James R: The S.A.M Issue
- Thread starter Gustav
- Start date
- Status
Not quite true, most people don't, most people in fact try to ignore the topic because it's of little relevance or interest to them, of course it's thrust in their face by some activist or other pushing their warez, which incidentally if anything tends to push those people that might have paid attention to a discussion further and further away from ever reading or participating.
again
a few examples would be good here
i would like to see these "points" you consider unassailable premises
I have some serious disagreements with SAM. I think she is in fact bigoted against "the Jews", fundamentally confused re atheism, baffled and uncomprehending regarding US culture and Western mores, and probably adherent of numerous other flawed philosophical and intellectual positions that haven't struck my attention.willnever said:
But amid the endless spewing of vile and personal attacks against her, the ranting jingoistic shitflinging, the moronic playground backslag, the bizarre and time-wasting and irrelevant vituperation continually directed her way, most of it launched from apparent self-oblivious misreadings and bigotry-based failures to comprehend SAM's posts, I'm having a hard time getting a reasonable argument in edgewise.
Which SAM's incorrigible deflection does not make easier, but still:
You guys are and have been way out of line, IMHO. It has been your behavior, not SAM's, that has created the bulk of the "problem of SAM" that exists on this forum.
And I am still waiting for this:
gustav said:
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
But you've just said what constitutes SAMs end of the problem: bigotry, confusion, uncomprehension, flawed intellectual positions, etc. On one end you're giving this list of problems that confirm what has been said of SAM but then write all this off as everyone else's problem. That doesn't make sense, my man.
Bigotry based failure to comprehend a post?
???
Bigotry based failure to comprehend a post?
???
Objectively, there are at any given time, far more threads on American issues in WEP than any other.
/chuckle
oh, ice will never be your man
there is a chasm of unimaginable proportions that separates your respective intellects. one, a giant, the other, a midget
/chortle
run along, boy!
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
Gustaf, I don't know who poured hydrochloric acid down your crotch but don't take it out on me, okay?
In the mean time, Iceaura has just gone on record saying that people are suffering from a bigotry based failure to comprehend posts. However, there's nothing complex about SAMs posts. In most cases they are written in broad, sweeping and dehumanized terms. Often, they are just questions. If you behave in the same way, and respond to her questions with questions, then she loses her cool and blows her stack: which she did, in that thread I linked to you. She reported my posts to the moderators in that thread, on page 11 or so, and even made a declaration that she was doing so.
Such behavior is not intellectual, gustaf. It's what babies do.
In the mean time, Iceaura has just gone on record saying that people are suffering from a bigotry based failure to comprehend posts. However, there's nothing complex about SAMs posts. In most cases they are written in broad, sweeping and dehumanized terms. Often, they are just questions. If you behave in the same way, and respond to her questions with questions, then she loses her cool and blows her stack: which she did, in that thread I linked to you. She reported my posts to the moderators in that thread, on page 11 or so, and even made a declaration that she was doing so.
Such behavior is not intellectual, gustaf. It's what babies do.
.....Such behavior is not intellectual, gustaf. It's what babies do.
ok
agreed
lets hang the baby for crimes against humanity
garcon!
roll out the goddamn gallows!
alright
this thread has a specific purpose
the peanut gallery should refrain from trolling
if you guys have issues, go sfog it
this is not the venue
Last edited:
Gustav:
I'll try to explain.
The issue raised here is "Did Barack Obama (a) order missile attacks, (b) intend to kill Palestinian civilians, or be reckless as to whether civilians were killed, (c) promise to kill civilians as an election promise?"
Now, consider for a minute how SAM phrased her opening post. We have "humble families", "Pakistani citizens", "slaughtered", contrasted deliberately with a clearly intended irony of the "angelic, charming" President. A loaded assessment before we even start, in the guise of an innocent question or opener for a debate.
SAM also has a racial dig at Obama. How is the fact that he is black relevant here? Perhaps SAM thinks Obama should show solidarity with those "humble families" in Pakistan because he is black. Also, there's an implied slur on the fact that Obama was educated at Harvard. Probably SAM is having a go at what she perceives as privilege, and implying that Obama's privileged education makes him disconnected from the concerns of ordinary people such as "humble" Pakistanis.
Also consider that SAM smears Americans in general, asking what is in their hearts. The implication is that any American who supports Obama is anti-Pakistani and in favour of the killing of innocent civilians. SAM deliberately wants to paint Americans in general, and Obama in particular, as immoral and uncaring.
This is not an opening post that invites intelligent discussion. It is an opening post that invites people to hate the evil Americans and their evil President, since they all set out to kill the humble and innocent citizens of Pakistan, for reasons we can only imagine but which can in no way be justified.
Now, I am in no way saying that a discussion of drone missile attacks in Pakistan is invalid. I have issues not with the topic, but with the hateful way in which it is presented. This OP invites only an extreme response either way. Either you are on the side of the Good and the Right (which means you agree with SAM's assessment that the United States and Obama are evildoers through and through) or you are with the terrorists (i.e. America and its foreign policy, headed by the evil and despised Obama).
I hope this helps explain the problems I have with this.
Gustav said:
I'll try to explain.
The issue raised here is "Did Barack Obama (a) order missile attacks, (b) intend to kill Palestinian civilians, or be reckless as to whether civilians were killed, (c) promise to kill civilians as an election promise?"
Now, consider for a minute how SAM phrased her opening post. We have "humble families", "Pakistani citizens", "slaughtered", contrasted deliberately with a clearly intended irony of the "angelic, charming" President. A loaded assessment before we even start, in the guise of an innocent question or opener for a debate.
SAM also has a racial dig at Obama. How is the fact that he is black relevant here? Perhaps SAM thinks Obama should show solidarity with those "humble families" in Pakistan because he is black. Also, there's an implied slur on the fact that Obama was educated at Harvard. Probably SAM is having a go at what she perceives as privilege, and implying that Obama's privileged education makes him disconnected from the concerns of ordinary people such as "humble" Pakistanis.
Also consider that SAM smears Americans in general, asking what is in their hearts. The implication is that any American who supports Obama is anti-Pakistani and in favour of the killing of innocent civilians. SAM deliberately wants to paint Americans in general, and Obama in particular, as immoral and uncaring.
This is not an opening post that invites intelligent discussion. It is an opening post that invites people to hate the evil Americans and their evil President, since they all set out to kill the humble and innocent citizens of Pakistan, for reasons we can only imagine but which can in no way be justified.
Now, I am in no way saying that a discussion of drone missile attacks in Pakistan is invalid. I have issues not with the topic, but with the hateful way in which it is presented. This OP invites only an extreme response either way. Either you are on the side of the Good and the Right (which means you agree with SAM's assessment that the United States and Obama are evildoers through and through) or you are with the terrorists (i.e. America and its foreign policy, headed by the evil and despised Obama).
I hope this helps explain the problems I have with this.
James:
The only solution to this problem would be compromise. As you can see, this is not an option as certain parties are not willing to compromise or consider the others point of view and come to terms on some middle ground.
The only solution I can personally come up with for the Palestinian/Israeli problem would ultimately be to remove all people from the land and relocate them elsewhere on the globe as far away from each other as possible. We can all see how this would never happen. But for a situation as messed up as this one, I believe it would be the only solution. Perhaps some similar solution is called for for our situation here...
The only solution to this problem would be compromise. As you can see, this is not an option as certain parties are not willing to compromise or consider the others point of view and come to terms on some middle ground.
The only solution I can personally come up with for the Palestinian/Israeli problem would ultimately be to remove all people from the land and relocate them elsewhere on the globe as far away from each other as possible. We can all see how this would never happen. But for a situation as messed up as this one, I believe it would be the only solution. Perhaps some similar solution is called for for our situation here...
Vacuum Warp
We're in a war, James, where we shoot through civilians to get at the enemy.
Would you disagree with the fictional general in the following contrived exchange:
My point is that while Obama is responsible for the missile attacks, your points (b) and (c) are straw men.
We're there allegedly to help people.
Imagine you're at the bank one day when some guys come in and hold the place up. You're one of about thirty hostages they hold as the police surround the building. Now, as the police are there to help you, would it really make sense for them to just bomb the bank into dust?
Sure, they didn't intend to kill you. They intended to kill the bad guys. But maybe a little caution is called for? Or are civilians automatically condemned by the proximity of wanted criminals?
If you had to give the call, how many civilians would you kill to get one terrorist? Two terrorists? Ten of them?
Despite some claims that America has transcended its black/white racial issues with the election of Barack Obama, the question still remains how we will judge him. Are we charmed by his life story? Do we let our pride at having finally elected a black president cloud our objectivity? You know, there's a lot of racism coming out in the right-wing opposition to Obama, but that doesn't mean the president's skin color and the fact that he is the first black president, doesn't affect other people in other ways.
Smears? I think the warping caused by your compression of these issues is severe.
Americans, at least—and I'm pretty damn sure we're not the only ones in this—engage this odd transference of identity. Students of my day going on a field trip, or to an interscholastic sporting event, are told to be on their best behavior because they "represent the school". I sat in class one day in fifth grade, for instance, for an hour, listening to my teacher explain how we were all disgraceful. Apparently, two or three players had vandalized a bathroom at another school after a basketball game.
And we all sat back, hearing how horrible and embarrassing we all were.
Or parents. Good heavens, it's a curse of my generation in America. In the middle class, there is a strong current that explains to the child, "Do you want the neighbors to think we're bad parents?"
So, yes, Americans like Jay Janson are probably quite accustomed to the rhetorical device you denounce as a smear against our nation.
Of course, beyond that, we saw overwhelming public support for the war in Iraq, broad criticism of pacifists as "anti-American" and "terrorist supporters"; we empowered the Republicans in 2002, re-elected George W. Bush in 2004, asked for change in 2006 and, despite not getting it, asked again in electing Barack Obama, a man who we knew intended to step up in Afghanistan.
No, it doesn't speak for everyone. The alternative, of course, is that "America" and "Americans" don't actually stand for anything, so people should stop using those terms in such contexts.
Thus: "America" didn't go to war in Iraq. "Americans" didn't support the war. "America" wasn't hit on 9/11—just a few airplanes, a couple of buildings in New York, one in Washington, and an empty field in Pennsylvania, all to the tune of 2,800 dead. Just under three-thousand people, four airplanes, three buildings, and an empty field. That's all that was attacked.
And, okay, sure. If that's how we're going to look at it, fine. But that would also be a deviation from our typical and traditional rhetoric. It would redefine our language.
And that's all fine. But we also have this idea in the U.S. Constitution that says you don't do things ex post facto. Put simply, if this is the new standard, fine. I can live with that. But we need to establish that new standard, and it's not fair to hold against people actions taken under the former standard that were, in fact, in line with it.
Well, at the very least, it brings the problem out into the light. Thank you for that, at least.
But nobody else can solve it for you. Not even S.A.M. This one's all yours.
James R said:
We're in a war, James, where we shoot through civilians to get at the enemy.
Would you disagree with the fictional general in the following contrived exchange:
Reporter: How does the government justify the killing of these civilians?
General: Well, we didn't intend to.
Reporter: What precautions were taken against civilian casualties?
General: This is a war. You can't always stop and be careful.
General: Well, we didn't intend to.
Reporter: What precautions were taken against civilian casualties?
General: This is a war. You can't always stop and be careful.
My point is that while Obama is responsible for the missile attacks, your points (b) and (c) are straw men.
We're there allegedly to help people.
Imagine you're at the bank one day when some guys come in and hold the place up. You're one of about thirty hostages they hold as the police surround the building. Now, as the police are there to help you, would it really make sense for them to just bomb the bank into dust?
Sure, they didn't intend to kill you. They intended to kill the bad guys. But maybe a little caution is called for? Or are civilians automatically condemned by the proximity of wanted criminals?
If you had to give the call, how many civilians would you kill to get one terrorist? Two terrorists? Ten of them?
Despite some claims that America has transcended its black/white racial issues with the election of Barack Obama, the question still remains how we will judge him. Are we charmed by his life story? Do we let our pride at having finally elected a black president cloud our objectivity? You know, there's a lot of racism coming out in the right-wing opposition to Obama, but that doesn't mean the president's skin color and the fact that he is the first black president, doesn't affect other people in other ways.
Smears? I think the warping caused by your compression of these issues is severe.
Americans, at least—and I'm pretty damn sure we're not the only ones in this—engage this odd transference of identity. Students of my day going on a field trip, or to an interscholastic sporting event, are told to be on their best behavior because they "represent the school". I sat in class one day in fifth grade, for instance, for an hour, listening to my teacher explain how we were all disgraceful. Apparently, two or three players had vandalized a bathroom at another school after a basketball game.
And we all sat back, hearing how horrible and embarrassing we all were.
Or parents. Good heavens, it's a curse of my generation in America. In the middle class, there is a strong current that explains to the child, "Do you want the neighbors to think we're bad parents?"
So, yes, Americans like Jay Janson are probably quite accustomed to the rhetorical device you denounce as a smear against our nation.
Of course, beyond that, we saw overwhelming public support for the war in Iraq, broad criticism of pacifists as "anti-American" and "terrorist supporters"; we empowered the Republicans in 2002, re-elected George W. Bush in 2004, asked for change in 2006 and, despite not getting it, asked again in electing Barack Obama, a man who we knew intended to step up in Afghanistan.
No, it doesn't speak for everyone. The alternative, of course, is that "America" and "Americans" don't actually stand for anything, so people should stop using those terms in such contexts.
Thus: "America" didn't go to war in Iraq. "Americans" didn't support the war. "America" wasn't hit on 9/11—just a few airplanes, a couple of buildings in New York, one in Washington, and an empty field in Pennsylvania, all to the tune of 2,800 dead. Just under three-thousand people, four airplanes, three buildings, and an empty field. That's all that was attacked.
And, okay, sure. If that's how we're going to look at it, fine. But that would also be a deviation from our typical and traditional rhetoric. It would redefine our language.
And that's all fine. But we also have this idea in the U.S. Constitution that says you don't do things ex post facto. Put simply, if this is the new standard, fine. I can live with that. But we need to establish that new standard, and it's not fair to hold against people actions taken under the former standard that were, in fact, in line with it.
Well, at the very least, it brings the problem out into the light. Thank you for that, at least.
But nobody else can solve it for you. Not even S.A.M. This one's all yours.
/chuckle
moving on.....2 of 12 unsequenced
james
again, tell me why, please. i also note the thread remains open in free thoughts
this time i would like you to comment on the other players in that thread
lucysnow seems ubiquitous so take a moment to assess her contribution. i am of course not asking you to neglect the rest of the players
quote more posts from that thread that trouble you the most. i presume it is only sam's, correct?
thanks
moving on.....2 of 12 unsequenced
james
again, tell me why, please. i also note the thread remains open in free thoughts
this time i would like you to comment on the other players in that thread
lucysnow seems ubiquitous so take a moment to assess her contribution. i am of course not asking you to neglect the rest of the players
quote more posts from that thread that trouble you the most. i presume it is only sam's, correct?
thanks
Last edited:
Because you chose these words.
Whenever you quote something to make a point or raise an issue, you are making a selection from a multitude of available materials and sources. Your choices, SAM, invariably show the kinds of biases I just pointed out. There are plenty of unbiased sources out there, but you never use them. Or, if you do, you go quote-mining for parts of them that put the matter into the hateful light you always wish to emphasise.
Of course.
Indeed my choices as you correctly pointed out generally reflect my biases. I am invariably and consistently biased to the leftists viewpoint in all media I choose.
There is no such thing as a unbiased opinion, in my opinion. Opinions by their very nature are biased. Which is why it is more important to pay attention to actions than words.
/puzzled
is that not what you did?
highlight a portion of the text notable for its rhetorical extravagance and hold it out as an example of sam's hate? an article that was quoted in its entirety?
are you serious?
- Status