ClumsyMonkey.net

maninthemarble wrote:no human alive is fit to rule over another human being. if you believe that then you are mistaken.

Are parents unfit to tell their kids what they should and should not do?

...careful, I'm setting up a trap of my own....

Ray 2 wrote:Here's a good tidbit on why our math scores are lower than other countries:

A lot of European and Asian countries essentially don't allow students to continue on into high school if their grades aren't up to snuff. And it gets weeded down to eventually, the smartest people these countries have being the ones taking the tests.

In the US, we try to give everyone, regardless of their intelligence, willingness to learn, or capacity to even bother, a fair shot. We have people taking the tests that probably shouldn't be taking them. If that doesn't help, how is it whenever there's the whole comparison tests between the best of the best students from all over the world, the US's students keep up pretty well?

So, the whole 8th grade math scores thing is based off of the amount of people taking it. Less people, with a better capacity for the subject, is obviously going to pull up the scores for the country using that system.

Actually, it's not that simple. There've been numerous studies done about this, and the general answer to the issue is that it's a problem of attitudes. American parents are much more likely to believe that math and such are innate abilities. "Either you've got it or you don't." American parents also have far lower standards for their children's performance ("My Johnny is the brightest child ever!!"). American students do not value education as much, either. If you want sources, I'll hunt them down.

Demosthenes wrote:Whether or not it was recently, or even on this continent, anarchy has been tried before, but strangely enough it is always replaced with government. That leaves me with two possibilities. (1) Having a structured government is superior to anarchy, or (2) there are people who want to be leaders, and when they see people living in anarchy, they organize it and gain power for themselves. This second option was the point I was trying to make about having too much faith in other humans . . . how can you expect people not to try to lead, when history proves that some will? If anarchy were tried again, one of those two possibilities I gave would just happen again. I think it's more practical to just try to keep a government that the citizens find favorable.

I agree. Actually, if you look at the archaeological record, you'll see that "society" as we think of it is impossible without some form of leadership. For a society to develop, people have to be able to have time to develop it. This kind of time is not granted in a place where you are hunting for food daily, because no one else is helping you out. There has to be some kind of organized gathering and distribution in order for people to have the free time necessary to set up a society.

circles in your concrete wrote:"letting" something happen is neither right nor wrong. it's nothing.

No, it's letting it happen. It's standing back, it's refusing aid, it's a huge number of actions that directly affect someone.

maninthemarble wrote:if he is going to be directly responsible for their deaths, then yes, he should die.

there is nobody making an argument that saddam is not an evil man. the thing we are saying is by lowering yourselves to saddams level and slaughtering innocents in order to seek him out, you are doing evil as well.

No, there's a difference. The WTC, the invasion of Kuwait, etc. were done so someone could have power, and prove how big they were. We are attacking to protect our people from further attacks, we are attacking to remove a man from power who has a huge track record of ruling by oppression, fear, and generally inhumane means. Goes back to an earlier analogy:
"Having $500 is having $500.

But if I stole that $500 or I received that $500 as a Christmas bonus, is it still really the same? Nope."

no, it's not. not killing an innocent is never wrong, regardless of the consequences. it's wrong to kill an innocent person. period.

Prove they're innocent. Everyone is guilty of something. Guilt is a very subjective term.

I agree. Actually, if you look at the archaeological record, you'll see that "society" as we think of it is impossible without some form of leadership. For a society to develop, people have to be able to have time to develop it. This kind of time is not granted in a place where you are hunting for food daily, because no one else is helping you out. There has to be some kind of organized gathering and distribution in order for people to have the free time necessary to set up a society.

i don't have the link handy but i can show you some 500 odd historical examples of freedom working.

No, it's letting it happen. It's standing back, it's refusing aid, it's a huge number of actions that directly affect someone.

we've been over this. you're wrong.

We are attacking to protect our people from further attacks, we are attacking to remove a man from power who has a huge track record of ruling by oppression, fear, and generally inhumane means.

ha. you are attacking to gain control over the most powerful nation in a US hostile region and it's oil reserves. you will install another dictator, or regime, that will be no more friendly to the people of iraq then hussein.

the us has a storied history of supporting violent dictators [ pinochet, anyone ] until it no longer suited their needs. to say that you are attacking to remove a "bad man" is politically ignorant. you are attacking because the elite in washington feel that this should be planet USA.

Prove they're innocent. Everyone is guilty of something. Guilt is a very subjective term.

by that logic i could kill you or anyone else and not be held responsible for it. the people in question are innocent of any direct forcible crime against their murderers. that's wrong. period.

Soon we can all can Resolution 1441 and say that Iraq is blowing themselves b/c I'm sure they won't comply with the new Resolution (if granted by the UN) either...

I'm not completely for war, or against, I'm for them taking more time to try and end things peacefully.

I think good 'ol G.W. just wants to get at it b/c he's pissed that Saddam wanted G.L.W. killed. There is a lot of personal hated behind him pushing this attack as heavily as he is.

your own ghost wrote:i don't have the link handy but i can show you some 500 odd historical examples of freedom working.

"Hey, I can't prove it right now, but this is how it is," is not a valid argument.

we've been over this. you're wrong.

While we have been over this before, you did just shy of jack and squat to actually convince me that I was wrong.
By observing a situation, you are changing it. Basic logic and quantum mechanics, if you want to get picky. Your personal bias is highlighting the parts of the situation you want to see, and are therefore changing what the situation is to you.
There is no such thing as a "non-action." By doing "nothing," you are doing something. Deal with it.

ha. you are attacking to gain control over the most powerful nation in a US hostile region and it's oil reserves. you will install another dictator, or regime, that will be no more friendly to the people of iraq then hussein.

the us has a storied history of supporting violent dictators [ pinochet, anyone ] until it no longer suited their needs. to say that you are attacking to remove a "bad man" is politically ignorant. you are attacking because the elite in washington feel that this should be planet USA.

Hey, yeah, you're right. I mean, Saddam only kills his own people. It's obvoiusly none of our business. And of course, your magical psychic powers can acurately fortell the future enough to see what will come after the war is over. How could I forget? My bad.

by that logic i could kill you or anyone else and not be held responsible for it. the people in question are innocent of any direct forcible crime against their murderers. that's wrong. period.

Yeah, and the people in the WTC were innocent of the same thing, and the people in Iraq who are living in fear of their ruler are innocent of the same thing, and like it or not, this war will remove the man responsible for the condition of the people in his country.
So, it's wrong, but let's not do anything about it? What kind of logic is that?
BTW: Honestly, we can't all just get together and "talk it over" with a person like Hussein. It doesn't work. That isn't an option.

Hey guys.....Saddam wants to get on TV and have a debate with good 'ol G.W.

Can you say "wholly hell.....this thing is on 85% of the stations on my tv!"??

The death and weakness currently in Iraq isn't a result of doing nothing. It is a result of sanctions which were designed to make the people weak, to not give them what they want and need until their government decided to be more cooperative. It is an action, not standing by and doing nothing. It's fine to stand by and let people die and that nobody should do anything that might kill innocent people. That belief means that economic sanctions, as an acknowledgement of a problem and an action to resolve it, cannot be supported.

We shouldn't have doctors, because if they make a mistake (like not properly matching organs), an innocent patient can die. It is immoral to do anything that might cause harm to an innocent person. It doesn't matter that the doctor is not trying to make that mistake, they're actually trying to save the patient. My extreme ideology will not allow for the risk involved, so we just shouldn't have doctors.

o boy o boy

it is a result of sanctions which were designed to make the people weak, to not give them what they want and need until their government decided to be more cooperative

yeah, it does keep them weak. now, let's review:

1. everybody admits that saddam doesn't give a flying horse shit about his people. you could line 'em up and shoot them without it bothering him a pinch.

2. sanctions do not hurt saddam.

3. however, the sanctions do hurt the people, many of whom who have died, and as a population, they are weak. too weak to try and overthrow an oppressive dictator.

in short, the sanctions are more or less a direct, 2 sided attack on the iraqui people. and you guys got mad at france for violating them.

We shouldn't have doctors, because if they make a mistake (like not properly matching organs), an innocent patient can die. It is immoral to do anything that might cause harm to an innocent person. It doesn't matter that the doctor is not trying to make that mistake, they're actually trying to save the patient. My extreme ideology will not allow for the risk involved, so we just shouldn't have doctors.

clever, but i have to point out a thing you forgot to include. i choose to go to the doctor, and i choose to have him perform potentially life threatening surgery, just like i choose to go bungee jumping, or sky diving, or on a roller coaster or whatever.

i do not choose to get murdered [ in general ] and neither will the innocent iraqui citizens who the us kills in the forthcoming war.

"Hey, I can't prove it right now, but this is how it is," is not a valid argument.

never said it was. i'll find the damn link by tomorrow.

While we have been over this before, you did just shy of jack and squat to actually convince me that I was wrong.
By observing a situation, you are changing it. Basic logic and quantum mechanics, if you want to get picky. Your personal bias is highlighting the parts of the situation you want to see, and are therefore changing what the situation is to you.
There is no such thing as a "non-action." By doing "nothing," you are doing something. Deal with it.

doesn't matter if you're convinced or not. doing "nothing" is not doing anything to the other person, therefore it cannot have any moral consequences.

i don't have to do anything. i don't have to get out of my car and spend MY time, MY energy and moreover, MY life helping somebody else, for whom i'm not responsible. basic logic? fine, logically justify the entitlement theory. it's MY life. why is she entitled to some of it? because?

Hey, yeah, you're right. I mean, Saddam only kills his own people. It's obvoiusly none of our business. And of course, your magical psychic powers can acurately fortell the future enough to see what will come after the war is over. How could I forget? My bad.

man, i sure hope i'm still allowed to trash talk the government when this war is over, because when they replace hussein with some asshole who is just as twisted i am going to remind you of it every day.

seriously, you really think you're going to go in there and set up a nice little 'democracy' where everybody wins? you're going to see like, 3 clips on CNN where some guy [ probably a friend of the new dictator ] talks about how great this is for the iraqui people and that's going to convince you.

look at afghanistan. half the guys they dropped into power there are the same fucking guys they trained in the 80's.

Yeah, and the people in the WTC were innocent of the same thing, and the people in Iraq who are living in fear of their ruler are innocent of the same thing, and like it or not, this war will remove the man responsible for the condition of the people in his country.
So, it's wrong, but let's not do anything about it? What kind of logic is that?
BTW: Honestly, we can't all just get together and "talk it over" with a person like Hussein. It doesn't work. That isn't an option.

i'm the only one who wants to do anything about it.

your own ghost wrote:

We shouldn't have doctors, because if they make a mistake (like not properly matching organs), an innocent patient can die. It is immoral to do anything that might cause harm to an innocent person. It doesn't matter that the doctor is not trying to make that mistake, they're actually trying to save the patient. My extreme ideology will not allow for the risk involved, so we just shouldn't have doctors.

clever, but i have to point out a thing you forgot to include. i choose to go to the doctor, and i choose to have him perform potentially life threatening surgery, just like i choose to go bungee jumping, or sky diving, or on a roller coaster or whatever.

i do not choose to get murdered [ in general ] and neither will the innocent iraqui citizens who the us kills in the forthcoming war.

But the point is, I should be able to apply this belief across the board and have it be true. If I am unconscious or unable to speak, and someone with a medical background finds me, they have implied consent to help out. If I'm choking, they have permission to break my ribs. People do things around me every day that I do not control, and a lot of them could cause my death. What about cars? I get in a car, I drive. Someone else is walking. I make a mistake, hit them. They die. Is it their own fault for walking? Were they, by being in my way, putting themselves at risk? If it was their fault for being where I was trying to drive, then isn't it also the choice of the innocents in Iraq to be where they're at? If it's not their fault, then, if this belief is to be applied consistently, we would severely limit ourselves out of fear of making a mistake.

And I'm glad you don't like sanctions. I don't either. I just wanted to know if that opinion was consistent with others.

my belief, which i do apply consistently, is that it is wrong to iniate force against somebody else. for that reason, driving, not a forceful action, although dangerous, is not "wrong". indiscriminately firing my gun in a crowded shopping mall, however, is.

i apply this same line of thought to the war in iraq. so i'm against for two reasons:

1. the fact that it is pre-emptive
2. the fact that it will result in the death of innocent people due to american negligence.

going back to your driving example, if you hit and kill a pedestrian while driving, you will be punished for it. bush will not. furthermore, if you knew while driving to work today you would hit and kill 3000 pedestrians, would you still do it?

your own ghost wrote:going back to your driving example, if you hit and kill a pedestrian while driving, you will be punished for it. bush will not. furthermore, if you knew while driving to work today you would hit and kill 3000 pedestrians, would you still do it?

well, why the hell wouldn't he punished? do you honestly think that the world courts are in his back pocket? cause the last time i checked they were plenty pissed off at the US because there are Mexican nationals on death row. If innocent lives are going to be killed intentionally, then the world court is going to hear the case and gather evidence. don't be calling anyone a killer when they haven't been tried as a killer. did you even bother to read my previous post?

and now we got a retired General comming out saying there are nuclear weapons that are capable of hitting the US from Iraq. i want to wait and see if the special ops who are moving around inside Iraq are going to find them.

what is the world court doing about his actions in afghanistan? dick. the united states has stated outright that they will not abide by any world court trying to try one of their citizens for war crimes.

america's stance is that they shall do whatever the fuck they want, whenever they want to and the only way you can change their mind is by being bigger and meaner.

In your own words: "Where's the proof? Make it irrefutable."

it's common knowledge man. do you really want me to dig up articles wherein bush calls the world court and invasion of sovereignty and says the states won't play with it? i suppose i could but, why?

anyways, here's one
http://cbc.ca/stories/2002/07/01/icc_startup020701

and here's another

In order to make the court into a reality, however, many riders were
added, leading to concerns that the court will be just a paper tiger.

And there are some notable absentees.

The United States... ha[s] still not ratified the Rome statute
and the administration of US President George W. Bush is even
considering revoking its signature.

http://www.tibet.ca/wtnarchive/2002/4/11_7.html

your own ghost wrote:my belief, which i do apply consistently, is that it is wrong to iniate force against somebody else. for that reason, driving, not a forceful action, although dangerous, is not "wrong". indiscriminately firing my gun in a crowded shopping mall, however, is.

Does your belief also apply to police? Should they not use firearms?

the police would not be initiating force in the appropriate context of their firearm use. they would be responding to it.

the main objective in associating with a world coucil or court is so that when regulations are broken, something is done about it. now because the world court is viewed as a tiger paper says something...they haven't pursued what they should have. so what's the point of even having it? that's where the US is probably comming from. Have they tried bush? or even clinton? more then likely there's no proof, and i bet you they don't have the authority to gather evidence. as for the quote, your damn right the US isn't going to just give up sovereignty, neither is any other country. you made it looke like the US is defying the court by that quote. But in all actuality, there's not a damn country on the face of this planet thats going to say they are. that's what's going on with the UN, Iraq is defying UN guidelines and nothing is being done about it. Though i admit we're gunning for Iraq pretty impatiently. once sufficient time has gone by, if Iraq isn't complying, then we should go in.

your own ghost wrote:1. the fact that it is pre-emptive

No, it's not. You complained earlier about America's track record of setting up horrible dictators, yet you're refusing to look at Saddam's record. He has a huge history of initating force against his people, of lying to the UN, of lying to inspectors and attempting to create WMD's. We have been attacked by terrorists, and if Saddam has weapons, which, by his track record, it is entirely possible he does, then we are in danger. Not pre-emptive.

your own ghost wrote:2. the fact that it will result in the death of innocent people due to american negligence.

No, it will result in innocent deaths because Saddam has put us in a position where we can't trust him to not drop WMD's on us. He has put his own people in positions where they will die if he refuses to cooperate, which he has done on many occasions.

there is no imminent threat from iraq. therefore, the strike is a pre-emptive attack. it is an act of aggression against a peaceful nation.