REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Let's hear it for all the peeps that want to see America destroyed!

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Saturday, November 29, 2008 08:07
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 11802
PAGE 6 of 6

Thursday, November 27, 2008 5:55 PM

ELVISCHRIST


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
Dude, you're wrong TWICE in just that sentence alone!


Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!
That was SO funny man....




The really, REALLY laughing Chrisisall



Thank ya vurry much, my son.

EC

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 27, 2008 7:21 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


I was watching the Craig Ferguson Late Late Show the other night and he had a British actor on (can't remember his name) who's in a Broadway play at the moment.

Well he said that he received dozens of calls from friends in the U.K. the night of the elections. They all wanted to know how everyone in the States was reacting to the news that Obama had won. All calls were positive in nature. All were saying how lucky he was to be in the states at that moment. "They were ecstatic" were his words. Genuinely happy.

Imagine, these are the people of a country who are on our side. He went on to say that most of Europe was watching the elections very intently and with great care. Bush has often said that history will tell if he was a great president.
He's right about one thing - he has become a historic figure as president.

History will remember him as the man who helped bring a great nation to the brink of economic ruin. This is not an opinion - it's fact.

Just for the record: it was Bush's policies and administration that I disagreed with. I never ever said or thought that America (and thereby it's people) should fail just because I didn't like what the current president was doing to this country. Shame on anyone who does.

If McCain would have won, you would not catch me saying "I hope he fucks things up" so I could say I told you so. So quit your whining and take it like a man. We had to for 8 long years. I hate the war but I support our troops (yes it can be done). So you can support your country and not like the president's policies and his administration. I have no argument there, that's what this country is all about.


"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 27, 2008 10:01 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


FINN
Quote:

Bullying people makes you feel important. Like all fundamentalists, you’re just spreading the Word. Preaching the Gospel to the imbeciles, that’s how you justify the Gestapo debating tactics. That’s what Falwell did.
Oh, you mean Gestapo tactics like breaking your hands? Electroshocking your genitals?

Or do you mean Gestapo tactics like asking dreaded questions? Questions like "Why is human life is sacred in one context but not another?" or "Why is preaching hate OK by some but not others?" It never occurred to me that Socrates was Gestapo, 'cause all I was doing was practicing the Socratic method:
Quote:

The Socratic Method (or Method of Elenchus or Socratic Debate), named after the Classical Greek philosopher Socrates, is a form of philosophical inquiry in which the questioner explores the implications of others' positions, to stimulate rational thinking and illuminate ideas.[1] This dialectical method often involves an oppositional discussion in which the defense of one point of view is pitted against another; one participant may lead another to contradict himself in some way, strengthening the inquirer's own point.
As I have said many times over, all I'm trying to do is get you to THINK.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 28, 2008 12:58 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
As I have said many times over, all I'm trying to do is get you to THINK.

I think just fine without your preaching. You think, that because I don’t regurgitate your opinion back to you, that I don’t think, but that’s just arrogance. The same kind of arrogance shared by people like Falwell. And I don’t want to listen to you preach, anymore then I want listen to Falwell preach.




Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 28, 2008 9:57 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

You think, that because I don’t regurgitate your opinion back to you, that I don’t think, but that’s just arrogance.
You contradict yourself other every other sentence.

You made it quite plain that human life begins at conception. In your view, human life is genetic potential... even before it becomes more than a placenta it's already "human".

And in your argument against abortion, you've said that human life is sacred and shouldn't be killed.

So by your definition EVERY human life is sacred because being "human" is in the genes.

Except in cases of capital punishment because the person is no longer "innocent".

So, you've changed your definition of "human". It must be both genetically human AND innocent.

But even then, considering the unborn and young children who are killed in war, THAT death is acceptable because they're "collateral damage".

So this time, you've changed your definition of "sacred"... you don't REALLY mean "sacred", you REALLY mean that human lives... even innocent human lives... can be spent if the killing was accidental or if the killer "meant well". Even if someone accidentally kills thousands of innocent human beings.

So REALLY what you mean is Innocent human lives are quite expendable, but only for reasons that YOU accept as being "worthwhile".

--------------

Your logic just doesn't hold up. If you REALLY mean All human lives are sacred you would simply say that it's unacceptable to kill except in the case of self defense of the defense of others. You would judge ANY killing on the basis of whether it saved more than were killed, whether it was in war, punishment, economics, or abortion. Life for life. Not life for vengeance; or life for "freedom/ choice"; or life for capitalism or communism.

OR you would simply say that humans are expendable in war if its accidental, in the interests of justice, or for whatever other purpose you deem acceptable. That some people (armies, police) have the authority to kill but that others (women, doctors) don't.

But the problem is you say BOTH. And those two statement can't exist together in the same ethical framework.

I could bring you several more examples of how your own thinking runs headlong onto itself.

I'm not really interested in you regurgitating my "line"... whatever you think that is. What I'd really like you to do is resolve some of the contradictions within your own thinking.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 28, 2008 10:48 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm not really interested in you regurgitating my "line"... whatever you think that is. What I'd really like you to do is resolve some of the contradictions within your own thinking.

You know, I think I have provided these answers to you already. What you want is to push your religion down my throat. I’m just not interest. You want to browbeat, and manipulate to impose your inflexible view of abortion and Bush-hating on me. If I thought you actually cared what I think, then I’d happy to discuss it with, but you don’t. So give it a rest, okay? If you want to know what I think, you can start by fairly and honestly evaluating what you’ve been told already, instead of this disingenuous calculating interpretation, you’ve provided here.

You claim that we shouldn't use capital punishment because it's wrong to kill except in terms of self defense, but then you don't disagree with, say, World War II, in which thousands of innocent people were killed in collateral damage. Why don't you try to explaining this?

Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Your logic just doesn't hold up. If you REALLY mean All human lives are sacred you would simply say that it's unacceptable to kill except in the case of self defense of the defense of others. You would judge ANY killing on the basis of whether it saved more than were killed, whether it was in war, punishment, economics, or abortion. Life for life. Not life for vengeance; or life for "freedom/ choice"; or life for capitalism or communism..

1.2-1.5 million innocent Iraqis died in Iraq as a result of Saddam Hussein’s misuse of sanctions. Since the war began, fewer then 100,000 Iraqi civilians are estimated to have been killed. Yet you support the use of sanctions. If you actually cared about saving lives, then you would support the war, since it kills far fewer then sanctions. Furthermore then end result of the war, which is much less bloody then the peace, is the possibility for a better country in Iraq. The end of result of no war, which is far bloodier then the war, is further tyranny little chance of reducing casualties or improving life for the Iraqis.

Of course, I have explained all this to you. You simply won’t allow any information hat doesn’t suit your fundamentalist views to find its way past the blinds. If you can’t even accept or honestly interpret what you have been told so far, then it’s pointless to discuss it further with you.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 28, 2008 10:58 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I think I have provided these answers to you already
I have no idea what your answers are. You seem to be saying several things at once, and the answers that you provide can't possibly exist in the same logical/ ethical framework. So I don't know WHAT you really mean!

Last I heard on the specific topic of war and collateral damage, you basically said that it's hard to predict how many lives would have been saved/ spent if other course of action had been taken. But if that's the case, doesn't it argue for MORE caution before going to war? Quite honestly, your answers leave me puzzled more than anything.
Quote:

You want to browbeat, and manipulate to impose your inflexible view of abortion and Bush-hating on me. If I thought you actually cared what I think, then I’d happy to discuss it with, but you don’t.
If I didn't care what you think, why would I remember it so clearly? Yanno, I get some posters mixed up with each other. Not you. I think about your answers but I can't figure them out.

AFA trying to force you towards my opinion: I have NO PROBLEM with peeps who are anti-abortion and are also against capital punishment and war. I have more of a problem with peeps who say that it's okay to kill for the greater good (or for personal gain), but at least they're self-consistent. But my fuses fry when somebody says "life is sacred" and abortion is horrific but collateral damage in the fight for "freedom" is acceptable. So, which is it? Are human lives sacred or not? If human lives are not sacred, for what reasons are they expendable? Or, if you don't think I'm expressing this very clearly, how WOULD you express it? When is it OK to kill, and why? When is it not OK to kill, and why?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 29, 2008 3:32 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I think he's saying that it is okay to kill when killing kills less people than not killing.

Your mileage may vary.

--Anthony



"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 29, 2008 4:49 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Oh, it seems Finn added to his previous answer. I'll read it and think about it.


ETA: done. So Finn do you mean Its okay to kill when killing kills less people than not killing. ?

If that's the case, then I have no further questions, and you bring up a good point about sanctions. We may quibble about how many peeps died during the war versus how many peeps died during sanctions but your rationale is perfectly clear. Thank you.


---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 29, 2008 5:06 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
1.2-1.5 million innocent Iraqis died in Iraq as a result of Saddam Hussein’s misuse of sanctions. Since the war began, fewer then 100,000 Iraqi civilians are estimated to have been killed. Yet you support the use of sanctions. If you actually cared about saving lives, then you would support the war, since it kills far fewer then sanctions.

Okay, flaw here, how can you be sure that millions more would have been killed by his misuse of sanctions between the time of the beginning of the Iraq War until now? What if most of the killing he did was all that he was gonna do?

I thank you for telling us your rationale for supporting taking Saddam down by force, it makes sense in a way most others don't, however it still begs the eternal question why HIM when there are so many other bad guys who were/are killing more peeps ACTIVELY than Mr. Hussein was?


The questioning Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 29, 2008 6:09 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well, in addition, the sanctions were about to end. Invading Iraq for "human welfare" involved some pretty long-range suppositions about what Saddam would have done with the extra money and whether that would have made him a deadly threat in the future. Possibly, but hard to say.

Also, I think Finn gets me mixed up with Rue. I've decided there are better ways to bring rogue nations into line than sanctions, but that's another story.

Still, at least I now have a sense of what Finn is driving at, which I appreciate.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 29, 2008 6:55 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
1.2-1.5 million innocent Iraqis died in Iraq as a result of Saddam Hussein’s misuse of sanctions. Since the war began, fewer then 100,000 Iraqi civilians are estimated to have been killed. Yet you support the use of sanctions. If you actually cared about saving lives, then you would support the war, since it kills far fewer then sanctions.

Okay, flaw here, how can you be sure that millions more would have been killed by his misuse of sanctions between the time of the beginning of the Iraq War until now? What if most of the killing he did was all that he was gonna do?

That’s not a flaw in my logic. What if Hitler was done killing? He was going to stop killing Jews and give back the countries he had already invaded. What a waste World War II was.
Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
I thank you for telling us your rationale for supporting taking Saddam down by force, it makes sense in a way most others don't, however it still begs the eternal question why HIM when there are so many other bad guys who were/are killing more peeps ACTIVELY than Mr. Hussein was?

Like who?



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 29, 2008 7:03 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
That’s not a flaw in my logic. What if Hitler was done killing?

No doing what you shoot down others for, Finn.
Quote:

Like who?


Don't insult my intelligence, Kirk.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 29, 2008 7:03 AM

CHRISISALL


Double double toil & troubles
Connection stutters & my post doubles

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 29, 2008 7:10 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
That’s not a flaw in my logic. What if Hitler was done killing?

No doing what you shoot down others for, Finn.

You asked, and you got your answer.
Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Don't insult my intelligence, Kirk.

I guess I can read that as there weren’t any others?




Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 29, 2008 7:19 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Now, now Finn. Don't be puttin' words in Chris' mouth!

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 29, 2008 7:24 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You asked, and you got your answer.

Okay, multiple standards- I get that. Very mortal.
Quote:

I guess I can read that as there weren’t any others?

Whatever.


The impatient Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 29, 2008 7:27 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Now, now Finn. Don't be puttin' words in Chris' mouth!


I don't mind, if it's his way to make a point-
FOR ME TO POOP ON!!!


The TRIUMPHant Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 29, 2008 7:54 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You asked, and you got your answer.

Okay, multiple standards- I get that. Very mortal.
Quote:

I guess I can read that as there weren’t any others?

Whatever.

You asked a question and you got an answer, and now you refuse to response, which is fine. I don’t need an answer. I don’t think there is one that you can give anyway. But this is just one of countless times we gone through this. Signym goes on this ridiculous thing every few months or weeks. And it’s always the same thing –she takes an intentional misinterpretation of my opinion on abortion and applies it to an intentional misinterpretation of my opinion on interventionism and derives the dubious conclusion that I’m a murdering bastard. You have plenty of time to think of an answer, in a couple of months the topic will come up again, trust me.




Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 29, 2008 8:07 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

she takes an intentional misinterpretation of my opinion on abortion
How can Human life is sacred possibly be misrepersented??? Now, we have gone back and forth on "human", but "sacred"...? It either is or it isn't.
Quote:

and applies it to an intentional misinterpretation of my opinion on interventionism
I was NEVER clear on your philosophy of "interventionism". It seemed at times to be excusable for containing communism or spreading the American way of life. You have since seemed to clarify that interventionism is only to save more lives than not. Unless I hear otherwise, I'm going to assume that is your rationale for intervening, and that the only discussion which remains is how effective a particular intervention was in achieving that goal.


---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 14:12 - 3411 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:16 - 6 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL