Only Losers Get Tried for War Crimes (CounterPunch) (http://www.counterpunch.org/mickey04182003.html) But the Germans and the Japanese lost in 1945 (as Serbia lost in 1999). The undeniable transgressions of these and other criminal regimes have been well-documented elsewhere and some of those responsible for war crimes have been prosecuted. It was the war planners in the nations that defeated these regimes that sat in judgment. General Curtis LeMay, commander of the 1945 Tokyo fire bombing operation that killed 672,000 Japanese, understood this paradigm well. "I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal," he said. "Fortunately, we were on the winning side." So far, the U.S. has always ended up on the winning side and therefore hasn't had to accept responsibility for more than two centuries of its own atrocities...many of them against civilians . . . .

. . . . Of course, war crimes can be made to disappear. On April 6, 2003, the New York Times reported of a post-war U.S. plan aimed at "demilitarizing" the Iraqi curriculum. "Iraqi textbooks, such as this one for sixth-graders, tout Iraqi weaponry and war prowess and cite the United States as an enemy," reporters David B. Ottaway and Joe Stephens state without irony before explaining that the Bush administration hopes to "have in place wholesale revisions to textbooks that have taught a generation of Iraqis to be ready to die for Saddam Hussein." A few paragraphs into the article, we learn that the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) is "preparing to award education-related contracts worth an estimated $65 million" with the front-runner being Creative Associates International of Northwest Washington, the architect of a similar "educational reform" in Afghanistan. "One of the most important things [taught] is the bearing of arms and the constant readiness to fight enemies," said former National Defense University professor Phebe Marr, presumably with a straight face. "The definition of the nation and your identity is very much tied up with the military... All the way through the texts, you are supposed to be ready to fight for and defend your country." Imagine that... The Ottaway/Stephens article, incidentally, can be found at the Orlando Sentinel (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/orl-asecbattles06040603apr06,0,4493365.story) website.

So why are losers the only ones eligible for war crimes? This is a question I've addressed before when demanding that Rumsfeld stand among the accused in the Iraqi regime. This particular article makes a more poignant case regarding war crimes in general. Even in elementary school we heard tales of scalping Indian tribes in America, but it was only through "subversive" sources that young people discovered that the truth of history includes Columbus' evils against the indigenous American population, and if it wasn't for mention in a Judy Blume kids' novel, I wouldn't have known the names of several conquistadores, including Cabeza de Vaca, whose La Relacion seems largely ignored in both concept and practice in the teaching of history. Anarchists were referred to in evil contexts until I happened across a leftist college professor who made the Anarchism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries a cornerstone of his class.

"Sympathy for the terrorists?" Hardly, but as children, many of my generation were raised to accept the "realities" of war. We were taught that My Lai was an unfortunate result of necessity, and that Hiroshima and Nagasaki "saved lives". American public curriculum ignores Dresden and other firestorms altogether; I was 18 and enthralled with Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. when I got my first taste of what actually happened at Dresden.

The electronic age, the age of the Information Superhighway, will complicate this in the future. It will be harder to keep these chapters of history from the "fragile" minds we spend so much effort and money to twist into form.

But as it is, I think of my generation who was taught the sad necessity of civilian death, and it's hard to not see an aspect of sad necessity in what happened on September 11, 2001. Nothing will ever make it right, but for heaven's sake, who, really, was stupid enough to be surprised? My first reaction to the pictures of the WTC in flames was, "Well, somebody finally went and did it." As a result, I've found most of the war on terror to be macabre overkill.

And as we've seen, the WoT has been somewhat disgraceful, with thousands of prisoners denied their constitutional rights by the Justice Department, with new designations designed to circumvent humanitarian agreements (e.g. Geneva Conventions & "unlawful combatants"), and a host of overblown reactions to Saddam Hussein's regime that have little, if anything, to do with the Iraqi people. We're furious with Hussein for every little thing he does, obsessing even over the things the United States and its partners willingly do. So they showed the POW's on TV; yes, it's a violation of the Geneva Conventions, but it's only a twist of rhetoric that allows us to show X-Ray prisoners on television. Americans were furious about the deaths of several soldiers who have been recovered alive; why are we manufacturing horror stories? Are the real ones not enough?

In the end, it comes down to a lack of trust. The administration does not trust the American people. Consider the proposition: The Iraqi Bush War, despite international opposition, is justified because it is the right thing to do and seeks the right outcome for the Iraqi people.

Now, if this was true, what would be the "risk" of showing the nasty pictures on television? If we're right, then the cost is worth it, and American resolve will not falter, and America will not fail. Yet at every turn, the administration sought to make epic propaganda out of this war. And despite the embedded reporters, despite the "dignity" of American coverage, and despite the rabid and patriotic blindness shown by Americans toward reality, ABC News ran a poll a couple of days before Baghdad fell showing that 73% of Americans supported the war. In fact, ABC polls suggested that, while people changed their opinion of the potential duration and human cost of the war, support before the war increased almost negligibly after the war started. In fact, those numbers suggest that the number of people whose sentiment described some variation of, "Well, the war's officially afoot, so I might as well support it" at some 1%. (A shift from pre-war approval of 72% to 73%.)

So if support was so strong, and we the People of the United States so right and correct in our vision, what was with the propaganda? Quite simply, the administration does not trust the American people.

And among that blanching of the war is the human toll. We know civilians die, but this war will forever be stained by the volunteer soldier from the US who was quoted as having to shoot an Iraqi civilian mother to death because "The chick was just in the way."

There are many war crimes to be considered; the Geneva Conventions prescribe caution in the face of the confusion our soldiers faced vis a vis Iraqi fighters in civilian dress. We sacked the Conventions. The Conventions prescribe the necessity of law and order maintained by an occupying army; the Conventions were sacked in favor of a PR stance that only cheered up Americans.

Civilians and diplomats seemingly intentionally targeted, though it is acknowledged that Americans were so bad at their jobs they couldn't tell their enemies from their allies; not only did our low-flying Warthog pilots take out British vehicles and soldiers, but it got some of them on the second pass.

This really is about the oil fields, and as the reports of American mistakes surface, I expect Americans to be held accountable for their crimes against humanity, starting with Rumsfeld, including Bush, and working our way down from there.

Of course, I live in a country where "law and order" videotaped abusing citizens, is acceptable. If we're shooting at Iraqi civilians, Americans are not generally inclined to care.

Welcome to the new war, where rules are generally too inconvenient to follow if you don't expect to have to be held accountable.

And history suggests that American war criminals will walk away unscathed.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa,

Lovely post, really is. :)

The problem with most war crimes is that we don't know about them until years later. I point to Dresden, Germany in this case. Fire bombing german citizens? That's bad, but people didn't know about it until later. (Or until books like "Slaughter House-5" come out)

The truth of it all is, and this does suck, is that the winners never have to face their crimes. Because they are just that; winners.

It's the system, and I totally agree with you Tiassa.

Belgium seems to agree (of a sort) with the 7-1 vote presently standing in the poll.

US anger at war crimes threat (BBC) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2983911.stm) .... A Belgian lawyer says he is preparing a case that could see General Franks charged under a law which allows the prosecution of non-Belgian citizens for war crimes ....

.... A senior administration official warned that even the issuing of indictments would result in what he called "diplomatic consequences" for Belgium ....

.... The row erupted after a Brussels lawyer gave an interview to American newspapers in which he said he was aiming to file a case next week on behalf of 10 Iraqi civilians alleging among other things that General Franks did nothing to stop the looting of hospitals in Baghdad and that coalition forces fired on an ambulance. I can't say that we in the US give much credibility to the court in Belgium, but some odd sensitivity has set off the administration. Perhaps the awareness that some in the world do, in fact, give credibility to the court, and, furthermore, the awareness that indictments in Belgium could spark indictments in courts the US has more reasons to pay attention to.

This will be an interesting story to watch develop. I know that there were reports of a 36-hour seige by Iraqi looters against a mental hospital in which 4 patients were raped, and two died from thirst for lack of medical attention. That was not in Baghdad, though, so my benchmark case has not yet developed, either as a finalized story or an indictment.

I will not, however, tolerate the stringing of General Franks on petty issues; if we're going for war crimes, make it a good case on solid issues and be ready to climb the ladder after Rumsfeld, and eventually Bush. "I was just following orders," is not an excuse. But General Franks, as the "messenger", is the one I'd go lightest on for general failures to adhere to the Geneva Conventions, unless of course it's shown that he ordered some hideous slaughters ... er ... well, we haven't seen the Iraqi My Lai yet, so ... yeah.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa,
For the curious, here are the weblogs of the four belgian doctors on whose testimony the case is being based. (http://www.irak.be/ned/missies/medicalMissionColetteGeert/two_belgian_doctors_in_baghdad.htm) Some of the charges are things like marked civilian ambulances being shot up by Marines, hospitals being bombed, residential areas around Hilla and Baghdad being bombed and so on. So they're not trivial charges. Whether or not the case will make any difference, that's another story.

Thank you very much. Unfortunately, it looks like a depressing lot of reading. But it is much appreciated.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Yes.

There is no right or wrong and there’s no good or evil. There’s just winners and losers. I mean how many of you believe that the state of the world today is based on the “good guy” having won every past war? Things happened just as they did. “right” and “good” have been re-defined to conform to the winning party. In a parallel universe the world is a better place (“better” defined as less human death and misery). I’d bet that the U.S.A is not a world superpower in that universe.

dsdsds,
There is no right or wrong and there’s no good or evil.
First, go tell Bush ("Axis of Evil" spark memories?).
Second, shooting a marked civilian ambulance isn't so much a question of right/wrong or good/evil (since it happened during war), but it is illegal under the Geneva convention. So don't worry about right/wrong or good/evil if you please - worry instead about legal/illegal.

Of course, this will never come to be... in fact, Bush fought very hard to thwart the creation of the International Criminal Court and failing that, tried to have Americans exempt from prosecution by it. Why is the administration so afraid of Americans potentially being tried for international war crimes? Is it something that we should just be able to get away with?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A12630-2003Mar11&notFound=true

Thanks for the article, Kami, and no, we haven't figured out what Bush is up to aside from admitting that conventional warfare is inconvenient to him. Clinton signed on to the ICC, admitting at the time that he was uncomfortable with it, but he had the right idea: If a body is going to establish a new standard of justice that it will expect you to respect, it's probably worthwhile to make sure you have your say in what exactly that standard says. Bush didn't even want that.

It's one of the reasons so many people are waiting to see if Americans are held accountable, and some will be willing to hold them to the slightest mistake. Remember, the US government finally busted Al Capone on tax evasion charges. Like I said, if it's a substantial charge, let's bring it to trial, but if it's a petty issue, consider whether or not it would have been addressed had it been anyone else. It's true that, given the state of the world, several days of chaos in Iraq just doesn't seem like much, but it is in its own right a "test case". The US has to test the world and see just how much it can get away with before deciding how to stage its next war.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Who is the jury? THe UN? I dont exactly trust most of them to be unbaist. It depends on what the possible war crime is as well but the big thing is do I think the prosecuted are going to get the stick.

I abstain from voting in this poll.

The fact that the winners get to decide who gets tried for war crimes underscores the fact that there really is no such thing as "international law," rather it's international force, and sometimes diplomacy, that accomplishes anything in this realm.

So if I want something, AlanH, I should just beat someone up and take it? I understand that I'm absolutely sinister and insane, but I always wonder why the decency and respect and peace I show my immediate neighbor isn't good enough. Apparently I need to be even more saintly and beat his children every time he pisses me off.

That is, essentially, what I don't understand about the idea that Might is Right.

It really does seem a pseudo-intellectual justification for stupidity or sloth.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa, I don't necessarily think alan was defending 'might makes right', but rather was stating a reality. Just like federal, state, and municipal laws, international law is only effective if it can be enforced. There is no international police force, short of an occasional neutered peacekeeping force, for an international body to back its laws. How can the UN enforce its laws on a superpower if the superpower refuses to allow it?

The underlying reality is a fiction, though. Might is Right is a mere presumption of the stupid and lazy, and I'll take any platform I can get to go straight after the idea's throat.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
So if I want something, AlanH, I should just beat someone up and take it?

Okay Tiassa, uhm... who establishes what is and isn't punishable? Governments right? City, County, State, Feds, blah.... there is a top to that chain of power right? Who tells that power how to behave? The nation? What if what the nation demands is in violation of international law? Who give any authority to international law? Blah, I'm meandering. What I'm getting at is that regardless of how we'd like things to be, at the top there's just guys making judgment calls. Each nation jockeys for its share of resources and each will stoop to the level of the lowest jerk who actually has any kind of power. Sometimes that ends up being a war. So unfortunately and somewhat disgustingly might IS right.

Simply put: There are a whole bunch of different "rights". I think a bunch of things are "right" that you would likely despise. We both probably think a bunch of things are "right" that a random citizen of Iraq would think is a bunch of bullshit. It's somewhat cultural and somewhat "how that culture got twisted in your particular mind". Thusly, since there exists more than one condition that is considered "right" (although it is by differnt individuals)..; power is all that is left to settle disputes. Might is the right that makes other rights wrong eh? *shrug* (I thought it was going to be simple, pardon)
Originally posted by tiassa

I understand that I'm absolutely sinister and insane, but I always wonder why the decency and respect and peace I show my immediate neighbor isn't good enough.

Because of the subjective nature of consciousness.

Originally posted by tiassa
That is, essentially, what I don't understand about the idea that Might is Right.

I think you do, but it pisses you off so you pretend you don't... :D
Originally posted by tiassa

It really does seem a pseudo-intellectual justification for stupidity or sloth.

Nah man, it's that I'm not you. You're not me, we aren't they. That wouldn't be that big of a deal if it weren't for the fact that people are willing to kill you or you may be willing to kill someone based on what you think is "right" or "wrong". The real bitch is when I kill someone for a "just" reason that you don't think is just eh?

Originally posted by tiassa
The underlying reality is a fiction, though. Might is Right is a mere presumption of the stupid and lazy, and I'll take any platform I can get to go straight after the idea's throat.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

So you think Sciforums is an effective platform? This board is entertaining and all that, but I don't think it's exactly the cutting edge of reform.

Mildly sarcastic note, but with a genuinely warm smile: In retrospect, I hope I passed the Essay portion.

Quiz Time?

- Okay Tiassa, uhm... who establishes what is and isn't punishable?

At the most basic level, the people.

- Governments right? City, County, State, Feds, blah....

Governments are expressions of the people.

Counterpoint: Do governments exist for the benefit of the people, or do the people exist for the benefit of government?

- there is a top to that chain of power right?

Generally speaking, yes.

- Who tells that power how to behave? The nation?

Let me know if I've paired those wrong. The people tell the power how to behave.

- What if what the nation demands is in violation of international law?

Then those responsible are criminals.

- Who give any authority to international law?

The people. In the United States, for instance, the Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitutions. But we occasionally have odd fights with the international community, such as when the UN tried to set a biodiversity zone around Mount Rainier that was larger than the national forest the US had already set aside. The US may have sold its soul to the UN, but the Clinton administration would be damned before they let the UN displace Americans from as many as 1,500 homes for a biodiversity zone.

Doesn't matter. We shouldn't have signed that authority to the UN.What I'm getting at is that regardless of how we'd like things to be, at the top there's just guys making judgment calls. And if those people are stupid or criminal, they ought to be thrown out of their offices. Jesus, for all the shit people gave Clinton for a blowjob, you'd think that the kind of dishonesty that costs lives would be a little more important to my righteous and upstanding American neighbors. Each nation jockeys for its share of resources and each will stoop to the level of the lowest jerk who actually has any kind of power. Fine with me. Let's just stop pretending we're being decent when we're not.

See, part of it is that people are just that stupid. Leaders and their agents say its noble, so people believe it's noble even though it doesn't jibe with what they say they believe the other six days of the week.So unfortunately and somewhat disgustingly might IS right. We do not afford that philosophy any credibility in our dealings with our fellow Americans; I do not kill my neighbor because the exhaust from his truck (a harmful chemical agent) tumbles into my yard.

This simple decency is good enough for my fellow American, it seems. In fact, it seems expected of Americans. However, we cannot afford it outside our borders.

Even if I cast the generalization that noble America must lead the world to freedom, the one thing it's teaching the whole damn world is that the only way to be free is to beat up everyone who disagrees with you.

And that's just not decent. I think a bunch of things are "right" that you would likely despise. Do I have the "right" to rape your sister just because I'm physically capable? As to the rest of that question, you're also forgetting the simpleton's definition: "Might is right, as in evidence of correctness." I agree with you that people are so stupid that violence is about all they have to settle disputes at the barest level, but that's the problem. They do so because they have no other tools at their disposal, and among the "right" presumptions that they maintain is that there are no other tools. Simpletons, indeed.

Warfare is an admission of failure. How can we be right if we've failed? Oh, I forgot--we're less wrong than the next country, so that makes us right.Because of the subjective nature of consciousness.That's also a great excuse for racism. Functionally speaking, that is.I think you do, but it pisses you off so you pretend you don't. Honestly? I don't like to think that poorly of people. So I simply presume that there's something I'm missing; unfortunately, while many people agree, not a single one of them are capable of telling me what that something is. I'm supposed to believe that "we" are "right" or that "we" have "the right" the same way someone might expect me to believe that Jesus Christ can save my soul and redeem me in heaven.Nah man, it's that I'm not you. You're not me, we aren't they. I wish that sufficed. But you know how, in economic debates, a conservative is prone to say, "I worked for my money, why can't they?"

Well, you know ... I worked hard to learn to perceive reality. Why should I respect the lazy? For you and me, we speak of the ... how did you put it ... ah, here it is: So unfortunately and somewhat disgustingly might IS right.

Why do you say unfortunately and disgustingly? What is it that you have in your pantheon of ideas that makes you say unfortunately and disgustingly? What is it that you've done or seen or understood that brings you to that point that someone else must have missed?

It's not like you're asking anyone to go get a PhD in international affairs with a master's minor in philosophy. Why do other people celebrate what you've come to recognize as an unpalatable aspect of reality?

And you can let that part stand rhetorically, if you want. It would be difficult for me to answer those questions directly with any respect for economy of words.

We're human beings. This boat sails a lot better when everyone's on board and everyone has a bit of an idea what we're doing. It's a matter of education. And that's actually a great metaphor. Some of us are grinding sheets to get the sails trimmed so the boat can make progress. But the majority just want to play with the shiny handles and winches and the nifty ropes with their cute patterns of colored dots because they want to look as cool as they think the sailors themselves do. Put a child in the cockpit of a 47-foot yacht and tell him to point a heading. Even I remember how boring that was at first; I wanted to spin the big wooden wheel like helmsmen in cartoons. But now I understand why for all those years my father preferred a direct-connected tiller and rudder. It's a lot easier to keep a point when you can feel the water talking back. All I'm asking is for the idiots around the deck to stop playing randomly with everything and learn what it does. Every winch they crank, every cleat they untie, every line they tug ... yes, flying on a loose spinnaker looks fun, but you can seriously die crashing into the deck ... it's best to come down in the water, of all places, and why would anyone ...--it's beside the point. If the clowns would just learn what they're doing to the boat, they'd probably find they had more fun actually knowing what they're doing. And since they can kill me with their clowning around (ever caught the boom in the back of the head?) I think I have the right to at least ask. A ship of fools it may be, but "as we sail along, I never fail to be astounded by the things we'll do for promises, and a song" (http://www.lyricsfreak.com/d/dio/23749.htm).

But seriously ... after you've had one in the back of the skull, you tend to be ahead of the random jibes. Of course, if you sail with smarter skippers, such hitches in your day come up significantly less often. In later years, I must admit, my father simply doesn't get caught off-guard like that. But he did that day. And phack! did that hurt. Of course, I'm told it could have been worse. We had a shorter (and therefore lighter) wooden boom on the ketch than we would have had on a sloop. I try not to imagine. Even though they're heavier than their aluminum or graphite brethren, to this day my head appreciates the impact of wood far more. Wood booms give just a little if, like me, you're lucky enough to catch no metal rigging directly in the impact.

I include this minutiae because, hopefully, you'll understand why I like the metaphor.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

"The victor will never be asked if he told the truth."
- Adolf Hitler

We are being asked if we were telling the truth and we won... does that count? Actually a lot of idiots just figure everything we say is a lie and decide the opposite is true. An american says he is donating to an orphanage some will decide he must be eating babies.

Cambodia, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Haiti, ah the list grows ,shouldn't someone be held accountable for those violations to civil peace? The role of America is clear in these places & yet their involment bears no responsibilities , maybe its cause they 'won'

"To him who much is given much is expected"

Tiassa: some of these other fellows here have done a better job clarifying what I said that I might have. When I approach these political questions, I try to base my views on reality. It would be very nice indeed if there were some great and noble arbiter and enforcer of what it right between nations, but there is no such entity. When you say "the people," for example, what does this mean? Who are "the people"? In a conflict between nations, which "people" are we talking about? How do these "people" enforce their notions, and how do we know that these notions are necessarily right?

I think you're expressing what you think "should" be, without considering that what should be ain't necessarily what is.

AlanH,
Please observe the preamble to the UN Charter (http://www.un.org/Overview/Charter/preamble.html). It's first words are :"WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS".
The first words of the US constitution : "We the people of the United States".

Do these examples tell you who "the people" are?

Actually, no...those words tell me that the authors of those two documents purported to speak for the people in general.

Originally posted by tiassa
Mildly sarcastic note, but with a genuinely warm smile: In retrospect, I hope I passed the Essay portion.

Well, you definately get high marks if VOLUME effects your grade in any way. :D LOL.
Originally posted by tiassa

At the most basic level, the people.

Well, in our context in the states, it's generally representatives of the people. This complicates the picture significantly as I'll explain below.
Originally posted by tiassa


Governments are expressions of the people.

Well, they start out that way sure, but as buerocracies they tend to have a life of their own... of course until the people slay the beast.
Originally posted by tiassa

Counterpoint: Do governments exist for the benefit of the people, or do the people exist for the benefit of government?

They are buerocracies and thusly exist FIRST for the benefit of itself, then the "benefit" of the people as interpreted by the members of the government and inputs from public votes if applicable.
Originally posted by tiassa

Let me know if I've paired those wrong. The people tell the power how to behave.

Okay sure.. but the problem is that there is more than one "people" attempting to steer that power.. Back to the right and wrong deal from my last post to you. Unfortunately, if you take action that is deemed as "wrong" in term of law or regulation, you'll fall subject to "might is right" wherein this case "might" is law and your ass is in jail... so the might is right that made your right wrong. Who does anything that isn't "right" to them? Hehe, surely only those sailers you referred to.
Originally posted by tiassa

Then those responsible are criminals.

Well, you're right until of course the "might" kicks the asses of those who would accuse them of being criminals, changes the laws and then starts calling other people criminals.
Originally posted by tiassa

The people.

And the people take it away as well don't they? Oh hell, I don't want to start a whole different thread... so I won't indulge my temptation to ask if "the people" are qualifed to give any authority considering the ease at which they are manipulated through the media. Fact is, most people are followers. The study I saw said approx. 90%. Argh.. okay that's a different thread.
Originally posted by tiassa

In the United States, for instance, the Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitutions. But we occasionally have odd fights with the international community, such as when the UN tried to set a biodiversity zone around Mount Rainier that was larger than the national forest the US had already set aside. The US may have sold its soul to the UN, but the Clinton administration would be damned before they let the UN displace Americans from as many as 1,500 homes for a biodiversity zone.

Well, you're right... but what do you expect from politicians? I used to expect a lot, but my expectations have been lessened as my experience in life has increased. Basically, a politician is in an impossible position. Ignoring any potential weak points in the politician's character, etc., they are place in a position between the rights. Fred is "right" about issue A, Jan is "right" about issue A... but they have different stances? Why? How? Because they're entire contexts are completely different. Each comes to the "logical" conclusion given their scenario but their scenarios are different enough that the "logical solution" are completely incompatable.. but in classic human behavior.. each thinks if only one of the "rights" can become policy.. it should be theirs. Mulitiply that times a gazillion and therein lies the situation a politician finds to be home. What then, happens to a "righteous man" who might be a politician? The "righteous man" cannot maintain this status if he panders to the will of the people. Kind of messed up really if you consider that as you said, it's the people who empower him in the first place. Then most people don't really understand politics and will end up with unlreastic "happy thoughts" demands from their politicians. But now there are like fifteen different unrealistic stupid assed selfish and thoughtless demands on the representative who is supposed to craft a "fair policy". Isn't it that the whole problem is that "fair" isn't fair to everyone? As I said, I'm not you, you're not me.. we're not they? Regardless, it doesn't sound to me like a good position to be in. I'm sure you can extrapolate the argument from there. It's kind of a "no win" situation.... depending on which "right" applies to YOU, don't you think?
Originally posted by tiassa

Doesn't matter. We shouldn't have signed that authority to the UN.

Well, while bearing in mind the preceding paragraph my best guess would be that the politician who signed said agreement made it look "appealing" to "the people" to join the UN, but didn't neccesarily realize (either the politician or the people) that the implication of said action was that 30 years later (I'm making up numbers) 1500 of the people who empowered him were gonna have to move because the UN made some decision about something that "the people" didn't realize was going to "screw them over". Further, the politician may have recieved some motivation from a party of power to sign this in order than some unrelated bill of his that he really deemed important should pass. Oh man, surely you follow me. However NICE we'd like things to be, the subjective nature of consciousness complicates things into a lot of ugliness and a lot of beauty. *shrug* Such is how it is.
Originally posted by tiassa

And if those people are stupid or criminal, they ought to be thrown out of their offices.

Well sure, but it isn't that simple is it? Don't forget Tiassa.. you and I are both notorious criminals... :m: Should we be thrown in jail? We're habitual offenders no? But, we are going against the will of the people Tiassa... we are... we just had a vote to significantly lower penalties on possession here in Columbia, MO.. and it FAILED... 58% thought that was a bad idea. Thusly, I shoudl be imprisoned for it is the will of the people. Yes, 58% can put the other 42% in prison. Aint that a bitch? Damn.
Originally posted by tiassa

Jesus, for all the shit people gave Clinton for a blowjob, you'd think that the kind of dishonesty that costs lives would be a little more important to my righteous and upstanding American neighbors.

Your "upstanding neighbors" would have you imprisoned my friend. Eh, I suppose that depends on where you live eh? Regardless... there's always something. *sigh* Oh, and yeah.. all that crap about the blowjob was SO freakin stupid IMO. Isn't that the reason you become president? For the blowjobs? Hehe, can you imagine the guy is getting sworn in and someone whispers in his ear "uh.. oh, and we forgot to mention... NO BLOWJOBS" *giggle* can you see the look on the guys face? LOL. What a drag.
Originally posted by tiassa
Fine with me. Let's just stop pretending we're being decent when we're not.

Man, I'm SO with you there... I really WISH it could be that way. Unfortunately it's quite impossible. Nature has created lying, manipultive bitches.. and apparently a whole shitload of them. Doomed to wade through the hype and talk shit about how things "should be" ad infinitum.

Man, I'm out of time but I'll try to respond to the rest later.

AlanH

I suppose I do owe you a bit of an apology. I'm sorry if it sounded a little harsh and personal, but ...I think you're expressing what you think "should" be, without considering that what should be ain't necessarily what is. This is, to the one hand, an excellent point. I am expressing exactly what should be. But I am in fact considering what is, as well. It's just that I have arrived at the point where I'm wondering why things are the way they are. It all seems entirely optional; there is no fatalism about it, there is no lack of other ways to live. There is no law or abiding reality that motivates our fashioning of reality, but merely fashion and egocentrism.

Reality will be what it is, but what does that say of the 73% of my neighbors who supported this illegal war, and what does it say of my fellow Sciforums posters who would license war crimes for mere convenience? It is easy to cite "What is". For instance, some cops in (pick a city) "should have" followed procedure. But they were lazy and didn't want to exercise self control and ended up beating/killing someone. Everyone's favorite boy, Rudy Giuliani, is scum of the earth. That's reality. But people choose to hold him up as some poster boy merely because he was the mayor when his city got hit. Everybody was so thrilled and amazed when Rudy, amid chaos and fire, chose to be a human being first and a politician when the time allowed him to. I admit, I take my hat off to the guy, but this is also the tyrant who wanted to clean up his city and threw the Constitution on the fire in order to do so. I'm just sorry that 3,000 people had to die for him to get around to being human. And consider the implications of that:

- Why are we so amazed? Shouldn't human potential shine as human reality?
- Does this reality--that Giuliani chose to be a human being when his city absolutely needed human spirit and resolve--affect in any way the other realities of Rudy Giuliani? The man who invented stories about chasing down potheads in the street after a staff meeting in order to license the crimes of his police department? The man whose police department accosted an innocent man and shot him to death when he thought he was warding off an aggressive mendicant who happened to be an undercover cop? The man who, in response to that murder, illegally opened a sealed juvenile record of one arrest for shoplifting that never went to trial from the deceased's juvenile years (13 yrs old) and dismissed the killing as the settling of a career criminal? (What was Dorismond's crime? Specifically, he did not have any drugs on him to sell to the bum who accosted him, demanding drugs. He eventually pushed the bum away, and was shot to death for assaulting a police officer.)
- Why are so many people astounded that Rudy Giuliani, after browbeating his city into civility, got off his ass one day when he was needed and did what was expected of him?

To put it into a school metaphor: Li'l Rudy did the assignment from start to finish. That apparently warrants an A+, despite the reality that indicates that the answers he filled in were not necessarily the correct ones.

In the heat of this ugly war, people have forgotten other aspects of what is and are focusing on what they think should be. I think the public admiration for Rudy Giuliani is a perfect example of it. Don't tell me we're fighting for truth and justice abroad, the American people won't even fight for that at home. "Quality of Life crimes", Rudy? No-knock, no-warrant searches? Maybe my stance against firearms is wrong. Maybe we need half the NYPD gunned down amid illegal search-and-seizure actions before people realize the difference between what is and what should be. Would that "maybe" be a more palatable version of "what is"? Why, in the land of Liberty and Justice for All, should the people have to kill police officers in order to have their rights respected according to the Constitution?

I'm actually stunned by the reality that is: two people at this board have voted that Americans found to have committed war crimes should not be held accountable. I have no idea upon what principle this is based, but in the meantime, there are some people here who are also defending war criminals. This is a reality that is.

The difference between what should be and what is can be simply stated: What should be is simply too inconvenient for those who wish to make reality what it is.

Part of the reality that is: It's true, there are some ideas that I will chase ruthlessly across the expanses of the Universe in order to snuff out. In a war built in part on principles of justice and human rights, I reject any license of injustice or any license of a violation of human rights and dignity.

Not nearly enough people expect what should be in order to make it what it is. I cannot envision the world if those people that do expect what should be decided that what is was simply good enough for them. But I will not excuse those who choose to advocate crimes against humanity.

One of the reasons I opposed this war to begin with was that I did not trust my government to have planned adequately for this phase of the operation. One of the problems with being on the side I fall on is that you rarely, if ever, get to be happy about being right.

There's a phrase that refers to shoddy equipment or work: Good enough for government work.

That's about how I'd sum up the Iraqi Bush War. Mediocre is an aspiration for this war.

Furthermore, not only did those authors purport to speak for the people in general, they were authorized to. Well, I can say that the American representatives were authorized to write "We the People", and were apparently, by some extended argument, authorized to subscribe to the UN's version.

And you know, AlanH, I'm aware that I seem unduly harsh toward certain ideas, but when it comes to the licensing of violence, one of the sad things is that while I "should" speak more reasonably and in a kinder tone, the reality that "is" indicates that this simply does not communicate effectively. Sometimes I say I'm rude to people out of courtesy; it's not entirely a joke. Two comparative realities:

- Why did Twisted Sister cuss on their albums so much? "I don't curse; well, just a bit. Somehow 'gee-whiz' and 'golly' don't cut it." ("One Bad Habit", Twisted Sister) ... when Dee Snider testified before Congress in the 1980s, he pointed out that the apparent vulgarity of the band did, in the end, get the attention they wanted where more civilized routes had failed. After all--Twisted Sister testifying before Congress? Come on ....

- While I agree there is a difficult "should be" opposed to the reality that "is" concerning the dimensions of our regard and response, it can be safely said that The terrorists got our attention.

Of course, then we got bored, but the next time a lot of people die in this country, the terrorists will have our attention again. Given the reality that we've signed a cease-fire with a terrorist group in Iraq ... I'm starting to wonder about the relationship between the Iraqi-Bush War and the War on Terror. I don't know what happened. Maybe oil is just that persuasive; but yeah, when a lot of American civilians die again, the terrorists will have our attention again.

But the bottom line is that people seem to pay attention; the preferred tone of this war seems to be acrimony. When in Rome ....°

Notes:
° When in Rome - This should not be taken to license crimes against humanity. A relatively mild analogy, and based in American regional humor: The lack of a suitable female blood relative is not the only thing that prevented me from inbreeding while I was Louisiana. No, it is not Politically Correct to say that. Yes, it is horribly insensitive. To the other, one of the reasons I never want to live in Utah is that I'm very afraid that my partner will suddenly decide that she wants nine children. No, that's not PC, either. Yes, it's cruelly insensitive. But, unfortunately, it's true that she's susceptible to trends; it's another regional American joke, and a damned bigoted one at that. But, as you see I'm now merely rambling, I should probably pack it up.

P.S. on Edit - Now that I read through it, it still doesn't sound sincere. Truly, I did not mean to take it out on you, AlanH. I merely leapt after the first opportunity to put a convenient knife in an idea that I loathe. But your own post and the advice of others convinces me that I have been too harsh. And for that, you have my sincere apology.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa: hmm....I'm wondering what brings up Rudy as an example. By the way, I happen to admire Rudy, and find his pushing the envelope on law enforcement more than compensated for by the phenomenal reduction in crime and the improvement in living conditions for all New Yorkers in general. That, to let you know where I'm coming from.

I think you can probably figure I would disagree with you about much else. But the question that interests me most here is this one of WHO decides who gets prosecuted for war crimes. I'll say again, I believe international law is a canard. When you are talking about it, you are talking about countries that either voluntarily live under its edicts, or you are talking about other countries that are forced to do so. Someone is going to decide these things, and it's actual individual people, not "the" people. And the people who decide *and* who can put teeth into their decision, are the ones who have the power to do something about it. There's no way around that.

At any rate, I certainly accept your apology and appreciate your civility. :)

I'm wondering what brings up Rudy as an example. He was an all-too-convenient example of the difference between what is and what should be depending on expressed principles. To wit:By the way, I happen to admire Rudy, and find his pushing the envelope on law enforcement more than compensated for by the phenomenal reduction in crime and the improvement in living conditions for all New Yorkers in general.So the ends justify the means? Breaking the law is okay if it's for a good reason?

Mind you, I'm one who advocates civil disobedience when it is called for. But one is supposed to break the law when the law hurts the people. If the law prevents one's preferred method of dealing with the problem, they should either change the law or, if they are unable to do that, simply deal with it. Perhaps I should excerpt that in the topic about Americans embracing totalitarianism?

It's a huge question to me. I usually wonder what the hell people are thinking when they sell out to lawlessness like that.But the question that interests me most here is this one of WHO decides who gets prosecuted for war crimes. It's been acknowledged that Americans don't give a rat's behind about Belgium. Which is why the administration's response is puzzling. But in terms of other courts, we see why Bush wanted out of the ICC so badly, and if it's something like the World Court, well ... we shouldn't have signed onto that. The United States has made many obligations. Take a look at the American Drug War if you would like to consider the legitimacy of the reasons for crimes. (Worry about crackheads all you want, but the War on Drugs is still about marijuana, just like it was in 1937.)

I sometimes want to ask New Yorkers who appreciate Rudy's reduction of crime to go to the Diallo or Dorismond family and tell them, to their faces, "I'm sorry your innocent son/brother/relative had to die, but I also wanted to let you know that I think his murder was worth it."

I would like to fly some American war supporters to Baghdad and have them say the same to those whose families suffered by this war, and also to those who suffered by Saddam Hussein's regime while the US gave it material support. And to the families of those hurt or killed by the Ba'ath purge shortly after the US assisted the party's rise to power. "I'm sorry about your loss, but understand, please, that I think it was worth it."

Who will say that to the grieving?

I keep straying from the question of Who Decides ... the US has entered various obligations. Among those rejected as inconvenient is the authority of the UN and the confines of the Geneva Conventions. Should the US withdraw from these bodies as it has withdrawn from the ICC? Or do we only respect such bodies when it is convenient? The World Court has served us in the past; would the United States respect it regarding war crimes in Iraq? And even the WC doesn't have the teeth it needs to enforce its edicts.

But if we consider the lawyer in Belgium and the members of the court that will review his case: Perhaps you might disagree with them, perhaps the case will be open and shut. But I tend to think that the reason the administration is reacting harshly to what it regards as a kangaroo court is that it fears the possibility that a more legitimate court that the US has agreed to answer to will keep the ball rolling. And the individual Who of that question might simply be something we have to choose to accept or willingly defy. And with the way the US has been treating its international agreements lately, I can't imagine the world would take that kind of a refusal lightly.

:m:
Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa: well, as someone who lived in New York prior to Rudy's administration, and as someone who left largely because of the quality of life prior to Rudy's administration, I can attest that on balance, whatever pushing of the envelope he did was more than worth it-- in the number of saved lives as the murder rate plummeted, in the reduction of sqeegee men, the lowered tolerance for everyday mugging, garbage and mayhem, and in a dozen other ways, life in the city got better.

Now, you say you believe in civil disobedience when it's called for...so then you are saying that you are not a purist when it comes to the letter of the law. I think we simply have different concepts of when the law is worth bending. And I don't say breaking, because I don't know that Rudy ever asked anyone to break the law, but simply to enforce it aggressively and creatively.

The Diallou case...I'm remembering that that was the guy who was shot in the doorway...? I don't believe Rudy was there. The Dorismond case? I vaguely recall the name, but I don't recall the particulars. If you could refresh my memory.

This whole issue of "who will say it was worth it to the grieving"...I don't get it. What you seem to be saying is that a thing is never worth doing if there's a chance it could hurt or kill anyone. Whatever the circumstances. Is this what you are saying?

As to the legitimacy of Belgium, or any other court...I think it's a good question of what the US should consider legitimate and to what degree the US should ever, if ever, give up its sovereignty to an unelected body. My personal feeling is that we shouldn't. I think many of the people living in EU countries will soon be learning that lesson as well, if they don't know it already.

http://reviewjournal.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&urlID=6109477

http://reviewjournal.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&urlID=6119230&fb=Y

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4660067,00.html

Well, I guess it's a good thing for this marine that the US undermined the ICC. And just think - he's now planning on becoming a police officer.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tiassa
See, part of it is that people are just that stupid. Leaders and their agents say its noble, so people believe it's noble even though it doesn't jibe with what they say they believe the other six days of the week.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm not sure which 'it' you're referring to regarding nobility, but I'll say again that the majority of people are followers, yet it is THEM you seem to expect to be able to make rational decisions regarding OUR fate. Actually, I'm freakin AMAZED that things are as good as they are considering all the complicated crap involved in the creation and manipulation of policy.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tiassa

We do not afford that philosophy any credibility in our dealings with our fellow Americans; I do not kill my neighbor because the exhaust from his truck (a harmful chemical agent) tumbles into my yard.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Again I'm not sure what you're saying. Which philosophy is it that you're questioning? "might is right"? I woudln't call it a philosophy, it's an observation about reality. Again sadly, it's quite true. If I smash your head in because I think you did something wrong that you thought was right, my might must nullified your right eh? Sick but true. Oh, and for the record.... I don't kill my neighbors either. At least that's my story. LOL

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tiassa

This simple decency is good enough for my fellow American, it seems. In fact, it seems expected of Americans. However, we cannot afford it outside our borders.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, I don't think that "simple decency" is good enough for a lot of americans who seem to cop wood everytime a potential lawsuit slides their way. It's interesting that you use the term "expectation" in this context to me, as it seems that if I add that "expectation" requires a "to whom", it bolsters my point. Sure, from each other we "expect" decency... but our government expects money and obediance, in politics (as far as I see it anyway) the term 'decency' is merely a tool like the phrase 'family values', an empty shell filled with bullshit but it's pretty so people vote for it. To the individual however, the connotation is generally sincere, but varies significantly across cultures and individuals. I mean, to some people the "stop and chat" is common decency.. but to others it's only decent for you to leave me the hell alone. *shrug*

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tiassa

Even if I cast the generalization that noble America must lead the world to freedom, the one thing it's teaching the whole damn world is that the only way to be free is to beat up everyone who disagrees with you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well as YOU JUST SAID, decency is NOT the way to international love right? Sure, law and order seems nice... but when it comes down to a fundamental difference, it can be advantageous to establish one's self as the "alpha male". Sure, sometimes that backfires with a vengeance, but that's all some countries understand don't you think. I'm no expert on international politics, but do you want to try to argue "law and order" with Libya, Syria or Iran? LOL.. have fun with all that.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tiassa

And that's just not decent. Do I have the "right" to rape your sister just because I'm physically capable?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, that depends on whether or not you can do it before I get ahold of you. If you were somehow convinced, perhaps by your politicians or your religion, that raping my sister was your right... AND you could kick my ass regardless of my objections, then YES, you would be RIGHT in raping my sister, once you've subjegated or negated those who would stand in your way. Hell, you getting away with it would likely only re-enforce to you that you ARE right. Don't you think? If yours is the only opinion around to be heard, then you are right by default (so long as mother nature isn't around to contradict you).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tiassa

As to the rest of that question, you're also forgetting the simpleton's definition: "Might is right, as in evidence of correctness." I agree with you that people are so stupid that violence is about all they have to settle disputes at the barest level, but that's the problem. They do so because they have no other tools at their disposal, and among the "right" presumptions that they maintain is that there are no other tools. Simpletons, indeed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Here I disagree vehemently. Stupidity is NOT the problem... hehe, look as Allah's Mathematics for instance... VERY bright guy who's fundamental assumption of nihilism and personal circumstances bring him to conclusions I deem exactly unnacceptable. If he were to get his way, we would all be displaced and possibly killed. He is right. I am right. We can agree to disagree so long as we're not directly stepping on one another's toes.. but if we were to feel the population squeeze, our positions could be forced and it would likely end up in violence, not due to stupidity neccesarily, but commitment to your lifestyle and premise that will incite violence. I'd say that is complicated in a significant manner by stupidity, but stupidity isn't the thing really.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tiassa

Warfare is an admission of failure. How can we be right if we've failed?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Warfare is an admission that your assumptions are fundamentally different. If for instance I think I'm entitle to your land and you think I'm NOT.. and neither of us can see the other's perspective, then you get war. Sure it's a failure of empathy, but that's typical of culture clash. If you think "inability to resolve culture clash" is failure, how do you suppose that your will for success is imposed upon those who really don't give a damn about your will?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tiassa

Oh, I forgot--we're less wrong than the next country, so that makes us right.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You sound like you're bitching about moral relativism.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tiassa

That's also a great excuse for racism.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It's a reason but it's no excuse. You know that.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tiassa

Functionally speaking, that is.Honestly? I don't like to think that poorly of people. So I simply presume that there's something I'm missing; unfortunately, while many people agree, not a single one of them are capable of telling me what that something is.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well you're not missing anything, you're simply denying it. It's not that people are "bad" it's that people are "bad" to a portion of the other people, that whole thing gets complicated fast.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tiassa

I'm supposed to believe that "we" are "right" or that "we" have "the right" the same way someone might expect me to believe that Jesus Christ can save my soul and redeem me in heaven.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Nope, you are "supposed" to believe anything. If you want to believe whatever you want, feel free I suppose... but you are a person of intellect and are thusly interested in "truth". Here is the truth: There are approximately 6 billion different versions of the "truth"walking around on our planet. We are not "right" anymore than anyone else is... the only difference is the "we" with which you choose to associate yourself.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tiassa

I wish that sufficed. But you know how, in economic debates, a conservative is prone to say, "I worked for my money, why can't they?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Certainly, and from that perspective it's a reasonable question.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tiassa

Well, you know ... I worked hard to learn to perceive reality. Why should I respect the lazy?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, they ARE humans right? They ARE the PEOPLE right? Isn't that who you said is making the rules? Why would you follow rules from people you don't respect? Hehe, eh, I'm just being a prick. You are gifted Tiassa as am I. We have big juicy brains and can contemplate funky abstracts in the style which we've devoloped due to the juicyness in question. Even if they ARE lazy, maybe they cook a mean burger? You have to respect THAT.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tiassa

For you and me, we speak of the ... how did you put it ... ah, here it is: So unfortunately and somewhat disgustingly might IS right.

Why do you say unfortunately and disgustingly? What is it that you have in your pantheon of ideas that makes you say unfortunately and disgustingly? What is it that you've done or seen or understood that brings you to that point that someone else must have missed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You know what it is, are you just being rhetorical? Okay, I'll answer anyway just so you know I know why I say those kind of things: It's because I have two pictures of reality in my head. That which I observe, and that which I wish to observe. At heart, I'm a peace loving hippy who wants little more than blowjobs, pot, videogames, intellectual stimulous and great relationships with the other humans. In the world which I'd like to view I see everyone coming over to my house to smoke up and talk trash as friends. I don't want anyone to be hungry or die, and everyone gets the car of their dreams. It's disgusting and unfortunate that my desires for peace and love are completely unrealistic. It used to piss me off. Now I'm kind of amused by the fact that is used to piss me off and that I was presumptuous enough to actually EXPECT the world to conform to my blowjob obtaining, pot-smoking fantasies. Ah, the warm and blissfull ignorance of youth - priceless.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tiassa

It's not like you're asking anyone to go get a PhD in international affairs with a master's minor in philosophy. Why do other people celebrate what you've come to recognize as an unpalatable aspect of reality?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Because they want to be part of something. (sidenote: Have you seen "bullshit!" by Penn and Teller? Oh man, what a great freakin show.)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tiassa

And you can let that part stand rhetorically, if you want.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Nah, the tough questions are my favorite.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tiassa

It would be difficult for me to answer those questions directly with any respect for economy of words.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think I did okay? Eh, maybe not so much.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tiassa

I include this minutiae because, hopefully, you'll understand why I like the metaphor.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think I do, but I don't think it's actually applicable to the issue at hand.. only the way you think it should be. *shrug*

No one is going to tell me I'm wrong?

WesMorris

Yes, there are some contextual problems.

Part of it (the problem in general) is that people are just stupid. Leaders and their agents say it's (any idea, really) noble, so people believe it's (aforementioned "any idea") noble even though it (said idea) doesn't jibe with what they (e.g. "average Americans") believe the other six days of the week.

Hopefully, that makes it a little more clear. Let me know.

We do not afford that philosophy (e.g. might is right) any credibility in our dealings with our fellow Americans.I woudln't call it a philosophy, it's an observation about reality. So child labor, domestic violence, pimps and their girls, the mafia ... these are all sad inevitabilities? It is only because the perpetrator believes in his or her might (e.g. the ability to act unopposed or to quash opposition) that suggests either the conceptual correctness or moral right). It is a philosophy. Would Stalin have tried if he didn't think he could do it? Would Hitler? Why do it? Because we can, say the leaders.

The simple point of that paragraph of rhetoric is that while I think it is, indeed, a valid observation of reality, I also believe that many people in the United States abide by the concept as a guiding philosophy. Indeed, many people all over the world do, but for the present we might concern ourselves more directly with Americans.

Note: While there is plenty of justice in comparing who does what and how much or how little damage it does and what exactly the motivations of such acts, any group making the simple assertion of propriety, rightness, or of being the "good guys" subscribes itself to a certain standard that humans in general tend to fail with stunning regularity.

(Yes, I'm aware that there are a couple of contextual difficulties with the above paragraph. I want to remind you without sarcasm that you are a bright guy, and I know you can figure it out, but it's still rude of me to leave the contextual issues hanging. Thus, to try it again ....)

While there is plenty of justice in comparing the acts of nations in terms of how much or little damage is caused by said acts, and also bearing in mind the motivations of said acts, any group (e.g. the United States, in this instance) making the simple assertion of propriety, rightness, or of being the "good guys" subscribes itself to a certain (higher) standard (of conduct) that humans in general tend to fail with (near-perfect consistency). Well, I don't think that "simple decency" is good enough for a lot of americans who seem to cop wood everytime a potential lawsuit slides their way. The other half of that consideration, I think, is the source of these lawsuits. People see violations of simple decency, so they sue. It was indecent of McDonald's to not warn people that coffee is hot. It was indecent of Larry Flynt to run the Falwell-Campari advert parody. It was indecent of ... Dow-Corning? ... to downplay the risks of breast implants. Even in the legitimate lawsuits ... I mean, consider the word tort in and of itself:Damage, injury, or a wrongful act done willfully, negligently, or in circumstances involving strict liability, but not involving breach of contract, for which a civil suit can be brought (American Heritage Dictionary)It's indecent to wrong someone willfully or negligently. We are expected in American society to be decent to each other. Decency is about the least we can ask for in "civilization". Think about other improprieties and indecencies:

- A friend of mine reports that her entire company's HR is in chaos right now enforcing not only two sets of rules between separate groups of their employees, but not accurately informing the employees of the conditions. Now, this to me seems indecent. But everybody's scared that the shite will hit the fan for everything indecent they've done that has nothing to do with the policy in question. So it becomes indecent to do anything about it.

- I successfully restrained myself for several months from beating the hell out of a co-worker on the grounds that it would be indecent. His indecency finally got him fired, but it was a cumulative thing where he actually kept annoying our boss. Aside from my "decent" complaints, few people with graver offenses to deal with would say anything because it would be indecent to "rock the boat".

As such, I offer you the American herd mentality. Who's indecent here? To the majority of Americans, it seems to be the people who do not go along with the majority. Yet the majority endorses an abrogation of international agreements, seems to endorse violations of the Geneva Conventions ... yet somewhere around twenty-seven per cent or less of the American people who disagree with these things are expected to be decent and not rock the boat. Hey, indecent things are afoot, and yet we're expected to be "decent" and just enjoy the indecency.

I agree that the idea of expectation seems odd, but remember, this expectation need have no particular source or supreme expectation. Americans, at least, learn to expect things as a matter of course. But what they seem to expect is comfort and convenience, and what is indecent is to disturb that sense of convenient comfort.

I'm talking about that expectation of conformity that led kids of my generation to kill themselves because it was the only "decent" thing to do. That's literally how deep it runs. It's the same as the religious decency of the Bible; I knew in my high school days several young women who struggled with sexual and domestic violence issues and never told anybody until they absolutely broke from the strain because it was indecent to say bad things about your parents.

Believe me, we expect much decency from Americans. And none of it is to be apportioned to anyone else, be they Canadian, French, German, or otherwise. And offering that decency that we expect (yet cannot quantify, how's that for a Catch-22?) to ... say ... Arab Muslims, in this case, is simply unacceptable and possibly treasonous.

The expectation is as a priori to Americans as God is to Dubya. Think about it ... I almost got in a fight with my next-door neighbor a couple days ago on the grounds that ... well, to be honest, the explanation goes like this:

- So let me get this straight ... I have a five month-old daughter that I still don't have the manual to, my partner and I are at a communication standstill, we have money issues that force a wholesale reconsideration of our living and parenting standards (e.g. we're trying to avoid daycare for a while longer ... at least the first year), a thief among our circle of friends, and I won't even invoke the state of the world to ask what makes anyone think I give a rat's ass about my neighbor's sense of aesthetics? I told you the lawn mower that we can't afford to buy anyway is arriving on Saturday, now shut the f--k up and get out of here.

Decency. In the name of decency I should spend money I don't have to please my neighbor's sense of aesthetics when I have ... how many more important problems to deal with? But that's the thing ... I took the decent route.

But think about how people are "expected" to behave. Regardless of what Congress actually thought of Twisted Sister, Dee Snider was right: they certainly got people's attention. I mean, come on ... Twisted Sister testifying before Congress? Judas Priest? Wendy O. Williams? The irony there is what are the terrorists supposed to think? Piss 'em off enough, and they pay attention. I'd say it worked, to a degree, wouldn't you?

And who cares about "in politics"? Politics is the business of the people and we better damn well demand some decency of our political institutions. Admittedly idealistic, but still, it's the stuff of my upbringing: schools, parents, television, literature ... even advertising plays on decency in relation to conformity, so perhaps that's the aspect I'm after.

We have rules about what constitutes civility. (Despite what a pedophile tells you, it's just not decent to have sex with children, y'know?) Don't lie, everybody is equal before the law (equal protection under the law), certain forms of discrimination are bad ... these and other advertised civilities maintain a tenuous balance in society. People are constantly seeking ways of justifying themselves within the rules. Bush thought he could simply rewrite the rules--I'd wondered how long before that happened--but forgot that there were other "rules" to consider. People respond to ideas of decency and civility, but for some reason I don't see us extending that decency and civility outside our borders.Well as YOU JUST SAID, decency is NOT the way to international love right? In principle, I think decency decently applied will take care of the problem. I would hope not to have left an impression against decency, but we've stumbled over several credible contextual difficulties, so I can only await your advice.Sure, law and order seems nice... but when it comes down to a fundamental difference, it can be advantageous to establish one's self as the "alpha male". Therein lies an interesting paradox. On the one hand, we're taught decency. To the other, we're taught of a dog-eat-dog, cutthroat, backstabbing world. On the one hand, we're taught that just because everyone else is doing it doesn't mean we should, too. To the other, one is indecent if they buck a trend, rock a boat, or upset the herd.

Establishing oneself as an alpha male is a reasonable consideration on one hand, but it seems to presuppose the necessity of competition and combat where such issues need not be at play. Do we want a world of human competition or of human cooperation? Do we sink together, or bail water together? At its heart, it's a simple question. In reality, I admit, it's more complex. But the basic question remains. More people choosing the cooperative also means less people choosing the competitive. Let us compete with microbes and insects that would eat our bodies and steal our food. Let us compete with comets and earthquakes and the fury of nature herself. It's a rough enough world, and that we can even discuss the idea of cooperative peace means we can also work toward it.Sure, sometimes that backfires with a vengeance, but that's all some countries understand don't you think. I'm no expert on international politics, but do you want to try to argue "law and order" with Libya, Syria or Iran? LOL.. have fun with all that. An important point. I'm an American by birth and label only, and that means less than many people think. I'd rather be here than elsewhere, but I also prefer the here that I was taught to expect, defend, and uphold. As one of my favorite songs (http://www.lyricsxp.com/lyrics/h/harry_truman_chicago.html) goes, We're getting safer cars and rocket ships to Mars from men who'd sell us out to get themselves a piece of power.

The first goal is to get everyone on a common enough wavelength to (relatively) simultaneously confess to the possibility of peace. The second goal seems to have something to do with addressing the root causes of conflict. Inherent in here somewhere is a massive spending spree on educating the people of the world. We can't prescribe curricula according to nationalism, but it's easier to explain the tenets of peace and freedom to literate people.

One of the reasons I've learned that the Irish chose to accept the British in six counties was that they were simply tired of fighting. Unfortunately, that decision cost people a lot more fighting and indecency, but by the time we get to my lifetime, what I'm taught about freedom and dignity indicates that I side against the British up until the dynamics changed severely in the late 1990s. But what if everyone on all sides of the table could agree that they were tired of fighting? Surely, it's a nearly utopiate goal, but with modern technology and information availability, with costs rising to cover not production and implementation but management, it seems that if we simply put our honest efforts into it, we might as well give it a shot. I'm not sure there's an excuse left for not trying. Seriously ... we have the minds, we have the technology, and we have the economic schemes to pull it off.

I admit there will be some hard bargains. How to get conservative Islam, for instance, to give up its theocratic authoritarianism in exchange for greater wealth, the right to complain, and a pregnant unwed teenage daughter with a dose of chlamydia and a smack habit? How to get Americans to give up hedonism in exchange for peace of mind? Consider Article VI, 1 (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html) of the US Constitution, in which it was conventionally agreed to honor all debts adopted by the Confederation. Why can't the world get together and conventionally agree to rules of presently-outstanding debts? Is it wealth, or is it comparative wealth?

But before we can begin the chase for peace in earnest, we need to figure out exactly why people think they're fighting, correct what mistaken notions we can sincerely and compassionately, and work with the remainder to see what can be done.

People are afraid of it because it's never happened before. But it's never happened because people haven't gotten together and tried.

Will it take a comet hurtling toward us with lethal implications before we come together and realize that we are the human species, period?Well, that depends on whether or not you can do it before I get ahold of you. I find myself strangely enchanted at the moment with the question of whether or not I would, in such a situation, be merely recognizing the reality of "might is right" or applying it as a justifying philosophy.

However ... doesn't it seem like "might is right", according to your notes, is a rather problematic and inefficient approach to a problem? In this case, it would probably be easier to just buy a hooker, if a lay was what I was after. It would probably be less dangerous to get married and beat my wife if it was the power trip. Oh, wait ... power trip ... might is right ... power trip ... you can see, I'm sure, where I'm snagging myself on a comparative hangnail.fundamental assumption of nihilism and personal circumstances bring him to conclusions I deem exactly unnacceptable Well ... how is nihilism an assumption? One of the reasons I abandoned atheism was that for me it resulted in nihilism. And, frankly, in order to honor as much of justice and liberty and all those good things I espouse, I seem to be justifying myself by faith in the face of a nihilistic reality. You noted above that if I could take out all the objectors, that would make it right to commit the act.

I've lost track of a Steve Benson (Arizona Republic) cartoon called, I think, "Last Man Standing", which depicted a man standing in the wreckage of Jerusalem, hip-deep in corpses and rubble, shouting, "At last! It's mine! All mine!"

"Might is right", to me, is intrinsically nihilistic. But that's almost a digression.

The rest of it ... the personal circumstances--isn't that the important part? There is a reason that any person believes what they believe, and if it is somehow morally or ethically wrong, contradictory, inefficient, &c ... well, can we force that person to believe otherwise? Or can a person be persuaded to understand the counterpoint on a functional level? Overcoming the burdens of personal circumstance will be hardest in the quest for peace.I'd say that is complicated in a significant manner by stupidity, but stupidity isn't the thing really. I'm willing to back off to "ignorance". The term "stupidity" does carry some unnecessary negative weight. But as personal circumstances present problems, only inefficient solutions seem to be presenting themselves. By understanding some things which an individual may be ignorant of (by circumstance or design), the individual can be brought to more efficient solutions.

With Americans in general, though, I still reserve the right to apply the word "stupid". So many Americans choose ignorance that it's a little difficult to deal with short of simply laughing at the morbid spectacle. So many Americans choose ignorance that it's just f--king stupid, I tell ya.Warfare is an admission that your assumptions are fundamentally different.It is also an admission that the difference is enough to warrant conflict in the minds of the individuals involved. Think about it this way: If either Bush or Hussein was smarter, we could have avoided a war. If Bush was smarter, he would have found a smarter way to accomplish his goals. If Hussein was smarter, he would have found a more efficient way of holding his country together, or, as such, failing in the attempt.If you think "inability to resolve culture clash" is failure, how do you suppose that your will for success is imposed upon those who really don't give a damn about your will? The inherent selfishness of one who would raise such an objection at the time of implementation is something that has to be addressed. To wit: If that person were to make it about "my will", well ... that's their own problem for starters, and the rest of ours symptomatically. These things have to be addressed first. There's a lot of little stuff before we get to the myriad big things. It's a long process, and one which will transcend any one person's lifetime. But the payoff is a severe reduction in violence as more and more people come onboard.

Violence is easy. Humans knew violence before they were humans. Humans knew violence before they were smart enough to realize that there were other ways to address an issue than cracking someone's skull open. Have we "evolved far enough to be satisfied"? Even if we extinct ourselves in a nuclear blaze, it's still evolution.You sound like you're bitching about moral relativism. The assertion that reality exists is no excuse for surrender.It's a reason but it's no excuse. You know that. Either way .... Well you're not missing anything, you're simply denying it. It's not that people are "bad" it's that people are "bad" to a portion of the other people, that whole thing gets complicated fast. You know, I understand the point on the level that a vegetarian might think me "bad" because my diet relies heavily on animal products. I understand how a Christian might think I'm "bad" because I'm not a Christian. But at some point we have to address the "badness" (e.g. functional inefficiency) that comes from wildfire dishonesty.

But I seriously don't understand how it is that people cling to myths despite the realities that they choose. Might is right? Hey, so far OBL has gotten away with it. Does that make him "right"? Well, in the pseudo-nihilistic, utterly relativist sense that nothing means anything, so it's just a matter of what people want and who they're willing to do in order to get it ....

But to Americans who might otherwise subscribe to "Might is right" ... well? Is OBL right? It would be interesting to take a survey.Nope, you are "supposed" to believe anything. If you want to believe whatever you want, feel free I suppose... but you are a person of intellect and are thusly interested in "truth". Here is the truth: There are approximately 6 billion different versions of the "truth"walking around on our planet. We are not "right" anymore than anyone else is... the only difference is the "we" with which you choose to associate yourself.And while I'll cheer that principle and seeming reality any day of the week, I can't change the fact that functional reality speaks differently. Right now I theoretically endanger myself by believing what I believe and seeking "truth". "Theoretically?" one might ask. That's not a big risk. But there's a specific point to be had. When I stepped into the Drug War, I knew I was stepping into an arena that could cost me dearly. In terms of the War on Terror, I woke up one morning and discovered that I was treasonous. (Interestingly enough, there's a saying that defused some of the panic about the number of people on "illegal drugs" ... If a million people use a product, and you make it illegal overnight, you'll have a million criminals in the morning.)

What I'm getting at ... let's try another contextual rebuild ....

Honestly? I don't like to think (as) poorly of people (as my perception of their words and actions advises). So I simply presume that there is something I'm missing (concerning the scope of my perception); unfortunately, while many people agree (that I'm missing a vital point), not a single one of them are capable of telling me what that (vital point) is. I'm (apparently) supposed to believe that "we" (e.g. Americans) are "right" (e.g. correct in our presumptions) or that "we" (e.g. Americans) have "the right" (to undertake some controversial action or violation) (as established by our might) the same way (a Christian) might expect me to believe that Jesus Christ can save my soul and redeem me in heaven (in other words, believe as a faith declaration primarily).

While I can certainly appreciate the truth of your advice, that I might believe what I choose, I submit the modified form above and await your advice.Certainly, and from that perspective it's a reasonable question. From a certain point of view.Well, they ARE humans right? They ARE the PEOPLE right? I view it in the same context as the money issue.Isn't that who you said is making the rules? Why would you follow rules from people you don't respect? Well, part of it is that nobody knows what the rules are because, while we're taught that there are rules, nobody seems to follow them (I believe I mentioned some aspect of this above.)(Self-ingratiating sidebar)I have to admit that among your gifts is the ability to give me a platform to address the stupid. Whereas the stupid just swing and chop, you're more delicate with your pen-mightier-than-sword. Your tack, to resume a dead metaphor, makes me seek a better line to the buoy. The stupid, on the other hand, just ram me broadside and hope to sink the boat before it gets to the buoy.

Of course I'm being rhetorical; the only people who can answer the question straight don't need to hear it, as your kind answer reinforces. And where you might point out the blissful ignorance of youth, I also treasure the absolute passion of youthful convictions.Because they want to be part of something. I will, for the general dignity of our neighbors, forego my first response. More rationally, it would only seem to reinforce the need for youthful zeal in pursuit of common ideals. I actually missed the Penn & Teller to which you refer, but if it's available,I'm sure I can find it around town.I think I did okay? Eh, maybe not so much. True, but I thrive on spending words almost recklessly.I think I do, but I don't think it's actually applicable to the issue at hand.. only the way you think it should be. It's an interesting point, especially considering the amount of time, effort, and money we spend indoctrinating children to be Americans. I can't say I've necessarily exceeded my "training" or "conditioning", merely accessed suppressed aspects of its potential. Again, I point to the money thing. People want to enjoy luxury, they ought to work for their money. People want to enjoy having an opinion, they ought to work to understand the value of their opinion and what it actually is. People have to earn a certain portion of their credibility. Your full complement of human rights and dignities? They are your right by birth. But your right to hurt me or someone else with ignorance ... that's one you have to earn. You need to be elected to public office before that is acceptable.No one is going to tell me I'm wrong?Um ... isn't "Dorky Pose" redundant? ;)

Wait, wait, wait ... I mean, You're wrong! Er ...

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Oh man, I greatly enjoyed your response.. I've got a huge grin going now having just read it. Just wanted you to know. It DID however take me a FULL HOUR to read it. :bugeye:

LOL.. jeeeeeeeez the wind in you!

Regardless.. I'll respond ASAP, but that will likely be tomorrow, as I'll have to set aside a few HOURS to respond you bastard. ;)

:m:

Originally posted by tiassa

Yes, there are some contextual problems.

Part of it (the problem in general) is that people are just stupid. Leaders and their agents say it's (any idea, really) noble, so people believe it's (aforementioned "any idea") noble even though it (said idea) doesn't jibe with what they (e.g. "average Americans") believe the other six days of the week.

Yes that clarifies the statement and I agree with you... but I'm STILL amazed that things are as good as they are. :D

Originally posted by tiassa
So child labor, domestic violence, pimps and their girls, the mafia ... these are all sad inevitabilities?


The answer is self-evident.
Originally posted by tiassa
It is only because the perpetrator believes in his or her might (e.g. the ability to act unopposed or to quash opposition) that suggests either the conceptual correctness or moral right). It is a philosophy. Would Stalin have tried if he didn't think he could do it? Would Hitler? Why do it? Because we can, say the leaders.


I see, interesting point you're making. I like it.

I have to respond though, that I think it’s only a really a “philosophy” when it’s used as a tool of propagandists. The leaders you refer to are leaders because they seek power. They seek power because they think they deserve it because they’re aggressive because of their neurochemistry/ personal history (since an individual’s neurochemistry adapts somewhat via perception). In a (very cold) way, that makes it “right” by definition (since it IS already).

The mind’s path of least resistance is to (during the act of thought) justify current assumptions rather than formulate plausible explanations (at least as a general statement in adults) to stimulus, for concentrated thought requires the fuel of effort. Throw some statistical combination of brain fold concentration, sizes of particular areas, chemistry and the certain ‘I don’t know what’ that we might have and well and once in a while you get Hitler. *shrug* Sometimes I wish it weren’t so, but that is pointless since apparently it must be, until of course we’re faced with the whole debate of whether or not we should attempt to redesign our species for more ‘desirable’ traits. It’s a little late for all that I guess… *snaps out of it* okay, I’ll get back on topic.

I do see it as a self-perpetuating cycle. "That which is" perpetuates the philosophy that "that which is" MUST be, but I really only see it used as philosophy for the utility of propaganda. I don’t think it’s currently preventable that many will seek and gain power for the sake of power. Maybe you can enlighten me.
Originally posted by tiassa
The simple point of that paragraph of rhetoric is that while I think it is, indeed, a valid observation of reality, I also believe that many people in the United States abide by the concept as a guiding philosophy. Indeed, many people all over the world do, but for the present we might concern ourselves more directly with Americans.


A percentage of the population is weak. They will subjugate themselves accordingly. Often, the argument “I’ll kick your ass” is effective in expediting the process. As a notable complicating factor culture, experience, ignorance and gullibility keep the population stratified in their opinions of what constitutes subjugation in the first place, etc. As a morbidly funny twist, it’s this very minutia that seems to keep us pre-occupied to the point of survival… so far at least. :D
Originally posted by tiassa

Note: While there is plenty of justice in comparing who does what and how much or how little damage it does and what exactly the motivations of such acts, any group making the simple assertion of propriety, rightness, or of being the "good guys" subscribes itself to a certain standard that humans in general tend to fail with stunning regularity.


Amen brother, well put. Hard to say though, maybe it’s just that the “good guys” are really only “good” to the “simpletons” if you follow. What do you think?

Originally posted by tiassa
As such, I offer you the American herd mentality. Who's indecent here? To the majority of Americans, it seems to be the people who do not go along with the majority. Yet the majority endorses an abrogation of international agreements, seems to endorse violations of the Geneva Conventions ... yet somewhere around twenty-seven per cent or less of the American people who disagree with these things are expected to be decent and not rock the boat. Hey, indecent things are afoot, and yet we're expected to be "decent" and just enjoy the indecency.


Indeed that’s the way things are because the term “decent” can only be subjective. I find the term ridiculous really. It would be indecent not to. (Note the subjective answer)

Originally posted by tiassa
I agree that the idea of expectation seems odd, but remember, this expectation need have no particular source or supreme expectation. Americans, at least, learn to expect things as a matter of course. But what they seem to expect is comfort and convenience, and what is indecent is to disturb that sense of convenient comfort.


Ah, the plethora of contradicting truths. It is truly interesting and supremely difficult to accurately monitor. And the lord sayeth “there shall be chaos”. Then there was chaos – at least until he lost track of things. :D

Originally posted by tiassa
I'm talking about that expectation of conformity that led kids of my generation to kill themselves because it was the only "decent" thing to do. That's literally how deep it runs. It's the same as the religious decency of the Bible; I knew in my high school days several young women who struggled with sexual and domestic violence issues and never told anybody until they absolutely broke from the strain because it was indecent to say bad things about your parents.


Modern society has a tendency to coax suicidal reactions from teenagers who cannot cope with the potentially extreme demands of social adaptation. More accurately, it is the suicidal “circuit breaker” than seems to be of “low amperage” (beyond the threshold for action given their circumstance) compared to the other 96% (or whatever percentage is accurate) of the population. This could be easily explained from an evolutionary perspective. As social interaction becomes more and more imperative (given population density, etc.) for “survival” (which can be thought of as inclusive of “comfort” and even “success”), those with defective “suicide circuit breakers” are “weeded out” due to the nature of their particular “roll of the neurological dice” – so to speak. Of course it’s probably humane to minimize the tragedy, but there’s no avoiding it without aforementioned controversial species re-design. I suppose the example was intended to support the point that there is more than one way to watch a cat get skinned. I can’t even tell if I got side-tracked at this point. It’s all so integrated. *head spins*

Originally posted by tiassa
Believe me, we expect much decency from Americans. And none of it is to be apportioned to anyone else, be they Canadian, French, German, or otherwise. And offering that decency that we expect (yet cannot quantify, how's that for a Catch-22?) to ... say ... Arab Muslims, in this case, is simply unacceptable and possibly treasonous.

You have a point, but you’re talking about a sway of the herd. It’s the nature of the beast, it will sway to and fro, next week… every American will want to offer their children to the people of Zimbabwe since the herd swayed that way. I suppose they can be contained by the bounds of a system, but human behavior trumps the system, thus the system must not ignore the whim of the herd. I’m just saying it’s not ALWAYS out of fashion to pull the reigns on decency… it’s merely when it’s convenient for way the masses want to see themselves at the time in question.

Originally posted by tiassa
And who cares about "in politics"? Politics is the business of the people and we better damn well demand some decency of our political institutions. Admittedly idealistic, but still, it's the stuff of my upbringing: schools, parents, television, literature ... even advertising plays on decency in relation to conformity, so perhaps that's the aspect I'm after.


Well, while I admire the spirit of your message, the devil as always lies in the details as discussed here and as you well know. Competition for resources, culture, subjectivity.. yada yada yada. Though I do appreciate your romantic notions of your upbringing (for I have my own), I don’t think that the expectations it molded are realistic. I think that the fundamental problem is that: Only an objective set of rules can be (theoretically) implemented successfully and fairly, yet there is no possible way (due to the subjectivity deal) that it can be achieve. Sure, we might catch our tail, but where is it leading us? (hehe, I didn’t erase that half nonsense sentence because I thought it sounded cool) What I mean is… the best that can be done is some conglomerate.. but when the range of the distribution of morals is broad, the clash is inherently proportional.
Originally posted by tiassa
We have rules about what constitutes civility. (Despite what a pedophile tells you, it's just not decent to have sex with children, y'know?) Don't lie, everybody is equal before the law (equal protection under the law), certain forms of discrimination are bad ... these and other advertised civilities maintain a tenuous balance in society.


I hope you’re being sarcastic. Sometimes I don’t catch it due to the whole online coldness thing. Ideally we are equal under the law, in practice that’s simply wrong (which is why I suspect you were being sarcastic, you are likely aware of that as it’s quite obvious).
Originally posted by tiassa
People are constantly seeking ways of justifying themselves within the rules.


You speak of human nature. It is the path of least mental resistance.
Originally posted by tiassa
Bush thought he could simply rewrite the rules--I'd wondered how long before that happened--but forgot that there were other "rules" to consider.


I believe Bush thinks/thought he’s getting off on a technicality, which is the basis for modern law is it not?
Originally posted by tiassa
People respond to ideas of decency and civility,


That’s because people fundamentally yearn for validation of their stupid shit.
Originally posted by tiassa
but for some reason I don't see us extending that decency and civility outside our borders.In principle, I think decency decently applied will take care of the problem.


Whose flavor? It was pretty decent to take down the towers according to AM I’d imagine. Are you saying he’s wrong? Personally I think he’s right… and I’m right for calling the people who took them down terrorists. Hmm... We’re both right? I guess that means there’s gonna be a fight? Hehe... I felt like I was in a musical for a second there… *snicker*
Originally posted by tiassa
I would hope not to have left an impression against decency, but we've stumbled over several credible contextual difficulties, so I can only await your advice. Therein lies an interesting paradox. On the one hand, we're taught decency. To the other, we're taught of a dog-eat-dog, cutthroat, backstabbing world. On the one hand, we're taught that just because everyone else is doing it doesn't mean we should, too. To the other, one is indecent if they buck a trend, rock a boat, or upset the herd.


IMO, the bitch about it is that all that is true. I just realized that it’s this pitting of the abstract (in our minds) vs. stimulus (from “objectivity” to the sensory) that is the source of much mental derision. In the abstract realm, though uncomfortable… paradoxes abound. In the physical world paradox is fundamentally disallowed (classically at least). Do you think this juxtaposition is an inherent plague to consciousness?

Originally posted by tiassa
Establishing oneself as an alpha male is a reasonable consideration on one hand, but it seems to presuppose the necessity of competition and combat where such issues need not be at play.


So you think that in all cases mental discipline shall conquer impulse? My experience with the humans and understanding of animal behavior would lead me to believe otherwise.
Originally posted by tiassa
Do we want a world of human competition or of human cooperation? Do we sink together, or bail water together? At its heart, it's a simple question. In reality, I admit, it's more complex. But the basic question remains.


But it’s an “under-question” (like an understatement) and I think it will be trumped by other issues to be honest. The question will be answered, but only as a result of scenarios in a different genera (sp?) (like technology, biomedicine, physics, etc.)
Originally posted by tiassa
More people choosing the cooperative also means less people choosing the competitive. Let us compete with microbes and insects that would eat our bodies and steal our food. Let us compete with comets and earthquakes and the fury of nature herself. It's a rough enough world, and that we can even discuss the idea of cooperative peace means we can also work toward it.


As you must, relentlessly – and others will work relentlessly against you. Such is the way of balance.
Originally posted by tiassa
The first goal is to get everyone on a common enough wavelength to (relatively) simultaneously confess to the possibility of peace.


Currently, it simply isn’t possible (see subjectivity again). I do believe it IS long-term… but under significantly different conditions (which are quite possible).
Originally posted by tiassa
The second goal seems to have something to do with addressing the root causes of conflict. Inherent in here somewhere is a massive spending spree on educating the people of the world. We can't prescribe curricula according to nationalism, but it's easier to explain the tenets of peace and freedom to literate people.


While a noble thought, it sounds like the world’s biggest cluster to me.. and honestly I don’t think it’s possible.. not because I think people suck, but people have a tendency to be invested in their cultures.. and we all know that cultures (are too, shy shy.. hush hush.. okay I’ll stop) clash.. and one of the plethora of reasons that it’s not possible. Cultures clash because of SO many reason.. maybe that’s a thread right there.. why do cultures clash?
Originally posted by tiassa
One of the reasons I've learned that the Irish chose to accept the British in six counties was that they were simply tired of fighting. Unfortunately, that decision cost people a lot more fighting and indecency, but by the time we get to my lifetime, what I'm taught about freedom and dignity indicates that I side against the British up until the dynamics changed severely in the late 1990s. But what if everyone on all sides of the table could agree that they were tired of fighting? Surely, it's a nearly utopiate goal, but with modern technology and information availability, with costs rising to cover not production and implementation but management, it seems that if we simply put our honest efforts into it, we might as well give it a shot. I'm not sure there's an excuse left for not trying. Seriously ... we have the minds, we have the technology, and we have the economic schemes to pull it off.


You seem to ignore that whole “economic motivation” thing. Seems to me that your plan is shut down from the beginning do to sheer economic infeasibility… and the tech isn’t quite there. All bets are off though in a relatively short amount of time. (fundamental new tech could come along at any time)
Originally posted by tiassa
I admit there will be some hard bargains. How to get conservative Islam, for instance, to give up its theocratic authoritarianism in exchange for greater wealth, the right to complain, and a pregnant unwed teenage daughter with a dose of chlamydia and a smack habit? How to get Americans to give up hedonism in exchange for peace of mind?


Oh man, I know you mean well but dude. Your hard bargains are impossible. Not for me, but for those you’d have to ask it from. Of them… some will never EVER listen to reason. Don’t tell me you haven’t noticed. They’re the ones that force the cultures to clash… and it’s basically because they’re stupid - not ignorant… stupid.
Originally posted by tiassa
Consider Article VI, 1 (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html) of the US Constitution, in which it was conventionally agreed to honor all debts adopted by the Confederation. Why can't the world get together and conventionally agree to rules of presently-outstanding debts?


Because a dog will growl if you take his bone.
Originally posted by tiassa
Is it wealth, or is it comparative wealth?


It’s how big your bone is. :D
Originally posted by tiassa
But before we can begin the chase for peace in earnest, we need to figure out exactly why people think they're fighting, correct what mistaken notions we can sincerely and compassionately, and work with the remainder to see what can be done.


Such a naïve perspective from such a great mind *sigh* That’s not the issue at all. They’re fighting for SO many reasons. One of the big ones is because it makes them feel powerful. Some people need that. I honestly don’t even see how it’s (economically) feasible to significantly decrease violence… since it’s all people know.. and they like it, and it’s part of the cycle, and it’s easier than thinking (to some) and it makes them feel powerful (in a world where they’re ability to exert control is likely minimal). You a kids fan? You remember Scura (the gentle shark)? Please man, remember Scura as you think about these things.
Originally posted by tiassa
People are afraid of it because it's never happened before. But it's never happened because people haven't gotten together and tried.


No man, good people who aren’t psychopaths are dying for peace, it’s just that the angry selfish people don’t and can’t have their shit together as of now.
Originally posted by tiassa
Will it take a comet hurtling toward us with lethal implications before we come together and realize that we are the human species, period?


That would only do it for a while. Soon, it would revert. Do you expect the shark not to feed, hell he might even feel guilty about it?
Originally posted by tiassa
I find myself strangely enchanted at the moment with the question of whether or not I would, in such a situation, be merely recognizing the reality of "might is right" or applying it as a justifying philosophy.


Consider this again but with the thought that subjectivity is the only mode of observation. If you were so convinced.. you WOULD be right, however disgusted I may be by your actions… I wouldn’t be disgusted after you killed me.
Originally posted by tiassa
However ... doesn't it seem like "might is right", according to your notes, is a rather problematic and inefficient approach to a problem?


It would be, if it were an approach rather than an observation.
Originally posted by tiassa
In this case, it would probably be easier to just buy a hooker, if a lay was what I was after.


Well, I don’t think prostitution is wrong if that’s what you’re digging into. I’d agree with you actually… unless you can just convince someone you’re worthy… it’s a lot cheaper (okay maybe not).
Originally posted by tiassa
It would probably be less dangerous to get married and beat my wife if it was the power trip.


Well, if that bitch didn’t behave then sure. Teasing of course. Uhm.. well, you’re using is as a philosophy.. I don’t think that’s valid as I mentioned above.
Originally posted by tiassa
Oh, wait ... power trip ... might is right ... power trip ... you can see, I'm sure, where I'm snagging myself on a comparative hangnail.


Oh sure.. but how are you gonna stop someone else’s power trip.. okay.. now how are you gonna stop almost EVERYONE else’s power trip?
Originally posted by tiassa
Well ... how is nihilism an assumption? One of the reasons I abandoned atheism was that for me it resulted in nihilism. And, frankly, in order to honor as much of justice and liberty and all those good things I espouse, I seem to be justifying myself by faith in the face of a nihilistic reality.


Oddly enough.. so do it, but not in the way that you do. Go HERE: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22336
Originally posted by tiassa
"Might is right", to me, is intrinsically nihilistic.


As a philosophy… yeah mostly.
Originally posted by tiassa
The rest of it ... the personal circumstances--isn't that the important part? There is a reason that any person believes what they believe, and if it is somehow morally or ethically wrong, contradictory, inefficient, &c ... well, can we force that person to believe otherwise?

I’d say from your post thus far that you think they can be coerced.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tiassa
Or can a person be persuaded to understand the counterpoint on a functional level?

A person can, but ALL people can’t. There’s your problem.