The problem with this show is that it revels in hippie stupidity. I'm not surprised to see some of that same stupidity echoed here, as it is a very prevalent and very damaging mindset.
That anybody could look at the fictional basis of this show - a race of cyborgs intent upon destroying the entire human species - and then somehow pretend that humans are the 'true evil'... that defies sense. These people try to make an allegory between the cyborgs and terrorists in the modern world, and the funny thing is that their allegory is correct but really shows the stupidity of their position: you do not feel sorry for a group whose only purpose is to destroy you. It gains you nothing, and in fact attempting to do so only aids the enemy.
The show was excellent when it started because it seemed it would avoid all this nonsense. But the minute the weepy, cancer-having-but-not-dying Great Mom figure started lecturing us all about decency and democracy it plummeted right off the cliff of liberal dogmatism. When you are the last few thousand people of an extinct species, running for your lives, you don't need greater 'rights and privileges'. You don't need elections and protests and labor laws. You need everybody pulling in the same direction to try to keep yourselves alive and destroy the enemy.
It doesn't amaze me that the show went this way because the creators have shown themselves to be pretty run-of-the-mill feminized hippies. Look at their other creation, the execrable 'Bionic Woman'. Me, I pine for the days when you could actually portray masculinity - you know, the trait that got mankind where it is and keeps us alive - in a positive light.
Each post is presented in real time. As it happens.
stereotypical conservative talking points
This phrase could be etched onto a rubber stamp and sold at Phish concerts. You reactionaries are so funny. One moment you're griping, "You can't say I'm not patriotic just because I hate America! That's an 'us or them' mentality and that's just wrong!" And the next minute you're screaming "You disagree with me? Then you're a conservative dittohead!!! You're either with us or against us!!!!"
I can't tell which is funnier: your hypocrisy or your ignorance.
you censorial fascist
A few definitions for you:
censorial: A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.
I assure you this is not my job, nor is it the job of any of the establishments I am defending. Rather, the job of groups like the ESRB and the MPAA is to examine the content of a film/movie and, based on that content and well-established guidelines, provide a rating. They do this because the people of this country asked them to.
fascist: One who supports a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator
Obviously this one doesn't apply, as we live in a democracy and the ratings guidelines are decided by comittees. But we both know you didn't really mean this, it's just your favorite hot-under-the-collar-but-too-stupid-to-form-a-cohe rent-thought word to throw around. Frankly I'm impressed that you didn't just call me Hitler. Isn't that what your type usually do?
You can answer your own question: why is seeing a graphic picture of two people copulating different from reading a romance novel?
And, in either case, would you want a six-year-old to have free access to either?
You have backed yourself into such a corner with your argument that you have to pretend that you don't see what is obvious. We both know that it is perfectly sensible to make some forms of entertainment 'adults only'; we both know that there are differences between reading about something, seeing it, and actively participating in it.
And if you're going to continue the charade that you don't see this, there is no grounds for debate.
Why stop there? Why not make it illegal to sell books with questionable content to minors? Heck, Without Remorse involves drug use, prostitution, and rampant street violence, much like GTA.
Yawn. I really think we could replace people like you with a broken record: 'WHERE WILL IT STOP?!?' Such a PollyAnna.
Look, guy, there is no 'Fahrenheit 451' connotation to keeping Hustler out of a 9-year-old's hands. Similarly, the game industry agreed to the categorization of games as being 'for children' or 'for adults'. If a game isn't FOR children, why SELL IT to children... unless you are just winking and undermining the system, and pretending you're not?
Stop with the histrionics. They're juvenile and transparent. There is no coming 'Dark Ages', no end of free thought. Just enforce the rules that are in place.
Some people may be implying that, but that is because they're spineless assholes with a slave mentality.
A well-reasoned argument. Perhaps, instead, we just think children shouldn't be watching hard-core pornography or extreme violence. Like it or not, most of society thinks that. It's called democracy.
Who the fuck are they to say any game "should not" be played by persons under 18?
Answer: They are the organization put in charge of doing this very thing.
I didn't ask for this.
You know what? I didn't okay my tax dollars being spent to support 'artists' like that jackass who made 'Piss Christ'. Big deal. You have to make some sacrifices to live in a society.
It's time for people to wake up to the fact that we are a nation at war. There is a culture war in this country, and "we" are fucking losing!
I think it's time for reactionaries and spewers of hyperbole - such as yourself - to shut their pie holes. There is no 'culture war' in keeping violent and/or pornographic material out of the hands of impressionable children.
Why can we not come to a common ground and have the law enforce the MPAA ratings system?
I honestly don't have a problem with that.
When we created the ratings systems we were basically saying that we admit that some forms of entertainment might have a bad effect on people below a certain age. If the law just enforced these ratings then everyone would probably be happy.
Well, okay, everyone probably wouldn't be happy... but at least we would have a system we could point to and say 'the checks and balances are in place'.
Why can we not come to a common ground and have the law enforce the ESRB ratings system? Treat video games like cigarettes, liquor, and porn: make it illegal to sell an adult game to children.
I don't see why this compromise can't be reached. At that point we will be conducting due diligence, and can reach that wonderful state of plausible deniability.
I'd say that the fact that such pollution no longer exists within the US or the EU is considerable evidence that at least one environmental action has succeeded in its goals.
Before we get into this, I want to make it clear that I'm not a pro-industrialist. I don't like breathing soot more than anyone else, nor am I apologizing for companies which pollute or the oil industry.
However, I really object to the types of comments being seen on this board. Statements like the one above just don't make sense.
What environmental action caused this shift in pollution? What environmental policy was responsible? It seems to me that most of the changes to the way factories operate have been due to economic boom and bust, specific government/societal response to specific harmful actions (such as the dumping of toxic waste), and the like. No media myth like 'global warming' was responsible.
And the fact of the matter is that cities like LA still exist, covered in a layer of soot and smog.
there is more than ample justification based solely on self-interest to take action to decrease human impact on the environment.
There is certainly logical justification for reducing the output of pollutants which harm us. But every attempt we have made to meddle with the environment has resulted in catastrophe, precisely because we act without proper information. Take as an example the efforts to 'preserve' old-growth forest, the flash fires and death of species that has resulted, because humans for some reason anthropomorphize big trees and parks.
I don't know how we can expect success when we don't even bother to adequately define our terms. What is 'preservation' of the environment? Leaving it as it is today, or continuing with managed consumption? What is 'environmental awareness'? It seems that nobody wants to investigate these concepts, because they're too busy with the hysteria of the moment (like 'global warming').
It is true that some industries and people would suffer some economic hardship during the transition but many others would boon due to the engineering and production that would be required to move toward cleaner technologies.
This is such a sweeping statement. You sum up massive job loss, complete shift of economy, possible loss of top-spot status for the US, tremendous impact to the third-world, and many more factors as 'people would suffer'.
Certainly there should be a focus on alternative energy sources, but we must expect that these sources will take some time to develop and effectively integrate. Right now we have a tremendous incentive to do so, because OPEC has had a stranglehold on Western civilization since the early 1970's. But creating myths and false problems doesn't help this to happen. It just calcifies the battle lines.
Even if global warming were false... On the other hand, if there is truth to global warming and something can be done about it
This is precisely my point: we don't know if it's true. And even if we did know it was true, we woudln't have the foggiest idea what to do about it. Remember the ban on CFC's? Any idea how many people the loss of cheap refrigeration killed in the third world? The ban of DDT? Each time we have taken a sweeping action to ban/prevent some action we barely understand, the consequences have been at least as bad as the cause, if not worse.
These things people get so excited about don't even pretend to help. Remember the Kyoto Treaty that everyone gets so hot and bothered about? You do realize that it is mostly ineffective, right? It's a political move. It's actual impact on the environment will probably never be known, but even the people proposing it don't think it will have a massive impact. And many of the people who signed it aren't conforming to it anyway.
All I am saying is that we need real study of these issues, not panic, myth, and emotion.
I'm sorry you haven't been paying attention, but we do understand what is happening and why it's happening.
Excuse me:
No you do not.
Again, in case you weren't listening:
No. You do not understand what is happening and why it is happening.
What you have is a theory. A theory which is very new, which is based on very little study and very little fact, and has about as much proof behind it as the eugenics craze of the early 20th century.
In fact, your reply greatly illustrates the problem with you 'global warming' Chicken Little types: whenever someone disagrees with you, you don't cite fact or reason. You begin with the 'you aren't paying attention', 'you're in the pocket of the oil companies', 'you're stupid', etc.
The fact of the matter is that global climate is a very complex issue, and it doesn't reduce down to 'businesses just need to cut CO2 emissions and the world will be a better place'. There are many factors to be studied, and quite a bit of the evidence on record clearly shows that environmentalists have no clue what they are talking about.
Oh, and by the way - no environmental action has ever actually succeeded in its goals. Ever. National park reserves? Failure. The 'Endangered Species Act'? Failure. Recycling? A failure. Your type are all about good intentions and bad reasoning... see my.sig.
... which only goes to show how the continued feminization of men is ruining society. You honestly think you'd hear a female professor drop a 'loose vagina' joke on a classroom?
Anyone else catch Walter in that goofy moon movie he made? I remember he was making out in a moon tent with a moon babe and some moon robot tried to kill him! On the moon! What was that movie called? Something... 'trap'.
Seriously it scared the hell out of me as a kid. Now when I watch it I'm just embarassed. Ah well.
Well, one key hint that men are smarter than women is that whenever women are pissed at/feel threatened by men, they either make a dick joke or threaten to kick men in the balls. And all the women and neutered males - essentially female - laugh heartily.
What!? Dude. Every single country in the UN signed the Kyoto protocol, including Russia.
This is precisely the problem: that you and those who ride the same bandwagon as you seem to think that signing a piece of paper is solving the problem.
In reality, Canada continues to violate the Kyoto treaty. Russia only signed the treaty recently. This is just two examples.
Before the flame war begins, let me stress that I am definitely for a global reduction of polluting elements. But it is ridiculous to think that just signing a piece of paper is going to lead to that, and even more ridiculous to think that change from such an action would be immediate.
And while I'm no fan of Bush, I'm also no fan of unemployment, recession, or the US losing its corporate edge. If it is possible to move ahead with new technology and also with moderate restrictive policies, that seems smarter than committing to an ideal we will never follow (like other nations who have agreed simply to look good), or cutting our own throats.
Folks participiating in this discussion, let me warn you: IgnoramusMaximus is not worth your time. He is incapable of actually debating the issue he is raving about. Any attempt to force him to do so will result in his resorting to tiresome name-calling, repeating defeated arguments ad nauseum, anti-Semitic rhetoric, and other nonsense.
Let me point out one statement that shows the complete stupidity of his position:
Look, I dont argue that Saddam should not have been removed, but there were many, many ways for it to be acomplished, most involving supporting an internal Iraqi action, which should all have been explored, as being far less bloody then a full scale war.
Now, bear in mind that this is the same person who is attempting to use the fact that the United States was one of the nations providing Saddam with materiel and money (at a time) to discredit any stance against Saddam whatsoever. Seems rather ridiculous, doesn't it? Because it's a bogus argument.
The poster is simply offering this up as an example of what he thinks should have happened because his analysis of the situation doesn't really extend much further than 'US bad! US bad!'. He knows quite well that, had the US fomented a popular revolution against Saddam and his kind through monetary and materiel support, he would be on these same message boards saying how the US is always trying to influence regime change through funded revolution, citing chapter and verse about how we horrible Americans tried this before and it failed, etc. Same rhetoric, different cause.
Besides the fact that he wouldn't have actually supported this action, he certainly cannot guarantee - or even logically suggest - that a civil war in Iraq funded by the US would have had less tragic results than what we have seen. As I said, it's a bogus offering. Much like another 'solution' he proposed in which he claims he would have been supportive of US-funded assassination teams killing Saddam Hussein - again ignoring the civil unrest that would have resulted.
Take my advice and just disregard him. He doesn't understand what he's speaking about, and is just one of the many who have decided to judge the past with the knowledge of the present. Not to actually affect positive change, or to help clean up a bad situation: but to soapbox against the United States.
If you don't mind me interjecting, but I could not help but to recollect this from our earlier little... ehrm... difference of opinions of not so long ago
You are nothing more than a flamer. Pointing out that you have yet to address any real points of this argument is, undoubtedly, a worthless endeavor. Yet still I persist.
Seriously, I'm not anti-Canadian, but why is it that any time something Canadian on the space shuttle is used, it's all over the news? You made the arm and the camera... and we're proud of you and they appear to work quite well. But enough already. It's like the kid who put the decals on the model claiming responsibility for building it.
No argument there. Because even when you're blustering about how much proof you have, you don't cite any.
No, I mean your continious use of fallacies, ad hominem attacks, skewed analogies and complete myopic reasoning, together with layers of sophistic constructs and demagogic blabberings which you try to substantiate by providing links to pages which do not only not support your position, but don't even have anything which *could* substantiate the claim you made.
Another strawman? How... predictable. Notice: still nothing factual to refute anything from your side.
Your assertation I 'mistyped' is yet another example of how you are intellectual dishonest.
Nah, just a desperate attempt at humor due to boredom. It's so easy to discredit your reactionary position that I have to amuse myself somehow.
It stands as you continue to hide between the "we were not alone doing it" curtains, indeed.
Calling the argument names does not disprove it, so you are quite right: it stands quite firmly.
Really? You mean one of your links, who did actually go into the matter of the claim, namely that the UN had strong doubts about the WMD, by the time the USA invaded Iraq? I don't think so.
Read the link I posted to Hans Blix' report. As I said, you don't bother reading any sources. You don't want facts, you want emotional nonsense. Because that justifies your non-position of 'do nothing, blame everybody else'.
Minus the above point, of course.
So now you only claim that one point I made was false? Specifically, the provable claim that the chief weapons inspector of the United Nations believed in 2003 that Iraq had WMD? Since you undoubtedly will not go back to check my citation I'll even re-quote it for you:
UNMOVIC shares the sense of urgency felt by the Council to use inspection as a path to attain, within a reasonable time, verifiable disarmament of Iraq. Under the resolutions I have cited, it would be followed by monitoring for such time as the Council feels would be required. The resolutions also point to a zone free of weapons of mass destruction as the ultimate goal. - Hans Blix, The Security Council, 27 January 2003: An Update on Inspection
Again - and this is a point you did not address the first time - that does not sound like the language of a person who does not believe WMD exist in the country being inspected. One would suspect language for that case to be more like 'There are no weapons there!', or 'This is a colossal waste of time!'.
Now I will grant you that Blix and quite a few others changed their tune after we had already invaded the country. But anyone can change their stance when all the facts are known. It's a political move, done by someone who actually thinks a lot like you: soapbox against the US to conceal your own faults. It's a quite common strategy. Many governments use it to distract the attention of their own populace from problems at home. Canada is a perfect example of this. If you can villify someone that the people can do nothing but bitch about, they won't worry about their own problems.
Again, any valid critique of these presented facts is completely welcome. Since you have only claimed that I was wrong on this single point, and I have re-cited my proof (which you have never even attempted to factually discredit), will you now concede your error?
Irrelevant? LOL. The beauty of this is that, if you consider this irrelavant, then your former point becomes automatically void in a way *you* can't even deny.
Again you make an assertion without backing it up at all. In order for your statem
The fact that you do not consider it demonstrated as fallacious, while for any reasonable, rational reader this would be more then clear when even glancing on the arguments I have given, rather demonstrates that I'm not the one lacking knowledge and experience in matter of logic or reasoning.
Not quite. All you have to do to prove me wrong is state, clearly, why my argument is fallacious. Since you are incapable of doing that you continue to simply say it is, over and over, hoping to obscure the fact that you've never offered any proof whatsoever. Thus my argument stands.
Thanks for proving the case, smartass.
No, thank you - for again refusing to back your position or find any way to critique my reasoning, and instead falling back on juvenile insults. Again your argument is clearly illustrated to be false.
Maybe that's due because you keep argumenting the same BS without giving any valid argumentation
You mean the repeated sources I have cited don't qualify for you as 'valid argumentation'?
Your 'rebutals' are nothing more then fallacy upon fallacy
You mistyped 'fact upon fact'. And, again, your emotional BS does not conceal the fact that you have not rebutted a single source, statement, or argument I have made.
So, basically, you agree that we did give help then
As of yet you have refused to divulge the name of your nation, so I cannot possibly confirm or deny whether or not you sent any money whatsoever. But the fact that you think 11 million Euros is a 'significant contribution' reveals how little you care.
Refute? There must be something to refute in the first place. You said the UN did the same as the USA, and then provided some links where it was said that Russia sold weapons.
Not just Russia, as any person following those links could verify.
They might have.
And again you attempt to question facts in evidence without any proof whatsoever to attempt to deny them or prove them false.
So, according to you, saying the the USA could have won the war without throwing those two a-bombs is the opposite of sayin we can't know if the world would have been better of with or without the USA
You actually managed to decipher a direct statement! Amazing. Of course I am saying that, since both would require premonition to know. There is no way you can categorically state that the US could have won the war without the atomic bomb. You don't even pretend to try to prove this with any source, you just assert it to be true. So it falls under first examination.
Yet another example!
Yes, yet another example of you ignoring requests for any type of proof for your irrational vocal diarrhea.
1. Whether or not the US was not the only country providing weapons or not, does not absolve it from its responsability.
Not a refutation of the point made, this is a different matter entirely. My point stands.
2. The UN was well aware there were serious doubts among the investigators if there were any WMD left.
Explicitly disproven by quoting Hans Blix and other members of the UN. My point stands.
3.As it turned out, Saddam had destroyed said weapons.
Cites facts not in evidence at the time the war was declared. Thus, invalid. My point stands.
4. What individuals or members states do, outside what is approved and sanctionned by the UN, can - obviously - not be said to be the policy of the UN itself.
Irrelevant. We are not discussing policy, we are discussing actions. You make no attempt to rebut or address the other points mentioned here (that
Well it certainly is refreshing that you have dropped all pretense of arguing facts, reason, or logic, and decided to present your complete frothing-at-the-mouth reactionary doggerel without subterfuge.
Since your argument sounded plausable, but was fallacious, it is the correct term to use. clearly, you do not agree it is fallacious
Perhaps you are not familiar with this concept, since you have no experience with logic or reasoning. However when one asserts that a position is false, it is up to that person to prove that the position is false. You never have. Thus any assertion by you that my argument is 'fallacious' immediately falls. Which is why the term does not apply.
I said: the USA bears responsability for what it did.
Do I really have to quote you? Don't you find it embarassing to keep having your lies and stupidity held up to the light? From your post:
For the problems you caused, you mean.
An absolute statement, not one of 'shared responsibility' which is, on and off, your new position. The problem is you contradict yourself, shifting your position for each point you wish to make. For example, just above the statement I quoted, you wrote (emphasis mine):
Well, yes, you are, at least partially.
So you aren't even sure what you're stating. First you state that we're 'responsible', then it's 'partially responsible', then you say we're 'fully responsible', then it's back to we're 'partially responsible' again... and then out comes the anti-American rhetoric about the problem we, alone, ostensibly caused - and how the UN is not in the least bit responsible. Even if it is. Which you state. Then deny. Perhaps you can understand why I have labeled you an irrational reactionary.
but that that did not absolve or excuses what the USa did and does. Just admit you're being obnoxious.
Every time you respond to my posts you carefully excise each of my rebuttals of your idiotic 'excuse' position, then make the exact same statement again and imply that it was my argument. Obviously you are the one being obnoxious, and worse, dishonest.
Really? I didn't see you agree or confess to what your country has done and is doing
Of what relevance is that? You've already stated that nothing can 'excuse' the behavior you imagine happened. So by your own stance you have made this another in a series of moot points. I'm not surprised: you prefer to argue the pointless, emotional issues you imagine to the facts in which I clearly dominate you.
In any case, you are caught in a lie again. From my last post:
Meanwhile we have had the parents of soldiers, numerous citizens groups, and even a presidential candidate making it quite clear to the world that we do not all go along with Bush's plan for world domination - something you ignore to spread your ignorant hate against my country.
As I have illustrated, the contrition exists. Demonstration of that contrition has been made. You ignore it either because you are ignorant, or because it undermines your beliefs.
If you are making the statement that you want to do nothing until the Bush administration apologizes, then you have fully revealed your true motivation. Because we both know that will never happen, anymore than Blair will apologize or Russia will apologize or China will apologize. You are setting an impossible requirement for your action to attempt to excuse yourself from ever having to do anything. Which I suspected from the start.
Hypocrisy is defined by a contradiction of what you claim, and what you do with your actions
Exactly. So, as was my point, one must consider the speaker. Not just what is spoken. And one must consider each case independently. Which
Spoken as someone who doesn't want to get into the side of a losing argument.
Spoken like someone who has already lost the actual argument, so they want to get lost in pointless minutiae. The fact of the matter is that analogies are based on subjective interpretation of a matter - not on factual events. So one cannot 'disprove an analogy', unless there is some incorrect statement given as fact. My analogy stands, you simply disagree with it. And that doesn't make your ignorance and general stupidity about the real issue any less obvious. Which is, of course, what is so upsetting to you.
Please stop asuming I don't understand words because you don't.
But you don't understand the word. You just thought it sounded cool and intellectually insulting, so you whipped it out. In point of fact, my argument is quite plausible. But it is not fallacious. See, in order for that to be the case you would first have to disprove it, not just throw out a word you don't understand to label it false. Which is why you immediately drop the issue and begin arguing whether or not you changed your position:
I have stated numerous times, in deiverse posts by now, that you (USA) bears responsability for what you have done. It does not mean you are the ONLY one bearing responsability.
... which is also an incorrect statement. If you say 'you are responsible for X', you are assigning unique and total responsibility. If you say 'you are partially responsible for X' you are - follow me closely - assigning partial responsibility. What you did was state the former, and insist you meant the latter. Which is patently false. Just admit you're wrong.
it does not absolve the guilt and responsability of the USA.
And you continue to show your stupidity by harping on a point which nobody except you seems to be claiming.
Unless it is clear that they are contradictory and hypocrite
However reasons/excuses cannot be hypocrital. One must consider the character of the person making the statement. A person hearing a reason/excuse can determine which of the two he believes the statement to be based upon possible contradiction, or perceived hypocritical behavior by the person making the statement. We then argue whether or not the person is being hypocritical, or telling lies. And, again, you have utterly failed on this point. You can assess no more contradictory or hypocritical motivation to the US than you can any other country.
Then it *are* excuses.
It are?
I doubt ANY of those countries did those things with the approval of the UN, thus, the UN did not sell weapons.
If you were more intelligent, perhaps you could be a lawyer with this type of non-reasoning. Let me educate you: if all of the members of a board of directors of some company conspire together - or independently - to commit a crime, one can quite reasonably say 'Company X committed this crime as well'. Even though the people committing the crime did not explicitly act in the name of Company X. Because - again, follow closely - all or almost all of the controlling members committed the crime.
Thus, when all or almost all of the controlling members of the UN have sold weapons to a mass murderer, one can say that all or almost all of the member nations of the UN are guilty of the same type of behavior of which you are accusing the US. Whether or not they did it as an 'official UN action' is irrelevant.
Your response to the facts I quoted regarding this issue is a typical strawman. Realizing that you have lost the point on facts, you attempt to change the argument to one of definition - then set the definition to something so ridiculous that even you cannot possibly believe it. To clarify how stupid your argu
Lol. then please elaborate on the reasons why 'child', 'food and clothes' etc. in your analogy are more justified then 'adult' and 'weapons', etc.
I already have. But we're obviously not going to agree on the analogy, which is why we should focus on the actual situation.
Could you please stop with this kind of sophism. as you are well aware, I did not say you created him, I said you aided and supported him, well aware of what he was and what he did with the weapons you gave him. That makes you co-responsable.
Please stop using words you don't understand. My argument is not a 'sophism', it is a rebuttal of a position which you keep changing. First you stated that we were 'responsible' for Saddam, now you state that we are 'co-responsible'. I am glad you are gradually admitting you are wrong, but it is dishonest to do it in the method you choose.
All your other explanations are mere excuses..
Again that is a matter of perspective - the difference between an excuse and a reason is always subjective.
You seems to have NO feeling for what is ethically wrong
Again, you are being presumptive and allowing emotion to cloud your reasoning. I am not making a statement about 'ethics', I am making a statement about fact. The statement about ethics was a separate issue, in which I rather clearly showed that the question of ethics is separate from the question of how to deal with the situation with which we are now presented. The fact that you cannot separate the two is what makes you a reactionary.
Not unless the UN sold WMD to Iran, and then invaded it with claims of moral superiority (or outright lies)
Which numerous member countries did, along with pocketing illicit cash in the Oil for Food Scandal:
Many advocates supported the program on humanitarian grounds, hoping that it would indeed help ordinary Iraqis. Others criticized the program, particularly after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, citing the Iraqi government diversion of oil profits to prop itself up in a corruption scandal implicating officials of several governments as well as top officials in the U.N.
Your refusal to address this point reveals a substantial weakness in your reasoning.
As for those countries that sold weapons to saddam, knowing what he was going to use it for, I already told you: yes, they are guilty too. In no way does that absolve the USA from what they did.
And again you are presumptive. As I have said many times, we are not discussing absolution. We are discussing the inherent hypocrisy of any one member of the UN focusing entirely upon the dirty dealings of the United States. Condemn one, condemn them all.
Hah! You sound like our government in the 60ies, denying and seeking excuses. Are you seriously claiming we exploited the black people there for our survival?
Are you seriously claiming that you didn't? Other than economic survival and the retention of your colonial holdings, what reasons can you give? Unless of course you're all just sick and did it for fun.
The entire spectacle of apartheid is quite complex, but obviously it resulted from economic expansion of various empires and the desire to control more land. It was perpetuated to maintain national identity. These are functions of survival:
Where South Africa differed from other countries is that while other countries were dismantling discriminatory legislation and were becoming more open on issues of race, South Africa was constructing a labyrinth of discriminatory racial legislation. That white South Africans considered the implementation of apartheid necessary may have been motivated by demographics; as a minority that was
Slashdot Mirror
That anybody could look at the fictional basis of this show - a race of cyborgs intent upon destroying the entire human species - and then somehow pretend that humans are the 'true evil' ... that defies sense. These people try to make an allegory between the cyborgs and terrorists in the modern world, and the funny thing is that their allegory is correct but really shows the stupidity of their position: you do not feel sorry for a group whose only purpose is to destroy you. It gains you nothing, and in fact attempting to do so only aids the enemy.
The show was excellent when it started because it seemed it would avoid all this nonsense. But the minute the weepy, cancer-having-but-not-dying Great Mom figure started lecturing us all about decency and democracy it plummeted right off the cliff of liberal dogmatism. When you are the last few thousand people of an extinct species, running for your lives, you don't need greater 'rights and privileges'. You don't need elections and protests and labor laws. You need everybody pulling in the same direction to try to keep yourselves alive and destroy the enemy.
It doesn't amaze me that the show went this way because the creators have shown themselves to be pretty run-of-the-mill feminized hippies. Look at their other creation, the execrable 'Bionic Woman'. Me, I pine for the days when you could actually portray masculinity - you know, the trait that got mankind where it is and keeps us alive - in a positive light.
I'm stumped. Never had someone reply politely to a request to check their facts. So ... sorry for the snide tone :-P
Self-hating American or off-the-cuff anti-America jackass. It's all the same ignorance.
Each post is presented in real time. As it happens.
This phrase could be etched onto a rubber stamp and sold at Phish concerts. You reactionaries are so funny. One moment you're griping, "You can't say I'm not patriotic just because I hate America! That's an 'us or them' mentality and that's just wrong!" And the next minute you're screaming "You disagree with me? Then you're a conservative dittohead!!! You're either with us or against us!!!!"
I can't tell which is funnier: your hypocrisy or your ignorance.
A few definitions for you:
I assure you this is not my job, nor is it the job of any of the establishments I am defending. Rather, the job of groups like the ESRB and the MPAA is to examine the content of a film/movie and, based on that content and well-established guidelines, provide a rating. They do this because the people of this country asked them to.
Obviously this one doesn't apply, as we live in a democracy and the ratings guidelines are decided by comittees. But we both know you didn't really mean this, it's just your favorite hot-under-the-collar-but-too-stupid-to-form-a-cohe rent-thought word to throw around. Frankly I'm impressed that you didn't just call me Hitler. Isn't that what your type usually do?
You can answer your own question: why is seeing a graphic picture of two people copulating different from reading a romance novel?
And, in either case, would you want a six-year-old to have free access to either?
You have backed yourself into such a corner with your argument that you have to pretend that you don't see what is obvious. We both know that it is perfectly sensible to make some forms of entertainment 'adults only'; we both know that there are differences between reading about something, seeing it, and actively participating in it.
And if you're going to continue the charade that you don't see this, there is no grounds for debate.
Yawn. I really think we could replace people like you with a broken record: 'WHERE WILL IT STOP?!?' Such a PollyAnna.
Look, guy, there is no 'Fahrenheit 451' connotation to keeping Hustler out of a 9-year-old's hands. Similarly, the game industry agreed to the categorization of games as being 'for children' or 'for adults'. If a game isn't FOR children, why SELL IT to children ... unless you are just winking and undermining the system, and pretending you're not?
Stop with the histrionics. They're juvenile and transparent. There is no coming 'Dark Ages', no end of free thought. Just enforce the rules that are in place.
Clue for you: I'm not Jack Thompson.
A well-reasoned argument. Perhaps, instead, we just think children shouldn't be watching hard-core pornography or extreme violence. Like it or not, most of society thinks that. It's called democracy.
Answer: They are the organization put in charge of doing this very thing.
You know what? I didn't okay my tax dollars being spent to support 'artists' like that jackass who made 'Piss Christ'. Big deal. You have to make some sacrifices to live in a society.
I think it's time for reactionaries and spewers of hyperbole - such as yourself - to shut their pie holes. There is no 'culture war' in keeping violent and/or pornographic material out of the hands of impressionable children.
Get over yourself.
I honestly don't have a problem with that.
When we created the ratings systems we were basically saying that we admit that some forms of entertainment might have a bad effect on people below a certain age. If the law just enforced these ratings then everyone would probably be happy.
Well, okay, everyone probably wouldn't be happy ... but at least we would have a system we could point to and say 'the checks and balances are in place'.
I don't see why this compromise can't be reached. At that point we will be conducting due diligence, and can reach that wonderful state of plausible deniability.
Before we get into this, I want to make it clear that I'm not a pro-industrialist. I don't like breathing soot more than anyone else, nor am I apologizing for companies which pollute or the oil industry.
However, I really object to the types of comments being seen on this board. Statements like the one above just don't make sense.
What environmental action caused this shift in pollution? What environmental policy was responsible? It seems to me that most of the changes to the way factories operate have been due to economic boom and bust, specific government/societal response to specific harmful actions (such as the dumping of toxic waste), and the like. No media myth like 'global warming' was responsible.
And the fact of the matter is that cities like LA still exist, covered in a layer of soot and smog.
There is certainly logical justification for reducing the output of pollutants which harm us. But every attempt we have made to meddle with the environment has resulted in catastrophe, precisely because we act without proper information. Take as an example the efforts to 'preserve' old-growth forest, the flash fires and death of species that has resulted, because humans for some reason anthropomorphize big trees and parks.
I don't know how we can expect success when we don't even bother to adequately define our terms. What is 'preservation' of the environment? Leaving it as it is today, or continuing with managed consumption? What is 'environmental awareness'? It seems that nobody wants to investigate these concepts, because they're too busy with the hysteria of the moment (like 'global warming').
This is such a sweeping statement. You sum up massive job loss, complete shift of economy, possible loss of top-spot status for the US, tremendous impact to the third-world, and many more factors as 'people would suffer'.
Certainly there should be a focus on alternative energy sources, but we must expect that these sources will take some time to develop and effectively integrate. Right now we have a tremendous incentive to do so, because OPEC has had a stranglehold on Western civilization since the early 1970's. But creating myths and false problems doesn't help this to happen. It just calcifies the battle lines.
This is precisely my point: we don't know if it's true. And even if we did know it was true, we woudln't have the foggiest idea what to do about it. Remember the ban on CFC's? Any idea how many people the loss of cheap refrigeration killed in the third world? The ban of DDT? Each time we have taken a sweeping action to ban/prevent some action we barely understand, the consequences have been at least as bad as the cause, if not worse.
These things people get so excited about don't even pretend to help. Remember the Kyoto Treaty that everyone gets so hot and bothered about? You do realize that it is mostly ineffective, right? It's a political move. It's actual impact on the environment will probably never be known, but even the people proposing it don't think it will have a massive impact. And many of the people who signed it aren't conforming to it anyway.
All I am saying is that we need real study of these issues, not panic, myth, and emotion.
Excuse me:
No you do not.
Again, in case you weren't listening:
No. You do not understand what is happening and why it is happening.
What you have is a theory. A theory which is very new, which is based on very little study and very little fact, and has about as much proof behind it as the eugenics craze of the early 20th century.
In fact, your reply greatly illustrates the problem with you 'global warming' Chicken Little types: whenever someone disagrees with you, you don't cite fact or reason. You begin with the 'you aren't paying attention', 'you're in the pocket of the oil companies', 'you're stupid', etc.
The fact of the matter is that global climate is a very complex issue, and it doesn't reduce down to 'businesses just need to cut CO2 emissions and the world will be a better place'. There are many factors to be studied, and quite a bit of the evidence on record clearly shows that environmentalists have no clue what they are talking about.
Oh, and by the way - no environmental action has ever actually succeeded in its goals. Ever. National park reserves? Failure. The 'Endangered Species Act'? Failure. Recycling? A failure. Your type are all about good intentions and bad reasoning ... see my .sig.
... which only goes to show how the continued feminization of men is ruining society. You honestly think you'd hear a female professor drop a 'loose vagina' joke on a classroom?
Seriously it scared the hell out of me as a kid. Now when I watch it I'm just embarassed. Ah well.
That's intellect!
Yes! Because the world needs more perpetually embarassed and drunk people. (This is just a joke, by the way. Fun with stereotypes and all)
China is rapidly developing their 'reverse tachyon' technology, to keep the Japanese in check.
This is precisely the problem: that you and those who ride the same bandwagon as you seem to think that signing a piece of paper is solving the problem.
In reality, Canada continues to violate the Kyoto treaty. Russia only signed the treaty recently. This is just two examples.
Before the flame war begins, let me stress that I am definitely for a global reduction of polluting elements. But it is ridiculous to think that just signing a piece of paper is going to lead to that, and even more ridiculous to think that change from such an action would be immediate.
And while I'm no fan of Bush, I'm also no fan of unemployment, recession, or the US losing its corporate edge. If it is possible to move ahead with new technology and also with moderate restrictive policies, that seems smarter than committing to an ideal we will never follow (like other nations who have agreed simply to look good), or cutting our own throats.
Let me point out one statement that shows the complete stupidity of his position:
Now, bear in mind that this is the same person who is attempting to use the fact that the United States was one of the nations providing Saddam with materiel and money (at a time) to discredit any stance against Saddam whatsoever. Seems rather ridiculous, doesn't it? Because it's a bogus argument.
The poster is simply offering this up as an example of what he thinks should have happened because his analysis of the situation doesn't really extend much further than 'US bad! US bad!'. He knows quite well that, had the US fomented a popular revolution against Saddam and his kind through monetary and materiel support, he would be on these same message boards saying how the US is always trying to influence regime change through funded revolution, citing chapter and verse about how we horrible Americans tried this before and it failed, etc. Same rhetoric, different cause.
Besides the fact that he wouldn't have actually supported this action, he certainly cannot guarantee - or even logically suggest - that a civil war in Iraq funded by the US would have had less tragic results than what we have seen. As I said, it's a bogus offering. Much like another 'solution' he proposed in which he claims he would have been supportive of US-funded assassination teams killing Saddam Hussein - again ignoring the civil unrest that would have resulted.
Take my advice and just disregard him. He doesn't understand what he's speaking about, and is just one of the many who have decided to judge the past with the knowledge of the present. Not to actually affect positive change, or to help clean up a bad situation: but to soapbox against the United States.
Rave on, madman.
A small biography of you: The Artful Dodger. Perhaps mixed with a little bit of Nitpick.
You are nothing more than a flamer. Pointing out that you have yet to address any real points of this argument is, undoubtedly, a worthless endeavor. Yet still I persist.
Seriously, I'm not anti-Canadian, but why is it that any time something Canadian on the space shuttle is used, it's all over the news? You made the arm and the camera ... and we're proud of you and they appear to work quite well. But enough already. It's like the kid who put the decals on the model claiming responsibility for building it.
No argument there. Because even when you're blustering about how much proof you have, you don't cite any.
Another strawman? How ... predictable. Notice: still nothing factual to refute anything from your side.
Nah, just a desperate attempt at humor due to boredom. It's so easy to discredit your reactionary position that I have to amuse myself somehow.
Calling the argument names does not disprove it, so you are quite right: it stands quite firmly.
Read the link I posted to Hans Blix' report. As I said, you don't bother reading any sources. You don't want facts, you want emotional nonsense. Because that justifies your non-position of 'do nothing, blame everybody else'.
So now you only claim that one point I made was false? Specifically, the provable claim that the chief weapons inspector of the United Nations believed in 2003 that Iraq had WMD? Since you undoubtedly will not go back to check my citation I'll even re-quote it for you:
Again - and this is a point you did not address the first time - that does not sound like the language of a person who does not believe WMD exist in the country being inspected. One would suspect language for that case to be more like 'There are no weapons there!', or 'This is a colossal waste of time!'.
Now I will grant you that Blix and quite a few others changed their tune after we had already invaded the country. But anyone can change their stance when all the facts are known. It's a political move, done by someone who actually thinks a lot like you: soapbox against the US to conceal your own faults. It's a quite common strategy. Many governments use it to distract the attention of their own populace from problems at home. Canada is a perfect example of this. If you can villify someone that the people can do nothing but bitch about, they won't worry about their own problems.
Again, any valid critique of these presented facts is completely welcome. Since you have only claimed that I was wrong on this single point, and I have re-cited my proof (which you have never even attempted to factually discredit), will you now concede your error?
Again you make an assertion without backing it up at all. In order for your statem
Not quite. All you have to do to prove me wrong is state, clearly, why my argument is fallacious. Since you are incapable of doing that you continue to simply say it is, over and over, hoping to obscure the fact that you've never offered any proof whatsoever. Thus my argument stands.
No, thank you - for again refusing to back your position or find any way to critique my reasoning, and instead falling back on juvenile insults. Again your argument is clearly illustrated to be false.
You mean the repeated sources I have cited don't qualify for you as 'valid argumentation'?
You mistyped 'fact upon fact'. And, again, your emotional BS does not conceal the fact that you have not rebutted a single source, statement, or argument I have made.
As of yet you have refused to divulge the name of your nation, so I cannot possibly confirm or deny whether or not you sent any money whatsoever. But the fact that you think 11 million Euros is a 'significant contribution' reveals how little you care.
Not just Russia, as any person following those links could verify.
And again you attempt to question facts in evidence without any proof whatsoever to attempt to deny them or prove them false.
You actually managed to decipher a direct statement! Amazing. Of course I am saying that, since both would require premonition to know. There is no way you can categorically state that the US could have won the war without the atomic bomb. You don't even pretend to try to prove this with any source, you just assert it to be true. So it falls under first examination.
Yes, yet another example of you ignoring requests for any type of proof for your irrational vocal diarrhea.
Not a refutation of the point made, this is a different matter entirely. My point stands.
Explicitly disproven by quoting Hans Blix and other members of the UN. My point stands.
Cites facts not in evidence at the time the war was declared. Thus, invalid. My point stands.
Irrelevant. We are not discussing policy, we are discussing actions. You make no attempt to rebut or address the other points mentioned here (that
Perhaps you are not familiar with this concept, since you have no experience with logic or reasoning. However when one asserts that a position is false, it is up to that person to prove that the position is false. You never have. Thus any assertion by you that my argument is 'fallacious' immediately falls. Which is why the term does not apply.
Do I really have to quote you? Don't you find it embarassing to keep having your lies and stupidity held up to the light? From your post:
An absolute statement, not one of 'shared responsibility' which is, on and off, your new position. The problem is you contradict yourself, shifting your position for each point you wish to make. For example, just above the statement I quoted, you wrote (emphasis mine):
So you aren't even sure what you're stating. First you state that we're 'responsible', then it's 'partially responsible', then you say we're 'fully responsible', then it's back to we're 'partially responsible' again ... and then out comes the anti-American rhetoric about the problem we, alone, ostensibly caused - and how the UN is not in the least bit responsible. Even if it is. Which you state. Then deny. Perhaps you can understand why I have labeled you an irrational reactionary.
Every time you respond to my posts you carefully excise each of my rebuttals of your idiotic 'excuse' position, then make the exact same statement again and imply that it was my argument. Obviously you are the one being obnoxious, and worse, dishonest.
Of what relevance is that? You've already stated that nothing can 'excuse' the behavior you imagine happened. So by your own stance you have made this another in a series of moot points. I'm not surprised: you prefer to argue the pointless, emotional issues you imagine to the facts in which I clearly dominate you.
In any case, you are caught in a lie again. From my last post:
As I have illustrated, the contrition exists. Demonstration of that contrition has been made. You ignore it either because you are ignorant, or because it undermines your beliefs.
If you are making the statement that you want to do nothing until the Bush administration apologizes, then you have fully revealed your true motivation. Because we both know that will never happen, anymore than Blair will apologize or Russia will apologize or China will apologize. You are setting an impossible requirement for your action to attempt to excuse yourself from ever having to do anything. Which I suspected from the start.
Exactly. So, as was my point, one must consider the speaker. Not just what is spoken. And one must consider each case independently. Which
Spoken like someone who has already lost the actual argument, so they want to get lost in pointless minutiae. The fact of the matter is that analogies are based on subjective interpretation of a matter - not on factual events. So one cannot 'disprove an analogy', unless there is some incorrect statement given as fact. My analogy stands, you simply disagree with it. And that doesn't make your ignorance and general stupidity about the real issue any less obvious. Which is, of course, what is so upsetting to you.
But you don't understand the word. You just thought it sounded cool and intellectually insulting, so you whipped it out. In point of fact, my argument is quite plausible. But it is not fallacious. See, in order for that to be the case you would first have to disprove it, not just throw out a word you don't understand to label it false. Which is why you immediately drop the issue and begin arguing whether or not you changed your position:
And you continue to show your stupidity by harping on a point which nobody except you seems to be claiming.
However reasons/excuses cannot be hypocrital. One must consider the character of the person making the statement. A person hearing a reason/excuse can determine which of the two he believes the statement to be based upon possible contradiction, or perceived hypocritical behavior by the person making the statement. We then argue whether or not the person is being hypocritical, or telling lies. And, again, you have utterly failed on this point. You can assess no more contradictory or hypocritical motivation to the US than you can any other country.
It are?
If you were more intelligent, perhaps you could be a lawyer with this type of non-reasoning. Let me educate you: if all of the members of a board of directors of some company conspire together - or independently - to commit a crime, one can quite reasonably say 'Company X committed this crime as well'. Even though the people committing the crime did not explicitly act in the name of Company X. Because - again, follow closely - all or almost all of the controlling members committed the crime.
Thus, when all or almost all of the controlling members of the UN have sold weapons to a mass murderer, one can say that all or almost all of the member nations of the UN are guilty of the same type of behavior of which you are accusing the US. Whether or not they did it as an 'official UN action' is irrelevant.
Your response to the facts I quoted regarding this issue is a typical strawman. Realizing that you have lost the point on facts, you attempt to change the argument to one of definition - then set the definition to something so ridiculous that even you cannot possibly believe it. To clarify how stupid your argu
I already have. But we're obviously not going to agree on the analogy, which is why we should focus on the actual situation.
Please stop using words you don't understand. My argument is not a 'sophism', it is a rebuttal of a position which you keep changing. First you stated that we were 'responsible' for Saddam, now you state that we are 'co-responsible'. I am glad you are gradually admitting you are wrong, but it is dishonest to do it in the method you choose.
Again that is a matter of perspective - the difference between an excuse and a reason is always subjective.
Again, you are being presumptive and allowing emotion to cloud your reasoning. I am not making a statement about 'ethics', I am making a statement about fact. The statement about ethics was a separate issue, in which I rather clearly showed that the question of ethics is separate from the question of how to deal with the situation with which we are now presented. The fact that you cannot separate the two is what makes you a reactionary.
Which numerous member countries did, along with pocketing illicit cash in the Oil for Food Scandal:
Your refusal to address this point reveals a substantial weakness in your reasoning.
And again you are presumptive. As I have said many times, we are not discussing absolution. We are discussing the inherent hypocrisy of any one member of the UN focusing entirely upon the dirty dealings of the United States. Condemn one, condemn them all.
Are you seriously claiming that you didn't? Other than economic survival and the retention of your colonial holdings, what reasons can you give? Unless of course you're all just sick and did it for fun.
The entire spectacle of apartheid is quite complex, but obviously it resulted from economic expansion of various empires and the desire to control more land. It was perpetuated to maintain national identity. These are functions of survival: