24% of Americans think that "attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are sometimes justified. If you asked them whether bombing Japanese civilians in WWII was justified, you would probably get a much higher percentage saying that was ok.
Well, now you're resorting to "probably", which is fairly useless as far as trying to prove a point goes. I could say "well, if you asked Iranians whether following a Fatwa to kill all Americans was wrong, you'd PROBABLY get a much higher percentage".
Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but if you're going to resort to a poll to try and prove your point, don't go trying to defend the poll itself with maybes.
You could also flip the question around - 24% of Americans thought targeting civilians was sometimes justified. However, only 13% thought attacks by Palestinians on Israeli civilians were sometimes justified. Did 11% of Americans fail to understand the question? Or did the circumstances of the posed question change the opinion?
Uh. Neither?
24% said it's sometimes justified. I fail to see how that's contradicted by half of those saying attacks on Israeli civvies by Palestinians were not justified. There's nothing contradictory there.
The polled question you mention was regarding attacks on Israeli citizens by Palestinians. This is obviously a special case
lol
Sorry man, that's beyond idiotic.
The poll went something like this:
Q: Do you think killing civilians is sometimes justified? A: 90% say "NO! Never!". Q: Ok, what about killing Israeli civilians? A: 50% say "Oh well, yeah, that's fine".
That's not a "special case" - that's a clear indication that these people either didn't understand the first question, or answered it dishonestly. You cant go from saying "killing civilians is NEVER justified" to saying "well if they're jewish, it's ok". Those two answers contradict each other. You can't just spin that away - there's clearly a breakdown somewhere in the process.
Thanks, that's.... interesting. Thanks for the info. I know the Iranian people are generally fairly progressive, but these results seem a bit strange.
On the other hand, later on in the poll you link it shows that 53% of Iranians think that attacks against Israeli civilians are justified, whereas American responses are much more consistent with the earlier figures. What does that tell you?
It seems to me Iranians define "civilians" differently than we do, which would tend to skew your polls just a wee bit.
Once upon a time, the German people thought they were justified in wanting to kill Jews. It was only through understanding...
If by "understanding" you mean "killing", then yeah, you got it!
Understanding peoples motivations can be important. Sometimes. But people today focus on it way to much - as if simply by understanding what motivates others we can magically talk them into being reasonable. Sorry, life doesn't work that way.
OK, let's imagine you're right, but how couldn't the same could be said for Israel?
This is exactly why that problem never gets solved. The whole thing is like a giant squabble between young kids.
"She hit me!" "But he started it!" "Well she said..." "But he did.... !"
Who gives a fuck? Stop pointing fingers and just finish it. What needs to happen is either one of them pounds the other into submission, or a grownup steps in, says "ENOUGH!", and settles it in a definitive manner.
Unfortunately, all the grownups in this case have acted like bafoons.
Your arguments are so one-sided that they become transparently racist
Palestinians are a race?
Apparently you're an even bigger moron than I had initially assumed. Sorry bud, maybe that "J00R A RASIST!!!" nonsense works for shutting up others, but it doesn't work on me.
Also, the comparison of Palestine to North Korea is ludicrous... necessity for mass indoctrination... central state needed for a state controlled media
Ah, yes! Of course, mass indoctrination could NEVER happen without a central state! What was I thinking!
Hmmm... I wonder what you have been indoctrinated into believing and by what forces?
It's a question of what HAVEN'T I been indoctrinated into believing. I haven't been indoctrinated into believing that god thinks I'm special. Or that I should kill those who believe in a different god. Or that killing women and children will grant me a wonderful after-life.
What I have been indoctrinated into believing is the idea that we are all equal, and imbued with inherent rights and freedoms. I've been indoctrinated into believing that all humans must live free, uncontrolled by anyone else as long as they do not harm anyone else. And I've been "indoctrinated" into believing that it is the ultimate responsibility of every human to determine their own beliefs, without submitting to the will of others.
If you want to call that indoctrination, then you're an idiot. However, even if we accept that definition of "indoctrination", it's still an ideology which is far superior to anything present in Palestine. And if you want to argue that all ideologies are equal, you are likewise an idiot.
The poll you cite was carried out after... blah blah blah
I'm not arguing over why the statistics show what they show. I don't particularly care if someone thinks they're justified in wanting to kill me - it's still a problem that they want to kill me.
Because Fox is known for its accurate and unbiased reporting?
No - because people who rail against them are usually dribbling morons. Whether or not Fox provides accurate news coverage as nothing to do with it.
Ditto for people who loudly and publicly mock Bush. The guy may be a shitty president, but the obsessive hatred that so many show towards him has nothing to do with his performance, and everything to do with the unthinking masses needing something or someone to demonize.
And? Why do you think they feel justified in shooting rockets at Israeli citizens? Because they are an especially bloodthirsty group of people?
Because they're a bunch of ignorant barbarians, brainwashed by their particular brand of religious insanity into believing all sorts of idiotic nonsense. Because their average age currently hovers in the mid-teens. Because they're the victims of generations of ideological indoctrination and brainwashing. Because Israel hasn't been allowed to solve the problem, and all outside attempts at mediation have been little more than public masturbation.
You may as well ask "Why do the people of the DPRK worship Kim Jung Il and demonize the west". The question is obvious - because that's what they've been indoctrinated into believing.
Do you seriously think rocket fuel is readily available for everyone on Gaza? That everyone on Gaza fires rockets at Israelis?
When 84% of Palestinians polled support the cold-blooded murder of unarmed Jewish students, you'll have to excuse me if I don't get much comfort from the fact that not all of them are launching rockets.
As for the rest of your comment, you should certainly be modded "flamebait", which means I probably should be taking the time to respond to you.
Then again, you should probably be modded "funny", since I always get a kick out of morons who run around yelling:
"LOLz U wahtc FOX NOOZ, STFU STOOPID N00B!!!11!".
It seems to be a good rule of thumb that the more loudly someone proclaims their disdain for FOX, the more likely they are to be a complete imbecile.
Just a guess here, but they're probably worried about rocket production. Rockets made with aluminum tend to have a much higher range than ones made with heavier metals.
You know what they have a lot of in Gaza which will burn nice and hot? Solid state rocket fuel.
C'mon... really... think about this rationally. What's more important? Feeding your people? Or blowing up the flower-gardens of Zionist Pig-Dogs? Let's not get our priorities confused here!
Look at the parent here, is it really a troll or was a moderator simply abusing the system to push down my unpopular statements?
No, it wasn't a troll. Unfortunately, due to the lack of a "-50,000 Gormless Cretin" moderation category, the "troll" rating often gets used as a substitute.
You're right - being prepared is hard work. Some of us learned that from a very young age, by reading the fable of the Grasshopper and the Ant. Being a responsible adult means sometimes doing difficult things that you'd rather not do. Tough. That's life. Abdicating responsibility by hoping that The Government, or God, or VISA will save you in times of trouble is simply childish.
I'm non-religious, but there's one point on which I agree with Mohamed: "Trust in Allah, but tie up your camel".
Oh, don't get me wrong - I'm not some lonely survivalist nut living off the land in the forests of Montana. I know that cooperative behaviour is a necessity for our species. Without it, not only would we not enjoy our current standard of living, but we'd have a tough time just surviving. The majority of complex species exhibit cooperative behaviour to one extent or another, so it's clearly a major factor for survivability.
All I'm saying is that the primary purpose of the government is NOT to look after you, the individual. The first duty of the government is always to protect the group as a whole. If that means they have to declare martial law and oppress the innocent along with the guilty, well sucks to be you. If it means they have to nuke your city to stop a deadly contagion from spreading, sorry, better luck in your next life. And if it means they can't send police to save you from some axe-weilding maniac because they're busy trying to control a riot on the other side of the city, you'll be wishing you'd taken advantage of your second amendment rights.
So no, I'm not advocating a tooth-and-nail kill-or-be-killed approach to life, but I do believe in being prepared. Owning firearms might not protect me in all situations, but it will raise my overall odds of survival. Having a small vegetable garden and a well-stocked cellar might not let me survive indefinitely, but it'll provide resources to help me in case of emergencies. Being self-sufficient to whatever extent is practical means I probably won't need to depend on the benevolence of strangers in emergencies, and may even be able to help others. It's something that every adult should strive for, yet the majority of people seem content to just live their lives and hope that someone will be there to protect them when things go wrong. It really saddens me to see grown human beings willingly turning themselves into wards of the nanny-state.
The government is supposed to protect us, a fundamental right we get for paying taxes.
Wrong - the government is supposed to protect the nation and the society. If helping you happens to fit in with that, great! If not... tough luck, bud.
That's why I'm a big fan of the right to bear arms. You can't depend on the government to protect you, nor should you have to.
You know, I could go on, but it'd just be rubbing it in. I'll ask you again -- care to revise your statement, sir?
lol
No, I'll pass.
If I wanted to waste my time the way you just did, I'd go look up 8 people who lost massive fortunes overnight. But, unlike you, I'm aware that making such lists doesn't actually prove anything.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but misplaced enthusiasm is just wasted effort.
You still haven't done a thing to address the original bit which you quoted from me. You seem to have branched off into trying to prove that there are 8 very rich people in the world. If you're just looking for something that we can agree on, well, congratulations, you found it! Other than that, though, I'm not really sure what you're trying to do here...
When you spend money, like on a vacation, you don't expect to get your money back. When you invest in stocks on the other hand, you do expect to get your money back and something more. That "something more" is called profit, and is the whole point of investing in stocks.
Since when does expectation play any part in it? That's pretty idiotic, even for you.
Habitual gamblers expect to make money when they go to the casino. By your definition, that would also qualify as "investment", since they "expect to get their money back, and something more".
If you're stupid enough to expect a guaranteed return on your stock, then I certainly don't have any sympathy for you when you get fleeced. If you're going to play the stock market, you need to realize that there's a good chance you're going to lose money. Otherwise, you're nothing but another foolish gambler, throwing his money away in the hopes of making a quick buck. Either way, though, you are spending money. Whether your expectations are realized or not is irrelevant - you still need to spend money in order to try and make more money.
School kids know that much.
Perhaps if you'd made it past that stage, you may have learned a bit more.
I suggest reading up on the history of communism, comrade. The purging of academics is always the first step.
P.S. your ignorance of our ideology has been noted in your dossier. We have scheduled a small trip for you, so that you may be... "better acquainted" with our way of thinking. Don't bother packing, you won't be needing much....
Nowhere did I suggest that the total amount of wealth in society is irrelevant, but it is important to note that societal wealth does not preclude more equitable wealth distribution than we see in the US. Again, I refer you to the Scandinavian countries as evidence.
You know, the next person to actually link to some hard data on "Scandinavian countries" would be the first. I've tried to do my own research but, other than finding their average income level and GDP, I've come up empty.
Of course, my real problem is with the idea of "social justice" itself, not necessarily with your claims about other countries. I don't particularly care how well or how poorly it's worked elsewhere - you simply do not have the right to take my property at gunpoint. That's not social justice, that's theft.
Grotesque economic disparities where one individual may be millions or even billions of times wealthier than another are genuine cause for concern, if not moral and ethical outrage.
Why?
The question we should ask is why our society maintains the social norm that it is possible to have happiness and contentment while our neighbors suffer.
Because we value freedom over comfort, and you cannot have freedom without responsibility.
There are societies in which this is not an accepted norm; where it is not deemed moral or ethical to be happy or content so long as any among your fellow citizens suffer.
Like... where?
Actually, scratch that. If you ask the average American whether it's ok to be happy or content while someone else suffers, I guarantee more than 90% will say "no". What people say, and what they mean and do, are completely different things.
Really all you're doing is making an appeal to emotion. You know full well (or should) that there has never bee a society in human history where wealth was "equally distributed". And there never will be. Communism isn't a viable model, so stop pushing it on everyone. I find it amusing that you can attack the Christian church, while simultaneously being a blind follower of a quasi-religious ideology.
I know you don't see the difference. That's why I'm strongly recommending you stop spreading your ignorance and familiarize yourself with a little economic system we call "Capitalism" [wikipedia.org]
In other words, "I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, so here's a link to wikipedia". Gee. Thanks. You're the best.
1) Stocks are neither goods nor services so by your own definition they don't constitute spending.
Bullshit. A stock/share is quite literally a share in the ownership of a company. When you buy stock, you are purchasing a percentage of a corporation. If you want to use the word "investing" to describe that activity, that's fine, but you're still spending in order to invest. The mistake you're making is that you're trying to equate "investing" with "saving", when in fact they're nothing alike.
There is actually no federal law or mandate requiring private lenders to make billions of dollars of bad loans to unqualified customers. Rejecting loan applications was, in fact, legal.
I didn't ask about legality. I seem to remember both Clinton and Bush unveiling grand plans for "minority families" to own homes. What their plans boiled down to was, essentially, "give 'em loans whether they qualify or not". The fact that Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac were federally-sponsored corporations only compounded the problem.
And, lastly, I've lost track of what point - if any - you're trying to make. If you chose to respond, maybe you could make that more clear.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how spending money on stocks is "not spending".
I don't know how you define spending, but by my definition it would be something like "the exchange of currency in return for goods or services". It doesn't matter whether you buy a car, or buy some stocks - you're still spending. The only difference is that you expect your car to go down in value, while everyone always inexplicably expects stocks to go up.
If instead of buying stocks they had blown their money in a casino, would you also consider that to be "investment"?
Also - and I could be wrong here - but my understanding was that most of the problem was caused by a federal mandate to offer mortgages to individuals who didn't qualify for them. Am I misinformed on that point?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, now you're resorting to "probably", which is fairly useless as far as trying to prove a point goes. I could say "well, if you asked Iranians whether following a Fatwa to kill all Americans was wrong, you'd PROBABLY get a much higher percentage".
Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but if you're going to resort to a poll to try and prove your point, don't go trying to defend the poll itself with maybes.
Uh. Neither?
24% said it's sometimes justified. I fail to see how that's contradicted by half of those saying attacks on Israeli civvies by Palestinians were not justified. There's nothing contradictory there.
lol
Sorry man, that's beyond idiotic.
The poll went something like this:
Q: Do you think killing civilians is sometimes justified?
A: 90% say "NO! Never!".
Q: Ok, what about killing Israeli civilians?
A: 50% say "Oh well, yeah, that's fine".
That's not a "special case" - that's a clear indication that these people either didn't understand the first question, or answered it dishonestly. You cant go from saying "killing civilians is NEVER justified" to saying "well if they're jewish, it's ok". Those two answers contradict each other. You can't just spin that away - there's clearly a breakdown somewhere in the process.
I know you are, but what am I?
Liar liar pants on fire!
Wanna fight about it?
Meet me at the playground after school.
Thanks, that's .... interesting. Thanks for the info. I know the Iranian people are generally fairly progressive, but these results seem a bit strange.
On the other hand, later on in the poll you link it shows that 53% of Iranians think that attacks against Israeli civilians are justified, whereas American responses are much more consistent with the earlier figures. What does that tell you?
It seems to me Iranians define "civilians" differently than we do, which would tend to skew your polls just a wee bit.
Have you ever heard the word "misquote"?
If you had linked to them, I would have. Since you didn't, I call bullshit.
If by "understanding" you mean "killing", then yeah, you got it!
Understanding peoples motivations can be important. Sometimes. But people today focus on it way to much - as if simply by understanding what motivates others we can magically talk them into being reasonable. Sorry, life doesn't work that way.
Sure, let's quote "theamericanmuslim.org" to prove how peaceful muslims are!
What do you do for an encore? Quote whitehouse.gov to show what a wonderful president Bush is?
This is exactly why that problem never gets solved. The whole thing is like a giant squabble between young kids.
"She hit me!" ..." .... !"
"But he started it!"
"Well she said
"But he did
Who gives a fuck? Stop pointing fingers and just finish it. What needs to happen is either one of them pounds the other into submission, or a grownup steps in, says "ENOUGH!", and settles it in a definitive manner.
Unfortunately, all the grownups in this case have acted like bafoons.
Palestinians are a race?
Apparently you're an even bigger moron than I had initially assumed. Sorry bud, maybe that "J00R A RASIST!!!" nonsense works for shutting up others, but it doesn't work on me.
Ah, yes! Of course, mass indoctrination could NEVER happen without a central state! What was I thinking!
Mod parent ++ "Funny"!
It's a question of what HAVEN'T I been indoctrinated into believing. I haven't been indoctrinated into believing that god thinks I'm special. Or that I should kill those who believe in a different god. Or that killing women and children will grant me a wonderful after-life.
What I have been indoctrinated into believing is the idea that we are all equal, and imbued with inherent rights and freedoms. I've been indoctrinated into believing that all humans must live free, uncontrolled by anyone else as long as they do not harm anyone else. And I've been "indoctrinated" into believing that it is the ultimate responsibility of every human to determine their own beliefs, without submitting to the will of others.
If you want to call that indoctrination, then you're an idiot. However, even if we accept that definition of "indoctrination", it's still an ideology which is far superior to anything present in Palestine. And if you want to argue that all ideologies are equal, you are likewise an idiot.
Because they're a bunch of ignorant barbarians, brainwashed by their particular brand of religious insanity into believing all sorts of idiotic nonsense. Because their average age currently hovers in the mid-teens. Because they're the victims of generations of ideological indoctrination and brainwashing. Because Israel hasn't been allowed to solve the problem, and all outside attempts at mediation have been little more than public masturbation.
You may as well ask "Why do the people of the DPRK worship Kim Jung Il and demonize the west". The question is obvious - because that's what they've been indoctrinated into believing.
When 84% of Palestinians polled support the cold-blooded murder of unarmed Jewish students, you'll have to excuse me if I don't get much comfort from the fact that not all of them are launching rockets.
As for the rest of your comment, you should certainly be modded "flamebait", which means I probably should be taking the time to respond to you.
Then again, you should probably be modded "funny", since I always get a kick out of morons who run around yelling:
"LOLz U wahtc FOX NOOZ, STFU STOOPID N00B!!!11!".
It seems to be a good rule of thumb that the more loudly someone proclaims their disdain for FOX, the more likely they are to be a complete imbecile.
Just a guess here, but they're probably worried about rocket production. Rockets made with aluminum tend to have a much higher range than ones made with heavier metals.
C'mon ... really ... think about this rationally. What's more important? Feeding your people? Or blowing up the flower-gardens of Zionist Pig-Dogs? Let's not get our priorities confused here!
No, it wasn't a troll. Unfortunately, due to the lack of a "-50,000 Gormless Cretin" moderation category, the "troll" rating often gets used as a substitute.
You're right - being prepared is hard work. Some of us learned that from a very young age, by reading the fable of the Grasshopper and the Ant. Being a responsible adult means sometimes doing difficult things that you'd rather not do. Tough. That's life. Abdicating responsibility by hoping that The Government, or God, or VISA will save you in times of trouble is simply childish.
I'm non-religious, but there's one point on which I agree with Mohamed: "Trust in Allah, but tie up your camel".
Oh, don't get me wrong - I'm not some lonely survivalist nut living off the land in the forests of Montana. I know that cooperative behaviour is a necessity for our species. Without it, not only would we not enjoy our current standard of living, but we'd have a tough time just surviving. The majority of complex species exhibit cooperative behaviour to one extent or another, so it's clearly a major factor for survivability.
All I'm saying is that the primary purpose of the government is NOT to look after you, the individual. The first duty of the government is always to protect the group as a whole. If that means they have to declare martial law and oppress the innocent along with the guilty, well sucks to be you. If it means they have to nuke your city to stop a deadly contagion from spreading, sorry, better luck in your next life. And if it means they can't send police to save you from some axe-weilding maniac because they're busy trying to control a riot on the other side of the city, you'll be wishing you'd taken advantage of your second amendment rights.
So no, I'm not advocating a tooth-and-nail kill-or-be-killed approach to life, but I do believe in being prepared. Owning firearms might not protect me in all situations, but it will raise my overall odds of survival. Having a small vegetable garden and a well-stocked cellar might not let me survive indefinitely, but it'll provide resources to help me in case of emergencies. Being self-sufficient to whatever extent is practical means I probably won't need to depend on the benevolence of strangers in emergencies, and may even be able to help others. It's something that every adult should strive for, yet the majority of people seem content to just live their lives and hope that someone will be there to protect them when things go wrong. It really saddens me to see grown human beings willingly turning themselves into wards of the nanny-state.
Wrong - the government is supposed to protect the nation and the society. If helping you happens to fit in with that, great! If not ... tough luck, bud.
That's why I'm a big fan of the right to bear arms. You can't depend on the government to protect you, nor should you have to.
If I remember correctly, they made their own ink using a whole whackload of iron. Didn't seem to have any effect.
lol
No, I'll pass.
If I wanted to waste my time the way you just did, I'd go look up 8 people who lost massive fortunes overnight. But, unlike you, I'm aware that making such lists doesn't actually prove anything.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but misplaced enthusiasm is just wasted effort.
You still haven't done a thing to address the original bit which you quoted from me. You seem to have branched off into trying to prove that there are 8 very rich people in the world. If you're just looking for something that we can agree on, well, congratulations, you found it! Other than that, though, I'm not really sure what you're trying to do here ...
Since when does expectation play any part in it? That's pretty idiotic, even for you.
Habitual gamblers expect to make money when they go to the casino. By your definition, that would also qualify as "investment", since they "expect to get their money back, and something more".
If you're stupid enough to expect a guaranteed return on your stock, then I certainly don't have any sympathy for you when you get fleeced. If you're going to play the stock market, you need to realize that there's a good chance you're going to lose money. Otherwise, you're nothing but another foolish gambler, throwing his money away in the hopes of making a quick buck. Either way, though, you are spending money. Whether your expectations are realized or not is irrelevant - you still need to spend money in order to try and make more money.
Perhaps if you'd made it past that stage, you may have learned a bit more.
I suggest reading up on the history of communism, comrade. The purging of academics is always the first step.
P.S. your ignorance of our ideology has been noted in your dossier. We have scheduled a small trip for you, so that you may be ... "better acquainted" with our way of thinking. Don't bother packing, you won't be needing much ....
You know, the next person to actually link to some hard data on "Scandinavian countries" would be the first. I've tried to do my own research but, other than finding their average income level and GDP, I've come up empty.
Of course, my real problem is with the idea of "social justice" itself, not necessarily with your claims about other countries. I don't particularly care how well or how poorly it's worked elsewhere - you simply do not have the right to take my property at gunpoint. That's not social justice, that's theft.
Why?
Because we value freedom over comfort, and you cannot have freedom without responsibility.
Like ... where?
Actually, scratch that. If you ask the average American whether it's ok to be happy or content while someone else suffers, I guarantee more than 90% will say "no". What people say, and what they mean and do, are completely different things.
Really all you're doing is making an appeal to emotion. You know full well (or should) that there has never bee a society in human history where wealth was "equally distributed". And there never will be. Communism isn't a viable model, so stop pushing it on everyone. I find it amusing that you can attack the Christian church, while simultaneously being a blind follower of a quasi-religious ideology.
In other words, "I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, so here's a link to wikipedia". Gee. Thanks. You're the best.
Bullshit. A stock/share is quite literally a share in the ownership of a company. When you buy stock, you are purchasing a percentage of a corporation. If you want to use the word "investing" to describe that activity, that's fine, but you're still spending in order to invest. The mistake you're making is that you're trying to equate "investing" with "saving", when in fact they're nothing alike.
I didn't ask about legality. I seem to remember both Clinton and Bush unveiling grand plans for "minority families" to own homes. What their plans boiled down to was, essentially, "give 'em loans whether they qualify or not". The fact that Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac were federally-sponsored corporations only compounded the problem.
And, lastly, I've lost track of what point - if any - you're trying to make. If you chose to respond, maybe you could make that more clear.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how spending money on stocks is "not spending".
I don't know how you define spending, but by my definition it would be something like "the exchange of currency in return for goods or services". It doesn't matter whether you buy a car, or buy some stocks - you're still spending. The only difference is that you expect your car to go down in value, while everyone always inexplicably expects stocks to go up.
If instead of buying stocks they had blown their money in a casino, would you also consider that to be "investment"?
Also - and I could be wrong here - but my understanding was that most of the problem was caused by a federal mandate to offer mortgages to individuals who didn't qualify for them. Am I misinformed on that point?