A historical quiz

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
The survival of our way of life in our land increasingly depends on the spread of our way of life in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of our way of life in all the world by the use of force if necessary.


[/ QUOTE ]

Through history name a few people who's sentiments are reflected in the above?

Think, no answer is expected.

[bholdr]

i can see where this is going...

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
i can see where this is going...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that post is so not subtle that it's really not clever.

Yeah... I can think of a few names...

[Richard Tanner]

Let's see I'm guessing I'm supposed to answer: All evil people namely Adolf Hitler, Joseph Satlin, Pul Pot, oh and our sitting president.

Do you hide all your attacks this well.

Cody

[whiskeytown]

Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.?

RB

[MMMMMM]

In the absence of democracy and freedom, the default value is tyranny.

Seeking to bring about democracy and freedom by force, is not the same as seeking to impose tyranny by force.

Democracy & Freedom > Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Theocracy and Islamo-fascism.

Therefore, your implied parallel is severely flawed. However there are problems to be expected in any forcible implementation, even of democracy, and such may not always be the wisest course at the time. Morally speaking, though, fighting for freedom and democracy > than fighting for tyranny.

It should also be clear that democracy and freedom ARE the best way of life for all peoples, since in their absence, the default value is tyranny. Unless you hold that tyranny is equally as good as democracy/freedom, you cannot argue that democracy/freedom are not better for all peoples. Therefore seeking to spread "our way of life" in this regard is not akin to tyrants such as Hitler or Stalin seeking to spread "their" way of life. Although again, the wisdom of seeking to overthrow tyranny and spread freedom by force may be questionable under certain circumstances.

All this is obvious, isn't it?

[andyfox]

The problem is governments' definition of "democracy" and "freedom." It usually means whatever the speaker defines it to mean. Communist governments, for example, often called themselves "people's republics," when, in fact, the people hade no decision-making rights whatsoever. And, often enough, wars fought by democracies in the name of democracy and freedom are not. Numerous examples of just such wars fought by my own government in my lifetime are manifest.

I agree that fighting for freedom and democracy is, of course, better than fighting for their opposites. But all goernments lie and to swallow hook, line, and sinker, what even the most democratic governments say about what they're doing can lead to problems for the people supposedly being liberated, as well as for our own people.

[jokerswild]

Bush deines freedom as the ability to vote in a rigged election.

[jokerswild]

.

[MMMMMM]

...but I still hold out hope that your posts will grow more rational as years go by, rather than less. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[jokerswild]

.

[Edge34]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush deines freedom as the ability to vote in a rigged election.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people never quit whining and looking for excuses, do they?

Just remember, the nice thing about this country is that you have the right to say all you want either for or against whoever our President is, and you won't be assassinated by government hitmen for it.

[MMMMMM]

Well...maybe not this year.

[ACPlayer]

Robespierre fought for democracy, didn't he?

Imposing your values is tyranny. There is no such thing as "good" tyranny, or "better" tyranny.

Virtue and terror (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/robespierre-terror.html)

[ACPlayer]

I was not looking for "guesses" but responses.

I suggest you think about the question, rather than try to understand my motives. Of course you are free to ignore it as well. In my post I attacked no one, except people those who think along these lines.

[ACPlayer]

I am aware of your inability to analyze principles and your preference for analyzing instances of the principle, just as you have done in this post.

As part of my continuing attempts to educate you, I suggest that you think about the principle behind the words I posted at the top of this thread, rather than instantiating the principle and then attaching values to the particular instance of the principle. Try thinking at a higher level of abstraction. It is far to easy to instantiate the principle and assign values, a very populist method used by politicians to con those who cant think properly.

[Richard Tanner]

Ok, I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions, but can you blame me. Look at the way it's worded and how that just happens to coincide with Bush's detracter's take on what's going on.

Cody

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

Imposing your values is tyranny. There is no such thing as "good" tyranny, or "better" tyranny.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is just plain wrong. Stopping a Stalin or a Hitler and replacing his values with democratic values is not tyranny, but rather remedying the existence of tyranny.

Your line of thinking, minimized, would indicate that it would be right to bar interceding on a small scale with a gang of Hell's Angels forcing a young woman to get drunk then raping her. Who the hell are we to impose "our values" on those Hell's Angel's? Why that's imposing our tyranny if we intervene and forbid it!

Likewise on larger and larger scales, replacing tyranny with a system dedicated to individual and minority rights is not "imposing tyranny" but rather trying to ensure that tyranny has no longer any place to take hold. Your view gives a moral carte blanche to any group of thugs who are capable of ruling a town or country by sheer force, and bars any outside attempt at intercession or remedy. What if a relatively small gang of thugs is holding a town--or a country--hostage through sheer force of weapons and terror? The people they are ruling by force did not agree to be so ruled; rather, they had no choice. Yet you prefer to side with the thugs rather than the people. Apparently, in your world view, whoever grabs the power, however illegitimately and immorally, has the everlasting right to it in that no intercession could ever be right.

You don't see the difference between freedom and tyranny, apparently. Maybe you would if you had lived a few decades under Iraqi or Soviet rule.

[MMMMMM]

ACPlayer,

There is only one poster on this forum to whom you might be qualified to give instructions as to "how to think", and that poster would be: jokerswild.

Seriously: you need to learn how to differentiate, not merely categorize.

[ACPlayer]

That you will turn your mind on one of these days and we can see the genius you claim.

In this thread I have challenged you to think about principles beyond simply saying something is good and bad. You repeatedly ignore history to go with your preformed conclusions. As a small aside you added a disclaimer to your post about freedom vs tyranny, so perhaps there is hope yet.

As I stated in the opening post, I was not looking for responses but encouraging thought -- once again I encourage you to do the same.

[ACPlayer]

There is a reason why there is rule of law in every society and vigilantism is not encouraged. Try to think about why that is so and the difference between unilateral action and the role of international law.

[ACPlayer]

Actually the wording is exactly from Bush's inaugural speech with two changes -- one was to generalize the intent (instead of using the words liberty etc i generalized to way of of life) and the second was to add the bit about the use of force at the end. Otherwise it is exactly from his speech.

I dont think I am attacking somebody by using these words. If the sentiment fits the person, then the person should be proud to accept it as his for example if the sentiment fits Saddam and he willing accepts the sentiment as his then can simply stating his sentiments, without opinion, be an attack on Saddam? If Bush accepts the sentiments as his (as he evidently does) with the words of freedom and liberty inserted in the right places then can that be considered an attack on Bush?

In a different reply I referred to Robespierre. It is instructive to note that he was trying to spread democracy and freedom and ended up becoming in essence a terrorist, changing even the meaning of internal freedoms. He ended up trying and failing to even commit suicide.

[MMMMMM]

International law does not and should not always supersede the moral claim of human rights.

Furthermore, as more countries become democratic, it should be hoped that non-democratic governments (tyrannies and totalitarian regimes, that is), will be increasingly looked upon as illegitimate, and that those regimes ought have no legal claims to power.

Other than for reasons of expediency and business, there is little reason even now to accord most such regimes any say in international law.

[MMMMMM]

ACPlayer,

I appreciate the fact that you are trying.

[natedogg]

This goes way back. Even Julius Caesar thought he was doing the Gauls a favor by "Romanizing" them. Poor Vercingetorix....

natedogg

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I still have hope that you will turn your mind on one of these days and we can see the genius you claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where was that claim made?

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[MtSmalls]

While I think everyone would agree that ridding the world of terrorist and totalitarian regimes would be a good thing, the issues that bother me are these:

Why are they being selectively enforced? (Clearly Cuba is a more dangerous regime than Iraq, as is Korea.)

What happens if, by self determination, the Iraqi's CHOOSE to have a theocracy and be ruled by the church?? Is that election invalid?

[MMMMMM]

Good questions, Mt.

[ QUOTE ]
While I think everyone would agree that ridding the world of terrorist and totalitarian regimes would be a good thing, the issues that bother me are these:

Why are they being selectively enforced? (Clearly Cuba is a more dangerous regime than Iraq, as is Korea.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Because of pragmatic considerations?

[ QUOTE ]
What happens if, by self determination, the Iraqi's CHOOSE to have a theocracy and be ruled by the church?? Is that election invalid?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it probably would be invalid, but not sure.

The problem is that it is not desirable, nor is it democracy, to have an election "one time only." There needs to be a legal mechanism in place to ensure continued elections in the future, so that the people have a continued say in their governance. I would think a theocracy would preclude that.

[MtSmalls]

Lets extend the metaphor then.

Imagine that the Russian Revolution takes place again in 2006. That is the majority of the people in Russia are fed up with the democracy movement and their ineffective and corrupt practices, and re-instate (via armed revolution or the ballot box) the Politburo and the communist system?

What right to WE have to impose our democratic society on them? They've decided what they want, haven't they?

[MMMMMM]

Yes, but have their descendants?

Also, the majority oppresses the minority under such a system.

I guess either one believes that individuals have a birthright to self-determination and to be not tyrannized. Only democratic-style government even approaches the protection of such rights. All other forms of government inevitably lead to tyranny. And I, for one, don't believe people or groups have a moral right to tyrannize oithers. Unfortunately, the only way to prevent that from occurring, is through democratic-style constitutionally-based governments.

Let's extend your analogy a bit further. Say 51% of the population votes to enslave the other 49% of the population. Well...under the criteria you mentioned, that would be what "they" chose. And they could even forbid future elections. But under a constitutionally-based democratic-style government, both of those things would be unacceptable--as they should be, if you truly believe in human rights and the right of people to live without being tyrannized.

[EarlCat]

I think what you're getting at is more of a constitutional republic than a democracy.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

[lastchance]

You are trying to apply your own moral code to almost every situation.

There are 2 assumptions you are operating from that IMHO, are quite flawed:
A) Your moral code is the correct code.
B) All good, non-oppressing people wish to follow your moral code.

The words you use are all subjective. Especially "Tyranny," but also "Oppression," and "self-determination." "Freedom" (God, how I hate that word)

What is tyranny to one could be very different to another.

People have believed in religiously-led government for a very, very, very long time. If we tried to introduce democracy in to Europe in the 1400's, what would one expect?

We could impose it forcefully, but would that not be "tyranny" when the majority of the people do not want it?

[ QUOTE ]
Say 51% of the population votes to enslave the other 49% of the population.

[/ QUOTE ]
This has happened in a constitutionally-based democratic-style government. Or have you not heard of slavery? True, it was not through the vote, but the Constitution, but it was reaffirmed multiple times in very nearly every election before Abraham Lincoln was ever elected.

[ QUOTE ]
And they could even forbid future elections. But under a constitutionally-based democratic-style government, both of those things would be unacceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]
They did forbid votes regarding slavery. Remember? Slavery is only unacceptable now because the moral code of Americans, and America has changed much.

BTW, IMHO, you don't have any rights or priveliges. Morality is simply how your choices benefit someone else, how they benefit the whole of humanity, searching for the pareto-optimal and Hicks-optimal outcome.

[mosta]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I still have hope that you will turn your mind on one of these days and we can see the genius you claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where was that claim made?

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=777375&page=&view=&sb=5&o =&fpart=all&vc=1
Lesson Learned (edited) [Re: elwoodblues]
#778237 - 06/24/04 04:29 PM

"Nice job elwood, taking things out of context like that: you should be ashamed IMO.

I guess this is what I get for attempting to discuss complex geopolitical scenarios with people who are obviously considerably smarter than average but whose IQ's are also well under 160. Most people just don't have the capacity to simultaneously look at the big picture AND the detailed parts of that picture--or pictures. I suspect the 150-160 level is probably the rough cutoff for this sort of ability.

Lesson learned: in the future I will be wiser, like Zeno.

This closes all political discussions on my part on this board. Henceforth I will engage in only discussions of art, poetry/literature, and other non-argumentative topics such as science news or casual ramblings. Of course with such topics I won't be troubled by the everlasting problem of arguing with people who can't adequately visualize complex relationships/scenarios both in detail and in the larger pictures.

Next time we chat, it will be about walking in meadows or reading poetry or poker hands. For once, you may ALL have the last word;-)

Well...Have at it, Cyrus!"

Final Words On These Things [Re: elwoodblues]
#778870 - 06/24/04 07:52 PM
"I do keep running into repetitive patterns of illogic or fallacy in debates on this forum and I guess I've just had it with that. And to be perfectly honest I do think it is somewhat tied to the ability (or inability) to visualize complex scenarios and relationships in full (and in correct proportion). I don't know if that can be said without being insulting to some on this forum, so be it. "

I've always been impressed by how many impressively articulate, sophisticated and educated and well-read people there are on these forums representing various viewpoints. I look forward to exchanges involving Chris Alger, Gamblor, Adios, ACPlayer, Utah (to pick at random, not meaning to omit or compare anyone expressly). But then there are also always some ideological stooges, with no real education on any history, whose "arguments" rely almost exclusively on sophomoric hypotheticals and simplifications and characterizations, backed up with a lot of talk about how smart they are. You can sense from the intelligent posters that they are self-conscious at some level of the fact that anyone's choice of heroes and villains is ultimately largely arbitrary. The clowns are the ones who tell you that presumptions are a measure of intelligence--theirs, in particular.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

I've always been impressed by how many impressively articulate, sophisticated and educated and well-read people there are on these forums representing various viewpoints. I look forward to exchanges involving Chris Alger, Gamblor, Adios, ACPlayer, Utah (to pick at random, not meaning to omit or compare anyone expressly). But then there are also always some ideological stooges, with no real education on any history, whose "arguments" rely almost exclusively on sophomoric hypotheticals and simplifications and characterizations, backed up with a lot of talk about how smart they are. You can sense from the intelligent posters that they are self-conscious at some level of the fact that anyone's choice of heroes and villains is ultimately largely arbitrary. The clowns are the ones who tell you that presumptions are a measure of intelligence--theirs, in particular.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what I'm saying--and in 5 or more years I have rarely talked about my intelligence on these forums. But repetitive patterns of illogic and poor conceptualization have manifested themselves quite frequently on this forum. I have repeatedly endeavored to explain at length precisely what those errors were (and I don't mean "errors" of not agreeing with my viewpoint; rather I mean errors involving poor analytical thinking). Finally, in frustration of dealing with Cyrus, ACPlayer, Alger (and a couple of others), I reluctantly concluded that most dumber people will continually make many errors of certain types (types of errors which I have described at length in various posts, and will not invoke here and now, except to mention that one of the most common is categorization without considering differences of degree, when degree may often be a hinging factor).

I am certainly not arguing that I am right because I am smarter; an IQ of 171 on the Stanford-Binet scale is not really all that terrifically smart, and there are many on these forums better at math than I, and who are smarter in other ways too. Perhaps I should be embarrassed at what I have accomplished thus far in life, given my natural talents (but that is another story, and a fairly long and personal story, at that). So although I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, I can at least generally recognize seriously fallacious thinking when I encounter it...and I have encountered it repeatedly, in what are by now quite familiar patterns, on this forum--and tried to remedy it, but to no avail.

I wish to add that I, too, have gained much (besides frustration;-)) from interacting with the above characters, and from some few others, on this forum. For that I am grateful. However it grows increasingly clear that arguing with them is often a great waste of time. Thank you for calling it to my attention once again, Mosta--perhaps I can restrain myself from falling into that oh-so-very addictive trap in the future.

As for IQs of some of the most frequent current posters on the Politics Forum, I would rank them approximately as follows:

1 & 2. Utah, Adios (Utah is exceptionally logical and highly analytical, and Adios is quite logical, inquisitive, and analytical). Not sure in which order.

3-6. Nothumb, Wacki (more logical than Andy Fox or Zeno, but far less knowledgeable), Andy Fox, Zeno (more knowledgeable than MANY but not quite as logical as they should be--Andy's logic is weak in politics, whereas Zeno's analysis is weaker in poker). Andy is very quick-witted, whilst Zeno draws more correct conclusions about worldly things. Of The Four I cannot as yet rank them much more distinctly, and the age difference is obfuscating as well.

6. ElwoodBlues (good legal mind, and generally pretty logical)

7. Chris Alger (very knowledgeable, good legal mind, but somewhat weakish analytically)

8 & 9. ACPlayer, Cyrus (smart in their own ways, but dumb in their own ways also. Overall, though,they are smarter than they are dumb;-)

10. He Whose Name Need Not Be Mentioned, But Begins With A "J"---and who is actually not as dumb as he seems, his apparent delusional scatterbrainedness being due more to psychological factors than to anything else.

Apologies to everyone I left out. Being left out DOES NOT MEAN I consider you below everyone on the list (and how could that be, anyway?). I just named the handful that popped into mind first, who have both been posting for quite some time on this board and are posting a lot presently.

Cheers!

[MMMMMM]

I'm trying to get at both.

[MMMMMM]

lastchance,

I don't agree that it is flawed to apply our own moral code in this instance. All moral codes are not of equal merit, nor should they be presumed to be. Also, just because several may have differing views on which is best or most moral or most conducive to human rights, does not mean it is merely a matter of opinion. Some things are objectively true, and ethically true, and morally true, and spiritually true. One of those things is that freedom is better than slavery, and self-determination is better than oppression. I don't expect you will agree with this, however.

[lastchance]

I believe in EV and survival. I don't think I believe in any moral concept, outside a very abstract game theory world.

I never said moral codes were equal, but I cannot find an objective way to study and rank them.

Perhaps, the best moral code is the one that leads me to what I want, happiness. Or, going off my definition, the moral code I want is if everyone made the same choice, what would those be if you did not know who you were? (young, old, black, white, rich, poor etc.)

It would be hypocritical to enforce your own moral code but having the principle that no one is allowed to enforce their moral code on another as a main part of your own moral code. Still, people are going to do it.

Obviously, I have a moral code at some point I innately follow, but for purposes of intellectual debate, having a different moral code will be a fundamental breaking point in all discourse.

That has nothing to do with anything in here, BTW, just interesting to get down.

However, I was making a very basic point to an earlier post.

The self-determination of one is the tyranny of another.

Slavery happened in America while America had a democratically elected Constitutional government. Who is to say that a democratically elected Constitutional government will not support an unjust law or rule that their own moral code believes is right?

You do not believe that the Iraqis would repeatedly vote for tyranny, and against freedom.

I am saying that they will, over and over again, as long as the tyranny is not against them, and in line with their moral code, just like Americans have, over and over again. All people are like this, and if enough Iraqis believe in the tyranny, then they will vote for it, over and over again.

I'm not arguing about the correctness of your moral code. That's going to go nowhere. I'm arguing the second premise. Not all oppressed people follow your moral code. Don't be surprised when they pick their own moral code which may not be in line with yours.

[Cyrus]

Dear M,

Thanks for a mosta satisfying post.

The part about your "favorite posters" was a charm. Also, I enjoyed the information about your IQ level ("171 on the Stanford-Binet scale") in the same paragraph with the admission that you should be embarrassed at what you have accomplished thus far in life. I quote you verbatim - because as that fella in Rounders said, There's gotta be a story.

But how could you land your tush elsewhere but in the outhouse when you are operating under this false assumption: [ QUOTE ]
"I can at least generally recognize seriously fallacious thinking when I encounter it."

[/ QUOTE ]

No, dear M, you can't.

Fallacious thinking can hit you on the kisser in broad daylight and you will not realize it. Fallacious thinking, time and again, emanates from your own brain, the one with the 171 IQ ("on the Stanford-Binet scale"), and you will not realize it!

The proof is right here on these boards, when thread after thread after thread, you've exhibited both an ignorance of elementary logic and an unwillingness for self-critical analysis. (The backwardness of encyclopaedic knowledge and the over-reliance on seriously biased sources, take a back seat.)

Still, you prefer to accept the accolades heaped upon you by some equally ignorant yahoos here as a kind of worthy peer reviews.

...Maybe they are.

Take care.

[Zeno]

Interesting and brave post that will only bring more castigation against you personally.

-Zeno

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting and brave post that will only bring more castigation against you personally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt that it will, but I don't mind if it does, either. It could even prove interesting.

Also, my rankings are the least solid part of the post; they could be somewhat off, as I have never met any of the posters thus ranked. For instance, it is possible that the entire list could be inverted.





























;-)

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, I find it fairly ironic that you would assert that I have displayed a frequent ignorance of elementary logic on these boards. Just because we draw different conclusions, does not at all support your contention (or mine). But I have tried (and failed, obviously) to remedy the defective logical analyses on various topics evinced by you and some others on this forum.

If you want a good look at logic being used in discussion of various matters, look at Utah's posts (as a general rule).

I freely admit I have often asserted things, especially recently. That is because I have grown ever more tired of arguing things, when those taking the other side continually ignore such basic concepts and frequently pivotal factors such as degree (to reiterate one of my greatest complaints)--as well as the principles of compartmentalization in discussion, and the conceptual principles of basic set theory and inclusion/exclusion.

I don't expect everyone--even every smart person--to derive nearly the same conclusions about things as complex as geo-politics and history and the future. That "just ain't gonna happen", as you might put it. But at least can people read accurately before discussing things?

Anyway sorry for my stand-offish approach on this; it is the culmination of long frustration. I should have left well enough alone, I suppose, and left the Politics Forum when I first decided to. Well, it was fun at least concocting that list. Everyone on it (except perhaps one) is no doubt significantly smarter than the average bear. And as I mentioned to Zeno, the list could be off somewhat. It is just a guess. But I CAN recognize seriously fallacious thinking as a general rule. That I think you employ it, and you think I employ it, is something we will probably never see eye to eye on in this life anyway.

So..you're a good guy and best wishes, and keep that inquisitive creative mind of yours pumping along. I just don't want to argue anymore. See you on some other forum. And by the way as you learn more about what Islamic fundamentalists really believe (a la Zarqawi's last public statement), don't forget who told you so way back when. But hopefully that will become less of an issue in coming years rather than more of an issue (tough one to over/under, that...it will be more before it will be less, anyway).

Cheers and take care. Maybe we'll argue about poker for a change one of these days. Say Cyrus have you ever tried arguing with Vince? I think that would be a real treat for you.

[Cyrus]

You are in love with your own "thought process", not to mention your writing "style". Only someone who is self-infatuated would, on the one hand, treat so cavalierly the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people (something which you have repeatedly advocated here, as the inevitable collateral damage of the wars of which you are fantacising) and, on the other hand, musing so "philosophically" about this or that moral concept.

You are either without morals or without brains, on the basis of your posts. (And it is very ironic that you accuse others here of "compartmentalization in discussion" -- your italics!)

[ QUOTE ]
I CAN recognize seriously fallacious thinking as a general rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, NO.

You cannot.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but there's no getting around it. You are content to promote little nonsensical arguments, which oftentimes veer into bigoted territory -- without you even realizing it. And there was simply no occasion on which you re-thought or revised one of your belief on the basis of contrarian facts, or logic.

Intoxicated by your own smarts...

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting and brave post that will only bring more castigation against you personally.

[/ QUOTE ]

What would be truly interesting is seeing what you can do with concepts far simpler than "geopolitics", as you call 'em.

Poker f'rinstance.

See you at the other pages.

[MtSmalls]

Does this mean that the Vatican is next on the Axis of Evil chart? The Vatican is ruled by a theocracy, not a democracy, and in form if not in function.

Forcing YOUR morality on someone who does not want it is just another form of tyranny. Unfortunately we are seeing this again today in our very own democracy, with the religious right, focus on the family and the gay bashing amendments they are trying to ram through the Congress.

There are many moral codes in the world today, all have evolved over the centuries. What was considered "an abomination before god" in the 1950's (interracial marriage) is the norm today. The founders of this country believed in slavery as norm and the oppression of women as commonplace. Both of those values have changed. Would you believe that imposing a 18th Century mindview on the citizens of a country today is the right thing to do?

I am only a dillitante student of history, but has there been a successful transition to a democratic society that wasn't created from within, rather than being imposed from without?

[MMMMMM]

MtSmalls,

I think you ought to be differentiating between various forms of tyranny, and their degrees--as well as considering what type of arrangements might be necessary to try to forfend future tyranny. If you do this, you will end up agreeing, I hope, that not all codes, laws, or frameworks of government are equally tyrannical; and therefore "imposing" the least tyrannical form of government yet known, which includes built-in protections against future tyrannies, is not nearly the samer as imposing tyranny itself.

If you don't realize this then we are not going to agree on this subject.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, you hold up the end conclusions of our different viewpoints as evidence that I cannot realize fallacious thinking--which is a false method of judgment, because those conclusions can be widely varied and still not be proven wrong. People can attempt to analyze highly complex scenarios and come up with different conclusions if the scenarios are complex enough, and not be demonstrably "wrong", per se.

However your claim about my support of the war showing my unconcern over the many Iraqi deaths is indeed "wrong": I could just as easily counter that you are coldhearted by not caring about the Iraqi deaths under Saddam, and that I do care about the Iraqis which is why I supported the war. Who is right or wrong on the war, however, is neither here nor there).

My criticism of your thinking is not based on your conclusions but rather on your method. Your criticism of my thinking as discussed above is but one example of your faulty method.

Also, contrary to your claims, I have indeed revised some of my opinions based on contrary or additional information.

I am also tired of having my stated opinions frequently misconstrued--not maliciously by you (although so by certain others); your mischaracterizations of my positions are due to genuine misunderstanding.

So we'd best leave it at that.

[lastchance]

I think the most interesting question here is which is more tyrannical?

Would it be a tyranny chosen through a democratically elected constitutional government, or freedom through an American dictatorship?

An American's idea of what a government should be is very different from an Iraqi's. Do we let the Iraqi's decide for themselves under a democratically elected Constitutional government (which, by nature, would allow the Iraqis to create unjust and immoral laws)? Or do you impose your laws upon them?

And, do they really care? In the end, as they get food + job + water + electricity + security, I think they'll go along with anything anyone does.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
In the end, as they get food + job + water + electricity + security, I think they'll go along with anything anyone does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Part of the problem is that so far we have done a pretty poor job of providing those things, especially security. Is that our job? It wasn't until we invaded their country and overthrew their government. As bad as Sadam Hussein's regime was, he at least did a better job of keeping order than we have done so far. Our failure to get control of the situation there has undermined our credibility regarding the claims we make tha we are there to help the Iraqi people. I think a lot of Iraqi's that welcomed are intervention at first would now just like us to leave.

[Cyrus]

M,

For all the care you showed in putting together that post, you're still short on facts - and long on verbiage.

Here's one example:

[ QUOTE ]
Your claim about my support of the war showing my unconcern over the many Iraqi deaths is indeed "wrong": I could just as easily counter that you are coldhearted by not caring about the Iraqi deaths under Saddam.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not the first time I have made this clear to you. (This is not the first time I'm writing this to you!)

It was the right-wing nut jobs that have supported Saddam Hussein the past decades. Going back to his days as a young assassin, the US was backing his horse, because he was an anti-communist assassin! In the Iraq-Iran war (which Saddam started!), the US had assumed the supine position and sucking him off. All the way up to the invasion of Kuwait (poor bastard thought he had Washington's OK!), the US was cosying up to the wretched butcher of Baghdad.

It was the Left, if you alow me to be bold, in turn, that was protesting against Saddam Hussein and his likes, from the start.

The rest of your arguments are even less grounded in reality. But I guess it makes you feel better to write these things.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, the point is: one's support or condemnation of the war does not in itself demonstrate that that person's analysis is either good or faulty--because the war is too complex a subject for using a conclusion as a barometer of one's ability to analyze.

However, claiming that another's support or non-support of the war demonstrates either a lack of compassion, or demonstrates faulty analysis, is itself fallacious. And that is precisely what you did in your prior post in this thread; you claimed it showed lack of compassion on my part.

Chris Alger has made similar errors, in ascribing various base motives or coldheartedness on my part regarding my general preference for the Israeli position and methods vs. the Palestinian goals and tactics. He employed the same fallacy, essentially.

Trying to debate or argue with those who persistently employ fallacies is something with which I will no longer waste time upon--not because we will never agree, but because we will never agree on the methods which should be utilized to analyze and discuss such things.

If a person cannot hold the entire picture of what is being discussed or argued in mind, using set theory type thinking as may be necessary; if that person cannot visualize all the relationships being discussed, all the logical relationships in whole at once, much like a painting or photograph--then that person is almost bound to get lost, to not see the forest for the trees, or to make other errors in analysis. Perhaps, Cyrus, that is the root of the problem.

As I told Alger, he (and you as well, in my opinion), ought to not only be conversant with basic logical operations and fallacies, and with basic set theory; but you ought to practice visualization exercises as well.

The purpose of the visualization exercises is to be able to hold everything being discussed and analyzed before you in your mind's eye, thereby allowing you to follow the tree of logical analysis, and to keep everything in its proper perspective. Otherwise, you might just as well be "analyzing" chess problems willy-nilly, or catch-as-catch-can, without charting out the tree of analysis either on paper or in your mind's eye. That's fine for speed chess, but it generally sucks for more in-depth analysis. And if you venture to argue about complex things like certain geopolitical issues, it would behoove you to be able to visualize it all at once. Otherwise you will repeatedly make erors--which of course also tend to lead to erroneous conclusions--and errors of method are my chief complaints.

I do not complain or fault you (or Alger, or others) for your conclusions. It is the method which I find most irksome, and even when trying to discussing method, I generally encounter resistance or misunderstanding or the proverbial brick wall.

Just trying to help, really. Regrettably however I am getting fed up even with that.

Nothing much more to say at this point, I'm afraid.

Be well.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
That's fine for speed chess, but it generally sucks for more in-depth analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

The equivalent of posting time here, on these forums, to the average time for making a move in blitz chess is one or tweo hours. The equivalent for "in-depth analysis", as you put it, would be days. So, we're good, we're all playing a very deccent game of blitz here.

[ QUOTE ]
You ought to not only be conversant with basic logical operations and fallacies, and with basic set theory; but you ought to practice visualization exercises as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is rich. This is from the man who has offered, as sources, nothing besides right-wing internet websites (and books about Zen /images/graemlins/grin.gif). From someone who never strayed from his perspective in anything! One could simply re-post anything you ever wrote about the Middle East, Muslims vs. Christians, or the Jews vs. the Arabs, to show how one-dimensionally demented your "visualisation" is.

I'd say, defining it as "the opposite of dialectics" would nail your thought process.

[ QUOTE ]
Just trying to help, really. Regrettably however I am getting fed up even with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize that when you promise "this is my last post", it has the secondary effect of acting as an incentive to get you on tilt. And force you post again. (And again.)

[ACPlayer]

Perhaps you have a high IQ, perhaps you are very intelligent and very logical. However high IQ by itself does not lead to an understanding of the nature of the human person and the underlying emotions. Your writings are not that of an analyst but those of an single minded idealogue. There is a big difference.

High IQ people have that problem. They form an opinion and then think that everyone must simply fall in line with that opinion because the masses simply cannot think as well as they and the masses must therefore genuflect to the 171. Combine that with what appears to be steady diet of onesided opinions (your frequest links from MEMRI and World Net Daily etc) a firm belief in your own infallibility and a lack of emotional control provides for some of the most pompous and illogical posts on this forum.

I may back you in a chess game with my money, but I would never ever back you in a poker game as I dont think you understand people and dont appear to have control over your own emotions.

Of course this is based on your writings, perhaps you really are not like what how you portray yourself.

These are my opinions, and as such you have little already acknowledged you will never find something to learn in what I say. I however will keep casting the pearls /images/graemlins/grin.gif

But take care if you dont post here again and if you do as well.

[MMMMMM]

ACPlayer,

I don't think everyone need share my opinions or conclusions. Nor do I think their different conclusions on complex matters necessarily shows faulty thinking. Rather, I think their thought processes to reach those conclusions often shows faulty thinking. Also many people often reach the best conclusion, but through faulty thinking--especially in multiple choice situations (such as in limit poker). How many times do you see a nitwit make a great play--and then he explains why he did it, and you realize he just got lucky to select that play;-)

I realize you may perceive my opinions as those of an ideologue rather than as those of an analyst, but my opinions are generally formed through analysis not via pre-conceived ideologies or ideological adherences. At one time or another I have seriously questioned everything and the views I have expressed here are generally in accordance with the most recent conclusions I have drawn.

I have never said I could not learn anything from you; rather I am of the opposite. I just take exception to views supported by bad arguments, fallacious thinking or ignorance--and I do not mind pointing out flaws when I see them on this forum. Perhaps I am so critical on this forum because I am so inwardly critical of myself as well.

As for your backing me in a chess game, that would be a poorish sort of idea. You would probably do much better backing me in poker, but regrettably I am not accepting backers at the moment. I will however be sure to let you know when I am;-)

Best wishes to you, and if we ever meet I expect we will get along well--I am not much like one might perceive me if using posts on this forum as a character guide, and I am sure you are not either.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I am so critical on this forum because I am so inwardly critical of myself as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

This rings true.

-Zeno

[ACPlayer]

Thank you.

I am sure we have met if you have played in Foxwoods and AC as I think you have. And we will no doubt meet again.