You iz stupid. **Political Debate Thread**

[Rones]

Well I got busy with summer classes that started the other day and forgot about this thread. Looks like Cubs handled it pretty well though. If you wanted a serious discussion though, you don't raise 10 different arguments at once, maybe 2 or 3, but more than that is just silly. I'll gladly discuss a couple in depth, but I'm not going to waste time skimming over 10+ topics at the same time. So please pick out one or two discussions so we can go into some good depth on those.

 

[Falsey]

Guys I posted this as a joke, not as a political debate. Can I rename the thread? :lol:

 

[Mattaru]

War is one of the greatest means to control people with fear.

We are all human, we all think the same way, we can all change the way we think the same way. If you were an American, put in school and taught fundamentalism, than there would be alot more fanatics in America. Plain and simple. Its not about seperating, its about understanding why they think about the value systems they do think about. Every worldview, every extension of power is the same, it wants to achieve the same grasp of power to combat the insecurities that fear causes. We are not terrorists, there is a certain meaning in that word to us that we are not, but we are all insecure fear driven, power grabbing beings. Kind of a Nietzschean Will to Power thing.

When you hit a beehive, the bees become defensive and angry and strike back in full force, you can keep hitting it with a stick until you kill every bee in the hive, and have stings all over your body. Or you can look at the beehive and walk away. The problem with this analogy is that the Middle East in its entirity isnt a beehive, but if you keep beating it with a stick it can become one. If in the US, the former Soviet Union came in and decided to become the most influential force, do you think we would stand for it? No way in hell. We'd get pissed because our culture and way of life would be in danger. Its all a power struggle, and like the cold war it faces the possibility of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy through continued muscle building.

One of the safest ways, probably the only safe way of stopping the Middle East from really becoming a real threat is to support democracy, and help build civil society there, but we like to do it so obviously and so backwardly that the minority of fundamentalists use it as propaganda tools.

We look deeper into problems and fixing them sure, because now its apparent, but we still fix problems the same way we always have, which only starts something else. IE, if you read through that article, Saudi Arabia and the US used to fund religiously fanatical schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan to build fervor against the "godless communists".

If this is a game of defense and offense, you never have to worry about the other team getting points on the board if they have no reason to score.

Saddam Hussein maybe living the life of the average american now, sitting in a room in his underwear eating Doritos and Raisin Bran Crunch, but it isnt like when you get rid of one dictator another never comes back. A nation has to be able to check that themselves.

 

[Mattaru]

Well I got busy with summer classes that started the other day and forgot about this thread. Looks like Cubs handled it pretty well though. If you wanted a serious discussion though, you don't raise 10 different arguments at once, maybe 2 or 3, but more than that is just silly. I'll gladly discuss a couple in depth, but I'm not going to waste time skimming over 10+ topics at the same time. So please pick out one or two discussions so we can go into some good depth on those.

I think we've narrowed it down. Mainly on War on Terror and US foreign policy.


( i just remembered a friend of mine once ran a policy case that said US intervention was a weapon of mass destruction, the topic was about decreasing WMD proliferation or something lol)

 

[CubsWoo]

I don't think a beehive is the best way to describe the Middle East and Islamofacism in general. Unless you believe that if you walk away from the beehive, the bees won't just be satisfied with their current beehive and build another one on your front porch.

I tend to think of it as a leaky basement. A slow, relentless drip that seeks to envelop everything. Occasionally the foundation gets a bigger crack in it and you've gotta send the repairman to patch it. But if you've still got the constant drip, drip, drip, you're not going to ever have solved the problem. It's starting to show in some of the New Zealand/Central Europe thoughtcrime legislation being passed that makes it a criminal or civil offense to openly criticize Islam.

It's a matter of different beliefs. We want democracy worldwide because we believe in the base human right of freedom. They want the world to bow to Allah because they believe they are the ones to yoke the nonbelievers.

And let's be honest. No matter what America does, no matter how America does it, there's going to be people that are going to spin it to make us the Great Satan, because that's also human nature. And there's always a 'better the devil you know' angle to anything that happens. We defeated Hitler with the help of Communism, defeated Communism with the help of Islamofacism, and now that Islamofacism is becoming the paramount world problem, we're taking up nation building. The best part about this stage, I think, is that we aren't in the business to turn the Middle East into the 51st-55th states - far from it. I think that under democratic rule, the desert could bloom into a technology, culture, and center of life to rival the West. And I'd welcome it.

 

[Mattaru]

I think the leaky basement example is very pertinent. As it really strengthens my point about the "self fulfilling prophecy". A very good example would be the middle east in general. Isreal has nukes, it has US support, its "democratic" kind of. The reason this is, is because the rest of the middle east is not what it is and therefore a "threat", the rest of the middle east sees the capability of hostility from Isreal, so they build weapons, support terrorists, to counteract the threat. Soon the threat becomes very very real because of the fear and the mindset of threatening. The terrorists probably see us in the very same light, democracy is a leaky basement, dripping, dripping, taking over everything. Their (their can mean US or terrorists in this context) value system and their metaphysic is "threatened" so retaliation increases on both sides to the point where the percieved threat is an actual threat. The best way to maintain your value system and your way of life is to become invisible and never be threatening. People try to change others and make them right, this is the root of the problem. You cant make people right, you cant force them to be something, you can only convince them to try and change themselves.

There are always those that think we are the plague of the earth, but i t sure doesnt help when we go to their country and make them change their opinion. The best is when the majority of reasonable people in their own countries just laugh at them.

The beehive thing you brought up i see as sure some of them may decide to make a new beehive on our front door, but chances are if you arent beating the hell out of their other one, its going to be alot smaller and a lot less dangerous.

 

[Rones]

If in the US, the former Soviet Union came in and decided to become the most influential force, do you think we would stand for it? No way in hell. We'd get pissed because our culture and way of life would be in danger.

If the US was commiting genocide against our own people, the Soviet Union was going to leave us soverign, we had a cruel dicatorship before, and the quality of living would improve, I would welcome them. Culture isn't even a factor here. Culture isn't something governments have much control over. It is passed down through family teachings outside of all but the most extreme of governmental regulations.

Saudi Arabia and the US used to fund religiously fanatical schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan to build fervor against the "godless communists".

That wasn't under Bush. That was part of the old style to try to solve things with a very hands off method. Perhaps that wasn't the best way to go about it, but without hindsight vision it wouldn't look like such a bad plan. It is always easy to say something was obviously a mistake after the fact. Doctors can tell you this best. Give a doctor a list of symptoms and cause of death and they will say the problem was obvious. Just give him the symptoms and it suddenly isn't so obvious (part of some psychology experiements my class studied).

War is one of the greatest means to control people with fear.

War is a way to bring rapid change that would other wise take decades and possibly centuries of normal politcal reform. War doesn't control a population. A dictator can use military to intimidate a populace into submission (like Sadam), but the war itself has no control over the people. It is a last resort as it was with Iraq.

we like to do it so obviously and so backwardly that the minority of fundamentalists use it as propaganda tools.

Propaganda is called that for a reason. Anything can be made into proganda. Free medical aid to Africans is used as Propaganda against the US. Even if they had nothing, they could just make it up.

Now here is a question for you. If these fundaminalist terrorists are acting on simple responsive reasons, why do they blow up hospitals, power plants, schools, children? What possible reason could they have to justify killing so many uninvolved innocents? Don't try the cnn line of "They were collaberating with the enemy" as many of their targets had nothing to do with it other than being easy targets.

Guys I posted this as a joke, not as a political debate.

Political jokes spark political debates. :wink:

You cant make people right, you cant force them to be something, you can only convince them to try and change themselves.

I have yet to see a soldier force an Iraq to change his religious beliefs or stop praying to whatever he wants. We stopped a government from harming innocent people and possibly other countries and have installed a new government that can treat people better. This is in addition to all the humanitarian projects we have done there. Where does the Orwellian mind control come in?

 

[Mattaru]

If the US was commiting genocide against our own people, the Soviet Union was going to leave us soverign, we had a cruel dicatorship before, and the quality of living would improve, I would welcome them. Culture isn't even a factor here. Culture isn't something governments have much control over. It is passed down through family teachings outside of all but the most extreme of governmental regulations.

1. Yes, obviously the majority of people would welcome some sort of relief from oppression. Its pretty much a moot point though. The people we are discussing are all down for oppression, they would be pretty ticked if you ruined their sick fun. The point of the example is a change in ones lifestyle that you see nothing wrong with isnt going to take change in stride. If you do not like oppression, you are going to like to be freed from that state. Terrorists like being terrorists, they dont want your silly freedom, they want Allah. Even more so, if you dont like oppression, only you can bring yourself away from it, if you show you are willing to. Many nations can not do this alone I know, but what has to be understood is no nation that is built by the hands of another can be protected by the hands of the citizenry. When people look for rapid, radical change for themselves or for others, its bound to fail. It creates a power vacuum that often fills itself with the same oppressive regime. The idea behind nation building is to control the replacement of the power vacuum and create a stable democracy, the problem is that it is top-bottom, which isnt conducive to democracy. But once again, the example was pertaining to people who are not willing to change their way of life, not those that are.

2. Government does not really control culture i agree, it can be an effective tool of entrenching it though, and culture has a huge effect on government. First, government can entrench culture in a plurality of cultures in a nation. What better example than the division between the Sunni and Shi'a (shiite) muslims in the middle east. second, the differences between western and eastern democracies (eastern usually having a very distinct confucian leaning). Culture permeates all levels of society, so its never a non-issue.

That wasn't under Bush. That was part of the old style to try to solve things with a very hands off method. Perhaps that wasn't the best way to go about it, but without hindsight vision it wouldn't look like such a bad plan. It is always easy to say something was obviously a mistake after the fact. Doctors can tell you this best. Give a doctor a list of symptoms and cause of death and they will say the problem was obvious. Just give him the symptoms and it suddenly isn't so obvious (part of some psychology experiements my class studied).

The US is not very often hands off when it comes to foreign policy. I fail to see how such things as creating fundametalist schools in another nation is hands off, unless in comparison to things like Vietnam. The major shift between the old way and Bush's way is more direct, no doubt, neoconservative policy is meant to be direct, that in no way means its better. Sure my example may have not been Bush-specific, but there still exists a link between its purpose, which is to mold countries into buffers by making them change a certain way. The way i say is more beneficial molds countries too, yes, but its done through their own sovereignty, it isnt done by force which perpetuates the problem. And by that I do not mean forcing it on people that dont want it alone, I also mean by being the catalyst for rapid change in a top-bottom manner.

War is a way to bring rapid change that would other wise take decades and possibly centuries of normal politcal reform. War doesn't control a population. A dictator can use military to intimidate a populace into submission (like Sadam), but the war itself has no control over the people. It is a last resort as it was with Iraq.

War is generally the last resort in almost any case, at least it is percieved as the last resort. I'm not a pacifist persay, but only fight a battle that is necessary to fight....Sun tzu -esque of me huh? People often want rapid change, but as i've said many of them are not ready for it, and it leads to disaster, ie French Revolution. The reason that political reform takes time is intuitive really, compare it to economics (contrary to me saying intuitive lol), a new product that is cheap and much better than an older product is generally a good thing for the economy, but if it floods the market old industry cant recover and there is no time to adjust, which is why it is more beneficial to phase in such products and industries.

War is the mobilization of citizens by the government to combat another nation or force. On face, most people dont see the War in Iraq or the War on Terror a big factor in society, because hell there isnt a draft and they are still at home. But there is a reason the defense budget is so huge, and there are so many defense contracts........But what about control? Any war that is fought requires the control over the members who fight, not like brainwashing mind you, but they must believe there is a threat, there must exist a fear to be manipulated to get them to fight. Not that the fear isnt always real, thats not the point, even if it is real it has to be applied to the fear of the citizens. It has to cause a realization of change that is not wanted.

Propaganda is called that for a reason. Anything can be made into proganda. Free medical aid to Africans is used as Propaganda against the US. Even if they had nothing, they could just make it up.

Now here is a question for you. If these fundaminalist terrorists are acting on simple responsive reasons, why do they blow up hospitals, power plants, schools, children? What possible reason could they have to justify killing so many uninvolved innocents? Don't try the cnn line of "They were collaberating with the enemy" as many of their targets had nothing to do with it other than being easy targets.

1. Sure. It hasnt been refuted that current policy doesnt fuel that fire. You are probably saying its really insignificant because they will make stuff up anyway. Propaganda is effective, its a lot more effective when you are doing things that drives the propaganda out in the open like i said. The way to stop propaganda's effect is to actually have people understand one another, even in iraq and the middle east there are people that experience the good things america has to offer them, but there are also plenty of people who see the all to human side of our nation and are satisfied in hating us. Its a two way street really, it can go either way, its all about minimizing one and maximizing the other. This can be done through fruitful interaction or no interaction if it cant be beneficial.

2. If you make a people think they are never safe by attacking anything and everything, they will do it. Terrorists may be acting under simple responsive motivation but the way they respond is not so simple, people are going to fear you much more if they can make you never feel safe.

I have yet to see a soldier force an Iraq to change his religious beliefs or stop praying to whatever he wants. We stopped a government from harming innocent people and possibly other countries and have installed a new government that can treat people better. This is in addition to all the humanitarian projects we have done there. Where does the Orwellian mind control come in?

1. Once again, I'm not saying people that do not have a problem with democracy and the US are being forced into anything oppressive such as the curtailing of the right to religious expression. We dont ask terrorists to change their religion, we ask them to not force others to practice their religion, we ask them to act respectively and morally in accordance with our western-democratic metaphysic. I'm sorry but you are twisting my words. I say you cant force people to be a certain way, you cant force terrorists to be good, you cant force a population to be democratic, you can try to teach them and if they are willing to learn then thats cool. If the War in Iraq is this teaching, once again i say its top-bottom teaching which doesnt work and leaves them open to a new dictator. btw, we stopped a religiously/ethnically affiliated dictatorship from exerting power on the other religious/ethnic majorities/minorities, while opening the door for more religious/ethnic oppression under a different name. It isnt as simple as take out government.

2. I'm confused by the whole new "government" + "any verb" thing.

3. Humanitarian projects......so how is this responsive to what I was quoted saying. Thats pretty much a tacked on happy thing, look we are doing good things! I dont want to be abrasive, but I'm not trying to play good guy/bad guy, and adding in something that isnt responsive and is just a nice thing to do really doesnt have a whole lot of impact in the discussion at hand, besides making me out to be a bad, insensitive person.

4. The mind control bit. I don't think its any secret that the people in power do not always tell the "truth", because sometimes that isnt very conducive to their agenda. Thats all I'm saying, people in power will lie to the public to get political capital so they can do what they want. Democrats and Republicans do it......You make it out to be like I'm talking paranoid science fiction, really im saying that the government doesnt often tell the truth or the whole truth to its citizens so they can maintain power. Its not something taboo or way out there, its the status quo.

 

[Rones]

I'm having a lot of trouble following just where you are going with your argument. You seem to say we are right for one thing and turn around and say it is wrong for this. Just for example:

One of the safest ways, probably the only safe way of stopping the Middle East from really becoming a real threat is to support democracy, and help build civil society there

We removed a genocidial leader and in place of the power vacuum we encouraged democracy. We then try to build civil society like you say, but then you go on to say we are trying to wrongfully impose our culture of what is good and bad on them.

Keep in mind, there are some rights and wrongs that go beyond cultural boundries. Murder, genocide, killing of innocents is not just wrong because of my western cultural upbringing. Just think of 1984, ingorance kept them from knowing they were being abused. You can not protect all wrongs simply because they are part of a culture otherwise you get stuck in saying canibalistic cultures are no better than Mother Teresa's beliefs. You have to draw the line some place, there are some things you can not write off as acceptable simply because they are part of the culture. Just think of southern culture in early 1800s, slavery was wrong and should not be protected just because it was part of their culture.

The people we are discussing are all down for oppression, they would be pretty ticked if you ruined their sick fun

I disagree with that. I go under the ideal that the majority of people would choose freedom and rights over a cruel dictatorship. This is something you get into a lot in philosophical classes about utilitarinism and such. People can achieve a higher level of happiness being free, whether they realize it or not. In addition, the happiness from free future generations will far outweigh the unhappiness expereinced by those caught up in a transition out of dictatorship.

I fail to see how such things as creating fundametalist schools in another nation is hands off,

Hands off as in we do not have military forces assaulting them, blocking their trade, or being openly offensive against them. Bosnia was hands off that became hands on when we air striked them for example.

Any war that is fought requires the control over the members who fight, not like brainwashing mind you, but they must believe there is a threat, there must exist a fear to be manipulated to get them to fight.

People fight for many different reasons. Fear is one for some, but not all. Many fight to try to improve things. Others like terrorists fight due to ignorance and following of propaganda they have been feed.

3. Humanitarian projects......so how is this responsive to what I was quoted saying

It is perfectly responsive. You said we can't force them to change which is correct, but we can show them a better way and let them decide. These humanitarian projects serve as a good example to hopefully change their perspectives. Why do you think we rebuild any country we attack? To improve their perception of us and point them in the right direction. They get to decide which way they travel from there.

 

[Mattaru]

I'm having a lot of trouble following just where you are going with your argument. You seem to say we are right for one thing and turn around and say it is wrong for this. Just for example:

One of the safest ways, probably the only safe way of stopping the Middle East from really becoming a real threat is to support democracy, and help build civil society there

We removed a genocidial leader and in place of the power vacuum we encouraged democracy. We then try to build civil society like you say, but then you go on to say we are trying to wrongfully impose our culture of what is good and bad on them.

Keep in mind, there are some rights and wrongs that go beyond cultural boundries. Murder, genocide, killing of innocents is not just wrong because of my western cultural upbringing. Just think of 1984, ingorance kept them from knowing they were being abused. You can not protect all wrongs simply because they are part of a culture otherwise you get stuck in saying canibalistic cultures are no better than Mother Teresa's beliefs. You have to draw the line some place, there are some things you can not write off as acceptable simply because they are part of the culture. Just think of southern culture in early 1800s, slavery was wrong and should not be protected just because it was part of their culture.

The point that got missed in here is the "top-bottom" argument. Basically, making a democracy from starting at the top, and not the bottom, which isnt conducive to democracy because it relies on social pillars to sustain it aka strong civil society. The status quo in nation building is flawed for that reason.

About force: the distinction I'm making is implanting a democracy top-bottom requires force, it requires that people conform to the rules that have been set by the implanting force, even if it appears beneficial, it is in itself undemocratic, and thats why it will fail to stand. Versus a bottom-top approach which allows nations to choose to implant their own democracy and choose to build the civil society necessary. Democracies are not made by other nations, they are created by a nation itself.

I could make very good arguments for relativism, but it would lead us no where, which is kind of the point. And it would be ridiculously long and ridiculously boring to read. The problem with relativistic argumentation is that there is no meeting ground on which to discuss practical things....only who's metaphysic is more awesome, which would go no where really. I'll agree with you instead and say there are base things that are inherently moral (you mention utilitarians later on, i know Bentham would disagree...). Even so, it only makes sense to force people to be held culpable when they cross that boundary, which sure Saddam did, the problem is who is responsible for holding him accountable, the US? Why?

And where exactly is the bright line of what is absolutely undeniablely ok? Who creates it? Do we? Is it the terrorist who believe Allah is the ultimate morality and truth? Now it is easy to see why that argument has such a slippery slope.

I disagree with that. I go under the ideal that the majority of people would choose freedom and rights over a cruel dictatorship. This is something you get into a lot in philosophical classes about utilitarinism and such. People can achieve a higher level of happiness being free, whether they realize it or not. In addition, the happiness from free future generations will far outweigh the unhappiness expereinced by those caught up in a transition out of dictatorship.

In these philosphy classes you probably heard about a guy named Nietzsche. Nietzsche would agree, the only way to be happy is to be free and make yourself into your own work of art, but he also explains the idea of the Will to Power and/or master/slave morality. Basically, terrorists (and basically anyone else who asserts a moral code) wish to exert the truth they believe as a tool to gain power and further their beliefs, to do so requires oppression of dissenting opinions. Those at risk of the oppression create counter moralities in order to maintain power or gain power so they may live life freely. The terrorists like oppression because it enhances their freedom, it removes constraints, freedom is a good thing in society only if it is controlled....or else its a trump over everyone. That is why I say they are all down for oppression and they dont want to change, versus the oppressed who want change because it increases their freedom. btw Nietzsche doesnt assign moral weight to either system really, but as i said, he encourages us to make ourselves into our own work of art......

The only reason we put weight on future generations is the instinct to further our race. Logically it makes no sense otherwise to extend what does not exist rights. Not that its a bad thing, I want my children to live in a better world if and when i have them, its my instinct.

Hands off as in we do not have military forces assaulting them, blocking their trade, or being openly offensive against them. Bosnia was hands off that became hands on when we air striked them for example.

Ok, but it doesnt mean that the US has completely relied on hands on or hands off in the past or the present. Maybe their has been a shift, I really am not so knowledgable to make a judgement either way, I just know that the specific cases we talk about arent always productive, some are of course, but the ones that arent sure know how to come back and bite us in the ass.

People fight for many different reasons. Fear is one for some, but not all. Many fight to try to improve things. Others like terrorists fight due to ignorance and following of propaganda they have been feed.

Fear is the motivating factor behind all of it though, unless you are like enlightened, but then again youd probably not worry about anything and be completely comfortable with the present. If you want to improve the current situation its because you fear it will continue if you do nothing. If you are a terrorist you fear the danger the western world poses to the worldview that ignorance and propaganda feeds.

It is perfectly responsive. You said we can't force them to change which is correct, but we can show them a better way and let them decide. These humanitarian projects serve as a good example to hopefully change their perspectives. Why do you think we rebuild any country we attack? To improve their perception of us and point them in the right direction. They get to decide which way they travel from there.

Ok, thats fine. But if that is one aspect that I dont proclude then wheres the problem?

 

[Rones]

the distinction I'm making is implanting a democracy top-bottom requires force, it requires that people conform to the rules that have been set by the implanting force, even if it appears beneficial, it is in itself undemocratic, and thats why it will fail to stand. Versus a bottom-top approach which allows nations to choose to implant their own democracy and choose to build the civil society necessary. Democracies are not made by other nations, they are created by a nation itself.

You lost me on this. You don't like top bottom when it is from an outside force. Yet, you also don't like bottom-top when it is from a revolution like the French revolution. Even our own democracy formed from a revolution which you say is bad. I can't think of many (if any) successful modern democracy's that did not result from warfare or combat. There also have been many successful democracy's created by the US's top-down approach. In addition, time is not always on your side when trying to bring freedom from a totalitarian government. I don't think the Jews wanted to wait for slow political reform to remove Hitler's regime. Same situation in Iraq. Just like with the Jews in WWII, there are Iraqis who fleed their homeland begging the US to quickly free them from their government who was commiting genocide against it's own people.

you mention utilitarians later on, i know Bentham would disagree....

Funny, considering Bentham was a utilitarian who just added some stricter rules.

the problem is who is responsible for holding him accountable, the US? Why?

Who ever is able. Same situation as WWII. We didn't have need to go to Germany, but it was for the better all if we did. We didn't have to go into Iraq, but this is better than if we sat by and did nothing. Inaction to stop a wrong of this level when you have the ability to do something about it is just as guilty. This is even in many state laws (on a smaller scale). If you see a person in need of medical care and do not try to aid them in any form, you are guilty.

The terrorists like oppression because it enhances their freedom, it removes constraints, freedom is a good thing in society only if it is controlled....or else its a trump over everyone. That is why I say they are all down for oppression and they dont want to change, versus the oppressed who want change because it increases their freedom.

I've had a good number of philosophy, ethics, and psychology courses and never ran across a Neitz before. I looked him up briefly on google though. Anyway, as for the terrorists liking oppression, I still don't understand how you can argue that. How is it enhancing their freedom more than actual freedom? How does it remove more constraints than actually being free? Sure total freedom to the extreme is chaos and anarchy, but the US military certainly isn't going that far. It sounds like you are saying the power of the slave masters takes priority over the freedom and happiness of the slaves? Just because you control people doesn't make you free either.

The only reason we put weight on future generations is the instinct to further our race.

Unless you have utilitarian beliefs which is the whole reason I made that point. :wink: From a utilitarian stand point, sacrificing some of your happiness to greatly improve the happiness of future generatiosn (those just born for example who do exist) is the right thing to do. There is more to humans than mere instinct.

I just know that the specific cases we talk about arent always productive, some are of course, but the ones that arent sure know how to come back and bite us in the ass.

You never hear about the 100 missions that go right, only the 1 that goes wrong. That's our beloved media. :lol:

Fear is the motivating factor behind all of it though

Again, humans are more than instincts with a bit of intelligence thrown in. This is something that comes with understanding your own humanity. Not all actions are driven by fear. Think of how you would act if you knew their would be no reprecussions (fear) like arrest and death. Would you go on a mad killing and looting spree, or continue to live a (mostly) peaceful life. Greater happiness can be achieved by mutual cooperation, thus people are motivated to be good not out of fear but rather a desire to be happy. Many of the terrorists kill themselves out of ignorance in the belief that is what allah wants them to do and that it will make the lives for their loved ones better. They are just mistaken.

This is getting long and really branched. You mentioned part of your argument was missed and that's probably due to how long and wordy the posts are becoming. :lol:

 

[Panda]

damnit falsey look what you did.



This is a really interesting conversation guys. I have to say that I agree with points from all sides, and its really made me rethink a lot of my positions on things. I'll post more later.

 

[Mattaru]

You lost me on this. You don't like top bottom when it is from an outside force. Yet, you also don't like bottom-top when it is from a revolution like the French revolution. Even our own democracy formed from a revolution which you say is bad. I can't think of many (if any) successful modern democracy's that did not result from warfare or combat. There also have been many successful democracy's created by the US's top-down approach. In addition, time is not always on your side when trying to bring freedom from a totalitarian government. I don't think the Jews wanted to wait for slow political reform to remove Hitler's regime. Same situation in Iraq. Just like with the Jews in WWII, there are Iraqis who fleed their homeland begging the US to quickly free them from their government who was commiting genocide against it's own people.

The bottom-top, top-bottom thing: There is a unique difference between the French and American Revolution. The American Revolution was only able to take place because Great Britian pretty much gave them freedom, land, time, the ability to govern themselves pre- French-Indian War. Afterwards, Britian became more involved in the affairs of the colonies and decided to be the greater sovereign power instead of the more provincial governments in place (another reason why the Articles of Confederation were popular at first, because the colonies were more accustomed to state government). The French Revolution I will not pretend to be an expert on, but it was not top-bottom, that is correct, there were members on all levels of society. The issue with the French Revolution, is that even though they did have a legistative system, it was highly segregated by class, and divided between radicals and reactionaries. Its problem was the lack of political maturity that a functioning democracy requires. No matter which approach was taken. In many middle eastern nations there is mean and women more than capable of being leaders in a democracy. The people themselves are often disempowered from government and social change (besides....terrorists) so democracy is something radically different that they have to become accustomed to participating in and protecting.

In World War II the goal wasnt nation building, one of the goals was destroying facism, yes, but no one would have given a shit if they were just being facists in there own borders (and I hate to say it, the US probably wouldnt have acted in the face of the Holocaust, espescially when I think it was the Sec. of State was anti-semitic). Swift change was necessary to save Europe, not "Operation German Freedom".

The whole idea with genocide I'll cover a little later, and no one is probably going to like what I say, yet its from Locke who pretty much is the reason the government is what it is.

I can think of the succesful democracies being maybe Germany and Japan? Japan is probably the hardest one against me, Germany is/was pretty knowledgable in the first place for democracy, so yeah. I'm not an expert on Japanese democracy/republic today or since we constructed it. It appears to work well, I'm not going to question that. Keep in both of these examples took a lot of time and resources.

Funny, considering Bentham was a utilitarian who just added some stricter rules.

Bentham is a cranky old man: "The concept of human rights is nonsense, nonsense on stilts." I'm just saying the last thing Bentham would claim is that people have a right to anything.

Who ever is able. Same situation as WWII. We didn't have need to go to Germany, but it was for the better all if we did. We didn't have to go into Iraq, but this is better than if we sat by and did nothing. Inaction to stop a wrong of this level when you have the ability to do something about it is just as guilty. This is even in many state laws (on a smaller scale). If you see a person in need of medical care and do not try to aid them in any form, you are guilty.

This is where I want to find Peter Singer, a small animal, and eat it alive in front of him. Its the "child drowning in a fountain and you can swim scenario".

No nation, besides under its own sovereign decision, has the obligation to act for another nation. Yes, I'm saying that no nation is obligated to stop a genocide, straight up, I won't hide it, and here is why.
1-A nation is a conglomerate of people who exchange some freedoms to have other freedoms protected by other citizens and a governing body. IE I give up my freedom to hit you in the face with a rock in order to have my right to life protected. Thus, reciprocal obligations are created: i can do what i want with my property as long as it does not infringe on someone elses use of their property, because they have the same right as I (the closest utilitarian equivalent would probably be Mill's Harm Principle).
2- As this exchange occurs only between members of the nation-state, obligations only exist between members on a social level. This does not proclude individual moral beliefs AS long as those beliefs do not conflict with their societal obligations, if they wish to maintain those beliefs, thats ok, but you must submit to due recourse. In context, someone's moral beliefs may tell them that totalitarian rule in Iraq is immoral, but this in no way makes the society obligated to act if it could possibly harm their citizens more than help. IE wmd's in iraq was the first reason that we went to Iraq, because that posed a threat to americans/ american interest in israel, but no one found any wmd's......so we might as well be huminitarian, yet everytime a soldier dies in an act that doesnt bring justifiable benefit to the US (please someone say oil is the reason to justify the war, it would make me laugh so hard) then the society and government is ignoring its obligation to not needlessly put someone's life in harms way. Sure they are a soldier, thats their job, but last time i checked we dont put soldiers in pointless danger. They are mobilized to protect the liberties of US citizens.
3- To create an obligation not interdependent on the will of the people is to deny the purpose of democracy.

Now, if the US makes a sovereign decision and understand that they are exchanging their liberties for the benefit of some people in another nation, ok fine have fun. Then the government isnt obligated to stop a genocide persay, its obligated to do what its people ask....which happens to be stop a genocide, it could as easily be a tax hike.

And if "we're all indelibly linked towards one another in a brother/sisterhood of man/woman and any injustice is an injustice to us all" then sure we are bound to act, and every single one of us is probably immoral, even Mother Theresa who by her own admission would have never helped the poor if she didnt think it would help them convert. But I'd like to know why exactly that is.

I know this sounds very cynical, and flat out morally repugnant, but everytime you pledge allegiance you say the same thing, you just dont know it. What I said is pretty much basic social contract theory of Locke which is the major philosophical building block of our nation.....and there is a dash of communitarianism in there too.

I've had a good number of philosophy, ethics, and psychology courses and never ran across a Neitz before. I looked him up briefly on google though. Anyway, as for the terrorists liking oppression, I still don't understand how you can argue that. How is it enhancing their freedom more than actual freedom? How does it remove more constraints than actually being free? Sure total freedom to the extreme is chaos and anarchy, but the US military certainly isn't going that far. It sounds like you are saying the power of the slave masters takes priority over the freedom and happiness of the slaves? Just because you control people doesn't make you free either.

Well, it would depend on what philosophy courses you took I suppose. Nietzsche (along w/ Marx probably) is one of the main influences in 20th century philosophy. From existentialism to postmodernism.

I dont think i get the "freedom vs actual freedom" part. Its not like being free of constraints to act is categorized into like "Arrowhead Mountain Spring Freedom" and "Tap Freedom" with "Pur Freedom" in the middle. When other people's freedoms are curtailed it gives you as the curtailer greater freedom to act because it reduces the capability and/or likelihood of the opressed to curtail your freedom, to check your actions. For instance, a tyrannical government is able to act without constraint because it has reduced the freedom of its members to the point where they can not check their actions.

The point of the whole master/slave binary is to show that morality is a construct created in order to increase power, and thats it. I am saying that the priority of freedom and happiness belongs to those that act to get it. The slaves do not act thus they are slaves, the masters act thus they are masters. Democracy gives everyone the power to be a master, but curtails their power to easily make others the slaves. Thats why freedom is much more prevalent in democracy. Thats why the hierarchies in democratic societies are more fluid.

Unless you have utilitarian beliefs which is the whole reason I made that point. From a utilitarian stand point, sacrificing some of your happiness to greatly improve the happiness of future generatiosn (those just born for example who do exist) is the right thing to do. There is more to humans than mere instinct.

Now, I greatly respect J.S. Mill a truly brilliant man, and Hume is alright, but I'm no utilitarian. To me its the most impractical practical philosophy. Its premised on achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number, but thats almost impossible to do because there are a few staple things that make everyone happy but then its just anything you could imagine for different people, and even more so it requires that the actor be able to look into the future and know that it will work because it is a teleological philosphical framework versus a deontological.

The human mind has odd ways of rationalizing instinct..... :wink:

Again, humans are more than instincts with a bit of intelligence thrown in. This is something that comes with understanding your own humanity. Not all actions are driven by fear. Think of how you would act if you knew their would be no reprecussions (fear) like arrest and death. Would you go on a mad killing and looting spree, or continue to live a (mostly) peaceful life. Greater happiness can be achieved by mutual cooperation, thus people are motivated to be good not out of fear but rather a desire to be happy. Many of the terrorists kill themselves out of ignorance in the belief that is what allah wants them to do and that it will make the lives for their loved ones better. They are just mistaken.

This is getting long and really branched. You mentioned part of your argument was missed and that's probably due to how long and wordy the posts are becoming.

I havent taken psych, but I'm sure they have mentioned how instinct and emotion can overcome logic.

No, not all actions are driven by fear, but generally the more drastic ones are driven by fear and anxiety. If their were no constraints I'd probably do what I do most any other day, and live in accordance with my value system. It doesnt mean the drunkard up my block would do the same....and its not like people knowing there are no constraints would not be afraid of that kind of person.

The not by fear, but by happiness part is kind of a two way street or a glass half full/empty thing. Kind of like an Epicurean pain and pleasure principle that utilitarians modified, people seek the greatest pleasure (which epicurus defined quite specifically mind you) and to reduce pain. Pleasure means you are generally not in danger, from physical, mental and emotional pain, and pain is a deprivation of pleasure. What im getting at i guess is its the same with fear and happiness, being happy means you are not fearful, so to want to be happy is to want to be rid of fear, yet fear is the deprivation of happiness.

So if terrorists do what they do because they think it will be a better world, apply what i just said here. But yeah, they are most likely mistaken anyway.

I cant stop myself from being comprehensive >.>;.

 

[Mattaru]

double post...

 

[Rones]

Crap Matt, get to the point with less words. :shock: :x This is going to take while.

 

[Taurothar]

Impressive text-wall... did you need an encyclopedia?

 

[Mattaru]

Crap Matt, get to the point with less words. :shock: :x This is going to take while.

Man.....im having flashbacks from AP lang haha! Sorry >.<. Im at home sick so i have a lot of time >.>;.

Impressive text-wall... did you need an encyclopedia?

No. Unlike a lot of people I actually use my education, and enjoyed educating myself.

 

[Rones]

Germany and Japan were both created Top to bottom by the allies after WWII.

No nation, besides under its own sovereign decision, has the obligation to act for another nation. Yes, I'm saying that no nation is obligated to stop a genocide, straight up, I won't hide it, and here is why.

If it doesn't affect you, who cares? That has got us into so many messes. Just for example, the saying: Who will stand when they take the blacks away? Who will stand when they take the Jews away? Who will stand when they take the Asians away? Who will be left to stand when they come to take me away? If you never stand up for others, who is going to help stand up for you when you need it? That was the same reason WWII got so bad. We didn't care when the Axis took all those countries, and no one stood up for them. But when the Axis came for us, there weren't many left to stand up to them. The earlier you stop these things, the better it will be for everyone.

Helping these other countries can help us. Stoping tyrants before they spread benefits you in your safe, quiet suburban home whether you realize it or not. If you had psychology, you would encounter something called learned helplessness. When people are put through pain with no ability to stop it themselves, they come to accept their fate. Later when they do have a chance to relieve themselves from this pain, they will not act because they have a percieved helplessness. This is because they have poor sense of their locus of control.

The point of the whole master/slave binary is to show that morality is a construct created in order to increase power, and thats it

I couldn't disagree more. Morality is made to help people live happy and productive lives in a society. Some radical religious clerics wield a skewed version of morality to gain influence and power, but that is wrong (I realize that's a morale call too). Morality's main purpose is to teach us how to live our lives...together.

I am saying that the priority of freedom and happiness belongs to those that act to get it. The slaves do not act thus they are slaves, the masters act thus they are masters.

That is a very cruel statement, and that means a lot coming from someone like me who is usually called cold. Just because someone has power and control, does not justify it nor justify their mistreatment of others.

When people have a high feeling of their locus of control, their self efficacy improves. This makes for happier more preductive people. A feeling freedom (not to the point of anarchy) and self control makes people happier and live more productive lives. People who have a low locas of control have difficulty feeling competent in tasks they would other wise excel at, have low self efficacy, and develop learned helplessness.

Its premised on achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number, but thats almost impossible to do because there are a few staple things that make everyone happy but then its just anything you could imagine for different people, and even more so it requires that the actor be able to look into the future and know that it will work because it is a teleological philosphical framework versus a deontological.

Sure you can't know everything or predict the future of what will actually make someone happy. That is why you just act to the best of your abilities for what you think will have the highest chance of a good outcome. It really comes down to a judgement call. If you act toward that goal, no one should hold it against you when things don't work out quite right.

No, not all actions are driven by fear, but generally the more drastic ones are driven by fear and anxiety

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs would agree with you, but like me say there is much more too it. Yes, our basest desire is safety, avoidence of fear, and self preservation. Yet, after achieving that goal there are higher motivations for all of us.

Now for a few reply questions. Why do you think people do volunteer work? Why do people help random strangers they see on the street with no visible future benefit for themselves down the line? Would you let a stranger cross a bridge about to collapse who doesn't realize it? Would you at least warn him of the danger and let him make an informed decision? Would you give up your life to save a stranger's life in another country? To save 100?

 

[Raesvelg]

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke

To be honest, Burke has a lot of quotes that readily apply to the given political situation in the US and Iraq.

In regards to Top-Down imposition of societal change: It can work. But it requires a long term occupying presence by those that want the change. And I mean LONG term. 20 years or so would not be an unrealistic number for us to maintain at least some level of garrison presence in Iraq. 30 years would be better. Ideally, you want enough time for the younger generations to come into positions of power while being accustomed to the new structure of society. And most importantly, to be educated, preferably by the occupying force.

In regards to Bottom-Up change: It's trickier than you think. The French Revolution in part was such a shambles because the people knew enough to want to be "free", but had no idea what that entailed. The former USSR is and has been going through much the same process. The US had the advantage of a certain measure of self-governance in advance, but more importantly we had the advantage of a mindset of personal and societal responsibility.

In regards to "learned helplessness": I loathe jargon, no offense. There's a word for that: Despair. And despair, well, despair can actually motivate people sometimes. Just the right amount of despair, toss in some prejudice, season lightly with hatred, and put it all on the stove to simmer, and you wind up with your average Palestinian suicide bomber.

As far as fear as a motivating factor goes.... True. Fear works. Extremely well in fact. Especially if you're manipulating a populace that is inherently ignorant. "The Americans are coming to take your babies and eat them" was one used in Africa, along with the "The Americans are giving shots to people to sterilize them", and a few others. Mostly aimed to prevent the vaccination of children against disease. The trick is to educate the populace, teach them to question authority in a rational fashion. Of course, along the way, fear is a useful tool in achieving the very goal of teaching people to fear logically. Odd as that may be.

The occupying forces in WWII had certain advantages that we will not permit our forces to have today. Quite frankly, for the most part they were permitted to do VASTLY more "insensitive" things. If partisans/terrorists/resistance fighters are hiding in temple... blow it up. Confiscate the swords, strip the Samurai of their honor. Blow up anything associated with the Nazis, and crack down HARD on anyone seen to be sympathetic.

Part of the problem we're facing in Iraq is the unfortunate sense of Islam as a larger community. So terrorists are given free rein to hide in mosques, etc, etc. Instead of blowing up the mosque, we have to engage in lengthy "sieges", and ultimately let some number of them go rather than damage a "priceless cultural artifact".

My personal feelings on Iraq and the Middle East in general... Well. I believe the quote I got from a friend once went along the lines of this: "Muzzle your dogs. Or we'll do it for you." Terrorism persists because of the support of the society. And, to be brutally honest, despite how horrible they think we are, they have NO IDEA what the US military is in fact capable of. We could, if we so desired, pick a city a week and obliterate it without ever indulging in nuclear weapons. JDAM packages on FAE bombs, dropped from high altitude against a fully supressed target. Paint a nice little grid, destroy everything above ground. Come back the next day with ground penetrating bombs and dig craters everywhere, destroying the utilities that support the city from below. Then send one last flight over with persistent cluster munitions, and do the equivalent of "salting the earth". Rinse, repeat. If we wanted to be the "Great Satan", we could do a hell of a job of it, no pun intended. And frankly, I'm tempted to do exactly that, at least once. Fly over to Iran, and destroy it from the air. Don't bother sending in troops to occupy, just bomb it back to the stone age. Turn an entire country into a giant object lesson.

And THAT is why so many 3rd world dictators are desperately striving to attain nuclear status. Because despite the propaganda that they're feeding their people, they know that the US military is frighteningly surgical in their operations. And they're worried that if they push too hard, we might decide to change our minds on how to prosecute wars.

We're faced with an ugly situation in many corners of the world. As technology increases, wealth increases in many ways, and certain things become attainable. Namely, nuclear armament. It wouldn't be too far a stretch to say that we're in a race against the clock to, pardon the expression, civilize the Middle East. We're looking at a situation in the next 20-40 years where nuclear weapons are liable to find their way into the hands of fanatics unless we act NOW. And the easiest way to act, oddly enough, is to do something roughly like what's been done in Iraq, and make sure that it's done right. Create a stable democracy in the middle east, one with wealth, power, and the ability to attract people who want freedom, and do it all while not treading too heavily on Islam.

 

[Rones]

In regards to "learned helplessness": I loathe jargon, no offense. There's a word for that: Despair. And despair, well, despair can actually motivate people sometimes. Just the right amount of despair, toss in some prejudice, season lightly with hatred, and put it all on the stove to simmer, and you wind up with your average Palestinian suicide bomber.

I took the term straight from my psychology book. There have been many experiments done on animals and humans to show just how true this sad state is. Our teacher even did it to us in class. She gave everyone in the class a few word puzzles, but the trick was 1/2 the class got solveable ones and others got impossible ones (I was with these). After spending 10 mins on it, half the class was done and the other half was frustrated we couldn't do any. Now she puts one last one on the board of moderate difficulty. 1 person got it from my half while most of the other half solved it. We had been taught we were 'helpless' in the situation and had a lower self efficacy. Thus we gave up an actually solveable problem.

Another study involved giving dogs weak, but irrating shocks they could not escape. After a while the dogs gave up and accepted the shocks. Then they were placed in a situation where they could actually escape the shocks, but they did nothing because they had learned helplessness. However, the control dogs which hadn't gone through the forced shocks quickly and easily escaped. Same situation with people under many dictaroships, they can't do anything for themselves for so long that when the opportunity arrises they fail to seize it. That is why outside help is needed.