Can we kick some real terrorist ass please?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by elijah


Politically, its significant, tactically and materially, it has not affected America. It has only caused an emotional and political reaction, which is irrelevant. To that I can only say "get over it".

That is quite a big nonsense.

[Whaleboy]

I'm eagerly awaiting the flamefest that will come to you. You sure would have deserved it.

yes. I'm taking bets on the first person to accuse me of being an Al Qaeda sympathiser . Still, to the simple minded, I must appear as that, so I suppose I was asking for it.

[Whaleboy]

That is quite a big nonsense.

And an enormous pile of rubble. All other effects are indirect, and only directly attributable to the US.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
He would be a centrist in the US political system. Whether that contradicts your claim, I leave to you.

No he wouldn't. He would be considered an extreme right wing kook.

[Az]

Originally posted by elijah


yes. I'm taking bets on the first person to accuse me of being an Al Qaeda sympathiser . Still, to the simple minded, I must appear as that, so I suppose I was asking for it.

Why is there something wrong with Al Qaida?

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by The diplomat


No he wouldn't. He would be considered an extreme right wing kook.

Based on things like not advocating the death penalty, being quite liberal on homosexuality etc? Sure.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Azazel

Why is there something wrong with Al Qaida?

Don´t get me started on their beards!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by molly bloom



You'll notice the examples I gave referred to a wider spectrum than a simplistic 'illogical Liberal-v-rational Conservative' spectrum. The idea that conservatives have an exclusively rational approach to politics is very funny indeed.

It's also very amusing you choose to use 'liberal' to encompass everything from some person's concern over older citizens eating pet food to hard core environmentalists- some of whom would not take kindly to being called liberals. As for today's conservatives not being racist- could you tell Jorg Haider?

There are bad conservatives and bad liberals. The qualities of conservatives or liberals in general is not an argument for or against the policies of someone who happens to be in one of those groups. It's even worse than ad hominem - you are attacking him based on people that can be put in a category that he can also be put in. See the illogic in that, elijah?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by elijah
yes. I'm taking bets on the first person to accuse me of being an Al Qaeda sympathiser . Still, to the simple minded, I must appear as that, so I suppose I was asking for it.

There is a nuance between being an AQ sympathiser, and telling the Yanks to shut up and forget about their worst trauma.
To some extent, what you have just said would somehow equate saying "get over the holocaust already" to the Jews in 1948

[Whaleboy]

To some extent, what you have just said would somehow equate saying "get over the holocaust already" to the Jews in 1948

It would have prevented a hell of a lot of problems. I understand that such terrible things happen, but they cannot be used to justify irrational, illogical and ultimately counter-productive knee jerk reactions, as is the case today. Admittedly, the Israel issue is somewhat different and far more complex than mere economic and politic need for war.

Dont get me wrong though, I'd be the first person to disagree with Al Qaeda, and in no way approve of terrorism. As I have said before, I merely understand it.

Don´t get me started on their beards!

See the illogic in that, elijah?

If the position of the arguer is synonymous with that of a group he can be associated with, then it is not illogical to attack the position of that group where it is relevant to the debate. Nothing that is beyond that has occured here.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by elijah


Politically, its significant, tactically and materially, it has not affected America. It has only caused an emotional and political reaction, which is irrelevant. To that I can only say "get over it".



Logic dictates different levels of logic. One level might appear pragmatic, a small scale thing where conservatism triumphs. In the larger contexts (the environment as opposed to a few fish), the logic of the liberal and environmentalist in this case is stronger. Same situation here.



Indeed, thats what I hate. I prefer it when all stick to rationality and logic, but then, I do work on the conceptual level so I suppose I'm biased against that.

sorry man we're not spok. ur dry detached academia might have led u to believe otherwise and that is unfortunate. u may think u r making the better decision by categorically ignoring all emotion or human perceptions. but that would be a fatal error.

it is those able to understand the human condition, not repress it that can accomplish things.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by elijah
Dont get me wrong though, I'd be the first person to disagree with Al Qaeda, and in no way approve of terrorism. As I have said before, I merely understand it.

I guessed so. And believe me, I'm not a Yank apologetist, and I think the US' policies explain much of Sept. 11.

But I simply hate it when people belittle other people's traumas.

[Whaleboy]

sorry man we're not spok. ur dry detached academia might have led u to believe otherwise and that is unfortunate.

My dry detached academia leads me to make logical, rational beliefs and opinions. I will not succumb to believing a course of action is best, simply because emotions say so. They are insufficient, no evidence, indeed, will not hold up under any critical analysis. I am not ignoring my emotions, not going vulcan on you, indeed my reason is a slave to my personal disposition which is pacifist and relativist - based on love! . However, opinions, and actions are the domain solely of logic, for their soundness, not to mention mental stability!

It is people making decisions based on emotion that have caused so many c0ck ups in history, not least terrorism and war itself!! Game theory (a theory that relies on the assumption that everyone is logical), predicts that if everyone was rational, there would be no war!! Nonetheless, except on the personal level, one should always use logic to deal with emotion, not by ignoring emotion but by including it. Hence my sociological solution.

[Whaleboy]

But I simply hate it when people belittle other people's traumas.

Oh, I dont, theyre terrible. I was angry and upset like everyone else on 9/11. I consider the holocaust history's greatest crime, after all, members of my family were killed. I do not think trauma and emotional response should form the evidenced basis of any resulting reaction.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by elijah


My dry detached academia leads me to make logical, rational beliefs and opinions. I will not succumb to believing a course of action is best, simply because emotions say so. They are insufficient, no evidence, indeed, will not hold up under any critical analysis. I am not ignoring my emotions, not going vulcan on you, indeed my reason is a slave to my personal disposition which is pacifist and relativist - based on love! . However, opinions, and actions are the domain solely of logic, for their soundness, not to mention mental stability!

It is people making decisions based on emotion that have caused so many c0ck ups in history, not least terrorism and war itself!! Game theory (a theory that relies on the assumption that everyone is logical), predicts that if everyone was rational, there would be no war!! Nonetheless, except on the personal level, one should always use logic to deal with emotion, not by ignoring emotion but by including it. Hence my sociological solution.

if everyone was logical there would be no war? thats a pretty large delusion u hold there captain. and ur solution of starving the arab world till it luvs us is a pretty amazingly poor one