Messages

Has anyone done this in this thread?

Furthermore, does this mean if your opposition in an argument falls at a logical fallacy, you're free now to do the same?

Apparently, some of the auto-named "pacifists" preffer a burning Iraq ensuring them victorious debate moments in the internet and coffee chats. Curious way of pacifism. That reminds me an anecdote that happend the day the war in Iraq ended (The day of the falling Saddam statue). I (the "fascist war-lover")was extremelly happy and I said in my college, loud: "Finally, it has ended". And a "pacifist" replied "No, it hasn' t... There is still some time where the Iraqis will kill those american bastards"

At least for one, I am not any sort of pacifist or bleeding-heart humanitarian. A country can be in as much problems as it wants. It should never be enough for another country to step in with their military and say 'now we're going to solve your problem for you!'. EVEN IF THEY DO SOLVE THE PROBLEM, I am against that sort of imperialism. Diplomatic or economic pressure? Yes. Killing children to liberate children? No.

It's not a matter of being left or right, liberal or republican. It's a matter of constitutional right and the whole premise of a sovereign state. A country takes care of its own problems. They can only make it your problems if they go to war with you. Now I know and you know in the end the world doesn't work this way, and countries go to war constantly, form alliances against each other and generally meddle in each others' affairs. But that they do doesn't mean it's okay, and an apologists's 'sigh and realization' oh well, that's how it's going to be is bullshit. We should try more to do as we say rather than aplogize (or even worse, rationalize and moralize) for how we do.

Further in your post you begin building strawmen out of the people that are discussing with you in this thread. You shouldn't care, and shouldn't present the ethics of whomever else you've discussed beforehand in relation to whom you're speaking to in this thread. I think random, wild Ad Hominems will never get you anywhere. And as far as I can remember you arguing politics on this board, it have never gotten you anywhere.

We don't care what sort of people you had discussed with in the past, and what their failings were. We don't care how we might be similar to them. It is simply not pertinent for the purposes of this discussion to liken anyone to anyone in your past. What you are doing is "x person in my past was an idiot, you are like x person, therefore also an idiot!'. You do this CONSTANTLY. You seem to be discussing with 'x persons' through us, not with us.

'Save time'? How about we don't save time.

SSH I understand and agree with your post before the one above.

SSH, while your reply was noted (and I don't know much about the examples you gave) I had to disregard it to an extent to get this conversation on more important 'wars' and wars. You also ignored Becky where she debunked one of your examples, am I to assume that if I look more into your other examples they'll also be similarly ambiguous or even blatantly wrong?

You have this habit of information sniping, SSH. Posting only when you have something to add (which is good) but without followup or proper discussion over your points. People say a lot to you, and you reply not at all, or reply to only a small piece of what they said, or make a joke. It is difficult to discuss with you because of that reason. Furthermore, on this subject I am looking by answers by other people, american people, who aren't playing devil's advocate but who sincerily believe the US military action is serving their freedom and wellbeing.

So:

Vietnam was part of a larger policy of containment, the goal of which was to stop the spread of communism. As World War II ended, ideological differences between the USA and the USSR along with the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe led to the development of the domino theory, which basically said that if communism was left unchecked, it would spread throughout the whole world. As a result, wherever communism seemed to be on the rise, the US would basically support the opposing side. If you really want to put it in it's proper context and feel like reading more, Wikipedia has a pretty good article on the Cold War.

So wait, Wikipedia man, the Vietnam war 'protected' the Americas from an idea, right? That's what you think 'serve our freedom' means. Protection from political ideas the current administration may have considered not to their benefit. Great.

The Taliban government that ruled Afghanistan harbored, supported, and protected the Al-Qaeda organization. In addition to 9/11, Al-Qaeda is also suspected of having planned and carried out numerous other terrorist attacks, so hopefully it's clear why the US wanted them destroyed. The two groups had a close relationship, so destroying one basically meant destroying both.

So wait, in order to destroy terrorist cells one has to invade a country, right? The tried-and-tested american method of sending in assassins in the night in banana republics hasn't been working this time? I'm sure a Rambo in Afganistan killing Al-Qaeda would make for a few good movies, yes? Hey, wait....

And furthermore, now that the Al Qeada is delt with (oh, wait!) and Osama is dead (what, what?!) the Americas are safer, right? Because terror is fought by ripping off the hydra heads, right? Because nobody, no victims, no families of victims of an unjust invasion into a country are recruited into being terrorists themselves after that, right?

I propose that the war on terror isn't serving the freedom of the american public, it is serving anything but.

Iraq was alleged to have WMD and links to Al-Qaeda. Of course, we all know how those claims turned out ....

So wait, you're playing devil's advocate too? Argh. I don't want to have an academic discussion on this, I've had enough. I want real, actual americans - like Rharpe - that believe this sort of reasoning and that's why they want to 'hug every american in uniform they see'.

I find it funny how the only way people are willing to have this debate is theoretically, and when it doesn't apply to them. I want to hear some honest I LOVE THE TROOPS THEY KEEP ME FREE opinions here, not just blah blah by people who have no other stake in it than their fondness for going-nowhere-arguing.

I think you need to put yourself in the role of the decision-makers and examine why they made these decisions in the first place and why they ended up succeeding or failing. There are lots of lessons to be learned in doing this, one of them being that not everything is as simple and clear-cut as we'd like it to be.

Just as long as you don't believe US interventionism serves the freedom of the US public, sure, let's ponder on the finer things all night.

haha oh man that quote about Greek beer is great.

Thanks for sharing, Disco. I'm still looking forward to a reply by someone who thinks those wars are somehow promoting the freedom of the american people, though.

we are lacking Bubble Bobble

One of the most original and addictive games ever.

If you're alone, and you're good, you can control one dragon with either hand and still finish the game. I wouldn't recommend it on the arcade version, but on the newer PC port it's quite possible.

haha way to bypass the "friendship is the real lesson!" aspect of Bubble Bobble. My other hand is my friend, bitch.

Every thread? You see, its those delusions of grandeur than just rile people...

There's two threads about Al Emmo, both are filled with the same stuff. So yes, every thread.

Saying 'every single thread on the AGS forums' and meaning apparently 'every single thread on the AGS forums about our game, namely, two of them' surely provides some insight on how you think about this issue, this community and so in.

Okay, it's extremely difficult for me not to write this, so I will:

explain to me how the US military has after its participation in world war II, ensured the freedom and wellbeing of americans with their military action outside of america (which is where it occurs)

honest question, I'd really like to get an answer

Teacher that told you to come to terms with your sexuality probably wanted to have his way with you.

Do what Andail told you about medication. If you have a propensity towards substance abuse (and you do) PLEASE don't take any pill before serious consideration and talking it over with professionals. You might like it more than you can handle.

I never talked about absolute freedom, which it is correctly said that is traded for other benefits when one accepts a social contract. If you want to be totally free, go live in the wild and see how you fare up. There's a reason human beings came together in the first place: security.

My point of view was that sacrificing freedom for security, when it happens, it should happen after very careful consideration and always with failsafes, and never because the goverment is strong-arming something (or even worse, letting is slide under the table while nobody seems to pay attention). Andail is correct that the absolute freedom versus social limitation issue is largely academic (though neither artificial nor irrelevant to actual human affairs as he also implies) but this isn't the case I'm making.

Do you see laws for mandatory seatbelts, vaccines etc. unconstitutional (eg. limiting a person's freedom when it is done for a preemptive/preventative reason)?

If the only person getting hurt in a situation is the person making the choice (though someone raised an issue with people in the back seat crushing people in the front seat in a case of an accident sans seatbelts, and I'm sure it has happened, this sort of thing is a freak exception that can be applied to a host of things for which there is no mandatory precaution yet and nobody complains) like, let's go for the sake of clarity here with the lone motorbike driver or lone car driver and mandatory wearing of a helmet/seatbelt, then yes, the state telling you what to do with your own wellbeing at fear of fining and prosecution, is in my opinion a controversal point.

People should have the right to hurt themselves and to take their personal risks and chances. The state should educate more than it should regulate, and where it regulates, the citizenry should be VERY attentive to what power it passes to it for such means. Freedom is more important than well-being.

I see the state as a contract. You give up some of your rights in exchange for safety.
This contract is constantly subject to change to find a suitable balance between freedom and a sense of security, and I don't see why dying from side-effects of a medicine could not be one of these, as many states have terms that could lead to your death, like defending your state in a time of war.

A contract it is, and it's state is not as fluid as you suggest. Check the constitution of the country you're at for a very very lucid explanation of the said trade-off. Military service is a very thoroughly contested issue - speaking from a country where army service is mandatory - and still makes sense when you have a thorough understanding of the social contract you're under in greece. Taking this medicine doesn't even come close.

You have only made the choice to let more talented individuals convince others for you. You are really still making all the choices, but through intermediaries. If you are unhappy with the outcome of your intermediary's actions, you are hopefully given an opportunity from time to time to choose another person or run for this position yourself.

Yes. I see no problem with this reasoning. It does not contest my point. As a general note on how representative democracy works, thanks, I guess?

If people are lazy, irresponsible and uninformed, it will reflect in how the state and elected officials act, and if you have had the opportunity to vote, you are part responsible for every atrocity and good that has been made in the name of the state.

Again yes, agree, so on.

Even if you are voting for a person who says that the average American is too stupid to assess the risk/benefit, you are acting democratically. If an elected government bases it's governing on such opinions and the voters were aware of what they were voting for, I see it as a democratic and representative government.

A democratic party that is so inherently undemcratic as to support such opinions is severing the social contract we spoke of below. Read your constitution again. In mine, it starts with 'power comes FROM the people, for the service of the people'. A political party within the confines of a democratic system my endorse a lot of opinions. But if they come against the country's constitution, it is the duty of that country's countrymen to rise against this goverment and overthrow it, and esthablish a new democratic goverment. A citizen's alligeance is not towards the ruling party and its policy. It is towards his country and constitution. Them, that, and this, is what a political party that forms goverment is supposed to serve.

Edit: SSH sorry I forgot to reply to you when I posted: My bad, I didn't know what smallpox exactly was when I posted before.

It does not befit a grown man in a serious discussion to say 'well, duh' as some sort of reply.

If that's how an american goverment feels and bases its governing on, then it's not a democratic goverment and should be removed immediately.

Helm, early smallpox vaccinations had as high as 2% mortality rates and yet were made mandatory in many countries. Was this a bad thing?

I have absolutely no problem saying a resounding YES to that and I'm shocked you do not do the same.

It's unlawful to drive a car under the influence of alcohol not only because you might kill yourself, but also because you might kill other people too.

The case in point is closer to the goverment making you wearing your own seatbelt MANDATORY than it is ruling against driving under the influence.

I would make an exception in vaccination of really fast-spreading and deadly illments, but smallpox ain't it. For example, if we found the cure for AIDS I wouldn't be against third world countries having emergency mandatory shots for everybody, but even if not everybody got them, in a space of time of one or two generations the disease would be killed off anyway due to how many *have* got it as opposed to how many are vaccinated against it.

The best-case scenario is always to give people the reasoning tools to make their own choices for themselves. I don't see what's going on in america with this specific vaccination is doing that. It's in Texas (localized) somebody is profiting from it, some people may be in danger from it, and it's mandatory. It makes no sense.

You have to attend school up to a certain level, because it's mandatory that you have a basic insight in how different aspects of society work in order for you to vote, as a citizen in a democratic system.

You have a few obligations towards the state, and the state has a few obligations towards you. Basic school attendance is one of them. Possibly dying from side-effects of nebulous medicine is not.

The effect is probably about the same if you could hype your friends out and make them sit still and relaxed in a comfortable room without much light or distruction for 20 minutes I'd say. The high of sitting still!

I am not more significantly awake and active.

Okay, so you're serious.

If a drug possibly kills people, it should be administered to them if and only they are made aware of all possible side-effects and they still agree to take the medicine. If they're obligated to take a medicine that might do them harm, don't you see something wrong with that?

Mandatory vaccination is wrong because it violates the citizen's right to make their own decisions etc
There are numerous thing that people wouldn't do if it wasn't mandatory. It's naive to think that if everything was optional, people would always do what's best for them and their fellow humans. People are generally uneducated, uniformed and most of all lazy.

There are two things to be said about this: If humanity is predisposed towards stupidity, then who are you - or the goverment - to try to salvage them from their own predisposition? Do we really need a goverment to hold our hand when it comes to fundamental personal-rights issues like what you inject in your bloodstream? If someone wants to destroy themselves through negligence, so be it.

The goverment should try to educate and inform, not force the wellbeing of people.

Second issue is: if it is as you say and humans are stupid and make the wrong choices, then how does it [the mandatory supplying of shots] help to shift this paradigm from such, to humans being responsible? When was pro-activity, saneness and intelligence ever encouraged by other people making your choices for you?

The goverment should strive to make one's options known to them and then trust humanity to make a honest and informed judgement call. If they do not believe this is possible, they're not really a democratic goverment at all and should not be trusted not with our wellbeing to begin with.

If adverse side effects are so rare that they don't show up in the trial phase, chances are that they're negligible compared to the number of lives the vaccine is going to save because they don't get cancer.

You keep making these utilitarian ethics statements in this thread... I don't know how seriously I should take them. Please tell me.