Racist Texans suck?

[scotty1]

Right.

Ewallace, I totally understand what you're saying about the Palestinian's tactics. BUT, what the hell else are they going to do?
They do not have F-16s, AH-1 Cobra gunships, ultra modern tanks purchased from the US and an ally in the form of the world's only remaining Superpower.

You have to fight with what you've got.

And what about the Israeli fundementalists in the 1940s, their tactics were not exactly honourable from what I hear...

Now, I don't claim to know the ins and outs of the siuation, but for the purposes of this thread I will state the Palestinian viewpoint, seeing as they are the ones that are being racially slurred.

Lets imagine that your (Black Jack and Ewallace) land, which you have occupied historically for many years, is given to another people and you are forced to live in a semi-autonomus way in a tiny strip of what was your home. I'm sure if you were in that situation, BJ and EW, then you would fight tooth and nail to get your land back. And if you had nothing but dynamite and a machine gun to do it with, against somebody with the hardware listed above, I'm fairly sure you would come up with the same tactics that the Palestinians have.

I am not condoning killing civilians, all I'm saying is, before you go around saying Palestinians suck, and throwing racial slurs around, maybe you should think about your privileged position at the top of the world and how it affects what you think is acceptable.

I'm pretty sure if I had Americans suck, or Jews suck, or Texans suck, or Blacks suck, or Asians suck, as my sig., I'd have to borrow Prana's flame retardent suit.

[tsunami surfer]

Wasnt Palestine a British controlled colony before Israeli fundementalists took it??

[scotty1]

Don't know.Why?

[guohuen]

Yeah,and Dr Ruth was a Zionist commando.

[JWTAYLOR]

He's most likely referring to what are commonly called the "stern" or "irgun stern" gangs.

Scotty1, you post, "I am not condoning killing civilians" while posting that you completely understand the killing of people who "have F-16s, AH-1 Cobra gunships, ultra modern tanks".

Could you please define the term "civilian" for the sake of this argument?


JWT

[ewallace]

Nothing justifies their actions. They are destroying any chance for peace with their ignorance. What the hell does killing civilians accomplish. I'm really **** tired of the pitty party for groups that are oppressed, mistreated or made fun of that justify unspeakable acts because of their treatment. If they were attacking military targets I would have a totally different opinion.

Israel is wrong in it's occupation. They need to get the hell out of the territories it took in '67. Their tactics and treatment of Palestinians is absolutely wrong. In response to it's women and children being blown up at a barmitzha(sp?), they should hunt down and kill everyone involved.

I would have put Palestinian Militants Suck but it was too long. I placed that there when I read about the latest bombing of the hotel in Isreal yesterday.

I guess the fact that I'm white and my wife is Hispanic makes me quite the racist. Before you label people a racist, you might want to know a little more about them.

Lighten up.

[tsunami surfer]

Just thought you knew what you were talking about scotty since you were bashing the US for supporting Isreal.

[ewallace]

Check my status now. Is that better? Man some people just didn't learn about sticks and stones as children.

[scotty1]

I've been waiting for you lot to come back.

JWT: A civilian (by my definition) is somebody unconnected with the military. A military target is an acceptable target for military action, as EWallace himself says "If they were attacking military targets I would have a totally different opinion."


Ewallace: "I guess the fact that I'm white and my wife is Hispanic makes me quite the racist. Before you label people a racist, you might want to know a little more about them"

It doesn't matter what your wife is, being a racist does not mean you are racist towards all races. I could hate Pakistanis, but get along with black people fine. But if I hate Pakistanis because they are Pakistanis, then I am still a racist.
What the Palestinians did yesterday was truly awful. I agree.
But the fact is, if somebody makes a blanket derogatory statement about a race, I will label them a racist, regardless of whether or not they have a Hispanic wife.

You can tell me to lighten up because there are no Palestinians here to defend themselves. But I'm pretty sure that if after one of your warplanes bombed an Afghan village and killed a few civilians (probably more than 15) that I put 'Americans suck' under my name, more than a few people would stick up for their country's position. And what I'm saying is, well, it just doesn't seem fair to put such a comment under your name.

[Badger]

Racist Whites,Racist Blacks,Racist Asians, Racist Latinos, Racist Middle-Easterners, Racist Indians, Racist Martians, Racist Kryptonians, Racist Thangarians, Racist Orkins, Racist Amazons, Racist Alanteans, Racist Vulcans, Racist Klingons All SUCK.

Come to Texas with your anti-Texan Jibber-Jabber & you will get your ass kicked.


Badger

[scotty1]

Tsunami Surfer: READ MY POSTS. Point out to me the bit that bashes the US for supporting Israel. Can't find it? Thats because its not there.:rolleyes:

'Just thought you knew what you were talking about scotty since you were bashing the US for supporting Isreal.'

Crap. I wasn't doing anything of the sort.

Ewallace: what has sticks and stones got to do with it? I'm not Palestinian. But OK, seeing as how many people the IRA has killed in my country, I'll put 'Irish suck'under my screen name, and lets see how many Americans of Irish descent and Irish themselves have something to say about it. They can defend themselves, becuase they're here, but it seems unfair to attack someone who can't defend themselves. Just because someone is not represented here does not make them fair game.

[ewallace]

Maybe it wasn't the best thing to put.

Webster's dictionary defines racism as:

"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race".
No one is superior. End of discussion.

I really feel for the Palestinian people. They have been given the shaft and it seems no one in the world cared. It is also irritating when I see people from other countries burning the American flag and mimicing a brutal assult on a dummy dressed in red white and blue. Not all Americans agree with Israel. No one is labeling those arab nations racist.

I am sorry if I offended you or anyone else. I do not seriously think that all Palestinians are bad people or terrorists. Most are people just like us trying to get through each day. Their daily struggles are more heartache then I will probably ever know.

Personally I think everyone sucks. I don't give a **** what color they are. I don't see color. I am not politically correct either. Labels mean nothing to me. Palestinian, African American, Black, Brown, Jew...whatever. People are people.

[scotty1]

Thanks Badger, you've just proved my point. Read my previous posts, read what I've been complaining about. I put 'Texans suck' under my name to prove a point, the point being that people don't like being told that they suck, they find it unpleasant, hence:

'Come to Texas with your anti-Texan Jibber-Jabber & you will get your ass kicked. '

But there are no Palestinians here to say that to Ewallace, are there?

Geddit? I don't know any Texans, let alone dislike them, in fact my only experience of Texas has been Pantera. I'd guess that Ewallace doesn't know any Palestinians either, so why should he write a slur against them under his name?

I was doing what Ewallace was doing in order to prove my point that was he was doing would **** people off, if only they were here to shout back.

Tell me if you don't understand.

[ewallace]

But there are no Palestinians here to say that to Ewallace, are there?
See above post about demonstrations by foreign countries with burning our flag and assulting our people. That pretty much tells me that they think we suck.

[red5angel]

:rolleyes: Maybe since you guys arent palestinian and arent Isreali, you should leave it alone? You have no idea and no concept of what is going on over there. I think the killing of civillians is wrong in ANY case, but the palestinians dont feel that way. If you want to know who is right or worng, buy a plane ticket and take a trip see if you can 'get it'.

[Merryprankster]

Red,

That's absolutely the wrong attitude to take. I love when people say "You can't judge 'x' because you haven't experienced it."

Oh, so I can't find fault in a murderer because I've never been on the giving or receiving end of an attempt?

[scotty1]

Ewallace, my original post purposefully did not contain any malice towards you. If I had have thought you were a 'proper' racist, man, I would have let you have it (verbally, obviously). I was just trying to point out that having that statement under your name maybe was not the nicest thing in the world to write. But you haven't offended me, and I didn't call you a racist, I merely said you had used a racial slur.

Look, I'm bored at work, you wrote something I took issue with so I called you on it. Interesting discussion. But I'd rather this discussion not turn nasty, since you're obviously a reasonable guy. Apologies for shoving my self-righteous crap up your arse!!

:D
No hard feelings!

And Red Angel, we're just discussing the topic of the day, if you don't like it, don't join in!!:)

[JWTAYLOR]

So why is it that you think Texans suck? And btw, I'd rather the discussion turn nasty.


JWT

[Merryprankster]

JWT,

I'll bite :)

Texas sucks because....

1. Brownsville

2. They managed to make the Alamo BORING to visit.

3. It takes too friggin long to drive across the state.

4. They haven't REALLY figured out how to barbeque. I'll leave that to the appalachian states.

5. Brownsville

6. Some of 'em put beans in their chili (what the @#$#@ is that?!)

7. El Paso Mexican foods. WHAT?! If that's mexican, I'm a swedish closet transexual Geisha living on the moon :)

8. The Dallas Cowboys.

9. Brownsville

10. Brownsville


I was born in Denton by the way, and my mom's from texas, so take it tongue in cheek (ie, please don't hurt me too bad, I'm just trying to make the thread nasty, as requested.)

[Badger]

scotty1 swallows!!!

[myosimka]

red5angel

I might not have direct experience of all issues in the world but saying that I can't discuss them? Somethings are not relativistic sorry.


Slavery is wrong.
Unnecessary killing is wrong.
NAMBLA is wrong.
Unnecessary animal testing is wrong.
Government tyranny is wrong.
Genocide is wrong.
Terrorism is wrong.

Never been owned or owned anyone. Never vivisected an animal for a cosmetic company or been vivisected. Never been denied my free speech or voting rights or done it to another. Never wiped out a populace.

That doesn't make the statements any less true now does it.

And furthermore, as long as AIPAC remains one of the strongest lobbies in this country and a significant portion of the foreign aid budget goes to Israel, I reserve the right to comment on it. As long as we send leaders there who meet with Sharon but not the Palestinians, I reserve the right to bi_tch. Sorry but the price of liberty is eternal vigilance so I am going to keep an eye on it and say something. You may not like the discussion and perhaps a call for civility was in order but saying that people don't know what they are talking about simply because they don't live there and implying that they shouldn't even discuss it therefore is inappropriate. ****, sometimes my runon sentences impress even me.

[guohuen]

I'm from Louisianna, can I join in?!!!!!!! It don't matter which side!:D :eek: :D

[Merryprankster]

Actually, moral relativism is fine. All it holds is that morals are not handed down by a higher power.

[scotty1]

Only for big fat hairy Texans...
:eek:

[scotty1]

And logically, if Texans suck.....

They also swallow!!!

[JWTAYLOR]

MP, sound like you're one of the many unfortunate men who have visited our wonderful border towns without truly experiencing it's many natural resources.

I'd figure you'de be into Brownsville. After all, Matamoros is the home of many of the original "No Holds Barred" events. ;)

Ahh, it takes me back. What I wouldn't give to be young man on the border with a $20 bill in my pocket again.

And yes, El Paso food is weird. But they make great boots.


JWT

[JWTAYLOR]

So Scotty1, why don't YOU tell me why I suck.

JWT

[Merryprankster]

LOL at JWT.

The border towns had great food though.

Donkey show, anyone?

[scotty1]

I can't believe you're actually making me write this.

I took issue with Ewallace writing 'Palestinians suck' under his name. I then provided an argument about why I thought that was wrong, and how it could **** people off, and saying things like that was a bit insensitive.

So then, to illustrate my point, I changed the writing under my name to 'Texans suck' and then you and Badger jumped in with both feet to completely prove my point. Thanks.

Do you get it now? I don't think Texans suck, at all. I don't know any. God, I can see why people say that Americans don't understand irony.:D :rolleyes: ;)

[guohuen]

Like heck we don't! That would be an italian flatiron from milano, circa early 1800's.:D

[Badger]

scotty1- Why do you keep insisting Texans suck??

Come to Texas Boy. I'll whoop your tea drinking crumpet munching butt.

[Ryu]

"moral relativism sucks"

:D :D :D It's happened!!!!!!! All my hard work has been worth it!
Thank you thank you! Ryu mai tais for everyone!!!!!!! :D
YES!! Way to go.

That makes my day. Actually, Merry, a lot of people do not use moral relativism in that way. Many use it just like the way you described against (i.e. you can't judge people because X)
Your response doesn't sound relatavistic at all. Sounds much more geared towards a universalistic set of ethics regardless of who or what its handed down by. (which is good!! :) )

Anyway, I'll let you guys handle it now. I've said my piece on relativism on more than one occasion. Some of it is indeed worth looking at, and holds some truths. But it is definitely a destructive attitude when taken to the extreme.

I'm not racist by the way, I hate everyone equally! :D

Ryu

[scotty1]

Badger, Badger, Badger.......

Tut tut tut.

I hope you're being funny, boy.

[Merryprankster]

But the reason that they use it that way is an offshoot of existential nihilistic thinking--that is, the "life sucks and then you die," model.

If nothing has a point or has intrinsic value then moral relativism can be used to justify ANY point of view (ie, what's good for me may not be good for him).

IF, however, you do not accept the premise of existential nihilism, moral relativism cannot be used to make those sorts of extreme blanket assertions. I don't accept existential nihilism. It's a fallacious argument that is sulf-fulfilling in its circularity.

However, moral relativism itself is nothing more than the idea that morals are man made, be it the product of socialization, evolution, collective and individual choices, etc.

[guohuen]

The Texans and the Britts are fighting! My birthday is in four weeks! I'm getting a good shift at work tonight, and if I get home early enough I might get lucky! Life is good!:D

[Ryu]

That's true, Merry, but hey the swastika at one point meant something completely different then what it became. :)
It's unfortunate.

I agree with your thinking very much. I think what you stated as a fallacy very well indeed is a fallacy. I'm being able to almost "prove" it little by little through the course of my studies.

Think about this though, even if morality is human made, that could be in itself handed down from a "higher power" of universal "humanity."
Too many people attribute "higher power" to God, etc. etc. and then label "God" as a man in the sky, etc. :)

Oh well nevermind nevermind. I gotta go, and this will lead into another type of conversation.

Merry, I agree.

Ryu

[scotty1]

I'm not fighting wih anyone.
JWT, do you see what I mean now?

[Merryprankster]

Ryu--

It COULD, but it doesn't HAVE to be. Gotta love logic :) I am not led, automatically, to reason that it MUST be. Make sense?

In essence the difference between moral relativism and moral absolutism is VERY simple:

Do you believe in higher power, and does the higher power have a set of standards to which you should aspire?

If the answer is yes, then you are a moral absolutist. Deviation from that set of standards is immoral behavior (not amoral, mind you, different kettle of fish)

If the answer is no, then you are a moral relativist.

Please note that both a moral absolutist and a moral relativist could reach the same or wildly different conclusions about what constitutes moral behavior.

I'd love to chat more about this. And I WILL, later. But right now, I have to go weigh the moral implications of hitting my sparring partner in the face.

Cheers!

[myosimka]

That's pretty close but not exactly accurate. The premise of moral relativism is that what is moral is determined on a relative basis. Clearly socialization is an important process in educating cultural members on morality but saying it determines morality is a different thing.
One may be socialized that an evil act is acceptable. It doesn't make it true. That's the problem with moral relativism stances. Slavery in the early 1800s U.S. was wrong. The culture held it was acceptable, children were socialized that it was acceptable, the law stated it was acceptable. It was still evil. According to moral relativism, it was not evil. I refuse to accept that. Socialization, the laws, manners...failed to educate people that it was wrong.

And that's a whole different position. According to moral relativism, the act was not wrong. And I don't think that's fine. I do accept the proposition that mores/zeitgeist should be taken into account when evaluating the actions of an individual but it can't excuse them.

And going back to my previous list, all of those items are wrong. Regardless of what culture says about them.

[Sharky]

You guys got some f.uckin balls. How dare you even think of blaming the palestinians for the lack of peace? You have no grasp of the problems there.

When you have no means to fight the people in your country, things turn desperate.

[red5angel]

Barring divine intervention, I dont believe in divinity of any kind, moral relativism is the only 'moral;' truth we have. In anything you say is wrong, I can find an example of where it may not be wrong, or where degrees of wrongness may come into play. We americans like to pass judgement where we have no business.
now, conentrate on this statement very closely - If you are not palestinian, you do not really comprehend why it is ok to kill israeli civillians because you dont live there, dont know what palestinians go through on a daily basis, probably dont understand the religious fervor behind the actions taken and the conflict at large. You are not isreali nor do you live in Isreal so you do not understand the reasons for why they do the things they do. You are more then welcome to speak your mind, you are more then welcome to give your opinion, but to pass judgement before having all the facts is pure hubris.
Your idea of right and wrong isnt universal, it may not even be cultural. There is nor universal right or wrong, there just is.

[red5angel]

Myosimka, sometimes, just because you dont believe a thing doesnt make it true. CAn you explain exactly what evil is and what good is. From your point of view, yes. For example, abortion, is it wrong? not so easy to answer is it. From one side it is murder, from the other, just a way to fix a problem. You may not believe in moral relativism but that doesnt mean it does not exist.

[scotty1]

Thanks Sharky, you managed to sum up my original post:

'When you have no means to fight the people in your country, things turn desperate.'

And Red5Angel - I'm not quite sure what you were just saying, but if you're saying I can't offer my opinion or speculate about something because I haven't 'been there' - sorry, bud, no can do.

Goodnight, till Tuesday.

[guohuen]

Logic is good, I love logic. Pure logic must be tempered with compasion though. The nazis were good at pure logic and see what kind of dissaster they brought on mankind.
An example of logic used constructively would be, " If you agree that God is Love, and you agree that Love is blind, then you must agree that Ray Charles is God!"

[Badger]

Scotty, Scotty, Scotty.....we don't need no stinking scottys!

One thing about you Brits...atleast you gave us Benny Hill.



Badger

[fa_jing]

Nevermind, no one wants to argue. Just look up the stuff on the internet and decide for yourself.
-FJ

[ewallace]

heh, I go to get a fake tooth and look what happens.

Scotty1, no problems or hard feelings here mate. I like when people state their opinions and not force them on other people. That is exactly (the former) what you did and the reason that the thread remained civilized.

My real problem is with MerryPrankster. I guess he is just mad about the redskins not being able to beat the cowboys. Being a cowboys fan and a huge FSU fan, I never thought I could hate the redskins more. Then they brought in the weasel.

[JWTAYLOR]

Scotty1, why don't you keep your bullsh!t views off the board. Where the fu(k do you get off. You don't even know any Texans and you spend all of your time doing nothing but bad mouthing us. Cut this sh!t out. You're lucky I get swimmer's ear or you'de be getting my boot in your a$$ about right now.

Better yet, just keep your little mouth open and I'll jack my Texas co(k in it.

JWT

[Ryu]

"We americans like to pass judgement where we have no
business. "


But, Red5 OUR AMERICAN culture says that is okay to do. Therefore, to keep to your "relative" stance you can't tell us Americans that we shouldn't do that. :D It's not "wrong" for us to pass judment then. It's right.

LOL! oooh!! Jordan fades back! He shoots, and THAT'S THE GAME!!! :D No further questions your honor... :cool:

(gotta love Liar Liar)

Red5, don't take offense to me I'm just having fun cuz I'm in a decent mood today. But my premise up there is something to think about. Moral relativism if used sparingly can teach us about tolerance. Moral relativism used as an "absolute" (a contradiction to its premise by the way) becomes irrational and a circular argument with no logic. Just because there are degrees of morality doesn't mean the premise of "right and wrong' don't exist for HUMANS in general.

LATER! :D I need some food! Now that's an absolute! *stomach rumbling*

Merry, that makes perfect sense. :)

Ryu

[Black Jack]

Eat $h i t Scotty,

You can try and hide it, you can make believe whatever you want to support your agenda, but YOU DO SUPPORT TERRORISM.

Those c-o-c-k sucking Palestinian animals are terrorists, pure and simple, they target and kill innocent women and children, with sucicide bombers, guns, knifes, sticks or just by rushing in and grabbing the nearest kid and bashining their head in, like the little kid tied up and butchered with knifes, by supporting them in any context you condone and support their terrorist actions, which means you condone and support terrorism.

The State of Isreal has every right on the planet to defend themselves from these *******s, if that has to lead to total extermination, so be it.

They are not even a ethinc group, they are a political group, and they do not have to accomodate them in any respect, a lot of Americans remeber who we saw yoddling in the street on 9/11.

I hope each and everyone of them gets the black plague, and I am all for giving American support to helping out the Isreal people, they have taken $hit from those *******s for two long.

Pathetic :mad:

[Ryu]

Man... never heard Black Jack worked up like that.
This is gonna get ugly quick... what happened? My mai tai's aren't taking their usual effect... hmmm.

I'm sure not every one of the people in that region are like that. I'm sure you have scattered Palestinians who are horrified and saddened at what is going on too. For the ones who rejoice in what is going on however.... well force is needed to protect people. That's just common sense.

Better make more mai tais...

Ryu

[ewallace]

No Ryu, you need to not be so stingy with the happy juice. Less is more does not apply here.

[Ryu]

Ahhhhh I see.....


Ryu

[Ryu]

I don't drink.

But who said these Mai Tais are for me? I'm not the one going nuts :D

Ryu

[Ryu]

Crap...never thought of that.

Okay everyone, relativists and absolutists alike, give me your keys.

Ryu

[Ryu]

Wait.... wrap their what around who now?

[Black Jack]

Ryu,

In a sense, I know you are right, their might be some people their who are horrified by what their group does, but if they are horrified that does not mean anything when it comes to stopping it.

It was not tell after 9/11 that I really started to take in the big picture of terrorism, I started to get out of my ignorance and understand its not just our problem, other countries go through this **** all the time, thats what makes me feel bad and a bit guilty as I, like many, fell into the if its not an American problem its not a problem syndrome.

I am fine with my viewpoints, terrorism needs to be stopped at all costs, Palestinians commit, support and condone terrorism, with that in mind, I say let Isreal chop through them with whatever means they feel needed.

[Ryu]

Black Jack,
I understand and respect that. And I think to a certain degree you are right. This can't be "let off the hook". But at the same time we can't rejoice in a mercenary zeal either saying "kill em all and let God sort em out" because that's basically a terrorist mentality as well.
But hey emotions flare, and passions get put to the test in times like these. If I was all powerful I'd definitely intervene... :(
But it may be a lesson humans have to go through YET AGAIN...
if the Palestinian militants don't understand that then... history repeats itself. The problem here is that once any nation gets too far into war, destruction, political hatred, religious fervor, etc. it gets harder and harder to escape from it.
That's what makes violence so deceptive and "wrong" from a universal standpoint in my opinion. Even though it is sometimes necessary (as I think it is here) and even though violence can be used with the right motivation and yield "good" for humanity, it still is probably not something to rejoice in. Because the more it happens the deeper the trap catches you.
But unfortunately in our world. Violence is very real, very seen, and sometimes very necessary.
We need to accept that, but still do our best to keep it from taking over. If that's not a warrior mentality I don't know what is.

Ryu

[Budokan]

Hey, WOW! That dead horse twitched a li'l bit, I saw it!! Keep hitting it, you guys! It'll get up if you *really* believe...!

[GreyMystik]

yawn

[Ras-Tanu]

ewallace apologized, so everyone should be friends again.

[ewallace]

Austinians Suck.

[Ryu]

BLUE KNIGHT RULES!!

RED KNIGHT SUCKS THE BIG ONE!!!!!


Red knight's going down. Down down down. Red knight's going down...

[Merryprankster]

Myosimka--we're saying the same thing. What I'M doing is boiling it down to its sheer essence:

IF you don't believe in a higher power or if the higher power has no standards pertaining to proper behavior, THEN, morals must stem from mankind.

That is moral relativism in a nutshell. Everything after that statement is more or less an expansion on that concept.

Let's put it this way: If the entire world were "exactly the same culture," then the standards of morality would be uniform--however, you still wouldn't have "moral absolutism," because, if those standards evolved over time, then the "new norm," would be moral behavior. You still have moral relativism--in this case, it's relative to time.

The fact that we are NOT all coming from exactly the same culture simply points it all out in a more immediate way.

guohen--nope. What you've said ain't logical. Here's why. What you laid out, is:

God is love.
Love is blind.
Ray Charles is blind
Ray Charles must therefore be love.
Ray Charles must therefore be God.

Just because a statement reads true (logically true) one way, doesn't make it read true when you switch the subject and the object, and that's what you did when you said "Ray Charles must therefore be love.



When you say:

Love is blind.

and then say.

Blind is love

Essentially, it breaks down like this:

all squares are rectangles

all rectangles are squares

You have to show that BLINDNESS is LOVE before you can make that statement... and that isn't accomplished by switching the object and subject. I am using "is" in the "logic," sense of "=" just for the record... if I'd put a COMMA after blind, then the meaning would be ambiguous, but I didn't, so THERE!! :)

[Braden]

Re: Palestine. Before you cry for how much they truly want peace, recall that they were offered 96% of their land back at the last treaty, and said no.

Attacking civilian targets is wrong, period. What palestine is doing is wrong, period.

MP - Moral relativism/absolutism is autonymous of a belief in an absolute power that has moral standards. For instance, absolute powers can have relativistic moral standards (I can think of examples of this off the top of my head, as I'm sure you can as well).

I am an avid moral absolutist. I'd be interested in hearing anyone's arguments against my position (as some have said in this thread they can prove it wrong).

[Black Jack]

Ryu,

I hear ya man, but when some body states that because one group has greater technology, the other group is "forced" into killing innocent woman and childern, as if they have no choice, then that is sheer and total bullcrap.

It is offensive, for people to say that is ok, as if Al Queda had no choice in attacking America, its nonsense.

[Merryprankster]

Braden--

Where do your moral standards come from?

[Braden]

A capacity to make moral judgements.

[Merryprankster]

Ok.

Are other people bound by the spirit of the choices you make when you exercise that capacity?

[Braden]

Can you rephrase the question? I'm not sure I understand it.

[Merryprankster]

Would other people exercising their moral judgment be correct if and ONLY if they reached a conclusion in keeping with the spirit of the choice you would make in exactly the same circumstances?

Spirt mind you, not exactly the same choice... think spirit of the law vice letter of the law.

[Braden]

Well...

Actually, the [moral] decision making process is not the same as morality itself. In the same sense that making a differential judgement of length is not the same thing as the physical property of 'extension in space' that objects have. Just something to keep in mind.

Decisions themselves are not 'right' and 'wrong' in the same sense that actions are attributed moral dimensions. In the same sense that deciding which of us is taller is not the same as having or not having 'extension in space.'

Through this reasoning, I am unable to answer your question.

[Merryprankster]

We're talking about the same thing. Moral precepts are the foundations upon which decisions are made. In that sense, you don't directly assign morality to the decision. The motive must also be included.

Fair enough.

What constitutes moral behavior?

[Braden]

"If and only if is the only way to go about this I'm afraid---it's one of the things that goes along with 'absolutist.'"

Incorrect.

Example: There are blocks hidden behind three doors. Your task is to choose a door behind which there is a red block [an absolutist task]. It happens to be the case that doors one and two have a red block. I choose door number one. I am right. Does it follow that you will be right if-and-only-if you choose door number one? No it does not.

Absolutism is simply the statement that the 'right' response on this task will always be, for everyone, at all times, the choice of a door behind which is a red block.

"What constitutes moral behavior?"

That's not a term I have used, so I'm hesitant to feel the need to define it. ;) But I suppose it would be when one's behavior corresponds to morally 'right' actions.

[diego]

maybe you should think about your privileged position at the top of the world and how it affects what you think is acceptable.

[Merryprankster]

Let's extend your analogy.

Do we both agree that moral precepts are the principles upon which we (should) base decisions? If not, then this discussion is futile, because I'm just going to have to take my ball and go home :)

The red brick is the principle. You make a correct decision if you wind up with a red brick. IF and ONLY IF you wind up with a red brick.

So what I'm trying to say is that I agree with the assertion that different SPECIFIC choices may have moral equivalency--however, if they violate the moral precepts (door number 3) then they are morally wrong.

Are we on the same page now? Not trying to talk down to you... I just want to make sure we both have a good understanding of what we're BOTH talking about before we try to talk about it :)

[Merryprankster]

ARGH!

I DO have to take my ball and go home. Real life is intruding on my virtual one :)

Sorry Braden! I doubt I could prove you "wrong" but I'm sure it'd be an interesting intellectual exercise for both of us.

[Braden]

"Do we both agree that moral precepts are the principles upon which we (should) base decisions?"

The decision making process for MORAL problems (which are a small minority of the total decisions we make) should be based upon our understanding of what actions are wrong.

"IF and ONLY IF you wind up with a red brick."

Sure. Remembering of course that the rule could have been "red or yellow bricks" or "red bricks or a door that buzzes."

"if they violate the moral precepts (door number 3) then they are morally wrong"

Well, it's semantics. But the action is wrong, not the decision. Also it's wrong for sake of being wrong, not for sake of being not-right. In this sense my wording of the example was poor. My decision to wear brown pants tomorrow isn't morally wrong for lack of being morally right, for example.

"Not trying to talk down to you... "

Not at all. When people don't come to a common understanding of terms, further discussion is limited to "talking at" one another.

[GreyMystik]

i think moral relativism RAWKS :D

[tsunami surfer]

Scotty I did read your post. I read any post I respond to a couple of times to make sure I dont stick my foot in my mouth. When you were talking about Isreal being backed by The US and how unfair that is, Didnt you know the US gives aid to the palistinians too? Not as much as to Isreal though. Since you were relating to how evil the Jews were in the 40's I just wanted to know if you knew who they were fighting at the time. It was britain and they ran them out. Everyone seems to love to bash the US but they darn sure come around with their hand out when they want something.

[Ryu]

Braden and MerryPrankster,
Your conversation is VERY interesting to me. If it continues with that kind of etiquette and intelligence, we'll all learn something. :)
I think you're both on the same page, and both agree that the circular arguments of "there is no right or wrong" is logically absurd.
Both of you may come from different backgrounds and beliefs, but I feel you're connecting and agreeing on what is truly "moral" for both of you. And that itself is a big blow to "relativism" itself. ;) (or at least the existential-type fallacy Merry doesn't like)
Good show. I think I may just sit back and watch this one. :)

GreyMistik stop pickin on our thread :p
One quote wonders aren't acceptable today :D

Ryu

[Ryu]

"when some body states that because one group has greater technology, the other group is "forced" into killing innocent woman and childern, as if they have no choice, then that is sheer and total bullcrap. "

I don't disagree with that at all Black Jack.
I think that's very much on the money.

Ryu

[Sharky]

I can't fuc.king stand these posts.

Everyone thinks they know so much.

[rogue]

You know guys it really doesn't matter any more why the Palestinians want the Jews dead. Maybe it did before the Arabs went to war with Isreal but now the why's are irrelevent, the situation over there is just the way it is. People have been brainwashed into killing themselves for a lost cause. At this point either the Palastinians have to go or the Isreali's, and considering the way things are I prefer the top spinners.

You know what burns me, a bunch of thugs using the church in Manger square as a hideout. That's a desecration of a holy place for my faith and as a Christian I am deeply offended. That's why I can side with the Isreali's.;)

[Ryu]

Get over it, Sharky.

Ryu

[Ky-Fi]

True, I'm not a Jew nor an Arab, and I have no ethnic ties to the region, and I'm not talking from first-hand experience. I just have a lot of trouble taking the Palestinian side. Butchering civilians is not the last resort of an oppressed people--it's evil. Martin Luther King didn't do it (heck, even our "radicals" like Malcolm X didn't do it), Gandhi didn't do it, and Nelson Mandela didn't do it--and they were pretty ****in' oppressed. And another thing--do you think Israel really cares about the post-1967 Palestinian land they're occupying now? They would gladly trade that for peace---if they would really get peace--but they most likely wouldn't. Hamas doesn't want Israel to withdraw to pre-1967 borders--they want Israel to be destroyed and all the Jews killled. Period. The anti-semitic puke put forth by the state-sponsored Arab media is apalling. Saudi Arabia's state newspaper last year ran a two part series on the practice of Jews using the blood of Christian and Muslim children to make matzos. And as far as the Arab countries' sympathy for Palestinians--well, take a look at how King Hussein of Jordan dealt with the PLO in his country. Take a look at how the Palestinians are second-class citizens in many Arab countries. Check Freedom House to see what area of the world has the least democratic regimes.

As far as all of the radical Arab complaints against the Jews and the West being valid--well, in 1939 I guess you could have said "Hey, that Hitler has some good, valid points about the Jews being parasites and ruining his country, we really should try to understand his logical position instead of just opposing him."

[don bohrer]

Hey whats that about El Paso! Like Taco bell and the Texmex crap served elsewhere is mexican food. Just so you guys know we have plenty of illegal...err I mean moms and grandmas hidden away...err I mean working in our fine establishments.

My copper peice worth....

The diversity that is human life is seperated by 2%. That is to say our DNA from one extreme to the other is 98% the same! Kinda makes you think huh?

I guess humans don't need much to fight over. No matter what club we use to justify our actions it really is just an excuse. A cuase makes violence more palpable for our brains, and lends justification to our actions. As long as we feel justified then we are right! This is a problem when both side in a conflict feel justified. Both think they are right. Well time to make the donuts. :D

[Mr Punch]

First the facts.

1)I don't support the Palestinians.
2)I don't support the Israelis.
3)Neither 'the' Israelis nor 'the' Palestinians are a hom-ogenous mass.
4)Some Palestinians commit or support terrorist activities.

That's it.

Second, some stuff from some press reports. Obviously, this is my selection, and so is not objective. It is in no particular order.

1)Some Iraeli soldiers have shot civilians.
2)Sharon is not supported by a lot of his own generals, or people.
3)The Israeli minister in charge of the peace deal that Arafat 'turned down' has said that 'Arafat was given no real choice' behind closed doors. The deal was unrealistic and unreasonable.
4)Arafat has been threatened with death by Palestinians and Israelis.
5)Arafat was a terrorist.
6)Sharon was (almost certainly) responsible for at least one massacre of (probable) civilians, personally, as an army commander.

Third, my opinion.

1)People engaged in war against me or my family (by extension I sometimes include my state) are my enemy. I will kill my enemy if I believe they intend to kill me or my family.

2)Palestinian 'civilians' COULD be terrorists. SOME of them are. This doesn't mean they ALL are. Terrorists are an undeclared enemy. Sometimes I don't know who is a terrorist: in that case I will not kill those people until I have some kind of evidence.

3)Some 8 year-olds use sling, stones, and petrol bombs, even guns because they believe someone intends to kill them or their families. Some of these 8 year-olds have no idea of common western perceptions of right and wrong, or even of war or who they are trying to kill. They should not be killed if they are legitimately defending themselves or their homes/families.
They should be imprisoned and/or educated. A few of these 8 year-olds know full well the further implications of what they are dealing with. They should be killed if they intend to take the lives of other civilians.

4)Sharon is not interested in peace. His stated intention is one of vengeance, and his reprisals have been consistent with this intention, causing the killing of many 'civilians'. He is the wrong choice of leader, and western nations should not support him or condone his actions. The possibility of the last statement I made from the press above being true should prohibit Sharon being in power.

5)Arafat isn't a terrorist now. As far as I know (unfortunately, not far enough) he doesn't support terrorist activity now. The first part of (4) in the press section above being true suggests we should give him the benefit of the doubt. Arafat may be the only choice of an influential enough peace-broker that anyone has among the Palestinians.

6)Both Sharon and Arafat are war criminals and should be tried as such in due time.

7)The REAL civilians are the growing number of Israelis refusing military draft in the post 67 occupied territories, and some Palestinians (most of whom being too afraid to speak out).

NONE OF THIS IS BLACK AND WHITE.
All we can do is keep reading, keep educating ourselves, and not resort to knee-jerk violent reactions.
I don't know what the Palestinians and Israelis can do, but I hope that more Palestinians find a voice to speak out against the violence, and I hope that the Israelis remove Sharon and replace him with someone who DEFINITELY isn't a war criminal.

Anyone on this board serious in their stated intentions of violence against people who stated an opposing opinion are heading down the same road as anyone who espouses violence against civilians. Therefore they are contemptible, but I still would not condone violence against them. IF however, they were in the same room as me or in any other position to harm me or my family, and they still reacted in the same way, I would be forced to take it in their seriousness as an attack against me or my family (please refer to opinion (1)).

I have tried to keep this as honest, and as peaceable as possible.
Please respond accordingly.

[Mr Punch]

Just cos I don't know the first thing about your (or any other) state can't stop a bit of good ol'country bigotry!

1)Your 'men' have names like Marion.

2)You are a waste of resources:

3)...you eat too many things that eat too much;

4)... AND drive fat-assed cars.

5)You do your own sisters...

6)...but only cos no-one else would.

7)The food you call 'yours' was invented by other people...

8)...who whooped your sorry butts.

9)You walk like you got a two-piece dinner stuck up your arses.

10)You talk too big. Cut the CO2 where Chimpy's failed!

Dammed bigotry's run out...

:D :D :D :p

[ewallace]

Ahhh shiit. It's on now.

Mat, seeing as your in Tokyo, did you get those ideas from the U.S.?

1)Your 'men' have names like Marion.

- I've never met one person named Marion. Cletus maybe. Get your facts straight.

2)You are a waste of resources:
- We are not a waste of resources, we waste resources. Big difference.

3)...you eat too many things that eat too much;
- I've never witnessed a burrito eat anything.

4)... AND drive fat-assed cars.
- That would be fast-ass cars. Typo forgiven.

5)You do your own sisters...
- Only if they are really hot. This includes cousins too.

6)...but only cos no-one else would.
- The fact she has two kids proves that theory worthless

7)The food you call 'yours' was invented by other people...
- Your technology should just about cover this one.

8)...who whooped your sorry butts.
- Boom.

9)You walk like you got a two-piece dinner stuck up your arses.
- No good Texan would waste a two-piece dinner by putting it in his ass. He would be lynched.

10)You talk too big. Cut the CO2 where Chimpy's failed!
- That's because our vocabulary isn't learned from a kareoke machine.

:)

[JWTAYLOR]

First, I'll admit that I was just trying to pi$$ Scotty off simply becuase he was trying to pi$$ someone else off to make a point. I'm dissapointed that I actually used the phrase "jack my co(k in your mouth) without any response what so ever.

Second,

Good lord ewallace, that was some kinda funny.

#8 left coffee on my screen.

JWT

[Ryu]

Even though I enjoy Japan very much, #7 had me laughing :D

Let's play nice everyone!

Ryu

[myosimka]

Don't know if red5angel is still reading this but if he is.

If you believe that any cultural standard can negate the immorality of the most heinous evils, take an extreme example- molesting and butchering small children, then I can't really argue with you. So find a case where that is not wrong. My point is we may not know where the universal morals lie but they exist. And either case is an issue of belief. You believe they don't. I believe they do. My experience is that most people ultimately turn away from notions of moral relativism because the end result is so heinous. That's not to say that certain moral standards aren't established by cultural mores. Sure they are. But some just are.

I encourage you to think in extremes to begin with. Rape and murder of infants, genocide, torture for pleasure, etc.

And I encourage you to consider the notion of tyranny of the masses. Why does a preponderence of people saying something make it right?

The universe has natural laws that were in existence before we understood them. DesCartes and Leibnitz created calculus. Calculus explains motion/acceleration/position relationships brilliantly. But objects fell a certain way before we understood it. And sometimes we came up with a rule that we thought worked but it didn't. Aristotle thought that objects fell at varying rates proportional to their rates. Scientists agreed on this for nearly 2 millenia, it didn't make it true. I posit that universal moral laws also exist. Society gets them right sometimes and gets them wrong. Everyone agreeing on something doesn't make it the case.


Lastly, I don't believe in a higher power in the sense of a conscious entity. I just happen to belive that absolute morality exists. I also believe that alot of morality is just societal. But some things are right and wrong.

But we can certainly agree to disagree.

[Merryprankster]

Braden,

Can I sum up in a nutshell? Because I think I know where we're going with this, the both of us. Let me know if you more or less agree with me...

Your argument is that the capacity to make moral judgments is present in all rational persons. This capacity, when exercised, would lead ANYBODY to a similar moral code as the one you have, regardless of race, living conditions or cultural background. I won't say exactly, even though I REALLY think I should, because we both know that the truly extreme ends of any position are indefensible when discussing the human animal.

I believe that you are correct, IF you accept something like the concept of Kantian a priori knowledge. A priori knowledge of a moral ideal, however fuzzy and basic, since it is innate to all mankind, would provide the common thread in all people that would allow the above viewpoint to be true.

This would, in effect allow you to claim moral absolutism while STILL believing that morals stem from mankind and not a higher power.

I find the above to be a phenomenally tortured argument, but that's because I don't like a priori knowledge. I find it to be very unsatisfying because it has this very "well, it's just THERE," quality, which to me is very similar to having something from on high give you a stone tablet with some rules about living on it--it just IS that way.

Now if you don't believe in a priori knowledge then you would have to call morals that stem from mankind moral relativism because each person, while probably having some sort of individual tendency, learns their morals from an outside source.

To a person who claims moral absolutism, moral relativism seems like a weak, effete sort of philosophy, allowing no stand to be taken about anything, because "you weren't there and don't understand."

Instead of me saying "why you're wrong," because I don't necessarily think you are, why don't I try to explain my point of view, and see if you can agree with that. I realize our base assumptions are different, but I tend to look more at the results of something on people than just the arguments behind it. Philosophy is useless to people unless it can applied to existence(not that we sit around consulting Kant and Nietzsche to make our decisions, but you know what I mean.) I think our ultimate endpoints are probably very similar.

The moral relativism doesn't have to end up the way it always seems to--the "you can't say it's wrong, it's culturally acceptable, etc." It only ends up that way if you follow the path of existential nihilism. If you truly believe that the choices you make are inherently valueless, in and of themselves, then the application of moral relativism immediately results in the idea that since ALL morals result from personal choices, then morals themselves are valueless and consequently, they must all be equally valuable. That is, they share the commonality of inherent valuelessness so they are equal in value. The willingness to pass judgment and "fight for what's right," disappears.

I don't buy in to existential nihilism. Even if I did, there is an inherent flaw in the arguement: inherent valuelessness cannot mean equal in intrinsic value. They are only equal in their valuelessness. The VALUE is up to mankind to decide through the very complex series of individual encounters that we term a "culture," or "society." Because I reason it out this way, I cannot buy into moral absolutism.

However, one thing I can do is judge morally. Why? Because there is a value that I assign to certain morals and I am free to pass judgment about other people's behavior based on those morals. You (universal you) don't have to like it, but you do have to accept that we are all ALLOWED to make those moral judgments.

And this is why we continue to have arguments about who is right and wrong in different circumstances :) It's also the reason that morals have changed throughout history and are different in different cultures. However, I'm absolutely allowed to judge those morals. It's my intrinsic right as a person, I can take a stand on it, and nobody can take that away.

Now, in case anybody is wondering how I can say such a "horrible thing," I also happen not to believe in the inherent evilness of man...which leads to a belief that we keep zig-zagging our way to a better brighter future, collectively.

[Braden]

Mat -

"1)Some Iraeli soldiers have shot civilians."

Accidental civilian casualties and the odd civilian casualty due to hyped up crazy soldiers is A WORLD different than it being the official policy and aim to execute military action against civilians.

"The deal was unrealistic and unreasonable."

Yes, because he wants everything back, he is not willing to compromise; and he has a population that has been indoctrinated into the idea that they need to kill Israelies, and he won't know how to make them stop if there's peace. Are either of these really decent excuses?

"1)People engaged in war against me or my family (by extension I sometimes include my state) are my enemy. I will kill my enemy if I believe they intend to kill me or my family."

So the school children waiting for the bus I guess were bussing off to go kill Palestinans?

"2)Palestinian 'civilians' COULD be terrorists. SOME of them are. This doesn't mean they ALL are. Terrorists are an undeclared enemy. Sometimes I don't know who is a terrorist: in that case I will not kill those people until I have some kind of evidence."

And Palestinan civilians are not the ones being directly targetted. Israeli civilians ARE.

"4)Sharon is not interested in peace. His stated intention is one of vengeance, and his reprisals have been consistent with this intention, causing the killing of many 'civilians'."

He's interested enough in peace to offer them 96% of their land back. He's interested enough in peace to continue to let them into their holy sites, despite the fact that they use that privelege to wage terrorist war on his country. Exactly what more do you want? His reprisals have been very consistent: A bomb goes off in his city killing children, he heads out to Palestine and takes out a factory where bombs are being made. Again, exactly how would you expect it to be different? Going back to your previous point, that civilians are working in a bomb making factory is fairly good evidence they're terrorists; so by exactly your own logic, you can't claim he's killing innocent civilians.

"5)Arafat isn't a terrorist now. As far as I know (unfortunately, not far enough) he doesn't support terrorist activity now."

You don't think he supports the suicide bombers? Their families do. Their neighbours do. Arafat's followers do. But Arafat himself? No way... yeah right.

[Braden]

"Your argument is that the capacity to make moral judgments is present in all rational persons."

Yes.

"This capacity, when exercised, would lead ANYBODY to a similar moral code as the one you have, regardless of race, living conditions or cultural background."

Yes.

"I won't say exactly..."

I would.

"I believe that you are correct, IF you accept something like the concept of Kantian a priori knowledge."

Which I do.

"...claim moral absolutism while STILL believing that morals stem from mankind and not a higher power."

I did not claim morals stem from mankind. My statement was exactly: moral absolutism does not require moral derivation from a higher power, and moral relativism does not require moral derivation from other than a higher power.

To specify: I describe a capacity for moral reasoning. Where does this capacity come from? It is not important for my argument. Where does imagination come from? How does consciousness arise? There are many miraculous capacities which we have. Some will tell you they come from God, others that they are a direct fact of biology. It is not required that you specify a stance on their origins to acknowledge their existance nor discuss their characteristics (other than a characteristic like: where it came from, of course).

"which to me is very similar to having something from on high give you a stone tablet with some rules about living on it"

Or very similar to say... molecular and Darwinian evolution.

"Now if you don't believe in a priori knowledge then you would have to call morals that stem from mankind moral relativism"

Unless you didn't believe in free will, or argued for some other kind of parallelism. But since I don't think either of us will do that...

"To a person who claims moral absolutism, moral relativism... allow[s] no stand to be taken about anything..."

True. The obvious problem with moral relativism is as follows: Some things which are wrong in one circumstance may not be wrong in another; you cannot be sure of the circumstances; therefore you cannot judge whether something will be wrong or not. Moral relativism seems like moral absurdism in fancy clothes.



I follow your argument for moral relativism. What you would call the morals that are parsed by the complex machinery of society, I would describe with a term likes mores. These would indeed be relativistic, but would be an overlay upon the absolutist stance which I describe with the term morals. For instance, in some societies, it is wrong for women to show their faces in public. I would not equate such a judgement with true moral decision making.

One problem I have with your stance is it makes us a slave to culture, and in many ways becomes moral absurdism. Example: Consider a problem which is related to relations between two cultures. I would like to have the capacity to resolve that problem (in terms of judgement). However, by your argument I would not. A strong stance in what you have outlined would state that anything the majority of a culture does is right. By that argument, the actions of a culture are never wrong. The implications of this for my dilema are obvious. Considering a weaker stance of your position, it is still possible for the two cultures to be doing opposite things, yet neither of them be wrong. As an outsider, it would be a case of moral absurdism, as you would not be able to judge culturally-derived morals if you are outside the culture (or if you decided based on your own culture, it would have no bearing upon the actions of THESE cultures - so still rather absurd). If you are within one of these cultures, then your judgement is by nature nonpartisan, and yet still if it somehow became nonpartisan would fail to apply to the actions of others. There are more problems - do morals not exist for someone with no culture? Does a congenitally blind person lack morals for any action whose judgements would be derived from visual stimuli? Does someone stranded on a desert island lack morals? You might reply to this that each of these cases would develop their own culture, as thus your argument would stand. But if you argue that, then it is clearly the case that EVERY PERSON has his or her own culture, in which case we are back to moral absurdism.




As for a priori knowledge, I do not believe you can reject it, unless you have views which deviate wildly from science. The case has been made all too strongly for it over the past half century. There is of course alot of literature on instincts and other issues which a skeptic might characterize as basic and developmental. However, for an account closer to the scope of what is being discussed here, check out Chomsky's early work. It's just almost impossible to believe in the tabla rasa, purely from philosophy and psychology, even if you reject all the molecular and biological evidence.

Moreover, there is considerable evidence for a moral judgement capacity which has the characteristic of being both absolute and a priori. While no such capacity exists for covering our faces in public, it clearly does for such things as murder and incest, and I would argue even for such things as lying and stealing. If we consider the case of killing, we often here people say they would be justified to kill (indeed, they definitely would, they would be happy to, etc) in such-and-such a circumstance. Yet when we consider the experience of people who DID kill in such-a-such a circumstance, we find that they did not feel nor act as if it was as acceptable an act as putting on your pants. What is going on here? Is it right or not? Even in the case of soldiers or others who have been strongly trained (much of which, if you examine the training of soldiers, is very clearly brainwashing to get them to act a certain way), we find that these odd compulsions remain. They have all the characteristics of being both a priori and absolutist.

[Mannek]

The rights and the wrongs won't really get you anywhere in a debate like this. It is obvious that It's wrong enough to kill people. More sporting ina war sense to kill someone else who is also armed, and looked down upon to kill unarmed civilians.

But aside from that, you have to try to get a handle on the situation. WHY would a palestinian be driven so far as to go out one morning, a bomb strapped to his/her body and seek to take as many lives with their own as possible? It's not as if someone simply wakes up one morning and decides to go suicide bomb someone else.

The reason that seems apparent to me is sveralfold. Firtsly, palestinians and the isrealis for that matter live so close to this violence that it becomes part of their world. Probably most of us can only gain a detachted sense of what this conflict means to us. It is no wonder that the two cultures grow up hating one another when their cousins house was bulldozed, or their cousins birthday party was bombed.

Try to imagine that your house is bulldozed, that you even try rebuilding it. You are watched as you set the final touches and prepare to live again, when someone tells you theyre going to bulldoze it because you had no building permit, the same person that watched you build the house. Say your wife and children try to stop the tanks with stones or whatever and are killed. With no family and no home, those militant terrorist organizations start to seem like a good idea. That doesnt justify it completely of course. But combine events liek these, which happen ferequently (and I dont claim that the houses were not being used to "snipe" from, but im just illustrating a point) and religion, as well as people in control telling you that its honorable to go suicide bomb someone, then viola, you have suicide warriors. It doesnt really matter if the rest of the world thinks it is wrong, when your only world is the conflict.

This is at least how I see how an individual might come to the lengths that some of the plestinians have gone to. I dont defend the tactic of suicide bombing, but with my limited knowledge, I am rying to understand how it is feasable.

[Braden]

"It's not as if someone simply wakes up one morning and decides to go suicide bomb someone else."

No, it's as if someone has been truly convinced that they are no longer responsable for their own actions. The only way any rational person can commit such an act is if they truly believe the fault lies upon their commanding officer, their government, an oppressing culture, corporatism, religion, etc. So go ahead, keep telling them it's not their fault. Let's see where it gets us.

"You are watched as you set the final touches and prepare to live again, when someone tells you theyre going to bulldoze it because you had no building permit, the same person that watched you build the house. Say your wife and children try to stop the tanks with stones or whatever and are killed."

You know what I'd do?

Kill the people who killed my wife and children.

You know what I WOULDN'T do?

Go to the town where the person who killed my wife and children was born, kidnap two dozen pre-schoolers and light them on fire.

The distinction isn't particularly subtle.

[Mannek]

It would be nice if you approached my comments from the same direction I took. Is this a question of right or wrong? No. What you would do has little to do with what they do nor does it even matter. "I wouldnt kill anyone" is about as realistic as what you said. You dont know for sure what you would or wouldnt do, so lets not even bother discussing that.

The point is, obviously someone is teaching these terrorists that it is not only acceptable, but honorable to do these things. Are the people who commit these heinous acts responsible for their actions? Yes. Are they the only ones responsible? I would say that anyone who adds to the idea that terrorism is right -- this means government etc, is also responsible.

If a child grows up in a cannibalistic tribe in New Guinae is it wholly his fault when he decides to kill and eat a human, because our culture disagrees with the morality of that action?

This isnt a matter of right and wrong, its a question of how someone could be pushed to such lengths as to suicide bomb someone, or commit any other act of terrorism.

[Ryu]

Beautiful discussion guys. I'm really impressed with Braden, MerryPrankster, Myomsika, Red5angel, and some others.
I can't say enough for wonderful debate, and philosophical discussion. It's chicken soup for the soul.

Ryu

[Braden]

If what I would do didn't matter, why was your argument a thought experiment asking us what we would do?

If it's not a matter of right or wrong and we can't discuss it, why are you here discussing it?

"This isnt a matter of right and wrong, its a question of how someone could be pushed to such lengths as to suicide bomb someone, or commit any other act of terrorism."

Odd. Isn't that EXACTLY what I answered in my post?

[Mannek]

No, you answered about how you couldnt be pressed to those lengths. You made no effort to give your opinion on why some palestenians decide terrorism including suicide is the rigth course of action. You simply told me how you would not do that, and about how wrong it is. Both of which I would have thought would be obvious "givens" in my case as well.

If you want someone who is going to tell you suicide bombing some boys birthday party was not wrong, then youre right I must be discussing this in the wrong place.

However, just for fun, taking what you said in your first reply, that you would kill the people responcible for killing your family. It's easier said than done Braden, when they have tanks and guns and youre very lucky to get your hands on a firearm. They are part of a highly organized and **** effeciant army(the Israelis) Even if you managed to kill them, imagine what your palestinian neighbor sees. Hes going to say "Hey those Isrealis just killed my friends wife and children" "why shoudlnt I go do the same?"

Make any sense? If youre not interested in discussing that side of things then kindly dont reply, as Im not refuting any of your points youve made. I agree it's wrong to use terrorism in any circumstance. This is a discussion (as far as im concerned) of why someone would feel they should use terrorism as a solution.

[Braden]

Since you didn't refute any of my points, I shouldn't refute any of yours? Interesting discussion premise. ;)

Maybe you should read my post again. I exactly made the effort to explain why some people commited terrorist actions. I guess it just wasn't the answer you wanted.

Regarding your second point, I would leave and find somewhere else to live before resorting to lighting those preschoolers on fire.

[Mannek]

Perhaps I didnt write my first post clearly enough. I didnt feel that you replied to my points at all. You wrote a paragraph about how I shouldnt keep telling these people its not their fault. I suppose you were trying to say that they arent rational. I would have thought it would be fairly common sense that someone wasnt going to be in a rational state of mind when they blow themselves up. On top of that you use what i felt to be patronizing comments. Your point seemed to be antagonizing rather than discussing.

So no Braden, I dont feel you had any points for me to refute.

"Since you didn't refute any of my points, I shouldn't refute any of yours? Interesting discussion premise. "

That is an interesting quote, me thinks I should have used that in my first reply.

[DelicateSound]

OK guys:

1*The killing of innocent civilians is wrong.
2*The occupation of the Palestinian homeland is wrong.
3*Ewallace [although a decent guy] writing mildly offensive anti-palestinian quotes is mildly-wrong.
4*The sheer number of Texans on this board is VERY-wrong! :D


But let's look at the reasoning behind it all:


1*Palestinians kill civilians because they believe passionately in their cause.
2*The occupation was after WW2 when a great number of Jews had nowhere to go, and no homeland.
3*Ewallace was merely reacting [in a natural way] to a disgusting crime.
4*Texans have nothing better to do.



OK!! The key to resolution [both there and here!] is compromise.


And yes Ryu, chicken soup is lovely :D

[Mannek]

1*The killing of innocent civilians is wrong.
2*The occupation of the Palestinian homeland is wrong.

Two wrongs dont make a right, and I'd say that sums up the situation there as concisely as it could be in simplified form.

I meant more to put in my 2c and move on, which I guess Ill do.

[Braden]

Mannek:

"I didnt feel that you replied to my points at all."

I quoted them directly from your post, and then responded directly to them one by one. I'm not sure how much more you expect.

"I suppose you were trying to say that they arent rational."

No, that's not what I was trying to say at all. I'm getting the feeling you didn't even read my post.

"On top of that you use what i felt to be patronizing comments."

I'm sorry that you find someone disagreeing with you offensive. If you could quote any post I have made where I was insulting or derogatory, I will gladly apologize for it, since that was never my intention. However, looking back I can find no instances of this.

"Your point seemed to be antagonizing rather than discussing."

Once again, I directly quoted things you said, then directly replied to them one by one. If you could suggest a more rigorous discussion protocol, I would be happy to adopt it. And again, if you could quote any instance where I was insulting or derogatory, I would appreciate the criticism. As for disagreeing with you and attacking your logic, yes I will happily do that. Those are, last I was taught, the staples of rational discussion.

[Braden]

DelicateSound -

"OK!! The key to resolution [both there and here!] is compromise."

Unfortunately, the Palestinians (and in a larger scheme, the Arab nations manipulating them) are not interested in compromise; moreoever, they are not even interested in peace.

[DelicateSound]

I know, its sad really, as a hardcore group of people are ruining chances of peace for everyone, mothers, children, infants that don't have any say in the matter.


I hate extremists.

[fa_jing]

There is already a Palestinian homeland. It's called Jordan. Most of the "Palestinians" came from the surrounding countries looking to get in on the action after the Jews irrigated, built roads, created an infrastructure. This was prior to 1948. And Jews had been living there always, in significant numbers since the 1800's. There never was a such thing as "Palestinians" before 1948. There was a British-controlled territory called Cis-Jordania and the British defied a UN resolution to split it into Arab and Jewish homelands. Thus sparking the conflict. That's what I've heard since I was old enough to understand, that the real instigatores of the Arab-Israeli conflict were Anti-Jewish British imperialists.
But I encourage everyone to look up as many versions of the story as you like on the net and make up your minds for yourselves.

Most of what you hear about the Middle East is pure propaganda.
-FJ

[Black Jack]

Fa Jing-thank for stating that, its a political group, not really an ethinic group.

[DelicateSound]

In the end, there is a divide, be based on politics, race or the virtues of The Count from Sesame Street.

The effects of it are the problem, not the divide itself. If they were playing pattycake to decide it I wouldn't care.

[myosimka]

I'd like to point out that the recent resurgence of terrorist violence follows the collapse of the peace talks. I don't wish to defend the Palestinian terrorist actions but to say that they have no interest in compromise is an unfair characterization. 18 months ago the Israelis walked away from the table as did the Palestinians. The Palestinians want a sovereign state, the Israelis don't want to give it to them. Personally I think that the Palestinian position is more reasonable on this but that's a matter of opinion I guess. But neither side really wants to compromise. I'd also like to point out that both sides are killing civilians. The Israelis are just better armed. I also encourage you to look at the death tolls. The Palestinians would have a long way to go to catch up. We just don't call it terrorism if the army does it. (Usually we call it opression then, or a police action.) Personally I'd be alittle afraid either way so I am going to call both sides terrorists. Again, don't get me wrong-I am sickened by the recent rash of bombings but mostly I am saddened. 2 years ago I wrote this in my journal, "I never thought I'd say this but I just may see peace in the middle east in my lifetime." Fuc@!! But that was when they were still talking, when Barak was PM, when the other Arab states were supporting the talks as was the U.S., when... Fu@k!!!

Sorry for the rant but keep in mind that there are no saints in this.

And as to what Arafat supports: well clearly he's not entirely opposed to terrorism. On the other hand, he fought a terrorist battle for years with no success and negotiated in the late 90s with remarkable success. I don't believe he supports these attacks not because of a new-found love for Israelis but because I think he realizes it's not going to work. Arafat's persona has changed dramatically. He surrendered an awful lot of righteous indignation for political expedience only to find that the new way worked better.

And I don't know where you are getting your data from but I have never heard Sharon say that he would allow a Palestinian sovereign state. In fact he has stated the opposite. So I don't know where the 96% claim is coming from. I am ertainly happy to be informed though. I have a rather negative opinion of him and if it's an unfair assessment, I'd like to change it. Where did you get that from?

[Braden]

"I'd like to point out that the recent resurgence of terrorist violence follows the collapse of the peace talks."

And whose fault was that?

"The Palestinians want a sovereign state, the Israelis don't want to give it to them."

No, the Palestinians want a sovereign state over a large body of land much of which the Israelies have as much a right to as they do. The Israelies are willing to give them most of it. The Palestinians won't accept that, they want it all. Hence my original statement about which side is willing to compromise.

"But neither side really wants to compromise."

The Israelis giving them 96% of the land isn't compromise? The Israelis letting them in to their holy sites despite being at war with them isn't a compromise? The Israelies letting Arafat speak at the recent peace treaties even though they said before they consider him a terrorist who will not bargain isn't a compromise? What exactly WOULD count as an Israeli compromise in your books?

"I'd also like to point out that both sides are killing civilians."

One side is killing uninvolved civilians as a policy. The other is killing civilians who attack them or happen to be working at bomb factories. Again, I don't see that this is a particularly subtle distinction.

"We just don't call it terrorism if the army does it."

We don't call it terrorism when it's against military targets. And not by accident; that's the definition of terrorism.

"Arafat's persona has changed dramatically."

Arafat is clearly getting older and realizing the terrorist action isn't going to work. Too little, too late; plus he's controlled by other Arab nations. However, to claim that he's never supported terrorist action (not you, but what others here claimed) is just ignorant.

"I am certainly happy to be informed though."

It's all in the peace talks, which I assume everyone commenting here has been following. I have a negative view of him as well. But that he does some bad things doesn't excuse bad things other people are doing.

[fa_jing]

Cop'd this from ABCNEWS.COM

'And in a peaceful protest, about 1,000 Palestinian supporters marched through Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, chanting "Death to Israel."'

:mad:

[myosimka]

fa-jing

I am not exactly certain of your point on that last one.

Yes they are seriously ****ed off people who hate their opressors. Yes many of them now want Israelis dead.

No many of them are not nice people.

I still encourage you all to check out the Israeli/Palestinian death tolls over the last 20 years. I'd be stunned if they weren't ****ed.

[myosimka]

Actually I have read significant portions of the peace agreements.

1) 96% of the land is nowhere near an accurate number.

2) the Israelis have never offered sovereignty. Only administrative control. Totally different concept. Functionally "We give you the right to self determination unless you determine something we don't like."

Also, the Israelis have fired into crowds of unarmed protesters. You call that a military target? I suppose you can call rocks 'arms' but that seems a bit of an overreaction.

I don't want to argue the whole rights to the land issue. The Palestinians lived there for generations and were deprived of their lands in '48 and '68 respectively. In a few hundred years, I may save forgive and forget but we are not even a lifetime away from it. But then I'm a nut. I never thought the British had as much right to any of its empire as the various indigenous peoples involved.

The Palestinians have been screwed over the years. I don't like the way they have responded. But the portrayal of the Israelis as simply defending themselves is so far offbase it's not even funny. I worked for Amnesty International a few years back and the Israelis were routinely on the top 10 list of offenders. They are oppressing a significant portion of their population through military force. And stop discussing it as a war. It's not a war. It's never been a war. (Well not for more than about 6 days.) The Palestinians have been subjegated. It's one ethnic group controlling another through military domination. Why was apartheid something to be boycotted but this is a group defending themselves?(other than Western guilt)

And as to the Israelis only responding when they are attacked...So were the police at Kent State. So were the Chinese military in 1989. But rocks thrown don't justify lethal force. Yes, I know sometimes the Palestinians attack with lethal force and then the response is appropriate but more often than not, that's not the case.

[fa_jing]

Myosimka - I believe you that you aren't trying to take sides. But you are misinformed.

History lesson - prior to the 1967 war, the "occupied territories" were not a "homeland" belonging to the "palestinian" people. They belonged to Egypt and Syria.

Sovereignity has been on the table. Your forgetting that the PLO only recently removed the "destruction of Israel" clause in their charter, and many believe this was a political ploy.

"Yes, I know sometimes the Palestinians attack with lethal force and then the response is appropriate but more often than not, that's not the case."

Please cite sources that support this claim. What I read back in the mid-90's was that more palestinians are killed in lynchings by their fellows, for suspected collaboration with Israel, than are killed by the IDF. One might argue that these lynchings are just, but it does display the tendancy towards violence among the palestinians.

Amnesty International - is probably full of self-hating Jews. These same "palestinians" are treated worse than dirt in the Arab nations, yet we don't hear any international outcry.


"I don't want to argue the whole rights to the land issue." Yes you do, the following statement shows- "The Palestinians lived there for generations and were deprived of their lands in '48 and '68 respectively."

Prove it. I don't believe this is true in the majority of the cases. See my next to last post.

Once again, nothing personal. I just think you only have access to some facts, and some is just insidious propaganda accepted as truth by many. See my last post.

-FJ

[fa_jing]

Regarding my point on the media, we have 1000 people chanting "death to Israel" being spun as a "peaceful" protest.

Yes, indeed. Peace-ful = Full of Peace. The author and editor is "full of sh)t."

-FJ

[fa_jing]

"Yes they are seriously ****ed off people who hate their opressors. "

-you mean they hate Yassar Arafat?

A survey in the last decade showed that a large number of Polish still believe that the Jews are the main source of problems in their life. This even though the Jews were largely eridicated and forced out during the Nazi years. Shows you how propoganda and racism works. Jews are a convenient enemy and not the real source of the problem, in Poland clearly, yet this is the opinion of the people.

Don't you think it possible that the Arab-Muslim population is somewhat skewed by the relentless anti-Jewish slander that occurs in their national media?

-FJ

[rogue]

You know guys, if those wonderful Arab countries really gave a rodents hind quarters about Ringo, uhhh I mean Yassar and their Palestinian brothers, they would have joined together and attacked Israel outright a long time ago. I guess Jihad and martyrdom are good if you're young, stupid and a Palestinian.

I thought Arafat saying he'd rather die a matyr was pretty funny. I'm sure there's a snazzy looking explosive vest in his size he could try on.

Hey anybody here ever been to Saudi Arabia? Ever wonder who does the cr@ppiest work there is to do there and gets poorly paid to do it?

[Sharky]

I *promised* myself i wasn't going to post on this but:

rogue: the reason the other arabs don't attack israel is for teh fear of what it would do with their already fragile relationship with the US and the west. Do you know how much tese countries get in aid from the USA a year? And they need that money. They feel strongly about the situation, but not strongly enough to risk their own necks. Economically, it would be suicide.

Logically, it wouldn't make any sense to enrage the largest and only world super power in the world. What do you think the USA would do if the arab league decided to join together and wipe out Israel? Nothing? Israel is probably one of the most powerful countries in the world, and has the US behind it.

[Braden]

Myosimka - I believe fa-jing replied to each point you levelled at me more adequately than I could have. And since I usually end up regretting being drawn into discussions here and have allready had my say, I'll leave it at that. :)

[rogue]

Right Sharky, now don't you find that hypocritical of them? Money from the Infidels is more important than their oppressed Palestinian brothers?

[Sharky]

Yeah course i do. But they are being realistic. You can't blame them for fearing a huge superpower like the USA.

Especially places like Saudi Arabia are lickign the USA's ass. I mean, that area, tactically is the most powerful in the world. The USA realised this in the 1940's and proceeded to make sure they controlled it.

"Oil"

I urge you all to goto audiogalaxy or napster or whatever you use and dload as many clips of mp3 audio of a lecture Noam Chomsky - just type his name in and it will come up. Just listen to them.

Cheers.

[Ky-Fi]

I'm certainly no right-wing hawk, but on both the right and the left you have people who just spew out the party line on every issue, and can never look at a situation objectively if that may threaten their inflexible positions.

That's the Sound of Silent Famine Relief

By Brian Carnell

Tuesday, January 01, 2002

Shortly after the United States began bombing Afghanistan, some peace activists in Ann Arbor handed my wife a flier from the Ann Arbor Ad Hoc Committee for Peace calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities. Among other things, the flier argued that the United States should,

Cease the bombing and deliver food aid to Afghanistan. Humanitarian assistance and war are incompatible. International relief agencies cannot safely reach the interior of Afghanistan, where people are in need of food, while bombs are being dropped. With winter rapidly approaching, action must be taken now.

This was what Noam Chomsky called "silent genocide." But the sound of silence we are now hearing comes from a Left that does not seem to want to acknowledge that not only did millions of people not starve, but in fact the food situation in Afghanistan is looking brighter than it has been in years, largely due to the U.S. elimination of the Taliban regime (which mismanaged the economy and often interfered with relief efforts).

There is no mention on the web site of the Ann Arbor Ad Hoc Committee for Peace, for example, that in December the World Food Program moved an extraordinarily large amount of food into Afghanistan. The WFP's Jordan Dey told the BBC,


We are serving six million people in Afghanistan and that is using between 2,000 and 2,500 trucks, barges, rail cars, and even airplanes. We are moving record amounts of food into Afghanistan this month.

Nor is it likely that Chomsky will repeat WFP executive director Catherine Bertini's assessment that, "There will be no famine in Afghanistan this winter. There will be deaths, because the country was in a pre-famine condition before the war started. But it will be isolated, and not large-scale."

The Washington Post reported that aid has even reached remote, rugged areas such as Jazarajat. The World Food Program now claims that the food situation in Afghanistan is stable enough to warrant the return of up to 4 million refugees who are now living in camps in Pakistan and Iran.

More importantly, though, the long term prospect for Afghanistan's hunger problem is much improved. Although it is now dependent on food aid, there is no reason that Afghanistan cannot be a food exporting country again. The Taliban made that all but impossible with their mismanagement of the nation -- especially their restrictions on women -- but ongoing U.S. aid combined with a removal of Taliban restrictions should mean that aid agencies won't be under such pressure next year to prevent millions of deaths from starvation, unlike the past few years under the Taliban where the threat of famine has been a perennial shadow cast over the country.

Source:

Kandahar 'no go' for aid convoys. The BBC, December 27, 2001.

Massive food delivery averts Afghan famine. The Washington Post, December 31, 2001.

[rogue]

I'm familiar with Noam Chomsky and his humoruos scribblings. Great linquest, but that's as far as it goes.

http://www.leftwatch.com/FAQ/People/noam_chomsky.html

[Yung Apprentice]

great, now we got people being offended for comments not even directed towards them.

I've read the first two pages, and this one.(got bored)

What the Palestinians did was messed up. There is no excuse for killing INNOCENT people. And if you argue that point, then you suck, and I wish you were part of the not so innocent crowd who shoulda been there.:eek:

On the other hand it's not right to say that Palestinians ALL suck. Because just like every country on this planet, there are innocent ppl. And if you argue that, then you suck too.

BUT, I would also like to hear from some of the Palestinians on here, to listen to their reply, and how those comments made may have upset them. OOPS, I forgot there are none on here. So whats the big fuss about????

Some ppl were just venting. They're Texans. They're loud, crazy, and say a lot of things just to p!ss people off.(which is why ya gotta love em:D )

And guess what.....it worked. So everybody, shut up, quit your complaining,go about your buisness, kick back some of grampa's 'ol couph syrup, and have a NICE FREAKIN DAY!!!!!!!!:)

[wufupaul]

Fortunately, Yung, not all Texans are loudmouth right wing conservatives, some of us actually are concerned about the welfare of other individuals. I don't usually bother to post in these discussions, I just sit back and laugh in amusement.:D

[rogue]

And not all New Yawkers(ret.) are effimenent liberals. Some of us are dim-witted ring wing nut jobs.

[fightfan]

My .02 cents:)
Im positive that not all Palestinians are unibombers but a country is only as good as its government and a government is only as good as its peaple.
How many times is Israel going to call a cease fire only to have it broken by some militant psycho group blowing up pregnant wemen and children? What would happen if that $hit happened here(USA)? It already has!
Palestinians TARGET civilians. Theres a big difference between that and having civilians caught in crossfire or mistaken for somebody else.
IMO there is NO difference between Palestine and Al Qaeda.
Its like if you have some trailer trash neighbors and their kids keep vandalizing your property. At what point do you stop holding the kids responsible and start holding the parents responsible? Using that logic, yes, Palestinians DO suck!

BTW you English blokes really dont have a say without being hypocrites. Your country has been known to rape anything it has ever gotten its sweaty little fat hands on. You guys are lucky Texas wasnt around when we kicked your azzes back across the puddle to yo mommas! Ever since we bounced your heads off of the curb you guys have been following us around like a lost puppy!:o
Oh, and dont hate on Texas BBQ just cause you guys dont have the teeth to enjoy it. :D Stick to your mush and stale bread so you can grow to be fine young hooligans and make your mothers proud.

:D Just trying to live up to my name as a Texan, guys! Dont take me too seriously.;)

[Yung Apprentice]

Texans, ya gotta love 'em. And their BBQ too!

[dezhen2001]

Hey, i'm Scottish and love the BBQ - don't mind what you say about the English! :D ;)

david

[respectmankind]

"I guess Jihad and martyrdom are good if you're young, stupid and a Palestinian. " This slightly offends me. But also, the idea of being a martyr has become widely misunderstood. Although I understand what you were saying, and can agree in some form, I would encourage you to read more to have a greater understanding. 'Peace can not be held upheld by force, it can only be achieved by understanding' - Albert Einstein

[myosimka]

You thnik that he responded to each point that I made better than you could have?? God I hope not. Aside from the fact that sovereignty has never been offered by the Israelis(administrative control is not sovereignty.) and that he is woefully misinformed on the issues in question...he brings in numerous red herrings.

What does it matter how another group treats the Palestinians? The issue in question is the Israelis. And they treat them as third class citizens. "Amnesty International - is probably full of self-hating Jews. These same "palestinians" are treated worse than dirt in the Arab nations, yet we don't hear any international outcry." That's your debating tactic? Attack an international organization as self-hating jews, put the word palestinian in quotes and mention that others also treat them badly? You're right. That makes the Israeli actions ok.

You are asking me to cite sources when you have not yourself done it. You make blanket statements about lynchings and then don't back it up. Plus I mentioned my efforts in Amnesty International. You refused to give credence to their nonpartisan research efforts and instead called them names. I have no interest in citing sources so you can lambast them in this fashion without actually adressing the issues. Sorry.

Yes I am well aware of the fact that a sovereign state known as Palestine did not exist prior to 1948. But there were Arabs inhabiting the region not under Israeli rule who now are under it. (An independent sovereign state as Virginia does not exist either but if anyone ever gives it to any group and tells me I have to live under oppressive rule I'll be in favor of a sovereign state of Virginia too.)

As to terrorist actions- one word: Hagana.

I would be the first to decry the actions of the Palestinians if they were oppressing the Israelis. In fact if the Arab nations had succeeded in their plans in the late 60s I'd probably be here right now doing that very thing. It still doesn't make the Israeli actions right. I believe that independent states need to exist for both groups. It would be nice if separatism weren't necessary but both groups hate each other so vehemently I don't see any way around it. That's why I want an Arab sovereign state in the region.(since you don't like the word palestinian) And before you mention that the region is surrounded by arab states-these people have already been displaced once to make a home for nonresident jews. Is the equitable solution to require it again or to allow them a homeland that is actually their home?


Lastly, the Israelis do target civilians. Yes they also target combatants. The Israeli army has repeatedly fired into unarmed crowds.(Again I am not counting rock throwers.) Both sides target civilians. And I'd be just as terrified to be a Palestinian there right now as an Israeli.

[Merryprankster]

Ah, Braden..we're both getting awfully close to a resolution--make it stop :)

Seriously, I think we both come round to the same general set of conclusions, but we reach it by vastly different means.

I tend not to believe in a priori knowledge. I do believe in instinct, which is not 'quite' the same thing, in my mind. For instance, a person has a circadian rhythm, but if they had never seen the sun before, they would have no concept at all of what it was and would quite probably be scared by it.

Of course, the mess of it all, is that we present these as though they were in a vacuum, and of course, they are not :)

I may have misunderstood you, but I think you said that my particular way of being moral relativist still leads to moral absurdism. I find this to be not true at all. The fact that I individually retain my right to moral judgment allows me to judge any action in the spectra, regardless of cultural differences. Of course it will be flavored by my society and upbringing, but that doesn't stop me from making the judgment. I'm qualified to say that something is morally wrong simply BECAUSE I possess the capacity for moral judgment. It leaves you (universal you) free to disagree with me, as well.

Where we really disagree, of course, is in the idea that morals evolve over time. Quite frankly, I think morality changes over time. I also think it IMPROVES over time. It zig-zags a bit, but there is no doubt, in my mind, that taken as a whole, mankind treats each other better and more fairly than they ever have in history.

But that's also because I happen not to believe in the "sinful," nature of people, with religion and society somehow being the only check on our "natural vices." I believe in the human race generally, and I think we just keep getting better as we move along in time. Naively optimistic? Perhaps.

[myosimka]

Favorite examples of a priori knowledge.

Similarity. The simple act of recognizing 2 things that look alike as being similar. Without it babies couldn't learn to identify their parents. They can't learn anything at all because every time they open their eyes it would be a new flood of sensory information unconnected to any other. Bizarre thought.

Continuity in time. That the object that you are seeing is the same one you were looking at a milisecond ago. This transfers to general continuity of existence issues which development specialists argue over whether they are learned or inherent. If Dad walks out of the room does, he still exist questions. But you have to have continuity of direct perception before you can learn anything else.

Flip side of similarity is distinction. This object is dissimilar from that one. Otherwise sensory information is just that. A meaningless picture.

Sense of self. You have to have some notion that you exist as a separate entity in the universe. You learn what is which through experience(ever watch a baby discover their hands? Very cool) but the basic concept is there to begin with.

Some people argue that this is not true knowledge. That it's the hardware and knowledge is the software. Using the computer analogy I view this stuff as the operating system. But the point is that these are concepts and without them you can't make any sense of sensory input. Even if you don't know what a person is you have to see a pinkish blob that moves while the rest of the room doesn't to learn what a person is. Identifying movement can't be done without recognizing continuity in time. Identifying pinkish blob can't happen if each time you see it it doesn't look like the previous pinkish blob. And seeing it as separate from the room can't occur without the notion that things can be separate. It sounds like circular reasoning because the concepts are so basic but mull it over with the idea of transitioning from general abstracts to specific situations.

Epistomology, it may be worthless but it sure is cool. That was our college motto in a naturalism and skepticism class.

Philosophy students, we forget more worthless crap than you'll ever learn. That was the department motto. That's why I became an econ major. Then I realized all college departments have basically the same motto and decided to stick with econ anyway.

[reemul]

If the palestinians quit bringing hurt upon themselves and take part in the peace negotiations most of this would come to a head. Both sides need to accept their losses (as far human life) and move on. The palestinians cant seem to let go, and the Israeli's aren't willing to roll over.

But hey if it takes another vietnam to learn these guys oh well, you would think they would have learned by our example.

[Merryprankster]

myosimka,

Hume's dungeon man :)

Would an individual raised from birth completely deprived of sensory input of any kind ever develop a sense of self since there is nothing to compare the self to?

That is, a sense of self is a relationship...not an absolute... or is it? That's the question posed.

And we must wonder for all eternity because executing such an experiment would be the most hideous act of individual cruelty I could ever imagine.

[apoweyn]

"And we must wonder for all eternity because executing such an experiment would be the most hideous act of individual cruelty I could ever imagine."

barring the collective works of aaron spelling, that is.


stuart b.

[Merryprankster]

Ap,

You may be right.

There was a place in Boston's North End that had burgers that were very close to individual acts of cruelty. I tried to feed what I had left to the pigeons but they ignored it completely.

[apoweyn]

well, they're locals. they know better. :)

[myosimka]

MP,
I think they'd have a sense of self but they wouldn't have gone through the process of clarifying what was self and what wasn't. But then again some of the notions of existence would be a bit bizarre without sensory data. For that matter, how could they ever communicate concepts on this order since language shapes our thinking? Whoa, I need to sit down.

Seriously I think that the notion of self exists innately we then just go through life putting things in the self-external to self bins. But the bins are there.

Oh and I'd say that the sensation/notion/idea is an absolute but it's expressed as a relationship. In other words, I know I exist. Proving it's tough but the idea/concept are clear to me. But then the notion of defining self is conveyed in: I am a man, I am not the chair I sit on, I am more than the neurons in my head, my thoughts are influenced by external forces, etc.

Tangential-Freud had an interesting theory on the origin of faith and belief as incomplete progressions in this classification process. People maintain a sense of connectedness with the universe and so have faith in a power external to them that they are also part of because they haven't adequately developed the disassociation that begins in infancy. Surprisingly this notion has not caught on with the general public. Surprisingly Freud was an atheist. Hmmm. Still an interesting idea though.


But then again, I could be wrong.
;-)

[Merryprankster]

myosimka--

the discussion about language shaping our thinking is sounding suspiciously like it's headed in the direction of logical positivism. Last time I tried to read that stuff I gave my brain a hernia :)

Question for you--do you feel that philosophy has lost sight of the original goal? After all the search for truth should apply to life, shouldn't it? That is, philosophy seems to have been originally searching for the truth about human nature and our relationship to the world around us, but contemporary philosophy (1950's say and on) seems to have degenerated into a set of abstract concepts with little bearing on the way we live.

What say you?

[apoweyn]

that's what i always liked about hinduism and daoism. their immediately obvious applicability. (i know they're not unique in that regard.)

questions about whether we exist or no fall squarely into the realm of what one of my philosophy professors termed 'mental masturbation.' it might feel good, but it's not really getting you anywhere.


stuart b.

[Braden]

Hey guys. Cool that this discussion is interesting to more people. ;)

I don't have much time to read thoroughly and post, just got home from Easter bidness and am busy with school.

Some interesting ideas though...

As for the poor individual devoid of sensory input; I believe he would have a sense of self. The specifics of his sense of self may be quite different than ours though. There are some interesting 'experiments' concerning sense of self from behavioral neurology and cognitive neuropsychology. It seems that it's an important characteristic of mind, but it's not as rigid as we'd like to think. It's fairly easy to get you to extend your sense of self into fake hands using mirrors and simultaneous mimiced stimulation (rubbing your real hand and the fake, presented hand in the exact same way). Curiously enough, it's not much harder to extend sense of self into tables and other clearly inappropriate things in similar ways. More classically, there are a number of attentional disorders that profoundly affect sense of self (eg. hemineglect); although they're often dismissed as "just" attentional disorders, I think it's clear that attention as a process is instrumental in many other processes, including sense of self. Similarly, there are dramatic affective disorders called monothematic delusions (ok, I'm jumping the gun a bit calling them affective disorders) where connection to self is disrupted - we have people believing their mirror images are strangers following them around, or that their body is no longer theirs (often 'explained away' delusionally as the belief that they have died).

Interestingly enough, we have analogous processes going on with how we attribute selfness to other things. In a seemingly related disorder, we have people who stop attributing the same selfness to their parents that they had premorbidly. Again, we have delusional processes at work where the anomaly is 'explained away' as 'my parents have been replaced with robots/aliens/strangers/clones/have died' but it seems to me these are clearly primarily sense-of-self and sense-of-other disorders, and the delusional aspects which are seen as the main characteristics of the disorder are a result of a certain failsafe mechanism in the brain that is responsable for delusions (which I'm not just making up myself, there are diverse observsations for such a mechanism, such as in the delusions of split brain patients).

Still interesting, (Re: Freud's atheism), there seems to be the same 'hardwired' capacity for religious experience in the brain, which seems to be analogous to sense-of-self, and sense-of-other. Most widely discussed in experiments where a region of the temporal lobe are stimulated resulting in 'perception' of a religious experience (compare similar observations from temporal lobe epilepsy). Curiously, some people wrote articles on this finding as proof that God and religion are but curious artifacts of our biology and culture. I like to point out that extending the same logic to the visual system would, by their standards, be proof in the non-existance of light.

The picture that is being painted here is analogous to the one I alluded to previously regarding language and Chomsky's early work on the topic. (Yes, his politics are crazy, but he did some great science). Chomsky's concept (my linguistics is rather weak, so I encourage anyone with a stronger background in it to correct me or elaborate) was that we are 'hardwired' (eg. a priori knowledge, in the truest sense) for language. However, the hardwiring is peculiar. There is a certain universal 'structure' which includes a number of variables. There is a critical period during childhood for learning from your culture (parents, school, whatever) the particular variables which will fill out this hardwired stucture for your language. Thus... getting back to the picture that is being painted... it's one of hardwired capacities (in this case language, I would argue analogously for sense-of-self, other, god, as well as a variety of other processes), however the hardwired capacities are general structures with variables, and it is cultural learning which sets the particular variables. With respect to language, it's interesting to note that 2nd generation users of fabricated languages (that is, children who grew up learning from their surroundings languages which were fabricated, such as ASL or mocked up trade languages where foreign cultures meet) will spontaneously generate a rich rule and subtle expression structure characteristic of a true language (and consistent with the variables and structure idea Chomsky put forth), which was utterly absent in what they had been taught.

As for philosophy losing it's way, I think that we've seen recently a wide-scale return to science among it's practitioners, notably in the cognitive science movement. I think the cross-feeding of these two discplines will and has been the key to keeping both on track.

P.S. Logical positivism is evil. Almost as evil as moral relativism. ;)

[myosimka]

I think that the answer is sort of two- or maybe even threefold.

Yes, I think it should be applicable to life. And honestly the only philosophy that seems useful is the fields that deal with ethical and moral issues. And even then it's use is limited an a bit dangerous. I have seen Nietsche and even Kant twisted beyond belief. And often it's not even deliberate but rather taken without the proper contextual basis. Math analogy again-you don't use a Taylor sum to do multiplication tables although you could. But if the only math you had ever read was an advanced multi-variable calculus book, you might try it. The good news about math is it's immediately clear you need to understand the basics before stepping up. Many people don't get that on philosophy. And a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

On the other hand, are crossword puzzles applicable to life? Is a game of chess? How about novels? Movies? Not directly. But they do hold a place and that is entertainment. And for some of us, discussing the nature of knowledge is entertaining. Obviously- ;) Alec Baldwin said something on the Actor's Studio that summed it up for me. [Don't let anyone tell you that what you do is any less a noble calling than anything else. Doctors save lives and that's noble thing. But that's about HOW we live. But entertainment, drama and laughter, is Why we live.] (I used brackets because I stole the gist but could not remember the precise quote to save my life.) So for many of us philosophy and asking the questions that don't put food on the table or solve the great dilemmas stills applies to life.

Plus I think that much of this is going to come back into the forefront as our lives become more complicated and societal/scientific growth outpace our socialization. We have a generation alive today that knew a world without electricity, one that lived with the threat of nuclear war, one that saw the private sector surpass the tech nightmare outlined in 1984, and one that's grown up with the internet, cloning, satellite communications and biological weapons as preestablished realities not scifi. How in he11 can we have consistent socialization? And it's just getting faster. And without concensus on social mores, ethical conflicts are going to get more and more common. So I think that we may see a good bit more philosophy in years to come. Look at the number of schools that have begun biomedical ethics programs in the last 10 years.


That was threefold wasn't it?

[Merryprankster]

Myosimka and Braden--

To sum up:

Moral Crises keep philosophy on track (to serve humanity, vice mental masturbation) :)