They are when the tools exist to stop them and while the leaders of a nation, during said famines, have access to international aid all while dining on amazing food while peasants rot in the streets. Non sequitur and a red herring all wrapped up together with a bow. I've warned you about this before. I should extend your suspension to two weeks for failing to heed my warning on this. This is a distracting technique: Kelly: "Suzy, I saw your mother in the park the other day and she slapped a little boy in the face." Suzy: "Whatever Kelly, your mother's a whore and everybody knows it!" This is both a lie and a distraction. A lie because we expect you to be intellectually honest and a distraction because it doesn't address the veracity of the statement. You did both. When a supermod or someone else comes in, I'm requesting an extended suspension. If it were up to me, I'd make it a month. But we'll see where it goes from here. ~String
While I am in no way defending RedStar or communism, I fail to see how the above quotes could be considered non sequitur or red herrings. If someone insists that deaths from famine are murder then it is completely valid to question whether that insistence is colored by a personal opinion of a particular system of government. It would seem to be an avoidance of addressing famine under a different system by making an argument from fallacy. And your example, and associated accusation of lying, is not supported by the quotes you addressed and constitute a straw man argument.
Agreed. Acting like Stalin by purging someone for defending Stalin is like hitting your kid to teach that hitting is wrong. . . . The international financiers set up both corporatism (National Socialism) and communism (International Socialism) as a dialectic. This dialectic they still play with today, even if under the guise of theocracies. The only true freedom lay with the objective reality of the sovereign individual. If they wish to practice religion, so be it. The state has no business making law to the contrary.
I saw a video once of a North Korean pesant eating cow Manure during the reign of Kim Jung I'll, the fat dead leader of North Korea
Then you aren't following his pattern. He regularly says things like, "Well, this happens in the west!" as a distraction away from pointed and factual claims about what happened under Stalinism. This is not an answer, it is an intellectually dishonest tactic used to muddy the waters and change the narrative. Furthermore, I've had some very detailed and pleasant conversations with RedStar, here and in other locations. I couldn't care less about him defending Stalin's policies, but when he defends Stalin to the point of excusing his murders, it crosses the lines, while not far enough to get banned, far enough to get censured. When he started telling people to fuck off, then he got the ban. ~String
It's absurd to suggest it, particularly in the authoritarian manner RedStar alludes to. However, I do think children should be protected against indoctrination and given every opportunity to understand cosmology through through the lens of physics, and to learn about how humans came into existence, through the lens of biology. Current laws tend to support this, it's just that there is enough interference from fundamentalists to obstruct the law and to impose religious indoctrination. And it's just plain ridiculous to suggest it, and like much of what RedStar posts, it's sheer trolling. If you mean skin color, then yes, obviously religious freedom is protected as much as freedom from racial discrimination. Religions produce huge humanitarian relief and social services. One of the largest is Catholic Charities. In many of these programs, the churches are not allowed to preach (such as requiring a prayer or attendance at sermon before the food is served to the homeless). However, I think it is counterproductive to insist that worshippers give to the poor because God requires it. Starving, helpless and unfortunate people require it, and the more religion masks this reality, the more likely they are to suffer without assistance. The only true reason to help a fellow human being is compassion, and it is as natural a response as (as Darwin noted) a mother gorilla will have for her helpless baby. We are animals. We belong to the clade that universally experiences compassion. The more we mask this by artifices, such as religion, the more we deny our true nature. More importantly, it is ridiculous to suggest it. RedStar might as well be demanding that the world appoint him to rewrite all of history and subject us all to his Cold War utopian ideals, all of which failed. Furthermore, RedStar is Stalin's apologist, the overt mark of a troll.
No, I haven't paid him any real attention (propaganda is propaganda), I was only commenting on the accusations of fallacies not supported by the specific quotes addressed. Completely warranted, and my criticism didn't extend to any punitive actions taken.
That's crap. People defend what America's presidents do all the time. What about the extermination of countless hundreds of thousands of Native Americans? What about unmanned aerial drones? Frankly those are far more heinous. Oh. . . but wait, that's a different topic, we can't bring that into the mix, can we? Sure we can excuse his murders, they were policy decisions to quell political dissent. Isn't that in essence what political leaders do all the damn time? If I remember right, Obama just assassinated an American recently in Yemen whose political speech he disagreed with. No extradition, no evidence that it was causing harm, no nothing. Just a drone, just BOOM. Killed his son too if I remember correctly. How does that make him any better than Stalin? Did he get a warning after he told people to fuck off? Was it people he told to fuck off or just you and your abusive and holier than thou moderation powers that he told to fuck off? Constantly moderators at this site ban and scare off people who were born and raised in foreign locals and I am REALLY sick and tired of it. This forum is too damn homogenous in thought, it is sick. With S.A.M. gone it is like a bunch of lemmings and sheep. I don't remember the last time I ran across a post from Diamondhearts or Stawdog. Any time someone from China or Russia comes on, the moderators sensibilities are just way to precious, and much more important than alternative view points. It REALLY blows. It would be nice to have an international feel with some members from the BRIC nations here, wouldn't it? You know what, people from Russia are bound to be a bit more course in their manner. Don't you remember Draqon? Who was the idiot that banned him? Not everyone was born with Roman Catholic/ Anglo-Saxon Prostant Sensibilities in Multicultural politeness. Cut people some slack for god's sake. What the hell ever happened to DIVERSITY. GROW SOME SKIN!!!!!
I think you are over reacting a bit. RedStar knew he was pushing the edge of being banned. When he signed up with a provocative ID and avatar, I knew and I'm sure he knew that he would be pushing that limit. I wouldn't be to surprised to find out he's been banned from other forums. Also, being banned actually might be what he intended as it will give him a bit of a reputation, that I'm sure he will take advantage of. His intent is to evoke strong emotions and those people that fall into that trap will learn a great deal about themselves and so will the rest of us that read his topics. For the record I like RedStar.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
We don't operate under absolute rules here. We make judgments on context. Defending Bill Clinton's presidency as an overall good thing is no better or worse than defending Stalin's reign as an overall good thing. But defending Bill Clinton's bombing of a hospital and making statements about those people "deserving it" would not be tolerable. What about it? Who's defending it and saying it was right? Excusable? Drones are far more heinous than the 20 million that died under Stalin? Interesting. You're deeply confused and I worry about your ignorance. Let me guide you. When we're discussing a specific topic, say Communism under Stalin, it would not be appropriate to bring up America's slaughter of Native Indians as an excuse for what Stalin did or to distract away from the obvious. Now, if we're discussing the crimes of countries and talking about patterns of consistency and inconsistency throughout history, it would be appropriate. Since this discussion centered exclusively on the USSR and Stalin's slaughter of millions, it is inappropriate to justify or legitimize those deaths by saying, "Well, so, look at your own history." If I were claiming that my history were perfect, such a tactic might be appropriate, but since I've never denied my ancestors having blood on their hands, nor denied the slaughter, nor attempted to justify or legitimize such a slaughter, it fails to actually prove anything. Well, you could, but then that would be wrong. Many do. It's a tragedy. It becomes even more of a tragedy when people excuse it and pretend it's not important. And this would be relevant if the people in this discussion were claiming it was okay. If I did the same or if I brought that example up as a righteous action and something worthy of praise. As I did not and since you have no idea how I feel about that action and since we were discussing Stalin exclusively as a monster who killed people -- no matter what other crimes other leaders have committed -- they have no relevancy to what Stalin did. Bringing that up is both a red herring and intellectually dishonest. Which was terrible. Indefensible. You don't hear me defending it, but that wasn't the topic of discussion. Who said it did? Who was justifying it? See, this is where children need to exit the debate. We can all sit here muddying the waters and trumpeting out the pecadillos of every leader throughout history. There is a point where a leader's careless disregard not just for "people" but for ALL people crosses a line. I don't know where that line is. I sort of feel like Bush II crossed that line, but I can't define precisely where it was and is. What I do know--for certain--is that Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Togo, Mussolini, King Leopold of Belgium, PolPot, the Kim's and a few others crossed way beyond that line and should not ethically be defended for any reason by anybody. He did get a warning about playing nicely, he then retorted and told people to fuck off. Can you not read? Question answered. You cannot read. He did not tell me to fuck off. I was actually enjoying engaging him in conversation. It was the "fuck off" part that got him banned. Whether directed at me or someone else, doesn't matter. It crossed the line, especially since it happened directly after being asked to play nicely. You should quit and move on then. It's just a website. There is a very big world out there for you. Move on. Enjoy life elsewhere. I know the internet is all you've got, but I want to remind you that your buddy was warned to play nice and then came back and said "fuck off". Had he not said that, he'd still be here defending communism and I'd still be engaging him in his discussion. I was enjoying him up until he lost his cool. We have members from all over the world. Since this website is in English it's bound to attract those who speak English. Your desire for more BRIC citizens should inspire you to build a website that attracts them. Except that the rules pretty clearly point out what is expected, and IIRC, Red Star lives in the west, is familiar with western customs and knows how to behave, unless you're declaring him to be insane and not in control, then you clearly accept that he is an adult in control of his adult actions. The rules are posted. It's not like this was a pop quiz without any prep in advance. The ban was permanent for a good reason. He made extraordinarily racist comments about wiping a few nations off the earth. Calling for the extermination of a people really crosses the line, don't you think? Or should we just chalk that up to "cultural differences"? In which case, the Germans and Hitler were just misunderstood. That was me. Would you like to join him? I'm fairly certain he's back and I'm keeping an eye on his new handle. Then they should go to boards where that kind of behavior is celebrated and apropos. So now we're guilty of demanding that people not be racist, rude curmudgeons? Whine much? He told people to fuck off after being told to play nice. That's crossing the line in any culture. Look who's carrying on and crying like a little child! Diversity is desirable. Being a prig is not. ~String
Esotericist, I think we could compare and contrast the wholesale slaughter of millions by Stalin to the selective targets attacked by drones, and find a huge step forward in the exercise of military force just in past few decades. Great care was taken by the engineers to try to limit collateral death and injury. This kind of ethic is one of the many dirty problems of warfare. There is no clean war, and there is presently no escape from murdering enemies. I don't regard the drone attacks as being murders carried out by the president. I think a huge contingent of people were involved in locating and identifying the targets in question. Some of those military folks would just as soon launch a nuke and, as Rummy once said, "blast [them] back into the Stone Age." For anyone who remembers the Cuban missile crisis this is a huge leap forward in limiting the breadth of murder and destruction. It's by far the lesser of two evils. I don't like it, but I don't loathe it the way I did nuclear proliferation, Agent Orange, mines and booby traps, and carpet bombing. While the decimation and horrors visited upon native Americans, Africans and Asians by Europeans and their descendants is a cruel legacy in US political history--as well as that of most of Latin America--we would be equally wrong to condone it today as to condone Stalin's unprecedented cruelty. Largely because of the crimes against the victims you mention by Europeans and Americans both north and south of the equator we have finally inherited an innate sense of the sacred nature of human rights. We are not those people. We did not do it, and we don't condone it. If anything, we fight to prevent it from happening to others. I think that anyone alive today who advocates for returning to a past era of oppression, and who comes here to rail about it, is not adding any value, only taking away from the forums' stated goals, which are "informed discussion". Furthermore, anyone who is harboring intense psychopathic ideation isn't necessarily being hurt by being banned. For example, it may be a wakeup call, a chance to pause and reflect on whether a visit to the shrink is in order. I'm apparently less tolerant of trolls than many other folks here. I do like the site for the quality of its members, who seem to me to include many diverse and interesting folks. There are many highly educated people who have incredible insight into science. But for someone who is so vocal about imposing some ghastly genocide as a way of giving us "the Russia of today" I wouldn't think it would be too surprising (for him) if the mods exercised a little of their own social regulation. It wasn't religious sensibility that set the boundaries for flaming, it was the posted rules. For someone so bent on authoritarianism, I would also think it serves as a wakeup call to be told to follow them. I don't think free speech is the issue, per se. I think it's when it becomes an obsessive rant that it no longer makes sense to keep feeding the trolls. You probably disagree. But that's your prerogative.
This caught my eye. You aren't suggesting that it would be intolerable to argue, say, that collateral damage is defensible in war. are you? Or that it was a right action if it serves a larger good? Personally, I find "war morality" a very interesting subject, and I'd hate to live under the constant threat of infraction for taking a position one way or another. Clearly, saying that innocent people deserved to die is a different matter, so I just wanted to clear up if defending a civilian bombing--intentional or no--is now grounds for banning.
Ditto As always. Fair and salient points from your perspective. Agreeable. I appreciate the moderation. I am sad that you don't appreciate my point of view and have instead chosen to take the defensive. If you choose to look at the individual trees instead of the thinning forest, your narrow perspective will cloud your vision, and, necessarily your pursuit for knowledge and wisdom. Group think is a nasty business. Unless of course you are not here to exchange ideas and are only here to "correct" others POV? IOW. He got banned b/c he went off the reservation. . . Same as all the others. If you have an authorized idea? Censure. Ban. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You got me there. My apologies.
What? You're still carrying that torch about diversity. Read slooooooooowwwwly. I've said this before. I like that he's a communist and won't give up. I don't want people here agreeing with me or anybody else. When too many like-minded people get together, their IQ's lower. He was banned because he was asked to adjust his language and came back and not only did he NOT change his tone, he lost his cool and started doing WORSE than he was doing before. So you can keep beating that drum, but if I were out to get him, I would have gotten him WAY before this conversation. Lemme tell you something. I'm a gay atheist. I was kicked out of the US Navy, paraded in front of my unit and locked in a mental hospital because in the 90's it was considered a mental disorder. My family is COMPLETELY republican, born again Assembly of God. Do you know who the AG are? They believe in speaking in tongues. I'm an atheist. I'm also a former obese person who's dropped just under 100lbs and is now running in the Warrior Dash, ToughMudder and several half marathons (whole marathons are just CRAZY) even though most of my family thinks I'm "worshiping my body" and should be spending all that extra time praising the lord. I'm a recovering crystal meth addict (been clean for over a decade) and I spend time helping people get off drugs. So, spare me the bull shit, cry-baby antics about me wanting people to be like me (whatever that is) or a part of some group think (you obviously don't pay attention to the differences between the mods). But do you really want to know what I think? Read what I write in my spare time: Is atheism a cult? What is it like to have a penis? Is there an asymmetry in accountability between business & the individual in society? How do atheists explain how the world was created? Is male consumption of pornography damaging to women and equality? How can you discourage homosexuality without discriminating against that particular group? What are some consequences of overprotective parenting for individuals and society? Is evolution true? Is evolution still a theory? Why does US society cling to the suburban model despite its inefficiency, unsustainability and many social ills? Which countries economies will grow the fastest in the next five years? Should assisted suicide be made legal? Has Germany achieved financially what it sought for many years militarily, the domination of Europe? ~String
Pleased to meet you, String. That was one helluva post. I went straight to your "Is evolution true?" So good, I'm going to check out the rest.
String....where have you been this entire time? You are simply a remarkable individual. I wish I could have meet you(metaphorically speaking) sooner.
Seriously awesome post, String. But could you address the question I posed earlier in the thread, please? Even if you find it absurd, I don't, and I'd like an answer.
hah post 115 was a hoot to end all hoots /big smile however... warning/1 day/3 day/whatnot if red has not gone that route, lift ban after a day that would be fair be nice and make it happen, string
