVegh and Ted Kazinski because they look like us and they talk like us.
I have forgotten Timothy McVeigh because he is dead and Ted Kaczynski because he is safely in prison. Thus, they are no longer credible threats. Compare that to the jihad threat, which may be only a "tiny minority" of 1.5 billion people. Say, 10% of 1.5 billion people, meaning, 150 million people who are NOT dead and NOT in jail. But you weren't aiming for a fair comparison of different threats; instead, you were aiming for the rhetorical victory by means of moral equivalence with a little bit of accusation of xenophobia (read: racism) thrown in.
Instead of teaching people about islam
Interesting that you bring that up because I completely agree with you that people should learn more about Islam. But, somehow, I suspect that when you mention "learning about Islam", you are actually promoting compliantly accepting the taqiyya of the proponents of soft jihad, such as CAIR. But I could be wrong, so let's test your knowledge because I think that will reveal where your bias lies:
1. What is the Sunnah?
2. What are Bukhari and Muslim examples of?
3. What is Jizyah?
4. How are the Suras arranged?
5. What is a hudna?
6. How many offensive battles did the Muslim prophet Muhammad lead?
7. What is a dhimmi?
Then we will have a much smaller problem to deal with when it actually happens instead of a ghost enemy that is primarily our own fear that we're fighting to our own ruin.
With your head planted firmly in the sand, you don't have to look Hezbollah squarely in the eye and face the fact that "Death to America!" has been their motto for decades. They might as well be a "ghost enemy" when you choose not to see them.
After all, post 9/11, Richard Reid the infamous shoe bomber got on with explosives that might well have downed the plane. He was stopped by alert passengers, not by the bureaucracy.
Dude*, I think you meant to write that he was stopped by "Islamophobic, Zionist vigilantes who probably voted for George W. Bush". You better get some nuance before I call you a racist.
Gore / Gravel '08!!!!!!!!!!!!
(* I wouldn't actually start a post with the juvenile "dude". I'm just working on earning some "progressive" street cred. Let me know if I sound insufficiently edgy.)
the Brits spoke to the IRA, even after the IRA were terrorists, and now the IRA isn't blowing up trucks full of explosives in London. It's not as if terrorists don't have stated goals - Al Qaida have said a million times what's pissing them off, and yet we don't do a damned thing about it.
(Sarcasm on.)
Yes, this is obviously an awesome idea because the Catholic Irish and the Muslim Arabs are culturally identical. This is why if talking works with one, then talking will clearly work with the other. It's the only way!
(Sarcasm off.)
The only way to stop this is to not be a target.
That reminds me of a song. We're all geeks here, so everyone join in:
Bravely bold Sir Robin rode forth from Camelot.
He was not afraid to die,
O brave Sir Robin.
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways,
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin!
He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp,
Or to have his eyes gouged out and his elbows broken,
To have his kneecaps split and his body burned away
And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Robin!
His head smashed in and his heart cut out
And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged
And his nostrils raped and his bottom burned off
And his pen-
dave420: That's... that's... er... enough music for now lads.
Looks like there's dirty work afoot.
blah...blah...port security...blah..blah...mid-east oil...blah...blah...
Should I go on?
Yes, you should, becuase you left out the singlemost important manner to combat "terror"; one that we should have started long, long before 9/11 ever happened and one that we have yet to take and continue to ignore at our own peril.
We must put a decisive end to the Jihad ideology. Political Islam must go.
There's nothing about altruism that requires self-harm
Wrong. If you benefit, then it's selfish, and that's contrary to the very idea of altruism. Therefore, if you do NOT benefit, then it's more altruistic, and self-harm goes even further and is thus even more altruistic than simply not benefiting. Isn't a person who gives their life for a particular cause honored as giving the "ultimate sacrifice" in showing "pure selflessness"? Killing yourself for others is the highest form of altruism.
I take that back. Torturing yourself to death slowly over decades is even more altruistic.
TFA simply says that there's pleasure to be had in causing some benefit to someone else.
Then it's not altruistic, since you'd be getting something out of it. To be altruistic, then it should cause you pain to benefit someone else, since then there would be no selfish gain in benefiting someone else.
I can't tell if you're serious. Good day.
what they are saying is people are only generous because it feels good.
Accept.
That is, if it did not give them that feel good feeling, they would not be generous.
Accept.
Thus, everyone is generous for their own selfish purposes.
Accept.
Ergo, everyone is 100% selfish.
Non sequitur.
The correct next statement is, "There is no action which does not contain a selfish motifivation."
Take generosity, for example. If you give money to someone who "needs" it, then A) it helps the other person instead of you (unselfish), B) it might harm you if that person then decides to use that money against you (very unselfish), and C) it makes you feel good (selfish). There is (at least) one unselfish part of generosity, and (at least) one selfish part of genorosity. And it follows with every other action you choose to take. There may be one million unselfish parts to the action you choose to take, but if there isn't at least one selfish part, then you won't take that action.
Try to dispute my logic. I dare you.
Here's a clue, people: when you see someone trying to glorify selfishness and denigrate selflessness, RUN. That person is a very selfish person, and will likely not think twice before hurting you if it profits them.
That is a very insulting statement for you to make because I specifically think you are talking about my ideas.
First, I do not glorify selfishness. I exalt rational self-interest as moral and defend selfishness as amoral. But I think that you would gladly spin that statement as my choosing to "glorify selfishness" because it serves you to have my ideas ignored, suppressed, or otherwise be unheard.
Second, because I exalt rational self-interest I specifically regard the choice to harm someone else ("harm" meaning, deprive them of life, liberty, or property through force or fraud) for the sake of my own profit as an immoral choice and the behavior of a predator. Predators do not deserve to live in society! You are likening me to that individual that I specifically hold in contempt through deliberate mischaracterization of my own ideas. The fact that I exalt rational self-interest means that I seek to make win-wins with people, not predatory behavior. I interact with other people only when the interaction makes both people stronger. I do not want to be a mugger or a leech and will not allow anyone else to mug me or mooch off me, either.
You can hate my ideas for what they are, and that is totally fine with me. It's silly of me to expect that everyone will unflinchingly accept all of my own opinions. But it is wrong of you to miscast my ideas as something they are not. Please educate yourself about my ethic before you defame it. If it sucks as badly as you think it does, then let it fail based on its own lack of merit instead of based on your failure to understand it.
It's pretty obvious if you think about it that we get a LOT out of contributing to others.
That blows holes in the "selfless" claims to "altrusism", doesn't it?
If contributing to others really was selfless, then you would get NOTHING out of it.
In fact, if would be even more selfless if you were HARMED by contributing to others.
In fact, you can take that a step further and be even more selfless if contributing others harmed not only you, but all your loved ones, too, and also helped your enemies to harm more of your loved ones.
Why not go whole hog and realize that it would be most selfless of all if contributing to others harmed you, harmed your loved ones, helped your enemies, and also violated every sense of morality that you had.
For example, if you were to spend all of your money to help the new Neo-Nazi party build and deploy a nuclear weapon against your family, millions of oppressed people, and for the purpose of increasing Neo-Nazi party power worldwide, then that action would be really, really, really selfless of you.
THAT is altruism. The fake "altruism" that people insist upon is actually really selfish in comparison, as you've admitted that you get "a LOT" out of doing it.
Why do you assume that a person teaching altruism has selfish motives?
Because it is a psychological fact. There is no action that any human being will take which does not contain a selfish aspect. In other words, if the human considers taking an action and asks himself, "What's in it for me?" and comes up with nothing, then the human will not perform that action.
I'm going to make a grand assumption here that you're a pretty liberal person. That said, would you consider donating money to the Ku Klux Klan? It would be a completely selfless action. Nothing in it for you. Totally altruistic. Donating money to poor and oppressed minorities would be more selfish of you, since it would help people that you like and that would make you feel good.
how can altruism arising from selfish motives be a bad thing if the alternative is selfishness anyway?
I never argued that altruism could arise from selfish motives as I believe such an idea is bogus. Furthermore, you assume that selfishness is immoral. It is not. Selfishness is amoral. Morality comes from our choices in how to act upon the selfshness from which we shouldn't try to escape. This is a tough concept to grasp if you've been taught that "selfishness is wrong" for your whole life. The lesson "selfishness is wrong" may be somewhat appropriate for kindergarteners (and also for those grown-ups who see great wisdom in certain books), but as people gain in understanding and wisdom than more nuanced lessons in morality are required.
Do you believe that it is always wrong to tell a lie?
"Generosity is inborn. Altruism is a learned perversion." - Robert Heinlein, quite a few years before this study came out.
To say that altruism is "learned" is too passive. It is not only learned (as one can learn things from cause-and-effect observations in the natural world). It is also taught, as in, instigated by other human beings who have their own selfish (and often sinister) motives.
Evil person: You should think about other people's needs instead of your own.
Potential dupe: (recognizing the existence of 6+ billion "other people") Which other people?
Evil person: (dons politician hat) That's my job to tell you whom you should think about. Pay attention!
Potential dupe: But what about my own needs?
Evil person: How selfish of you to ask that question! (dons social engineer hat) Now, on to the schools!