Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Laughing at Saddam
Monday, January 8, 2007 1:40 PM
FLETCH2
Quote:Originally posted by citizen: Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Why? What makes Saddam a human being? You say he was, so you must have some objective criteria.What makes you a Human being?
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Why? What makes Saddam a human being? You say he was, so you must have some objective criteria.
Monday, January 8, 2007 2:34 PM
GEEZER
Keep the Shiny side up
Quote:Originally posted by citizen: What makes you a Human being?
Monday, January 8, 2007 2:38 PM
Quote:Originally posted by rue: Are we now discussing the death penalty? I just want to know 'cause I don't want to be accused of changing the subject again.
Monday, January 8, 2007 3:26 PM
RUE
I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!
Monday, January 8, 2007 3:42 PM
6IXSTRINGJACK
Monday, January 8, 2007 3:57 PM
Monday, January 8, 2007 3:58 PM
FINN MAC CUMHAL
Quote:Originally posted by citizen: The thing that strikes me most is the materials that they used to make that engine. I mean a small sparrow through your average Jet engine would make it turn itself inside out quite spectacularly, let alone a man, and a fairly substantial one at that.
Monday, January 8, 2007 4:56 PM
Monday, January 8, 2007 5:00 PM
Quote:Originally posted by rue: These are interesting -
Monday, January 8, 2007 5:20 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 6ixStringJack: I think it's funny how not one single person had anything to say to my last post about this earlier on the thread. Saddam was the only secular leader in the Middle East, and therefore, our greatest potential ally there. Since our goal seems to be to make Iraq a puppet state, I see no reason we couldn't have incorporated Saddam into it and keep him as leader out there. Our eyes and ears are everywhere. It wouldn't have been hard to monitor his activities and put him back in line if needed be.
Monday, January 8, 2007 7:28 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal: You underestimate the stranglehold that Hussein had on Iraq and you overestimate the ability of the US to enact regime change through clandestine operations in that country. But setting aside these various misconceptions...
Quote:you’re right that the former Ba’athist regime in Iraq was secular, but you’re not about it being the only secular regime in the Middle East. There are actually several, most in fact. Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan and Egypt are all secular regimes; some are allies, some are not....
Quote:The largest misconception that you have is perhaps the notion that a regime in the Middle East need necessarily be a brutal ruthless dictatorship
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 4:33 AM
HERO
Quote:Originally posted by 6ixStringJack: I've seen no proof that the quality of life for the average "Liberated" Iraqi has increased in the slightest.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 5:40 AM
Quote:Originally posted by 6ixStringJack: I simply don't buy the picture that they're painting for us. You do. Who's to say who's right or wrong, since neither of us are there. Our Government is trying to sell us a war based on black and white and good and evil and I'm sorry, but many people in America are just not buying it. Most of us have no clue why we're even fighting this war in the first place, and if that isn't Orwelian, I don't know what is. Test that theory out for yourself. Ask 5 different people in your office why we're at war and you'll most likely have 3 different answers at least.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 8:27 AM
CITIZEN
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: I follow these rules. I do as little hurt to my fellow human beings as I can. I try to help as much as I can.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 9:16 AM
Quote:Originally posted by citizen: So a guide dog is a Human Being.
Quote:Can you objectivly prove that any of this is true?
Quote:So what makes a human anyway? The decorative packaging, or what's inside? Is it a general acceptance of the rules we've developed over time; don't murder, don't lie, don't steal, don't hurt, etc.? Can some human-looking beings be so far outside these rules that they don't qualify for the benefits of humanity any more? Obviously, I think so.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 9:37 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: You first, please. You're the one who claims to be able to identify a human being. What is your criteria?
Quote:Why is it that no one is willing to tell me what it is about Saddam which makes him a human being in your eyes?
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 10:09 AM
Quote:Originally posted by citizen: Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: You first, please. You're the one who claims to be able to identify a human being. What is your criteria?No I didn't. You made the claim, I never have.
Quote:Originally posted by citizen: Saddam was a human being, twisted and evil perhaps, and he lost his right to live among us as he tortured his first victim, but he was still a human being.
Quote: All your reasons for saying Saddam wasn't human pretty much devolve down to, 'because I say so'. Your criteria are arbitrary, and far from complete, "Saddam wasn't a Human because I say so", "I am a human being, because I say so", so why you think it's then reasonable to expect a complete and reasoned response with objective criteria from others is beyond me. You haven't provided such yourself, but feel perfectly fine about demanding it from others?
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 10:23 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: OK. Here's my hypothesis. There are certain rules which have been developed by human beings over the ages, just by trial and error, that are good rules to live by. Stuff like don't kill people just because you want to, don't take their family or their stuff just because you can, Don't lie, etc. Though not exactly the same rule-set in every society, there are some general universal priciples the vast majority all pretty much agree on. The understanding of and agreement to these rules, at some level, is what differentiates us as human beings, rather than animals in human being skins. Some individuals don't buy into these rules at all. They break them at will and with no compunction. At some point, their behavior becomes so egregious that they go beyond the bounds of humanity. Even a cursory reading of Saddam's actions since 1958 would indicate that he has obviously passed beyond the bounds of humanity, and is therefore not a human being.
Quote:Now in normal discourse, you would present your hypothesis as to why Saddam is a human being.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 10:41 AM
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 11:01 AM
Quote:Originally posted by citizen: Why must I back up a claim I haven't made?
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 11:07 AM
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 11:08 AM
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 11:29 AM
CHRISISALL
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Saddam was a human being, twisted and evil perhaps, and he lost his right to live among us as he tortured his first victim, but he was still a human being.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 11:32 AM
Quote:Originally posted by rue: There are more interesting questions to answer than 'Was Hussein human?'
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 11:47 AM
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 12:44 PM
Quote:Originally posted by chrisisall: Geezer, that's MY claim, you mixed it up with Citizen's quotes, you biped!
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 12:53 PM
Quote:Originally posted by rue: Another dodge by Slick. We've gone from laughing at Hussein, to was he human, to my intelligence. Yes, I can see Slick knows how to stay on topic.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 1:15 PM
STORYMARK
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 1:30 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Quote:Originally posted by citizen: Saddam was a human being, twisted and evil perhaps, and he lost his right to live among us as he tortured his first victim, but he was still a human being. You didn't make this claim? ... Sorry. I thought he was taking over your argument after you quit. So I guess Citizen doesn't claim Saddam was human after all.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 2:17 PM
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 2:47 PM
Quote:Originally posted by rue: And frankly, I see it as another one of your diversions when your argument falls apart.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 3:15 PM
Quote:Originally posted by citizen: [B Fact is you are essentially implying that 'Human Behaviour defines Human beings' when in fact as anyone willing to apply even basic logic should be able to see, Human Beings define Human behaviour.
Quote:You don't get to define what is and what is not Human behaviour, Human behaviour is what Human beings do, even if it is, for want of a better term, evil.
Quote:In fact dehumanising your enemy, even with good reason, is the first biggest and arguably most crucial step to becoming a monster yourself.
Quote:Think about it, would you get a pang of guilt if you butchered a chicken?
Quote:...I have a few further questions, like who was the fourth Marks brother?)
Quote:It may be uncomfortable to think that someone who is essentially the same as you or I could do terrible things...
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 3:19 PM
Quote:Originally posted by rue: I see it as another one of your diversions when your argument falls apart.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 3:27 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: So I'm pretty much saying that, Yes, human beings, by consensus, define human behavior, and what it means to be a human being.
Quote:But you just stated, right up above, that "Human Beings define Human behaviour." Now they don't? Make up your damn mind.
Quote:I dehumanize Saddam, not because he's my enemy, but because of his actions, which don't meet the human test.
Quote:As far as I know, there is no fourth "Marks" brother. The fourth Marx brother was either Gummo or Zeppo, depending on how you sort them. Gummo was the fourth by birth, but Zeppo worked more with the other three.
Quote:Not really, 'cause I don't consider Saddam the same as myself. If you want to, go right ahead.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 3:38 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal: The people in my office are probably better informed on these matters then yours, but in any regard you asked why no one responded to a post in which your principle argument was a blatant misconception on the nature of secular regimes in the Middle East. When I explain your misconception to you, you simply ignore it, and that probably explains, more then anything else, why you ‘have no clue’ about why we are fighting this war. You got that whole “Iraq is the only secular regime” crap from the media, I imagine or from some punditry. That’s an ideological viewpoint that is not consistent with a factual understanding of Middle East politics. If you’re going to base your understanding of this war on misconceptions like that, then you really have to expect that you will have a less then adequate grasp of the politics of this war.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 3:58 PM
Quote:Originally posted by citizen: Humans, like any other living creature, don't get to decide by committee what Human behaviour is.
Quote:Ahh, so you do have a God complex.
Quote:Well you being incapable of understanding genetics is hardly my concern.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 4:01 PM
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 4:04 PM
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 4:07 PM
Quote:Originally posted by rue: The reason to think of him as human - a despicable, hateful human - isn't for his sake, it's for yours. To not feel empathy at the death of another is to be a reduced human being and to bring yourself closer to being Hussein.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 6:07 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 6ixStringJack: Wow.... that's pretty insulting. You really think highly of yourself. I don't think I feel like debating this issue with you any further. This is simply a matter of you and people you associate with being smarter than everyone else and your opinion is always right. I think you're arrogant and crass and pig headed. Warmongering people like you are the reason nobody is going to feel sorry for us here when America isn't top dog anymore. You sir, are an embarrassment.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 6:24 PM
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 6:45 PM
Tuesday, January 9, 2007 9:59 PM
Wednesday, January 10, 2007 5:43 AM
Quote:Originally posted by 6ixStringJack: I just say it like it is. I'm not looking for a verbal shoot fight. If there is no point in discussing this any further, I find no great pleasure in throwing shit at one another.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007 6:20 AM
Wednesday, January 10, 2007 6:36 AM
Wednesday, January 10, 2007 7:44 AM
Quote:Originally posted by rue: On empathy in general - certain types comes fairly naturally at certain ages. Children cry when they see other children crying ... because they understand what it means to cry. Most people feel immortal until about 30 years old. Even when you see death it's an abstraction, not something you feel inside. (Though it's something you'll have to deal with later.) At a certain point death becomes personal. It's the basic biological fact of an individual dying that we can understand. That is the empathy due Hussein, the kind you shouldn't disavow because, if you do, you put your humanity in peril.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007 7:52 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Ah. This, then, is the root of our disagreement. I think humans, by consensus, do get to decide what human behavior is.
Quote:No. I just know how to use Google. You should try it some time. And perhaps learn how "Marx" is spelled in relation to Chico, Harpo, Groucho, Gummo, and Zeppo.
Quote:Finally, an answer (in a roundabout way). You consider Saddam as human as you because he has the same genetics. See, that wasn't hard, was it?
Wednesday, January 10, 2007 9:02 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Quote:Originally posted by rue: On empathy in general - certain types comes fairly naturally at certain ages. Children cry when they see other children crying ... because they understand what it means to cry. Most people feel immortal until about 30 years old. Even when you see death it's an abstraction, not something you feel inside. (Though it's something you'll have to deal with later.) At a certain point death becomes personal. It's the basic biological fact of an individual dying that we can understand. That is the empathy due Hussein, the kind you shouldn't disavow because, if you do, you put your humanity in peril. Is everyone due the same empathy at their death? Besides the biological fact that we all die, does the way in which we've lived our life affect the amount of empathy we're due? Should the empathy we may feel at a person's death be completely divorced from how we consider them as a person? Not a trick question, I really am interested in your response. "Keep the Shiny side up"
Wednesday, January 10, 2007 9:06 AM
Quote:Originally posted by citizen: So Ant's get to decide, by committee, what Ant behaviour is. So what is up with all these biologists studying ants? They should just ask them, surely?
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL