Can we kick some real terrorist ass please?

[Spiffor]

More seriously, Elijah:
I didn't read this thread carefully (especially your discussion with yavoon), but from what I understood, you think that rational / logical decisions are better than emotion-based decisions. No, not "better" decisions, but rather "best" decisions actually.

This philosophical stance is extremely unoriginal and dates back to Descartes already (and I'd guess quite a few Greeks figured this intellecutal w@nking). To imagine there is any originality in this position is to completely inore it has been rehashed and rehashed for centuries.

Maybe we don't speak about the same game theory, but the one I learned actually teaches that if everyone follows his rational interest, the situation will be suboptimal as a whole. The only way for players to reach the optimal situation is to have a positive hunch about the other players' intention.

Besides, you're rambling about absolute rationality and somesuch. This absolute rationality is on the one hand impossible to human beings : even the most ivory-tower types have their feelings which lead their thinking processes - among them, their belief in rationality.
On the other hand, even if we accept the idea that some people can have purely rational thinking processes, the results won't be optimal because of the limitations in information and attention. You might want to read the theories of limited rationality to see how limited the human being is when he's looking for information and judging this information.

This was a non ad-hominem post to tell that your position of looking for most rational decisions as possible is unoriginal, unreasonable, impossible, and ignores the fundamental limitations of the human being.

I guess the others simply didn't bother writing as much as I did.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
Yes, let's kick some real terrorist ass. Like in Colombia,...

We don't like FARC either.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
More seriously, Elijah:
I didn't read this thread carefully (especially your discussion with yavoon), but from what I understood, you think that rational / logical decisions are better than emotion-based decisions. No, not "better" decisions, but rather "best" decisions actually.

This philosophical stance is extremely unoriginal and dates back to Descartes already (and I'd guess quite a few Greeks figured this intellecutal w@nking). To imagine there is any originality in this position is to completely inore it has been rehashed and rehashed for centuries.

Maybe we don't speak about the same game theory, but the one I learned actually teaches that if everyone follows his rational interest, the situation will be suboptimal as a whole. The only way for players to reach the optimal situation is to have a positive hunch about the other players' intention.

Besides, you're rambling about absolute rationality and somesuch. This absolute rationality is on the one hand impossible to human beings : even the most ivory-tower types have their feelings which lead their thinking processes - among them, their belief in rationality.
On the other hand, even if we accept the idea that some people can have purely rational thinking processes, the results won't be optimal because of the limitations in information and attention. You might want to read the theories of limited rationality to see how limited the human being is when he's looking for information and judging this information.

This was a non ad-hominem post to tell that your position of looking for most rational decisions as possible is unoriginal, unreasonable, impossible, and ignores the fundamental limitations of the human being.

I guess the others simply didn't bother writing as much as I did.

Another thing is, people use their emotions to makes decisions, and while this may not produce the best decision, we live in a democracy, and popular support of a course of action has to be taken into account when making a decision.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Spiffor
This was a non ad-hominem post to tell that your position of looking for most rational decisions as possible is unoriginal, unreasonable, impossible, and ignores the fundamental limitations of the human being.

At a wild guess I would say elijah stretches "rationality" so much because he thinks it justifies his morale views when he presents them as "rational".

Of course, that is perfectly fine (we all do this here and there), but as skywalker said....

[Dom Pedro II]

Sikander: I'm not saying we CREATED them. I'm saying we backed them, financed them, and trained them for our purposes. We did not know that they were going to turn around and attack us, although we probably should have.

I never said we created Saddam Hussein, but we did back him for quite some time. And I never said we created Al-Queda, but we did work intimately with Osama bin Laden, and there we helped him make connections. The CIA was as much another player in this big game in the Middle East as anybody.

My point was that our bedfellows can quite easily become our enemies. To think that the same thing will not happen in Iraq is foolish.

[Whaleboy]

At a wild guess I would say elijah stretches "rationality" so much because he thinks it justifies his morale views when he presents them as "rational".

My emotional views, to a point, say that when terrorists attack, I want to kill them. Other emotions lead to a different conclusion that is stronger in me, hence my logic supports the latter position. Without that emotional/logical hybrid, I'd be as conservative as the rest of you! jk

Elijah, I understand what you say. I'd say most of us on Poly are smart enough to understand what you say. We just disagree with it.

And that is good and encouraging. In that case, I'd appreciate it if you attacked my arguments, not me and the language I use.

Despite what you think (this is self-evident from your attitude and your sig), you are not the most intelligent being on this planet.

Now now now, a little dillusion never hurt anyone . Besides, its spiffor dammit!

you think that rational / logical decisions are better than emotion-based decisions. No, not "better" decisions, but rather "best" decisions actually.

This philosophical stance is extremely unoriginal and dates back to Descartes already (and I'd guess quite a few Greeks figured this intellecutal w@nking)

Who said I was being original? Indeed, it is this existing outlook that I adopt and use. Nonetheless, with the slow death of philosophical post-modernism, it is fair to say that I am one of a dying breed in this respect.

Maybe we don't speak about the same game theory, but the one I learned actually teaches that if everyone follows his rational interest, the situation will be suboptimal as a whole. The only way for players to reach the optimal situation is to have a positive hunch about the other players' intention.

It depends on what you call rational interest. I assume that to mean long term, so, cost of war vs short term benefits etc in this case. Nonetheless, Drogue taught me everything I know about game theory, you're better off asking him.

Besides, you're rambling about absolute rationality and somesuch. This absolute rationality is on the one hand impossible to human beings : even the most ivory-tower types have their feelings which lead their thinking processes - among them, their belief in rationality.

NO!!! Not absolute rationality, we are all human, we have our limits. I know that its possible for humans to think rationally in these times because many including myself do so. Why theyre not the people making the decisions in government is self-explanatory. We are not popular .

We are all emotional, they influence all our lives. Indeed for the most part, rationality is a slave to emotion. Of emotions at their most fundamental level are logic but thats largely irrelevant here. I am not proposing that we turn into vulcans, but that we try to eliminate emotional influence from our decision making, particularly in areas like this, which are of much importance. Of course it wont happen, but since when was I pragmatic? It "should" happen, thats all I'm bothered about.

On the other hand, even if we accept the idea that some people can have purely rational thinking processes, the results won't be optimal because of the limitations in information and attention.

The way I see it is this. We have emotions and rationality on a certain level in our minds. They forge our, what you might call wildcards - the factors that make us who we are, and in this case, our opinions. We already have in our minds the conclusion to our arguments, but logic henceforce is merely a slave, working backwards to form an argument. If you think I am assuming or hoping for humanity turning into a race of biological computers you are mistaken. However, I want the best decisions to be taken, and currently we have emotional decisions being taken, supported and proposed, both here and in RL, and I do not concur, as I think a more rational approach is required. Not ultimately rational, but more rational.

You might want to read the theories of limited rationality to see how limited the human being is when he's looking for information and judging this information.

It is my view that some people are better at that than others. Its really as simple as that.

This was a non ad-hominem post to tell that your position of looking for most rational decisions as possible is unoriginal, unreasonable, impossible, and ignores the fundamental limitations of the human being.

Its cool, it not ad hominem, its a valid well constructed argument . I know its unoriginal, no-one suggested otherwise and kudos to the men upon whose shoulders I now stand. My argument that "we should try to be more rational than we are now" is not unreasonable. I am not saying we remove the amygdala from the human brain here! Its certainly not impossible, I myself am proof of that. It does not ignore the fundamentals of the human mind, people will always want revenge etc, but I'm saying governments should rise above it and be more rational. In that sense, I suppose I am ignoring the fundamentals of modern democratic government.

Another thing is, people use their emotions to makes decisions, and while this may not produce the best decision, we live in a democracy, and popular support of a course of action has to be taken into account when making a decision.

We covered this. People do use their emotions to make decisions but it is my belief that when decisions are on the table, some better than others, we take the best ones. Those are, without exception, the more rational decisions. It is just a matter of a) seeing it, and b) factoring that into a system of democracy, but neither of those two are my concerns. I'm writing an essay on democracy though, perhaps that will clarify my positions. The update will be announced on my sig.

Let me reiterate. I am not saying we eliminate emotions from our decision making process. They are essential to the human condition, to our opinions. However, they are irrelevant in a debate and under any critical analysis, and governmental actions are determined by critical thinking as much as is possible, or rather I would like to think so. Even then, one can only control emotions, eliminating them is impossible unless one has a kind of AI government or judge...*lapses into utopian dreams* I am saying that we take the most logical decision available to us at a time. In this context, we should disregard the populist revenge-based strategy that in reality does not work, and we take measures that do work. Needless to say, I suspect that stopping terrorism is not a primary concern of the governments that claim otherwise, hence the current courses of action.

By the way, my sig says "intellectual", not "intelligent"

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan
Didn't Hezbollah carry out a bombing in Argentina?

Yes, against Israeli, not American, interests.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Yes, against Israeli, not American, interests.

Hezbollah attacked the local jewish community center in Argentina. Most of the casualties were Argentians, both Jews and non-Jews. How, pray tell, is that an attack on ISRAELI interests?

[Whaleboy]

Jewish interests and israeli interests are viewed as pretty much synonymous among many Jewish circles, one thing that isnt split down the orthodox/reform/liberal lines. Incidentally, I don't share that view.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Hezbollah attacked the local jewish community center in Argentina. Most of the casualties were Argentians, both Jews and non-Jews. How, pray tell, is that an attack on ISRAELI interests?

GePap, if i go to my local Jewish Community Center, and I get blown up by a Hezbollah bomb, would that be an attack on ISRAELI interests???

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by elijah
Jewish interests and israeli interests are viewed as pretty much synonymous among many Jewish circles, one thing that isnt split down the orthodox/reform/liberal lines. Incidentally, I don't share that view.

So if my local synagogue goes bankrupt, thats considered an Israeli economic problem???? Israel is considered a Jewish issue, but things that happen to diaspora jews are not considered Israeli.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah
It depends on what you call rational interest. I assume that to mean long term, so, cost of war vs short term benefits etc in this case. Nonetheless, Drogue taught me everything I know about game theory, you're better off asking him.

Which wouldn't be much. Spiffor is mostly right, in most cases complete rationality will not lead to the most desireable outcome. Whether common knowledge of rationality will is a matter under debate still.

Originally posted by elijah
However, I want the best decisions to be taken, and currently we have emotional decisions being taken, supported and proposed, both here and in RL, and I do not concur, as I think a more rational approach is required. Not ultimately rational, but more rational.

I agree with that. Kinda goes with why I'm against leaders who are religious. I know it is natural for people to want to believe in something, but to me, someone elses religious is just emotion, and shouldn't be used to make legal decisions IMHO. I was angry after 9/11, but I'm not going to decide to bomb the crap out of the entire Middle East, as I may want to. I think leaders have to be rational. To rule a country effectively, you have to think clearly and logically about the best way to rule, at least that is my opinion.

Originally posted by elijah
By the way, my sig says "intellectual", not "intelligent"

The difference would be? However, I do take issue with that statement. Intellectual is as defined by the Cambridge Dictionary (don't have an OED on me) as:

A highly educated person whose interests are studying and other activities that involve careful thinking and mental effort.

So are you saying that no conservative can enjoy studying and mental effort?

[lord of the mark]

the fact is that Hezbollah went to Buenos Aires and attacked an ARGENTINIAN institution in ARGENTINA. GePAP apparently doesnt see that as an attack on Argentina.

Thankfully the government of Argentina does NOT share his view.

[Whaleboy]

lord: I know, but tell the zionists that!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by elijah
lord: I know, but tell the zionists that!

I am a zionist, and i dont know anyone who doesnt distinguish between Israel and the diaspora.