Obama ... the war hawk
Potroast
middle east solution... and now sending more troops to Afghanistan.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/12/03/ellen-ratner-afghanistan-obama-pla
n-speech/
And this is precisely why I don't completely trust either the left or
right. Once elected principles and promises start going out the
window. One thing I have to give credit to Bush.... at least he was
honest about going to war. Obama talks a good game but doesn't seem to
follow up it with enough action. I'm starting to wonder if I supported
the wrong side in the last US election. All things being equal I'd
take an honest warhawk over a dishonest one.
chazwin
What did he get the prize FOR?
Next he will be getting a Booker prize for a book he read
Then he will be getting an Oscar for a film he dreamed.
On Dec 4, 1:39�am, Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Obama, noble peace prize winner 2009.... still in Iraq... still no
> middle east solution... and now sending more troops to Afghanistan.
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/12/03/ellen-ratner-afghanistan-ob...
Potroast
> What did he get the prize FOR?
> Next he will be getting a Booker prize for a book he read
> Then he will be getting an Oscar for a film he dreamed.
I don't blame him for getting the stupidest of nobel prizes. (he
didn't ask for it) but I do blame him for sending more troops rather
than withdrawing what's there. (and its really hypocritical listening
to some leftists justify Obama sending troops... when they complained
about Bush doing the same thing)
Obama started out well with the open hand but he seems to be
forgetting his promises to the people that got him elected (I didn't
even mention the predator strikes in Pakistan that aren't helping the
situation). Obama has two years left to follow through with his
promise to leave. If he continues down this road, next election I'm
going to throw my support behind Republicans (for at least honorably
matching their words to their actions despite that I may disagree with
some of them)
Arnold Broese
news:4c1988aa-af00-471e...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> And this is precisely why I don't completely trust either the left or
> right. Once elected principles and promises start going out the
> window.
I don't think in left right terms, only in terms of where a man's soul is.
Bush, for all his faults did not have the soul of a dictator. That 'quality'
oozes out of Obama.
--
Arnold
1Z
wrote:
> "Potroast" <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
!!!!!!
Well, that's a fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------
So George, how do you feel about your mom and dad?
Psychologist Oliver James analyses the behaviour of the American
president
As the alcoholic George Bush approached his 40th birthday in 1986, he
had achieved nothing he could call his own. He was all too aware that
none of his educational and professional accomplishments would have
occured without his father. He felt so low that he did not care if he
lived or died. Taking a friend out for a flight in a Cessna aeroplane,
it only became apparent he had not flown one before when they nearly
crashed on take-off. Narrowly avoiding stalling a few times, they
crash-landed and the friend breathed a sigh of relief - only for Bush
to rev up the engine and take off again.
Not long afterwards, staring at his vomit-spattered face in the
mirror, this dangerously self-destructive man fell to his knees and
implored God to help him and became a teetotalling, fundamentalist
Christian. David Frum, his speechwriter, described the change:
"Sigmund Freud imported the Latin pronoun id to describe the
impulsive, carnal, unruly elements of the human personality. [In his
youth] Bush's id seems to have been every bit as powerful and
destructive as Clinton's id. But sometime in Bush's middle years, his
id was captured, shackled and manacled, and locked away."
One of the jailers was his father. His grandfather, uncles and many
cousins attended both his secondary school, Andover, and his
university, Yale, but the longest shadow was cast by his father's
exceptional careers there.
On the wall of his school house at Andover, there was a large black-
and-white photograph of his father in full sporting regalia. He had
been one of the most successful student athletes in the school's 100-
year history and was similarly remembered at Yale, where his
grandfather was a trustee. His younger brother, Jeb, summed the
problem up when he said, "A lot of people who have fathers like this
feel a sense that they have failed." Such a titanic figure created
mixed feelings. On the one hand, Bush worshipped and aspired to
emulate him. Peter Neumann, an Andover roommate, recalls that, "He
idolised his father, he was going to be just like his dad." At Yale, a
friend remembered a "deep respect" for his father and when he later
set up in the oil business, another friend said, "He was focused to
prove himself to his dad."
On the other hand, deep down, Bush had a profound loathing for this
perfect model of American citizenship whose very success made the son
feel a failure. Rebelliousness was an unconscious attack on him and a
desperate attempt to carve out something of his own. Far from paternal
emulation, Bush described his goal at school as "to instil a sense of
frivolity". Contemporaries at Yale say he was like the John Belushi
character in the film Animal House, a drink-fuelled funseeker.
He was aggressively anti-intellectual and hostile to east-coast preppy
types like his father, sometimes cruelly so. On one occasion he walked
up to a matronly woman at a smart cocktail party and asked, "So,
what's sex like after 50, anyway?"
A direct and loutish challenge to his father's posh sensibility came
aged 25, after he had drunkenly crashed a car. "I hear you're looking
for me," he sneered at his father, "do you want to go mano a mano,
right here?"
As he grew older, the fury towards his father was increasingly
directed against himself in depressive drinking. But it was not all
his father's fault. There was also his insensitive and domineering
mother.
Barbara Bush is described by her closest intimates as prone to
"withering stares" and "sharply crystalline" retorts. She is also
extremely tough. When he was seven, Bush's younger sister, Robin, died
of leukaemia and several independent witnesses say he was very upset
by this loss. Barbara claims its effect was exaggerated but nobody
could accuse her of overreacting: the day after the funeral, she and
her husband were on the golf course.
She was the main authority-figure in the home. Jeb describes it as
having been, "A kind of matriarchy... when we were growing up, dad
wasn't at home. Mom was the one to hand out the goodies and the
discipline." A childhood friend recalls that,"She was the one who
instilled fear", while Bush put it like this: "Every mother has her
own style. Mine was a little like an army drill sergeant's... my
mother's always been a very outspoken person who vents very well -
she'll just let rip if she's got something on her mind." According to
his uncle, the "letting rip" often included slaps and hits. Countless
studies show that boys with such mothers are at much higher risk of
becoming wild, alcoholic or antisocial.
On top of that, Barbara added substantially to the pressure from his
father to be a high achiever by creating a highly competitive family
culture. All the children's games, be they tiddlywinks or baseball,
were intensely competitive - an actual "family league table" was kept
of performance in various pursuits. At least this prepared him for
life at Andover, where emotional literacy was definitely not part of
the curriculum. Soon after arriving, he was asked to write an essay on
a soul-stirring experience in his life to date and he chose the death
of his sister. His mother had drilled it into him that it was wrong
when writing to repeat words already used. Having employed "tears"
once in the essay, he sought a substitute from a thesaurus she had
given him and wrote "the lacerates ran down my cheeks". The essay
received a fail grade, accompanied by derogatory comments such as
"disgraceful".
This incident may be an insight into Bush's strange tendency to find
the wrong words in making public pronouncements. "Is our children
learning?" he once famously asked. On responding to critics of his
intellect he claimed that they had "misunderestimated" him. Perhaps
these verbal faux-pas are a barely unconscious way of winding up his
bullying mother and waving two fingers at his cultured father's
sensibility.
The outcome of this childhood was what psychologists call an
authoritarian personality. Authoritarianism was identified shortly
after the second world war as part of research to discover the causes
of fascism. As the name suggests, authoritarians impose the strictest
possible discipline on themselves and others - the sort of regime
found in today's White House, where prayers precede daily business,
appointments are scheduled in five-minute blocks, women's skirts must
be below the knee and Bush rises at 5.45am, invariably fitting in a 21-
minute, three-mile jog before lunch.
Authoritarian personalities are organised around rabid hostility to
"legitimate" targets, often ones nominated by their parents'
prejudices. Intensely moralistic, they direct it towards despised
social groups. As people, they avoid introspection or loving displays,
preferring toughness and cynicism. They regard others with suspicion,
attributing ulterior motives to the most innocent behaviour. They are
liable to be superstitious. All these traits have been described in
Bush many times, by friends or colleagues.
His moralism is all-encompassing and as passionate as can be. He plans
to replace state welfare provision with faith-based charitable
organisations that would impose Christian family values.
The commonest targets of authoritarians have been Jews, blacks and
homosexuals. Bush is anti-abortion and his fundamentalist
interpretation of the Bible would mean that gay practices are evil.
But perhaps the group he reserves his strongest contempt for are those
who have adopted the values of the 60s. He says he loathes "people who
felt guilty about their lot in life because others were suffering".
He has always rejected any kind of introspection. Everyone who knows
him well says how hard he is to get to know, that he lives behind what
one friend calls a "facile, personable" facade. Frum comments that,
"He is relentlessly disciplined and very slow to trust. Even when his
mouth seems to be smiling at you, you can feel his eyes watching you."
His deepest beliefs amount to superstition. "Life takes its own
turns," he says, "writes its own story and along the way we start to
realise that we are not the author." God's will, not his own, explains
his life.
Most fundamentalist Christians have authoritarian personalities. Two
core beliefs separate fundamentalists from mere evangelists ("happy-
clappy" Christians) or the mainstream Presbyterians among whom Bush
first learned religion every Sunday with his parents: fundamentalists
take the Bible absolutely literally as the word of God and believe
that human history will come to an end in the near future, preceded by
a terrible, apocaplytic battle on Earth between the forces of good and
evil, which only the righteous shall survive. According to Frum when
Bush talks of an "axis of evil" he is identifying his enemies as
literally satanic, possessed by the devil. Whether he specifically
sees the battle with Iraq and other "evil" nations as being part of
the end-time, the apocalypse preceding the day of judgment, is not
known. Nor is it known whether Tony Blair shares these particular
religious ideas.
However, it is certain that however much Bush may sometimes seem like
a buffoon, he is also powered by massive, suppressed anger towards
anyone who challenges the extreme, fanatical beliefs shared by him and
a significant slice of his citizens - in surveys, half of them also
agree with the statement "the Bible is the actual word of God and is
to be taken literally, word for word".
Bush's deep hatred, as well as love, for both his parents explains how
he became a reckless rebel with a death wish. He hated his father for
putting his whole life in the shade and for emotionally blackmailing
him. He hated his mother for physically and mentally badgering him to
fulfil her wishes. But the hatred also explains his radical
transformation into an authoritarian fundamentalist. By totally
identifying with an extreme version of their strict, religion-fuelled
beliefs, he jailed his rebellious self. From now on, his unconscious
hatred for them was channelled into a fanatical moral crusade to rid
the world of evil.
As Frum put it: "Id-control is the basis of Bush's presidency but Bush
is a man of fierce anger." That anger now rules the world.
� Oliver James's book They F*** You Up - How to survive family life is
published by Bloomsbury, priced �7.99.
Charles Bell
Malrassic Park
>
>� Oliver James's book They F*** You Up - How to survive family life is
>published by Bloomsbury, priced �7.99.
And you expect us to believe this psycho-babble?
1Z
> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:20:52 -0800, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >� Oliver James's book They F*** You Up - How to survive family life is
> >published by Bloomsbury, priced �7.99.
>
> And you expect us to believe this psycho-babble?
Let's put it this way:
I hope you don't accept Broese's speculations while rejecting James's.
Malrassic Park
>On 4 Dec, 14:29, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:20:52 -0800, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
..
>> >� Oliver James's book They F*** You Up - How to survive family life is
>> >published by Bloomsbury, priced �7.99.
..
>> And you expect us to believe this psycho-babble?
..
>Let's put it this way:
>I hope you don't accept Broese's speculations while rejecting James's.
A different kind of title for the James book might help just a little
with his credibility. Of course he is also British, and I believe
Broese to be Australian, and I prefer to listen to opinions on
American presidents from other Americans not foreigners.
Jim Klein
> I prefer to listen to opinions on
> American presidents from other Americans not foreigners.
That's noteable. Do you look for less disinterested
parties on all matters, or just this?
jk
Malrassic Park
wrote:
Are you implying that Europeans and Australians are more
disinterested? I hardly think so. Remember how amorous the French were
toward Clinton? Disinterest is not the point anyway, which is this: I
prefer to listen to opinions on American presidents from other
Americans and not foreigners.
Potroast
That's very natural. Everyone should always prioritize the views of
their own fellow citizens. However, we live in a much smaller world
today than ever before. Snubbing the rest of the world isn't something
any nation can afford to do in the modern nuclear age. Isolationism is
no longer an option because it's just too easy to communicate and get
around. Regardless where we draw our imaginary lines on a map, the
larger reality is we are all also fellow travelers on this tiny blue
spaceship we mutually call home.
Mark N
Yeah, I think we all got that the first time. I think Jim was trying to
explore the question of *why* you prefer to listen to the opinions of
Americans. You apparently felt strongly enough about this preference to
want to announce it. So how about explaining the reason for it?
Mark
x
x
Jim Klein
> >> I prefer to listen to opinions on
> >> American presidents from other Americans not foreigners.
>
> >That's noteable. Do you look for less disinterested
> >parties on all matters, or just this?
>
> Are you implying that Europeans and Australians are more
> disinterested?
I was, yes.
> I hardly think so.
I'm shocked.
> Remember how amorous the French were
> toward Clinton?
Not really. I barely remember Clinton and the only
thing I know about the French these days is that
they like to gather in the square and demand more
money.
> Disinterest is not the point anyway,
Oh.
> which is this: I
> prefer to listen to opinions on American presidents from other
> Americans and not foreigners.
Your retort should've been that since you're so
rational, you figure Americans have more information
on the topic to make a more rational opinion.
So it's not disinterest and it's not having more
information. Well, you've got two of us wondering
why you so prefer!
Oh, I'm sorry. I remember now. They make the
words in English!
jk
chazwin
> On Dec 3, 9:55�pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > What did he get the prize FOR?
> > Next he will be getting a Booker prize for a book he read
> > Then he will be getting an Oscar for a film he dreamed.
>
> I don't blame him for getting the stupidest of nobel prizes. (he
> didn't ask for it) but I do blame him for sending more troops rather
> than withdrawing what's there. (and its really hypocritical listening
> to some leftists justify Obama sending troops... when they complained
> about Bush doing the same thing)
I can't see why you are blaming him for more troops. He needs to
finish a job that was not started by him, would not have started it in
the first place, and does not want to take the shit for fucking it
up.
Policy in Afghanistan is the end result of decades of poorly
considered anti-Islamic policy which has been an unfortunate fact for
loner than any of us can remember. THe West has been interfering in
the politics of the ME and Near East for generations. At some point
the West has to re-consider a more mature and sober approach.
But pulling out your dick before you have shot your load is no longer
a viable option if we what to avoid a million terrorists being
recruited.
>
> Obama started out well with the open hand but he seems to be
> forgetting his promises to the people that got him elected (I didn't
> even mention the predator strikes in Pakistan that aren't helping the
> situation). Obama has two years left to follow through with his
> promise to leave. If he continues down this road, next election I'm
> going to throw my support behind Republicans (for at least honorably
> matching their words to their actions despite that I may disagree with
> some of them)
That's a laugh! The Republicans said they had already won the war 4
years ago - how's that for a promise?
1Z
>
> Your retort should've been that since you're so
> rational, you figure Americans have more information
> on the topic to make a more rational opinion.
So glad to hear none of you guys would offer an ill-informed
opinion on Europe...
> Not really. �I barely remember Clinton and the only
> thing I know about the French these days is that
> they like to gather in the square and demand more
> money.
..oops
Potroast
> On Dec 4, 3:32�am, Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 9:55�pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > What did he get the prize FOR?
> > > Next he will be getting a Booker prize for a book he read
> > > Then he will be getting an Oscar for a film he dreamed.
>
> > I don't blame him for getting the stupidest of nobel prizes. (he
> > didn't ask for it) but I do blame him for sending more troops rather
> > than withdrawing what's there. (and its really hypocritical listening
> > to some leftists justify Obama sending troops... when they complained
> > about Bush doing the same thing)
>
> I can't see why you are blaming him for more troops. He needs to
> finish a job that was not started by him, would not have started it in
> the first place, and does not want to take the shit for fucking it
> up.
Finish what exact "job"? Stop millions of people from believing in
their retarded religion? Perhaps if if Coulter, Rush, Bush, et al
stopped believing in their own retarded metaphysics I might believe
that they know how to achieve that.
Stop every last religious extremist when there are dozens of other
nations where those religious extremists can hide?
Stop some of them from seeing foreign troops as occupiers on their
lands?
Keep them "free"? I don't think many people realize in today's
allegedly "free" Afghanistan apotasy is STILL a DEATH penalty. The
idea they are "free" in our sense if laughable. Build a church for gay
people in Kabul or Baghdad and see how long you go on breathing.
Getting rid of Saddam was at least a measurable goal. Getting rid of
the Taliban regime that colluded with Osama was another goal. At the
moment, there is no longer any coherent achievable goal present in
either nation. Americans need to walk out. Period. Hand it over to the
blue helmets or leave the place a mess like Vietnam if they have to.
If a civil war or coup breaks out that's not America's problem. Iraq
and Afghanistan citizens need to self-determine what they want for
themselves.
I would not criticize such a pullout move by the US an iota. In fact,
not only would I praise the US for it but I would criticize anyone (in
any nation) that would criticize it for doing so if they had
previously complained they should leave for so long. It's not the
American taxpayers moral responsibility to make sure these states
permanently succeed any more than it's mine. Some leftists were
shouted practically ethnic cleansing when Bush argued he was trying to
stabilize those countries. Now some of those leftists are doing the
exact same thing and trying to pawn of as morally justifiable? Pure
unprincipled hypocrisy.
It's in the national security interests of nearby Muslim states that
whatever governments form in Iraq and Afghanistan after the US leaves
are not too extreme because if there is another event of the scope of
9/11 they have a pretty goad idea of what to expect. Likewise, I would
suggest to Americans to stop Islam bashing and publicly praise
successful productive Americanized Muslims in order to give Muslims in
other nations role models beyond people who wear the bed linen.
Malrassic Park
wrote:
>> Remember how amorous the French were
>> toward Clinton?
..
>Not really. I barely remember Clinton and the only
>thing I know about the French these days is that
>they like to gather in the square and demand more
>money.
I didn't know you were only 15 years old.
>> which is this: I
>> prefer to listen to opinions on American presidents from other
>> Americans and not foreigners.
..
>Your retort
I do not "retort."
> should've been that since you're so
>rational, you figure Americans have more information
>on the topic to make a more rational opinion.
Why would that be a rational reply?
>So it's not disinterest and it's not having more
>information. Well, you've got two of us wondering
>why you so prefer!
You're assuming I have a rational preference.
>Oh, I'm sorry. I remember now. They make the
>words in English!
Human beings are largely irrationalistic animals that invent reasons
to explain their subjective preferences. I will simply not stoop to
that level - it is far more rational to not engage in such
rationalization and simply say "it is my preference."
Potroast
> Human beings are largely irrationalistic animals that invent reasons
> to explain their subjective preferences. I will simply not stoop to
> that level - it is far more rational to not engage in such
> rationalization and simply say "it is my preference."
Couldn't one use your reasoning to say "that is simply your preference
to describe things that way"?
I think you point about some things portrayed as "better" when
actually their are "preference" is valid in some instances but in
other instances people's preferences aren't really their preferences.
They are just stubborn and prideful and don't like to admit they are
wrong (or just aren't knowledgeable enough to realize it).
Some might claim to have a "preference" of living like the Taliban but
it really wasn't their preference. If that were the case then why
isn't the world emulating Afghanistan? We could easily go back to live
a simpler life if we wished. and praying all day long to "the Gods" if
we wished. The same is not true of the Taliban to get where we are
though. That would require the use of reason.
The Taliban are the Taliban because they don't know any better. To
acknowledge they don't wounds their pride-which further reinforces
their belief that is it their preference is to be the Taliban. I
submit its not a preference to want to be Taliban. It's just ignorance
and being too prideful to admit that ignorance.
.
chazwin
> On Dec 5, 5:44�am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 4, 3:32�am, Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 3, 9:55�pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > What did he get the prize FOR?
> > > > Next he will be getting a Booker prize for a book he read
> > > > Then he will be getting an Oscar for a film he dreamed.
>
> > > I don't blame him for getting the stupidest of nobel prizes. (he
> > > didn't ask for it) but I do blame him for sending more troops rather
> > > than withdrawing what's there. (and its really hypocritical listening
> > > to some leftists justify Obama sending troops... when they complained
> > > about Bush doing the same thing)
>
> > I can't see why you are blaming him for more troops. He needs to
> > finish a job that was not started by him, would not have started it in
> > the first place, and does not want to take the shit for fucking it
> > up.
>
> Finish what exact "job"?
Fucked if I know - ask your friend Bush!
> Stop millions of people from believing in
> their retarded religion?
That's never gonna happen.
Perhaps if if Coulter, Rush, Bush, et al
> stopped believing in their own retarded metaphysics I might believe
> that they know how to achieve that.
>
> Stop every last religious extremist when there are dozens of other
> nations where those religious extremists can hide?
Obama has been led to accept a plan from the military. I assume you
think that the military is not capable of achieving that plan?
I really am not in a position to judge any more than you. Neither of
us has the facts.
Long term the only way is to be nice to other countries and stop
meddling in their politics. The Obama tour for which he got his Nobel
Prize has made atart in the direction, and a refreshing change form
the fat headed fuckwit Bush.
I have the feeling that the military option is going to fail miserably
and the US will have to retreat with its tail between its legs, a
failure, defeated just like Vietnam.
My plan is better. I worked for the British in Victorian times until
some new arse-hole decided he did not like it.
What you do is pay the tribal leaders hard cash and give them Blue-Ray
and Hollywood vids, widescreen, and mobile phones. You also allow then
to grow their poppies and buy the heroine off them for the health
industry.
They keep the peace and do it far better than a standing army. It
costs half as much to do it and no body bags get sent home. After a
while the country grows richer, they start to desire white-goods and
other technical goodies from the west and they get corrupted. Then
their religion becomes liberalised.
>
> Stop some of them from seeing foreign troops as occupiers on their
> lands?
>
> Keep them "free"? I don't think many people realize in today's
> allegedly "free" Afghanistan apotasy is STILL a DEATH penalty. The
> idea they are "free" in our sense if laughable. Build a church for gay
> people in Kabul or Baghdad and see how long you go on breathing.
>
> Getting rid of Saddam was at least a measurable goal. Getting rid of
> the Taliban regime that colluded with Osama was another goal. At the
> moment, there is no longer any coherent achievable goal present in
> either nation. Americans need to walk out. Period. Hand it over to the
> blue helmets or leave the place a mess like Vietnam if they have to.
> If a civil war or coup breaks out that's not America's problem. Iraq
> and Afghanistan citizens need to self-determine what they want for
> themselves.
>
> I would not criticize such a pullout move by the US an iota. In fact,
> not only would I praise the US for it but I would criticize anyone (in
> any nation) that would criticize it for doing so if they had
> previously complained they should leave for so long. It's not the
> American taxpayers moral responsibility to make sure these states
> permanently succeed any more than it's mine. Some leftists were
> shouted practically ethnic cleansing when Bush argued he was trying to
> stabilize those countries. Now some of those leftists are doing the
> exact same thing and trying to pawn of as morally justifiable? Pure
> unprincipled hypocrisy.
So, seriously - what do you think would be the consequences??
Honestly?
Malrassic Park
wrote:
>On Dec 5, 12:26�pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Human beings are largely irrationalistic animals that invent reasons
>> to explain their subjective preferences. I will simply not stoop to
>> that level - it is far more rational to not engage in such
>> rationalization and simply say "it is my preference."
>
>Couldn't one use your reasoning to say "that is simply your preference
>to describe things that way"?
If you prefer.
>I think you point about some things portrayed as "better" when
>actually their are "preference" is valid in some instances but in
>other instances people's preferences aren't really their preferences.
>They are just stubborn and prideful and don't like to admit they are
>wrong (or just aren't knowledgeable enough to realize it).
>
>Some might claim to have a "preference" of living like the Taliban but
>it really wasn't their preference. If that were the case then why
>isn't the world emulating Afghanistan? We could easily go back to live
>a simpler life if we wished. and praying all day long to "the Gods" if
>we wished. The same is not true of the Taliban to get where we are
>though. That would require the use of reason.
It depends on the topic. Politics and philosophy in general are
enormously complex subjects, not because they are highly abstract but
because these topics are so broad, so old, and have accumulated so
many theories down through the centuries. Rather than engage in the
hard process of wading through mounds of dusty books in an an attempt
to gain more knowledge on such topics (which would require years or
even a lifetime), the immediate needs of the moment demand "knowledge"
(or wisdom) right now, answers from a greater epistemic level than
mere opinion. Those who seem to have the best answers - according to a
certain majority of lesser mortals who are driven by their emotional
needs - become the leaders great or small.
>The Taliban are the Taliban because they don't know any better. To
>acknowledge they don't wounds their pride-which further reinforces
>their belief that is it their preference is to be the Taliban. I
>submit its not a preference to want to be Taliban. It's just ignorance
>and being too prideful to admit that ignorance.
Consider the fact that few on this planet have been taught
intellectual responsibility, and anyway it would be hopeless to try to
teach it to most of them. So I'm not blaming them for their
preferences, yet in the case of the Taliban my preference would be to
simply kill them all - which was my opinion years before 9/11.
Potroast
> On Dec 5, 4:55�pm, Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 5, 5:44�am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 4, 3:32�am, Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 3, 9:55�pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > What did he get the prize FOR?
> > > > > Next he will be getting a Booker prize for a book he read
> > > > > Then he will be getting an Oscar for a film he dreamed.
>
> > > > I don't blame him for getting the stupidest of nobel prizes. (he
> > > > didn't ask for it) but I do blame him for sending more troops rather
> > > > than withdrawing what's there. (and its really hypocritical listening
> > > > to some leftists justify Obama sending troops... when they complained
> > > > about Bush doing the same thing)
>
> > > I can't see why you are blaming him for more troops. He needs to
> > > finish a job that was not started by him, would not have started it in
> > > the first place, and does not want to take the shit for fucking it
> > > up.
>
> > Finish what exact "job"?
>
> Fucked if I know - ask your friend Bush!
You are caught up in some stereotype of me. Some of this forum claim
I'm a leftist you suggest I'm on the right. I continually say I am
neither on left or right and have my own priorities but no one ever
listens. : (
> Obama has been led to accept a plan from the military. I assume you
> think that the military is not capable of achieving that plan?
> I really am not in a position to judge any more than you. Neither of
> us has the facts.
There are no further facts I require. Pull the troops out and let Iraq
and Afghanistan work things out for themselves. It really isn't that
complicated. If I was in control, I'd say the troops will be out in 4
weeks no matter what the situation on the ground. If they want a civil
war let them have it. If they want to live in peace with one another
let them have it. There is no moral obligation for other countries to
perpetually police them.
> > I would not criticize such a pullout move by the US an iota. In fact,
> > not only would I praise the US for it but I would criticize anyone (in
> > any nation) that would criticize it for doing so if they had
> > previously complained they should leave for so long. It's not the
> > American taxpayers moral responsibility to make sure these states
> > permanently succeed any more than it's mine. Some leftists were
> > shouted practically ethnic cleansing when Bush argued he was trying to
> > stabilize those countries. Now some of those leftists are doing the
> > exact same thing and trying to pawn of as morally justifiable? Pure
> > unprincipled hypocrisy.
>
> So, seriously �- what do you think would be the consequences??
> Honestly?
You think they would be much worse off than what's been going on the
last few years? When did it become any nation's job to make sure some
other nation is working properly? If you (or anyone else) want to go
to Afghanistan to stabilize the situation no one is stopping you. We
have done enough to "help" these people. Just leave them alone to work
things out for themselves.
Potroast
> Consider the fact that few on this planet have been taught
> intellectual responsibility, and anyway it would be hopeless to try to
> teach it to most of them. So I'm not blaming them for their
> preferences, yet in the case of the Taliban my preference would be to
> simply kill them all - which was my opinion years before 9/11.
The Taliban are very similar to the Al Qaeda in many respects. I still
remember how they blew up those ancient Buddhist statues while still
in power-destroying their own nation's historical treasures. There
isn't much redeeming about them.
Having said that, there is no easy way to tell apart a regular Afghan
from the Taliban. The US can stay in there for the next hundred years
trying to pick through them. Imo that money would be better spent on
US soil or building relations with other countries the region. Even
if the Taliban came into power again, if they are hated by the rest of
the world for the oppression they cause (by far most of that suffering
is to their own countrymen) they would be largely powerless.
(especially now that everyone is aware just how "not nice" they are)
There is also the kicker that International isolation would be the far
cheaper alternative to sinking billions annually into the country,
Jim Klein
> You're assuming I have a rational preference.
Very insightful. This is correct. My bad.
> Human beings are largely irrationalistic animals...
And now I'm assuming you're projecting.
jk
Ray
news:hfabob$u73$1...@vulture.killfile.org...
Yes, I believe Bush was a true American patriot.
It's still hard for me to believe how that Obamanation got into the White
House.
There were plenty of signs before the lection that he was NFG.
Ray
Ray
news:gpdih5pn9pnad767n...@4ax.com...>...I prefer to listen to opinions on
> American presidents from other Americans not foreigners.
That's a dumb thing to say.
Do these Americans have to be natural born?
Is this why you disagree with Rand?
Do you listen to foreigners who happen to agree with you?
Ray
Malrassic Park
wrote:
>On Dec 5, 12:26 pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
..
>> You're assuming I have a rational preference.
..
>Very insightful. This is correct. My bad.
..
>> Human beings are largely irrationalistic animals...
..
>And now I'm assuming you're projecting.
Just observing.
Malrassic Park
wrote:
..
>"Malrassic Park" <male...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:gpdih5pn9pnad767n...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 06:32:30 -0800, 1Z <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
..
>>...I prefer to listen to opinions on
>> American presidents from other Americans not foreigners.
>That's a dumb thing to say.
>Do these Americans have to be natural born?
>Is this why you disagree with Rand?
>Do you listen to foreigners who happen to agree with you?
It�s never happened so I don�t know.
1Z
> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 22:50:32 -0800, Ray <rayd...@embarqmail.com>
> wrote:
> ..>"Malrassic Park" <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >Do you listen to foreigners who happen to agree with you?
>
> ..
> It�s never happened so I don�t know.
von Mises? Hayek?
Malrassic Park
>On 6 Dec, 11:57, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 22:50:32 -0800, Ray <rayd...@embarqmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> ..>"Malrassic Park" <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
..
>> >Do you listen to foreigners who happen to agree with you?
..
>> It�s never happened so I don�t know.
..
>von Mises? Hayek?
I have no immediate problem with well thought-out theories from
foreigners of great distinction.
Mark N
> On Dec 5, 12:26 pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You're assuming I have a rational preference.
>
> Very insightful. This is correct. My bad.
Silly Jim. What were you thinking?! ;-)
Mark
Jim Klein
> >>You're assuming I have a rational preference.
>
> > Very insightful. This is correct. My bad.
>
> Silly Jim. What were you thinking?! ;-)
No shit. OTOH there's a side benefit of senility,
because sometimes I forget this is for real!
Oops, was that the microwave beep? I think that
means it's ready. But how do I know if the
plate--in itself, I mean--is ready? No, I guess
I mean the dinner on the plate...is that in itself
really ready? And what if the plate the dinner's
on, isn't in itself?
Well, at least /I/ know that the dinner itself on
the plate itself in the nuke itself, is ready. I'm
not sure what to make of others who aren't
sure what any of 'em are in. I always thought
it was reality, or the universe, but somehow
I guess they're really in themselves. Neat.
You'd think I'd have gotten that earlier, what
with the Klein bottle and all.
jk
acar
1Z
> A different kind of title for theJamesbook might help just a little
> with his credibility.
Not a Larkin fan?
acar
> Malrassic Park wrote:
> > I prefer to listen to opinions on American presidents from other
>
> Yeah, I think we all got that the first time. I think Jim was trying to
> explore the question of *why* you prefer to listen to the opinions of
> Americans. You apparently felt strongly enough about this preference to
> want to announce it. So how about explaining the reason for it?
>
1. Americans get to vote.
2. Amercans suffer (or enjoy) the consequences.
3. Americans understand Americans.
4. Foreigners react from agendas related to Americam policies
5. Foreigners use foreign values a standards
6. First hand knowledge is better than hearsay.
Etc..
Mark N
> On Dec 4, 6:36 pm, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>
>>Malrassic Park wrote:
>>
>>>I prefer to listen to opinions on American presidents from other
>>>Americans and not foreigners.
>>
>>Yeah, I think we all got that the first time. I think Jim was trying to
>>explore the question of *why* you prefer to listen to the opinions of
>>Americans. You apparently felt strongly enough about this preference to
>>want to announce it. So how about explaining the reason for it?
>
> I can give you some:
>
> 1. Americans get to vote.
> 2. Amercans suffer (or enjoy) the consequences.
> 3. Americans understand Americans.
Outsiders unbellyfeel AmerSoc.
> 4. Foreigners react from agendas related to Americam policies
And Americans don't?
> 5. Foreigners use foreign values a standards
Ugh. What in the world are "foreign values and standards"? How about,
any thinking *individual* can use standards that are his own, and not
those of some collective that he sees himself as belonging to? Is that
too radical a concept for you to wrap your head around?
> 6. First hand knowledge is better than hearsay.
>
> Etc..
7. Thoughtless tribal collectivism.
Let's have a little review here. The sentiment that Mal originally
expressed -- and which he has admitted to having no rational reason for
-- basically amounts to "If you're not an American, then I don't want to
hear anything you have to say about this topic, because I view you as an
outsider." I find such sentiments irrational and unpleasant. YMMV.
Mark
acar
> acar wrote:
> >>Malrassic Park wrote:
>
> >>>I prefer to listen to opinions on American presidents from other
> >>>Americans and not foreigners.
>
> >>Yeah, I think we all got that the first time. I think Jim was trying to
> >>explore the question of *why* you prefer to listen to the opinions of
> >>Americans. You apparently felt strongly enough about this preference to
> >>want to announce it. So how about explaining the reason for it?
>
The facts are that it depends on the person. There are foreigners who
understand the American scene and are capable of objectivity. I also
know many Americans that disagree with me and are therefore wrong
<g>.
I also could give you a list of reasons why foreigners' opinion are
better. It could be debated from either side. However I happen to
agree with Malcontent that the best analyses come from our own people.
But I think that your refutations are weak.
> > I can give you some:
>
> > 1. Americans get to vote.
> > 2. Amercans suffer (or enjoy) the consequences.
> > 3. Americans understand Americans.
>
> Outsiders unbellyfeel AmerSoc.
Don't know what you mean.
> > 4. Foreigners react from agendas related to Americam policies
>
> And Americans don't?
I meant foreign policies. They have their perspective, we have ours.
> > 5. Foreigners use foreign values a standards
>
> Ugh. What in the world are "foreign values and standards"? How about,
> any thinking *individual* can use standards that are his own, and not
> those of some collective that he sees himself as belonging to? Is that
> too radical a concept for you to wrap your head around?
It is not a very realistic concept. Each country has his own culture
whether you like it or not. People have to get out and travel before
they talk about other cultures. Reading helps, but not enough. Hyper-
individuals should separate themselves from society.
>
> > 6. First hand knowledge is better than hearsay.
>
> > Etc..
>
> 7. Thoughtless tribal collectivism.
There is some of that too; but Mr. Park was not talking about those;
neither was I. (By the way have you ever experienced a more
thoughtless (mixed up) tribe than the tribe of Ayn Rand disciples?
<g>. One sounds like another. They keep repeating the mantras that
were first supplied by their teacher.)
>
> Let's have a little review here. The sentiment that Mal originally
> expressed -- and which he has admitted to having no rational reason for
Park was just pulling Ray's leg. Didn't you notice? Park is a very
thoughtful guy.
> -- basically amounts to "If you're not an American, then I don't want to
> hear anything you have to say about this topic, because I view you as an
> outsider."
Did he say that? You make it sound irrational and unpleasant. The fact
is that humans are tribalistic. Rand believed that reason can bury the
genes, but her genes caught up wither.
Park was talking opinions on American Presidents. They tell us who
they are, then we vote.
> I find such sentiments irrational and unpleasant. YMMV.
>
We have all kinds of opinions here. Some foreigners have better
analyses than some Americans; so we have to pick and choose. Our best
ones have a better handle than the outsiders.
Could not figure out YMMV. Please unravel. (You make me vomit? Xcuse
me!.)
Mark N
> The facts are that it depends on the person. There are foreigners who
> understand the American scene and are capable of objectivity. I also
> know many Americans that disagree with me and are therefore wrong
> <g>.
Of course. That's my point. It's stupid to make a blanket statement to
the effect that the opinions of foreigners are worthless and should be
ignored. If you agree, then what are we arguing about?
> I also could give you a list of reasons why foreigners' opinion are
> better. It could be debated from either side. However I happen to
> agree with Malcontent that the best analyses come from our own people.
What's the point of debating and giving reasons? Don't you know that, as
a human being, you are an irrationalistic animal? I'm surprised that you
would stoop so low as to invent reasons to explain your subjective
preferences! (If you don't know what I'm talking about here, see below.)
> But I think that your refutations are weak.
I'm not sure what "refutations" you're talking about, but whatever. I
humbly accept your judgment.
[...]
>>>3. Americans understand Americans.
>>
>>Outsiders unbellyfeel AmerSoc.
>
> Don't know what you mean.
It's an adaptation of a Newspeak slogan from the novel _1984_. The
original slogan is "Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc." Your slogan
"Americans understand Americans" reminded me of that slogan from _1984_.
[...]
>>>5. Foreigners use foreign values a standards
>>
>>Ugh. What in the world are "foreign values and standards"? How about,
>>any thinking *individual* can use standards that are his own, and not
>>those of some collective that he sees himself as belonging to? Is that
>>too radical a concept for you to wrap your head around?
>
> It is not a very realistic concept. Each country has his own culture
> whether you like it or not. People have to get out and travel before
> they talk about other cultures. Reading helps, but not enough. Hyper-
> individuals should separate themselves from society.
What are "hyper-individuals"? And why should they separate themselves
from society?
>>>6. First hand knowledge is better than hearsay.
>>>
>>>Etc..
>>
>>7. Thoughtless tribal collectivism.
>
> There is some of that too; but Mr. Park was not talking about those;
> neither was I. [...]
I don't think that you and Mal are on the same page here. See below.
>>Let's have a little review here. The sentiment that Mal originally
>>expressed -- and which he has admitted to having no rational reason for
>
> Park was just pulling Ray's leg. Didn't you notice? Park is a very
> thoughtful guy.
Maybe you missed the following comments that Mal made to Jim:
<quote>
You're assuming I have a rational preference.
</quote>
and
<quote>
Human beings are largely irrationalistic animals that invent reasons to
explain their subjective preferences. I will simply not stoop to that
level - it is far more rational to not engage in such rationalization
and simply say "it is my preference."
</quote>
I don't see any reason to think that he was joking. Do you?
>>-- basically amounts to "If you're not an American, then I don't want to
>>hear anything you have to say about this topic, because I view you as an
>>outsider."
>
> Did he say that? You make it sound irrational and unpleasant. The fact
> is that humans are tribalistic. [...]
I'm not sure what you're saying here. I see tribalism as a negative
thing. Are you saying that I should learn to love it, because it's part
of "human nature" or something?
>>I find such sentiments irrational and unpleasant. YMMV.
>
> We have all kinds of opinions here. Some foreigners have better
> analyses than some Americans; so we have to pick and choose. Our best
> ones have a better handle than the outsiders.
>
> Could not figure out YMMV. Please unravel. (You make me vomit? Xcuse
> me!.)
Sorry. It means "Your mileage may vary." It's one of those common Usenet
acronyms, and I guess I tend to assume that people are familiar with it.
Mark
Jim Klein
> Outsiders unbellyfeel AmerSoc.
Do you realize this may hold the all-time record
for most information conveyed in only three words?
No wonder NewSpeak is so popular. What could be
a better language for a bunch of lazy non-thinkers?
There's a problem, though, with "AmerSoc," since
that packs a load of concepts. That's why we need
the New American Unabridged, where we find that
it's perfectly synonymous with "Good"!
jk
Jim Klein
> There's a problem, though, with "AmerSoc," since
> that packs a load of concepts. That's why we need
> the New American Unabridged, where we find that
> it's perfectly synonymous with "Good"!
Sorry, my vision must have blurred. It's perfectly
synonymous with "God"!
jk
1Z
> Outsiders unbellyfeel AmerSoc.
And the value of BellyFeel above reason is what, exactly?
> > 4. Foreigners react from agendas related to Americam policies
>
> And Americans don't?
>
> > 5. Foreigners use foreign values a standards
>
> Ugh. What in the world are "foreign values and standards"?
Oh, he means *wrong* values and standards.
The way it works is: the US is judged by Us standards, and evreywhere
else
is too. End of.
acar
> It's stupid to make a blanket statement to
> the effect that the opinions of foreigners are worthless and should be
> ignored. If you agree, then what are we arguing about?
No, it isn't stupid if what you mean is that you are not going to
accept them over opposing opinions of local experts. Misunderstanding
of America is common elsewhere.
> ... I humbly accept your judgment.
Just don't do it again. (Heh)
> What are "hyper-individuals"? And why should they separate themselves
> from society?
Because of the "hyper" pre-fix. They beg to be left alone.
> Maybe you missed the following comments that Mal made to Jim:
>
> <quote>
>
> You're assuming I have a rational preference.
>
> </quote>
Obviously facetious; but not withput introspective validity, as we all
should have. We need to understand the role of emotion before we
subscribe to Rand's erroneous statements about the absolute potential
of reason. Reality can be unflattering but it is still reality.
> and
>
> <quote>
>
> Human beings are largely irrationalistic animals that invent reasons to
> explain their subjective preferences.
I agree with Park. Reason is terrific but emotions triumph over reason
when the chips are down, especially when people rationalize their
preferences. Rand never swallowed that pill, but she knew less about
other humans than most people.
> I will simply not stoop to that
> level - it is far more rational to not engage in such rationalization
> and simply say "it is my preference."
>
> </quote>
What's wrong with that? It is a pearl of wisdom.
> I don't see any reason to think that he was joking. Do you?
When he wrote that we are irrationalistic animals he was joking to
make a point. Elaborating would not have shocked Ray.
> >>-- basically amounts to "If you're not an American, then I don't want to
> >>hear anything you have to say about this topic, because I view you as an
> >>outsider."
>
> > Did he say that? You make it sound irrational and unpleasant. The fact
> > is that humans are tribalistic. [...]
>
> I'm not sure what you're saying here. I see tribalism as a negative
> thing. Are you saying that I should learn to love it, because it's part
> of "human nature" or something?
We already love the positive aspects of tribalism. It has negative
aspects that we should bring under the control of reason.
> >> YMMV.
>
> It means "Your mileage may vary."
So it seems.
acar
> > > 4. Foreigners react from agendas related to Americam policies
>
> > And Americans don't?
Their agendas are sometimes different from our agendas.
> > > 5. Foreigners use foreign values as standards
>
> > Ugh. What in the world are "foreign values and standards"?
>
> Oh, he means *wrong* values and standards.
Not necessarily wrong but different. Would you prefer that we put our
values on the shelf and use foreign values instead?
> The way it works is: the US is judged by USstandards, and evreywhere
> else
> is too. End of.
We (humans) tend to do that. Most of us get on our high horse when we
judge others. For example you.
chazwin
> On Dec 5, 5:44�am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What has happened here is that Bush opened the lion cage and now Obama
has the lion by the tail.
It's was easy to take the latch off the cage but not so easy to let go
of the tail.
Iraq was a complete fuck up. Nothing has dome so much to ramp up the
numbers of fundamentalists and radicalised young men across the ME and
Europe, changing communities that were once peaceful to hot beds of
dissent and terrorist training.
Now the focus is more on Afghanistan.
The effect of Afghanistan is to export terrorism and to make targets
of western soldiers so as to avoid the public being targets in the US
and Europe.
In a sense it does not really matter how we got to this situation but
how to get out of it without things getting worse, as long as we learn
to leave the latch on the lion cage in future.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 4, 3:32�am, Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 3, 9:55�pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > What did he get the prize FOR?
> > > > Next he will be getting a Booker prize for a book he read
> > > > Then he will be getting an Oscar for a film he dreamed.
>
> > > I don't blame him for getting the stupidest of nobel prizes. (he
> > > didn't ask for it) but I do blame him for sending more troops rather
> > > than withdrawing what's there. (and its really hypocritical listening
> > > to some leftists justify Obama sending troops... when they complained
> > > about Bush doing the same thing)
>
> > I can't see why you are blaming him for more troops. He needs to
> > finish a job that was not started by him, would not have started it in
> > the first place, and does not want to take the shit for fucking it
> > up.
>
> Finish what exact "job"? Stop millions of people from believing in
> their retarded religion? Perhaps if if Coulter, Rush, Bush, et al
> stopped believing in their own retarded metaphysics I might believe
> that they know how to achieve that.
>
> Stop every last religious extremist when there are dozens of other
> nations where those religious extremists can hide?
>
> Stop some of them from seeing foreign troops as occupiers on their
> lands?
>
> Keep them "free"? I don't think many people realize in today's
> allegedly "free" Afghanistan apotasy is STILL a DEATH penalty. The
> idea they are "free" in our sense if laughable. Build a church for gay
> people in Kabul or Baghdad and see how long you go on breathing.
>
> Getting rid of Saddam was at least a measurable goal.
TO what end and for what reason?
Getting rid of
> the Taliban regime that colluded with Osama was another goal. At the
> moment, there is no longer any coherent achievable goal present in
> either nation. Americans need to walk out. Period. Hand it over to the
> blue helmets or leave the place a mess like Vietnam if they have to.
> If a civil war or coup breaks out that's not America's problem. Iraq
> and Afghanistan citizens need to self-determine what they want for
> themselves.
>
> I would not criticize such a pullout move by the US an iota. In fact,
> not only would I praise the US for it but I would criticize anyone (in
> any nation) that would criticize it for doing so if they had
> previously complained they should leave for so long. It's not the
> American taxpayers moral responsibility to make sure these states
> permanently succeed any more than it's mine. Some leftists were
> shouted practically ethnic cleansing when Bush argued he was trying to
> stabilize those countries. Now some of those leftists are doing the
> exact same thing and trying to pawn of as morally justifiable? Pure
> unprincipled hypocrisy.
>
Mark N
> On Dec 9, 7:13 pm, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>
>>It's stupid to make a blanket statement to
>>the effect that the opinions of foreigners are worthless and should be
>>ignored. If you agree, then what are we arguing about?
>
> No, it isn't stupid if what you mean is that you are not going to
> accept them over opposing opinions of local experts. Misunderstanding
> of America is common elsewhere.
You're ignoring the context in which my original question arose. The
context was that Mal had named two specific individuals, said that he
believed that they were not Americans, and implied that he didn't want
to hear their opinions because they were not Americans.
[...]
>>What are "hyper-individuals"? And why should they separate themselves
>>from society?
>
> Because of the "hyper" pre-fix. They beg to be left alone.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what this has to do with what we've
been discussing here.
>>Maybe you missed the following comments that Mal made to Jim:
>>
>><quote>
>>
>>You're assuming I have a rational preference.
>>
>></quote>
>
> Obviously facetious; [...]
No, that's not obvious at all, particularly in the light of what Mal
went on to say after this. If he really was joking, then let him tell us
that himself. Until that happens, I continue to assume that he was being
serious.
[...]
>>I will simply not stoop to that
>>level - it is far more rational to not engage in such rationalization
>>and simply say "it is my preference."
>>
>></quote>
>
> What's wrong with that? It is a pearl of wisdom.
Again, you're ignoring the context. This was Mal's reply to a request
for an explanation of why he doesn't want to hear the opinions of
foreigners. The clear implication of his answer is that he has no
rational reason for his preference.
[...]
>>I'm not sure what you're saying here. I see tribalism as a negative
>>thing. Are you saying that I should learn to love it, because it's part
>>of "human nature" or something?
>
> We already love the positive aspects of tribalism. It has negative
> aspects that we should bring under the control of reason.
What are the positive aspects of tribalism?
Mark
Mark N
> On Dec 8, 5:03 pm, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>
>>Outsiders unbellyfeel AmerSoc.
>
> Do you realize this may hold the all-time record
> for most information conveyed in only three words?
So where's my gold medal? :-)
Mark
Mark N
> On 8 Dec, 22:03, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>
>>Outsiders unbellyfeel AmerSoc.
>
> And the value of BellyFeel above reason is what, exactly?
Reason? What's that? You must be an oldthinker.
Mark
Jim Klein
> > It's stupid to make a blanket statement to
> > the effect that the opinions of foreigners are worthless and should be
> > ignored. If you agree, then what are we arguing about?
>
> No, it isn't stupid if what you mean is that you are not going to
> accept them over opposing opinions of local experts. Misunderstanding
> of America is common elsewhere.
And the next guy'll write, "Objective insight into
America is common elsewhere, which is why
we should trust foreign opinions on such matters
over American ones."
Mark wrote, "It's stupid to make a blanket statement"
about such matters, and in fact it's stupid to make
blanket statements about such matters.
I think that makes Mark right!
> > What are "hyper-individuals"? And why should they separate themselves
> > from society?
>
> Because of the "hyper" pre-fix. They beg to be left alone.
Were Koresh's followers "hyper-individuals"?
> > Maybe you missed the following comments that Mal made to Jim:
>
> > <quote>
>
> > You're assuming I have a rational preference.
>
> > </quote>
>
> Obviously facetious; but not withput introspective validity, as we all
> should have.
There might have been plenty of introspective validity,
but it was not obviously facetious. I don't even think it
was not-obviously facetious.
> We need to understand the role of emotion before we
> subscribe to Rand's erroneous statements about the absolute potential
> of reason.
Too funny. Which "role of emotion"...the one that arises
pursuant to rationality and therefore brings pleasure
and happiness, or the one where it's used /instead/ of
rationality, as a motivating force?
And don't even think of confusing instinct with emotion.
> Reality can be unflattering but it is still reality.
Says the guy who says we can't know this, or
know it "in itself," or even know it in any manner
that means anything different from "use it."
Or something like that, or some of that.
Who knows?
> I agree with Park. Reason is terrific but emotions triumph over reason
> when the chips are down, especially when people rationalize their
> preferences. Rand never swallowed that pill, but she knew less about
> other humans than most people.
That very last is true in a fashion, though it's also
true that she knew much more as well. I guess
that must mean there's an awful lot to know.
The rest, though, is bullshit. Besides the Intrinsicism--
the emotions don't triumph or not over reason; they
are chosen to do whichever--the idea that emotions
triumph over reason because they better serve "when
the chips are down," is an abhorrent notion.
And if the point is that they don't better serve but
are still somehow stronger and therefore triumph
anyway, then it's still wrong. Like I said, it's a choice
and it would never make sense to intentionally
choose a plainly emotional option over a plainly
rational one. So called "intuition" that gives us
under-the-radar indications, is not an example
of emotion triumphing over reason, but an example
of a lifetime of reason bringing forth a tough-to-pin-
down conclusion. IOW, it's actually with good reason.
[snip to]
> We already love the positive aspects of tribalism. It has negative
> aspects that we should bring under the control of reason.
Feh...can't even follow your own argument. Why should
we bring the negative aspects of something "under the
control of reason" when "emotions triumph over reason"?
You love all these mushy words that can never be
pinned down. Your "tribalism" could be as simple
as "we interact socially" or it could be switched to
"we are driven to acting as bees, for the greater
good of the hive."
Which positive aspects you love, I really can't say.
But it's rather presumptuous of you to believe that
everyone else loves them too.
jk
acar
>
> You're ignoring the context in which my original question arose.
I believe that MP gave evidence of having a realistic appraisal of
human judgments, and was not afraid to blurt it out without writing an
apologetic essay about it. If he was not pulling Ray's leg he was at
least jerking his chain, which turns out to be yours as well. It is
you who ignores context, because you know full well that the person in
question believes in the power of reason to temper human biases and
prejudices. You give lip service to "reason over emotion" at all
times, but you don't live it. The animal is the default condition --
period -- and reason is a latecomer that attempts, with spectacular but
limited success, to tame the beast. Rand was wrong. The beast can not
tamed completely. Ask Roy Cohn (from Caesar's Palace).
However, I am done commenting MP's words. He can speak for himself if
he wants.
acar
> On Dec 10, 7:44 pm, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
> Ask Roy Cohn (from Caesar's Palace).
>
Sorry. It should be Roy Horn from Sigfried and Roy. Cohn was the
equally homosexual assistant to Joe McCarthy.
.
.
.
Mark N
> On Dec 10, 7:44 pm, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>
>>You're ignoring the context in which my original question arose.
>
> I believe that MP gave evidence of having a realistic appraisal of
> human judgments, and was not afraid to blurt it out without writing an
> apologetic essay about it. If he was not pulling Ray's leg
He was addressing Jim, not Ray.
> he was at
> least jerking his chain, which turns out to be yours as well.
Whatever that means.
> It is
> you who ignores context, because you know full well that the person in
> question believes in the power of reason to temper human biases and
> prejudices.
I'm sorry, but I actually don't know very much about Mal. I can only go
by what he writes in his posts. You, on the other hand, seem to be the
president of his fan club, eager to explain "what he really meant."
> You give lip service to "reason over emotion" at all
> times, but you don't live it. [...]
What are you talking about? What do you know about how I live?
Mark
acar
> You, on the other hand, seem to be the
> president of his fan club, eager to explain "what he really meant."
Not president; just a humble disciple. When MP writes about Kant I
read carefully. I suggest that you do the same.
> > You give lip service to "reason over emotion" at all
> > times, but you don't live it. [...]
>
> What are you talking about? What do you know about how I live?
When you write I read carefully also. You take pains to be cryptic and
at the same time transparent. The latter works, and it defeats the
former. But IMO that doesn't make you a bad person, though.
.
.
.
Mark N
>>>You give lip service to "reason over emotion" at all
>>>times, but you don't live it. [...]
>>
>>What are you talking about? What do you know about how I live?
>
> When you write I read carefully also. You take pains to be cryptic and
> at the same time transparent. The latter works, and it defeats the
> former. But IMO that doesn't make you a bad person, though.
OK, at this point I'm pretty sure that I'm being trolled. What could
possibly constitute evidence that a person is attempting to be both
cryptic and transparent at the same time, and succeeding at being
transparent but failing at being cryptic??
Mark
Jim Klein
> But IMO that doesn't make you a bad person, though.
Aw, shucks. I was sort of hoping you could make
him a bad person just by believing it, and here
you don't believe it.
I mean, I can't imagine any other way to make
him a bad person. I thought only he could do that.
jk
acar
>
> OK, at this point I'm pretty sure that I'm being trolled. What could
> possibly constitute evidence that a person is attempting to be both
> cryptic and transparent at the same time, and succeeding at being
> transparent but failing at being cryptic??
You hide your hostilities, which is good, but you can't resist the
temptation of letting them through in a veiled manner. You vicariously
enjoy the more open hostility of others. Does that make you a bad
person? Absolutely not. My judgment of you is that you are an
exceptionally good person and that is why I answer your posts at
length. I may be wrong but when I choose to be irrational I follow Ayn
Rand's advice: "Judge as if you new, even though you don't
know" (Paraphrased, of course.)
(I think that Jim Klein is a good person too, but too much a slave of
his emotions.)
Mark N
> On Dec 12, 6:25 am, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>
>>OK, at this point I'm pretty sure that I'm being trolled. What could
>>possibly constitute evidence that a person is attempting to be both
>>cryptic and transparent at the same time, and succeeding at being
>>transparent but failing at being cryptic??
>
> You hide your hostilities, which is good, but you can't resist the
> temptation of letting them through in a veiled manner.
Sorry, but I'm not taking your bait any more. I've finally wised up.
You'll have to find another sucker.
> You vicariously
> enjoy the more open hostility of others. [...]
Troll, troll, troll your boat. IMO, your trolling does not make you a
bad person. It just makes you annoying.
Mark
Jim Klein
> You hide your hostilities, which is good, but you can't resist the
> temptation of letting them through in a veiled manner. You vicariously
> enjoy the more open hostility of others. Does that make you a bad
> person? Absolutely not.
ABSOLUTELY not?!? You mean like for sure, positively
certain, no chance of being wrong, NOT a bad person?
Please do tell. What is there about enjoying the
more open hostility of others, that tells you that
anyone who does it, is 100% not a bad person?
What a remarkable thing for a person who's certain
of nothing, to be certain of.
> My judgment of you...
Who gives a shit? How could he possibly benefit
from your judgment when it's foundational to your
judgment that it doesn't necessarily have a
correlation to reality?
Now if, OTOH, your judgment were built of seeing
reality and knowing that you were talking about
reality, then maybe your judgment might be
meaningful to him and he could gain some benefit.
> is that you are an
> exceptionally good person and that is why I answer your posts at
> length. I may be wrong but when I choose to be irrational I follow Ayn
> Rand's advice: "Judge as if you new, even though you don't
> know" (Paraphrased, of course.)
>
> (I think that Jim Klein is a good person too, but too much a slave of
> his emotions.)
HaHa. I'll give you this. I've heard all sorts of charges against
me in my time, but not this particular one very often. So that's
either more evidence that your meanderings have no connection
to reality, else it's remarkable that nobody else has noticed!
jk
acar
> On Dec 12, 11:42 am, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
you keep responding to my posts. Geez!
.
.
.
acar
Xcuse me!
(It was not trolling.)
.
.
.
acar
.
.
.
Mark N
> On Dec 12, 1:13 pm, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>
>>acar wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 12, 6:25 am, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>>
>>Troll, troll, troll your boat. IMO, your trolling does not make you a
>>bad person. It just makes you annoying.
>
> Xcuse me!
> (It was not trolling.)
OK, I guess I'll take you at your word. My bad. Sorry.
But that means that you actually were being *serious* with all that
stuff about "hostilities," and your ridiculous psychological analysis of
me. Wow. Incredible. Let it suffice to say that you appear to be having
trouble telling the difference between reality and the products of your
imagination.
Mark
acar
> acar wrote:
> > On Dec 12, 1:13 pm, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>
> >>acar wrote:
>
> >>>On Dec 12, 6:25 am, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>
> >>Troll, troll, troll your boat. IMO, your trolling does not make you a
> >>bad person. It just makes you annoying.
>
> > Xcuse me!
> > (It was not trolling.)
>
> OK, I guess I'll take you at your word. My bad. Sorry.
>
> But that means that you actually were being *serious* with all that
> stuff about "hostilities," and your ridiculous psychological analysis of
> me. Wow. Incredible.
Believe it.
> Let it suffice to say that you appear to be having
> trouble telling the difference between reality and the products of your
> imagination.
>
Are you saying that Rand was wrong when she advised people to judge on
the basis of the available evidence? If so, at last we can agree on
something. I believe that you believe what you wrote. Let this be a
lesson to all the innocents that take Rand's advice seriously.
acar
> acar wrote:
>>
> > I believe that MP gave evidence of having a realistic appraisal of
> > human judgments, and was not afraid to blurt it out without writing an
> > apologetic essay about it. If he was not pulling Ray's leg
>
> He was addressing Jim, not Ray.
>
couldn't resist.
.
.
.
.
Jim Klein
> First you respond to my posts.
Some, yes.
> Then you beg me to leave alone.
I don't recall that. Could you post up the cite?
> Then
> you keep responding to my posts. Geez!
Well, if I said I wouldn't and then do anyway, then
at least an apology is called for. Plus, a
reconsideration of my position is also warranted.
But I really don't remember any of this. So when
you post up my "begging" you to leave me alone,
I'll be happy to look it over.
But that only applies if my begging happened in
reality and not merely in your imagination. You
may not see the distinction between those two,
but I sure enough do.
jk
Mark N
> On Dec 12, 8:09 pm, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>
>>But that means that you actually were being *serious* with all that
>>stuff about "hostilities," and your ridiculous psychological analysis of
>>me. Wow. Incredible.
>
> Believe it.
I'm sorry to hear that. :-(
>>Let it suffice to say that you appear to be having
>>trouble telling the difference between reality and the products of your
>>imagination.
>
> Are you saying that Rand was wrong when she advised people to judge on
> the basis of the available evidence?
I'd say that making judgments on the basis of the evidence that one has
available is something that everyone does all the time. To tell you the
truth, I'm not even sure what the alternative to that might be.
What does this have to do with your comments about me and my supposed
"hostilities"?
> If so, at last we can agree on
> something.
Does this mean that you don't think that people should make judgments
based on the evidence that is available to them? If so, how about if you
tell me what the alternative is?
> I believe that you believe what you wrote. Let this be a
> lesson to all the innocents that take Rand's advice seriously.
Whatever that means.
Mark
acar
>
> > Then you beg me to leave alone.
>
> I don't recall that. �Could you post up the cite?
>
JK:
Why don't you Subjecti-statists just imagine that
there's nothing to fear, and you could leave the
rest of us the fuck alone?
Acar:
By all means, be alone instead of replying to my posts.
acar
>
> Does this mean that you don't think that people should make judgments
> based on the evidence that is available to them? If so, how about if you
> tell me what the alternative is?
>
happens all the time. You still haven't told me if you agree with
Rand's statement "Judge and prepared to be judged" or with Christ's
statement "Do not judge that you may not be judged." Stop evading.
Which is the better, more rational advise? Which one is closer to the
reality of the human condition?
PS: Despite silly claims to the contrary, Milton Friedman was not a
red.
Arnold Broese
news:32d72502-3cb6-4e70...@p30g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
> Sure. The alternative is knowing that one could be wrong wrong. And it
> happens all the time. You still haven't told me if you agree with
> Rand's statement "Judge and prepared to be judged" or with Christ's
> statement "Do not judge that you may not be judged." Stop evading.
> Which is the better, more rational advise? Which one is closer to the
> reality of the human condition?
If you don't believe in judging, how is it that you have determined the
right way to judge? How is it that you judge Objectivism to be flawed? How
do you manage to live without judging?
--
Arnold
Mark N
> On Dec 13, 12:51 pm, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>
>>Does this mean that you don't think that people should make judgments
>>based on the evidence that is available to them? If so, how about if you
>>tell me what the alternative is?
>
> Sure. The alternative is knowing that one could be wrong wrong. And it
> happens all the time.
I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. "Knowing that one could be wrong" is
not an alternative to making judgments. One's judgments are, in fact,
the things that one "could be wrong" about. For instance, you've made a
number of judgments about me and my supposed "hostilities," but those
judgments "could be wrong."
> You still haven't told me if you agree with
> Rand's statement "Judge and prepared to be judged" or with Christ's
> statement "Do not judge that you may not be judged."
Have you asked me this question before?
> Stop evading.
Stop being obnoxious. I'm not "evading" anything, and I find it hard to
believe that you seriously think I am. I'm really trying to give you the
benefit of the doubt here, but at some point, your protestations that
you are not trolling are not going to be believable any more.
> Which is the better, more rational advise? Which one is closer to the
> reality of the human condition?
I don't understand what you're trying to ask me here. Obviously people
need to make judgments all the time. What do you think "Do not judge" means?
> PS: Despite silly claims to the contrary, Milton Friedman was not a
> red.
I'll try to keep that it mind.
Mark
Manda Ruby
> Obama, noble peace prize winner 2009.... still in Iraq... still no
> middle east solution... and now sending more troops to Afghanistan.
Did you really thing that he was going to do he'd work on a solution
for the middleeast? I guess you didn't see the picture of Obama
(before he won) holding a sign of whom he worked for.
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/12/03/ellen-ratner-afghanistan-ob...
> n-speech/
>
> And this is precisely why I don't completely trust either the left or
> right. Once elected principles and promises start going out the
> window. One thing I have to give credit to Bush.... at least he was
> honest about going to war. Obama talks a good game but doesn't seem to
> follow up it with enough action. I'm starting to wonder if I supported
> the wrong side in the last US election. All things being equal I'd
> take an honest warhawk over a dishonest one.
x
x
x
x
xx
x
Manda Ruby
> The Taliban are the Taliban because they don't know any better.
Only the low level Talabanis wo were recruited orphans.
I saw a video of an interview with a Taliban spokeperosn w.r.t women
and education. According to him, Taliban is not against women getting
education but, he said, that'd have to come in time as they have other
priorities of things that need to get done. My translation: Men and
control over women.
> acknowledge they don't wounds their pride-which further reinforces
> their belief that is it their preference is to be the Taliban. I
> submit its not a preference to want to be Taliban.
> It's just ignorance and being too prideful to admit that ignorance.
I think that it's very naive to see the leaders of Taliban as ignorant
people.
x
x
x
Manda Ruby
> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 10:38:14 -0800, Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 5, 12:26�pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Human beings are largely irrationalistic animals that invent reasons
> >> to explain their subjective preferences. I will simply not stoop to
> >> that level - it is far more rational to not engage in such
> >> rationalization and simply say "it is my preference."
>
> >Couldn't one use your reasoning to say "that is simply your preference
> >to describe things that way"?
>
> If you prefer.
>
> >I think you point about some things portrayed as "better" when
> >actually their are "preference" is valid in some instances but in
> >other instances people's preferences aren't really their preferences.
> >They are just stubborn and prideful and don't like to admit they are
> >wrong (or just aren't knowledgeable enough to realize it).
>
> >Some might claim to have a "preference" of living like the Taliban but
> >it really wasn't their preference. If that were the case then why
> >isn't the world emulating Afghanistan? We could easily go back to live
> >a simpler life if we wished. and praying all day long to "the Gods" if
> >we wished. The same is not true of the Taliban to get where we are
> >though. That would require the use of reason.
>
> It depends on the topic. Politics and philosophy in general are
> enormously complex subjects, not because they are highly abstract but
> because these topics are so broad, so old, and have accumulated so
> many theories down through the centuries. Rather than engage in the
> hard process of wading through mounds of dusty books in an an attempt
> to gain more knowledge on such topics (which would require years or
> even a lifetime), the immediate needs of the moment demand "knowledge"
> (or wisdom) right now, answers from a greater epistemic level than
> mere opinion. Those who seem to have the best answers - according to a
> certain majority of lesser mortals who are driven by their emotional
> needs - become the leaders great or small.
>
> >The Taliban are the Taliban because they don't know any better. To
> >acknowledge they don't wounds their pride-which further reinforces
> >their belief that is it their preference is to be the Taliban. I
> >submit its not a preference to want to be Taliban. It's just ignorance
> >and being too prideful to admit that ignorance.
>
> intellectual responsibility, and anyway it would be hopeless to try to
> teach it to most of them. So I'm not blaming them for their
> preferences, yet in the case of the Taliban my preference would be to
> simply kill them all - which was my opinion years before 9/11.
It is not necessary to kill them all. It'd be enough to kill the top
and middle leaders. The rest would be easily persuade to un-
talibanized if they're offered jobs. I know that most people in hpo
do not care about individual sufferings in the scheme of themes and so
I must share this story. I don't know who told this story to the
person I heard it from. A couple (in poor, rural region of Pakistan)
sent their 6 year old boy to a Madrasa (to live there as a boarding
school student) because he'd not cooperate to learn the relgious
teachings at home. (they probbaly thought that he'd learn well while
getting fed.) The Imam - I think that's what the Head of a Madrasah is
called - gave him away when the Taliban recruits came. (It could be
out of fear of because he supports the Taliban. Who knows?) When he
was 16, the boy was caught while on a mission as a suicide bomber.
BTW, Clinton Administration wanted to make a pipeline deal with the
Taliban. In another word, US government wasn't interested in removing
Taliban and instead was hoping to make deals with them. But Taliban
refused and ..the rest is history.
Manda Ruby
> On Dec 5, 2:04�ｿｽpm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 5, 4:55�ｿｽpm, Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 5, 5:44�ｿｽam, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 4, 3:32�ｿｽam, Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 3, 9:55�ｿｽpm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > What did he get the prize FOR?
> > > > > > Next he will be getting a Booker prize for a book he read
> > > > > > Then he will be getting an Oscar for a film he dreamed.
>
> > > > > I don't blame him for getting the stupidest of nobel prizes. (he
> > > > > didn't ask for it) but I do blame him for sending more troops rather
> > > > > than withdrawing what's there. (and its really hypocritical listening
> > > > > to some leftists justify Obama sending troops... when they complained
> > > > > about Bush doing the same thing)
>
> > > > I can't see why you are blaming him for more troops. He needs to
> > > > finish a job that was not started by him, would not have started it in
> > > > the first place, and does not want to take the shit for fucking it
> > > > up.
>
> > > Finish what exact "job"?
>
> > Fucked if I know - ask your friend Bush!
>
> You are caught up in some �ｿｽstereotype of me. Some of this forum claim
> I'm a leftist you suggest I'm on the right. I continually say I am
> neither on left or right and have my own priorities but no one ever
> listens. : (
>
> > Obama has been led to accept a plan from the military. I assume you
> > think that the military is not capable of achieving that plan?
> > I really am not in a position to judge any more than you. Neither of
> > us has the facts.
>
> There are no further facts I require. Pull the troops out and let Iraq
> and Afghanistan work things out for themselves.
Do you really think that the Afghanis can work things out on their own
when it comes to Taliban? Why do you think the villagers are cheering
the AMerican soldiers as the soldiers took over each villages of
Taliban controlled area. Besides, I have heard about Indian
government's aiding Islamists
> It really isn't that
> complicated. If I was in control, I'd say the troops will be out in �ｿｽ4
> weeks no matter what the situation on the ground. If they want a civil
> war let them have it. If they want to live in peace with one another
> let them have it. There is no moral obligation for other countries to
> perpetually police them.
How can you see this is policing since it's US empowering and using
the religious nuts to fight the Soviets. Why didn't US empower the
averege Afganis to fight the Soviets. US have moral obligation more to
remove the Taliban and in fact, it should have been done long time
ago. But am I going to rule out that US intentionally let Taliban
grew as they did. You bet I will not.
Actually, I don't have much to say these days. I am not Miss Optimist
anymore. I am speechless about the evil acts in this world.
>
> > > I would not criticize such a pullout move by the US an iota. In fact,
> > > not only would I praise the US for it but I would criticize anyone (in
> > > any nation) that would criticize it for doing so if they had
> > > previously complained they should leave for so long. It's not the
> > > American taxpayers moral responsibility to make sure these states
> > > permanently succeed any more than it's mine. Some leftists were
> > > shouted practically ethnic cleansing when Bush argued he was trying to
> > > stabilize those countries. Now some of those leftists are doing the
> > > exact same thing and trying to pawn of as morally justifiable? Pure
> > > unprincipled hypocrisy.
>
> > So, seriously �ｿｽ- what do you think would be the consequences??
> > Honestly?
>
> You think they would be much worse off than what's been going on the
> last few years? When did it become any nation's job to make sure some
> other nation is working properly? If you (or anyone else) want to go
> to Afghanistan to stabilize the situation no one is stopping you. We
> have done enough to "help" these people. Just leave them alone to work
> things out for themselves.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Manda Ruby
> On Dec 5, 2:16�pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Consider the fact that few on this planet have been taught
> > intellectual responsibility, and anyway it would be hopeless to try to
> > teach it to most of them. So I'm not blaming them for their
> > preferences, yet in the case of the Taliban my preference would be to
> > simply kill them all - which was my opinion years before 9/11.
>
> remember how they blew up those ancient Buddhist statues while still
> in power-destroying their own nation's historical treasures.
Wrong. The Taliban rulers were not Afghanis. They're Pakistanis.
Beside, what made you think they'd see the statue as a treasure?
They'd be happy to remove the Buddhist history of the region out of
the history book. BTW, no Bhuddist should be upset about this as
Buddha not only did not teach to make statues of him, he taught to
detach from worldly belongings. That'd include seeing the statue as
a treasure. But then, you're not a Bhuddist and you'd see it as a
treasure.
> There
> isn't much redeeming about them.
>
> Having said that, there is no easy way to tell apart �a regular Afghan
> from the Taliban.
Not to you, I am sure.
> The US can stay in there �for the next hundred years
> trying to pick through them. Imo that money would be better spent on
> US soil �or building relations with other countries the region. Even
> if the Taliban came into power again, if they are hated by the rest of
> the world for the oppression they cause (by far most of that suffering
> is to their own countrymen) they would be largely powerless.
> (especially now that everyone is aware just how "not nice" they are)
> There is also the kicker that International isolation would be the far
> cheaper alternative to sinking billions annually into the country,
Wasn't that how Taliban got into power? Nobody cared after using their
ground to fight the Soviets and left them (the Afghans) to bleed, I
might add, slowly?
acar
wrote:
> "acar" <acarm...@mail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:32d72502-3cb6-4e70...@p30g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
>
> If you don't believe in judging, how is it that you have determined the
> right way to judge? How is it that you judge Objectivism to be flawed? How
> do you manage to live without judging?
>
jury made a mistake, but this was due to the author's belief that it
was not a mistake. And Rand's contention (in her commandemnet:
"Judge." was that judgments based on evidence are ALWAYS right. That
is such a silly claim that it should need no refutation, but
apparently it does. Evidence is frequently incomplete and incomplete
evidence can be misleading. Making a false judgment is a great
injustice. Ayn Rand took Christ's words to heart, out of context: "You
shall know a tree by its fruit". That is a useful teaching but it goes
goes only so far. No one can know what is in aperson's heart. It is
entirely possible that I have judged Mark incorrectly, but his
pretestations are not suficient to neutralize the availabe evidence.
He finds evidence that I am trolling him, but I am not. I am simply
judging him in the fallible way of humans. Have I judged Objectivism
incorrectly, despite the overwhelming evidence? I hope not. What
Christ meant is that we can not read hearts. I'll stick with the
latter since I judge the former to be egregiously wrong. The trick is
to realize that humans are fallible, and detectable evidence does not
necessarily reveal the contents of the heart..
acar
> acar wrote:
> > On Dec 13, 12:51 pm, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>
> >>tell me what the alternative is?
>
> > Sure. The alternative is knowing that one could be wrong wrong. And it
> > happens all the time.
>
> I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. "Knowing that one
> could be wrong" is
> not an alternative to making judgments. One's judgments
> are, in fact,
> the things that one "could be wrong" about.
Judgments are more than just opinions. Judgments are definitive. The
aternative to making judgments is realizing that one can only have
opinions. Opinions can be wrong. Judgments are final. A judgment is a
dogmatic statement. Dogma is the opposite of reason.
> For instance, you've made a
> number of judgments about me and my
> supposed "hostilities," but those
> judgments "could be wrong."
Of course they could be wrong. The evidence is quite limited. They are
opinions. Have I read your heart? No. What you and Arnold should have
said is that we all have opinions. But you guys are so sure about
everything that you even ridicule those of us that have only opinions
instead of judgements.
>
> > Stop evading.
>
> Stop being obnoxious.
A bad habit.
> I'm not "evading" anything,
I'll be the judge of that.
> and I find it hard to
> believe that you seriously think I am. I'm really trying to give > you the
> benefit of the doubt here, but at some point, your
> protestations that
> you are not trolling are not going to be believable any more.
That sounds more like an opinion rather than a judgment. Good!
It has not been my intention to troll but I have expressed myself
frankly. Perhaps you are confusing that with trolling.
> We need to make judgments all the time. What do you
> think "Do
> not judge" means?
In that context and in Rand's context I believe that a judgment is a
dogmatic appraisal. I would agree that people need to have opinions.
When we pass judgement (dogmatic), we need to understand that we could
be wrong. That is the point of my disagreemnt with Rand and with
Arnold: the possibility of being wrong.
Arnold Broese
>
> In that context and in Rand's context I believe that a judgment is a
> dogmatic appraisal. I would agree that people need to have opinions.
> When we pass judgement (dogmatic), we need to understand that we could
> be wrong. That is the point of my disagreemnt with Rand and with
> Arnold: the possibility of being wrong.
Weird, who said judgments were omniscient? I always thought an opinion was a
judgment. I have not seen it written, that a judgment, is that which cannot
be wrong. A judgment is a conclusion based on the evidence available (what
else), using reason to put it all together. Once again you play with word
meanings in order to bend the argument in your favour. Rand was right, judge
and be judged. To refrain from judgment is to become a zombie, whose only
ideas are those placed by others.
Like Mark, I can only conclude (judge) that since you don't appear stupid,
you simply enjoy trolling along with great wads of straw. Please try to use
the words in the way an Objectivist understands them if you wish to avoid
being considered a troll..
--
Arnold
acar
> > dogmatic appraisal. I would agree that people need to have opinions.
> > When we pass judgement (dogmatic), we need to understand that we could
> > be wrong. That is the point of my disagreemnt with Rand and with
> > Arnold: the possibility of being wrong.
>
> Weird,
So you think that Rand's commandment was weird? (There I go again,
trolling?)
> who said judgments were omniscient?
That's the point. They are not always correct, yet they are held as if
they were.
> I always thought an opinion was a
> judgment.
In informal language, yes. In the context of Rand's commandement, no.
Rand encouraged you to hold FIRM opinions based on evidence. Those
dogmatic opinions are judgments. All judgments are opinions but not
all opinions are judgments.
> I have not seen it written, that a judgment, is that which cannot
> be wrong.
My point
> A judgment is a conclusion based on the evidence available (what
> else), using reason to put it all together. Once again you play with word
> meanings in order to bend the argument in your favour.
I always try to bend the argument in my favor using facts and logic.
> Rand was right, judge
> and be judged. To refrain from judgment is to become a zombie, whose only
> ideas are those placed by others.
You remind me of the judge that was frequently wrong but never in
doubt.
> Like Mark, I can only conclude (judge) that since you don't appear stupid,
> you simply enjoy trolling along with great wads of straw. Please try to use
> the words in the way an Objectivist understands them if you wish to avoid
> being considered a troll..
Wishing does not help. You have made a judgment that I am trolling.
It is only an opinion. But if you are sure, it is a judgment; a wrong
judgment. In this case the error is innocent and insignificant. It
could be tragic in other cases, like a jury sending an innocent man to
his death, based on available evidence. (Or letting a terrorist go
free like in The Fountainhead!
Is this trolling? Xcuse me again.)
Mark N
> Judgments are more than just opinions. Judgments are definitive. The
> aternative to making judgments is realizing that one can only have
> opinions. Opinions can be wrong. Judgments are final. A judgment is a
> dogmatic statement. Dogma is the opposite of reason.
When I -- and most people, as far as I know -- use the word "judgment,"
there is usually no implication of "finality" or "definitiveness." A
judgment can be mistaken.
>>For instance, you've made a
>>number of judgments about me and my
>>supposed "hostilities," but those
>>judgments "could be wrong."
>
> Of course they could be wrong. The evidence is quite limited.
Feel free to present some of the evidence upon which you base your
assertions about me and my supposed "hostilities." And let's not forget
about my "vicarious enjoyment of other people's hostilities." How did
you come to these conclusions about me? Enquiring minds want to know.
> They are
> opinions. Have I read your heart? No. What you and Arnold should have
> said is that we all have opinions.
At one point, you made reference to your "judgment" of me.
Were you talking about an opinion there, or a dogmatic statement?
> But you guys
Who are "you guys"?
> are so sure about
> everything that you even ridicule those of us that have only opinions
> instead of judgements.
I am "so sure about everything"? What does that mean?
I ridicule people for having "only opinions," and for failing to make
"dogmatic," "final," "definitive" statements? Can you produce some
evidence of this?
[...]
>>I'm not "evading" anything,
>
> I'll be the judge of that.
Ha ha.
Mark
Jim Klein
> JK:
> Why don't you Subjecti-statists just imagine that
> there's nothing to fear, and you could leave the
> rest of us the fuck alone?
>
> Acar:
> By all means, be alone instead of replying to my posts.
I'm not sure I see the connection between this sort of
leaving the rest of us the fuck alone and my responding
to your posts. Still, thanks for putting it up.
jk
acar
> acar wrote:
> > Judgments are more than just opinions. Judgments are definitive. The
> > aternative to making judgments is realizing that one can only have
> > opinions. Opinions can be wrong. Judgments are final. A judgment is a
> > dogmatic statement. Dogma is the opposite of reason.
>
> When I -- and most people, as far as I know -- use the word "judgment,"
> there is usually no implication of "finality" or "definitiveness."
Me too. But that is informal.
> A judgment can be mistaken.
That's my point. But it shouldn't be, unless it is a mere opinion.
The word "judgment" is stronger than the word "opinion". A judgment is
more formal and more authoritative than a mere opinion. Ayn Rand
taught her disciples that it is usually possible to make UNERRING
judgments given sufficient evidence. That is why she explicitly
rejected the teaching "Do not judge that you may not be judged." Her
rejection was so emphatic and explicit and so specifically directed to
rejection of that notion that she even mimicked the syntax by saying:
"Judge and prepare to be judged". It is obvious that she was relating
it to obectivity, and fully intending to make corrections to the
subjectivist teachings of Christ.
In many cases it may be possible to pass judgment based on evidence,
as noted by Christ (by their fruits ye shall know them) but not
always. If anyone thinks that Rand was encouraging students to hold
judgments that may be wrong they should reconsider. Rand would not
have encouraged you to play dice with the integrity of another person.
She fully approved of the long ago trials in which the punishment for
transgressors was ostracism. (Yet she let Roark go free after that nut
blew up a government building! Sorry, I trolled.)
> >>For instance, you've made a
> >>number of judgments about me and my
> >>supposed "hostilities," but those
> >>judgments "could be wrong."
>
> > Of course they could be wrong. The evidence is quite limited.
>
> Feel free to present some of the evidence upon which you base your
> assertions about me and my supposed "hostilities." And let's not forget
> about my "vicarious enjoyment of other people's hostilities." How did
> you come to these conclusions about me? Enquiring minds want to know.
Enquiring minds will have to suck their thumbs. I am not going to put
you on trial. Suffice it to say that having never met you or anyone
that knows you, based on what you write here, I have formed that
opinion. All right -- I admit it, it is only a suspicion, a very strong
suspicion.
> > They are
> > opinions. Have I read your heart? No. What you and Arnold should have
> > said is that we all have opinions.
>
> At one point, you made reference to your "judgment" of me.
True. I had not yet been put on the defensive regarding that
definition. I already told Arnold that "judgment" and "opinion" are
used interchangeably in informal conversation.
> Were you talking about an opinion there, or a dogmatic statement?
In an informal context -- a judgment which could be wrong. Formally it
is just an opinion. After being drilled on the subject I call it an
opinion or a strong suspicion. It could be quite wrong, but your
protestations will not erase it completely. As a matter of fact I
still think so but I admit that your indignation has made a dent. A
small dent.
> I ridicule people for having "only opinions," and for failing to make
> "dogmatic," "final," "definitive" statements? Can you produce some
> evidence of this?
Dime con quien andas y te dire quien eres. In this case you are being
"judged" by the company you keep. Some of the other Acar-bashers have
acted that way. Did I say that I am free of the propensity to make
false judgments? I think not. That's why Christ's commandment seems
to me to be a better commandment, more in line with human nature.
Again, no evidence will be presented. If you disagree with my opinion,
toss it.
Jim Klein
> Ayn Rand
> taught her disciples that it is usually possible to make UNERRING
> judgments given sufficient evidence. That is why she explicitly
> rejected the teaching "Do not judge that you may not be judged."
Maybe she rejected it because it makes no sense
at all. Your choice to judge or not has nothing to
do with other people's choice to judge you or not.
It's more like wishful thinking than guidance.
jk
acar
> On Dec 14, 11:30 pm, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ayn Rand
> > taught her disciples that it is usually possible to make UNERRING
> > judgments given sufficient evidence. That is why she explicitly
> > rejected the teaching "Do not judge that you may not be judged."
>
> Maybe she rejected it because it makes no sense
Rand's philosophy is called Objectivism. She believed that all
judgments should be made objectively and strongly opposed making
judgments on a subjective basis. She believed that if you have an
abundance of objective evidence you can always tell what is on a
person's mind. (That ridiculous theory is easy to defend because if
you turn out to be wrong, you can always say that there was not enough
evidence.)
We do need to judge people, and we can only do that by what others say
and how they act. But no matter how much information we have about a
person, be it a parent, a sibling, a son, a spouse, or a politician,
we can never be sure of everything that is another person's heart and
mind. Rand thought she could. You think you can. I think I can't. What
does everybody else think? Let them answer that in the privacy of
their own mind.
> Your choice to judge or not has nothing to
> do with other people's choice to judge you or not.
It does. It's guidance for all.
chazwin
> On Dec 15, 7:26�am, Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 14, 11:30 pm, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ayn Rand
> > > taught her disciples that it is usually possible to make UNERRING
> > > judgments given sufficient evidence. That is why she explicitly
> > > rejected the teaching "Do not judge that you may not be judged."
>
> > Maybe she rejected it because it makes no sense
>
> Rand's philosophy is called Objectivism. She believed that all
> judgments should be made objectively and strongly opposed making
> judgments on a subjective basis.
But this is incoherent.
Objectivity relies on agreement between upon the criteria upon which
those judgements can be made.
This is the worst type of authoritarianism and the basis tyranny.
> She believed that if you have an
> abundance of objective evidence you can always tell what is on a
> person's mind. (That ridiculous theory is easy to defend because if
> you turn out to be wrong, you can always say that there was not enough
> evidence.)
Of course such an idea is bankrupt.
>
> We do need to judge people, and we can only do that by what others say
> and how they act. But no matter how much information we have about a
> person, be it a parent, a sibling, a son, a spouse, or a politician,
> we can never be sure of everything that is another person's heart and
> mind. Rand thought she could. You think you can. I think I can't. What
> does everybody else think? Let them answer that in the privacy of
> their own mind.
I think that objectivity is nothing more than inter-subjective
agreement.
There is noi objective fact that does not rely upon the consent and
agreement of others.
Charles Bell
> On Dec 15, 7:23�pm, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 7:26�am, Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 14, 11:30 pm, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Ayn Rand
> > > > taught her disciples that it is usually possible to make UNERRING
> > > > judgments given sufficient evidence. That is why she explicitly
> > > > rejected the teaching "Do not judge that you may not be judged."
>
> > > Maybe she rejected it because it makes no sense
> > > at all. �
>
> > Rand's philosophy is called Objectivism. She believed that all
> > judgments should be made objectively and strongly opposed making
> > judgments on a subjective basis.
>
> But this is incoherent.
And it has nothing to do with Objectivism.
> Objectivity relies on agreement between upon the criteria upon which
> those judgements can be made.
No, it doesn't. An "objective" judgment is one presumed to be made
without emotion or by a disinterested party on facts with no
opinion. Again, this has nothing to do with Objectivism.
> This is the worst type of authoritarianism and the basis tyranny.
>
> > She believed that if you have an
> > abundance of objective evidence you can always tell what is on a
> > person's mind. (That ridiculous theory
. . . which has nothing to do with Objectivism.
> I think that objectivity is nothing more than inter-subjective
> agreement.
You have defined "objectivity" to mean that, but you have defined it
incorrectly. What you mean to say is "intersubjectivity is
intersubjective"
> There is noi objective fact that does not rely upon the consent and
> agreement of others.
>
Fact = a concept whose truth can be proved; there is no such thing as
an "objective fact" or the expression is simply redundant.
acar
> agreement.
> There is noi objective fact that does not rely upon the consent and
> agreement of others.
>
about making judgments based on external reality. Objectivism
emphasizes that the senses should be trused to reveal reality as it
is, therefore reality is the standard of objectivity, not consensus.
That is of course a whim. For a long time I've been preaching that
objectivity is all about consensus, but it has only earned me scorn
and abuse. He heh.
Mark N
> On Dec 14, 3:03 pm, Mark N <m...@myinboxisbroken.com> wrote:
>
>>Were you talking about an opinion there, or a dogmatic statement?
>
> In an informal context -- a judgment which could be wrong. Formally it
> is just an opinion. After being drilled on the subject I call it an
> opinion or a strong suspicion. It could be quite wrong, but your
> protestations will not erase it completely. As a matter of fact I
> still think so but I admit that your indignation has made a dent. A
> small dent.
I guess I can take some comfort from the fact that you consider all of
your conclusions to be only "opinions," and not "judgments."
>>I ridicule people for having "only opinions," and for failing to make
>>"dogmatic," "final," "definitive" statements? Can you produce some
>>evidence of this?
>
> Dime con quien andas y te dire quien eres. In this case you are being
> "judged" by the company you keep. Some of the other Acar-bashers have
> acted that way. [...]
I'm not an Acar-basher. It often happens that I disagree with Acar. And
it often happens that, despite great efforts, I find myself unable to
figure out what Acar is talking about. But I never bash Acar.
Mark
x
x
chazwin
> On Dec 15, 4:37�pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I think that objectivity is nothing more than inter-subjective
> > agreement.
> > There is noi objective fact that does not rely upon the consent and
> > agreement of others.
>
> That is precisely the opposite of Objectivism. Objectivism is all
> about making judgments based on external reality.
And the only access we have to "external reality" is through our
senses.
The only way we can judge the truth and value of reality is with the
consent
of others.
Objectivism
> emphasizes that the senses should be trused to reveal reality as it
> is, therefore reality is the standard of objectivity, not consensus.
We all know that reality and the perception of reality has been shown
to
be two different things. The fallacy upon which this myth is based
has
been exploded by many philosophers from Epicurus to Hume.
> That is of course a whim. For a long time I've been preaching that
> objectivity is all about consensus, but it has only earned me scorn
> and abuse. He heh.
Only the nut-cases on this NG dish out scorn on that point,happily
they are rarer
than rocking horse-shit and about as convincing as theists.
Arnold Broese
news:04d5f9f5-b203-4d9a...@r1g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> The only way we can judge the truth and value of reality is with the
> consent of others.
I don't care if every soul on earth said it wouldn't hurt, I would not hit
my thumb with a hammer. Reality rules, not people's opinions.
--
Arnold
Charles Bell
> On Dec 15, 4:37�pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I think that objectivity is nothing more than inter-subjective
> > agreement.
> > There is noi objective fact that does not rely upon the consent and
> > agreement of others.
>
> That is precisely the opposite of Objectivism.
Just like strawberry is the opposite of honey.
> Objectivism is all
> about making judgments based on external reality.
No, it isn't.
> Objectivism
> emphasizes that the senses should be trused to reveal reality as it
> is,
No, it doesn't.
> therefore reality is the standard of objectivity,
Just like vanilla is the standard of glue.
> not consensus.
> That is of course a whim.
Your posts are, of course, a hodge-podge of anti-aphorisms.
> For a long time I've been preaching that
> objectivity is all about consensus, but it has only earned me scorn
> and abuse.
Yep.
Charles Bell
> Only the nut-cases on this NG dish out scorn on that point,happily
> they are rarer
> than rocking horse-shit and about as convincing as theists.
And three dead rats behind the radiator skip the apologies over the
rainbow above the cassock. Yep.
Mark N
> We all know that reality and the perception of reality has been shown
> to be two different things.
> The fallacy upon which this myth is based has
> been exploded by many philosophers from Epicurus to Hume.
What fallacy? What myth? Do some people think that someone's perception
of a thing is identical to the thing that is perceived? So that, for
instance, someone's perception of an apple actually *is* an apple?
Mark
acar
> On Dec 15, 5:32�pm, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 4:37�pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I think that objectivity is nothing more than inter-subjective
> > > agreement.
> > > There is noi objective fact that does not rely upon the consent and
> > > agreement of others.
>
> > That is precisely the opposite of Objectivism.
>
> Just like strawberry is the opposite of honey.
Not like that.
> > Objectivism is all
> > about making judgments based on external reality.
>
> No, it isn't.
Yes, it is.
> > Objectivism
> > emphasizes that the senses should be trused to reveal reality as it
> > is,
>
> No, it doesn't.
Yes. It does.
> > therefore reality is the standard of objectivity,
>
> Just like vanilla is the standard of glue.
Not like that.
> > �not consensus.
> > That is of course a whim.
>
> Your posts are, of course, a hodge-podge of anti-aphorisms.
Sorry.
> > For a long time I've been preaching that
> > objectivity is all about consensus, but it has only earned me scorn
> > and abuse.
>
> Yep.
Yep.
These short replies are not very informative, but in the case of
Charles, an exception seems to be the way to go.
acar
Charles' debating skills are improving.
He is not yet ready but progress is progress.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Mark N
You are a very bad man.
Mark
acar
>
> What fallacy? What myth? Do some people think that someone's perception
> of a thing is identical to the thing that is perceived? So that, for
> instance, someone's perception of an apple actually *is* an apple?
I can tell an apple from a canary. Are you saying that being able to
tell Tiger Woods from Nicole Kidman proves that you know all that
there is to know about Tiger Woods?
.
.
Charles Bell
> On Dec 15, 6:39 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 5:32 pm, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 15, 4:37 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I think that objectivity is nothing more than inter-subjective
> > > > agreement.
> > > > There is noi objective fact that does not rely upon the consent and
> > > > agreement of others.
>
> > > That is precisely the opposite of Objectivism.
>
> > Just like strawberry is the opposite of honey.
>
> Not like that.
>
No, really just like that. The two statements have as much do with
each other as to say: Islam is the opposite of the 11th century
Crusades.
On what basis of Objectivist literature can you say Objectivism is the
opposite of "objective fact relies on consent and agreement of
others"?
> > > Objectivism is all
> > > about making judgments based on external reality.
>
> > No, it isn't.
>
> Yes, it is.
Of course, it is not. So you suppose that the mere assertion of your
words makes them true? Are you Obama? Prove your assertions. Cite a
single thing either by Rand or any Objectivst outside of hpo that
says: "Objectivism is about making judgments based in external
reality."
>
> > > Objectivism
> > > emphasizes that the senses should be trused to reveal reality as it
> > > is,
>
> > No, it doesn't.
>
> Yes. It does.
Again, cite a single Objectivist source that makes that claim.
>
> > > therefore reality is the standard of objectivity,
>
> > Just like vanilla is the standard of glue.
>
> Not like that.
Spouting garbage feels good to you?
Suppose that I said your mother is a whore. And you said no, she
isn't. And I replied, yes, she is. Is that justified? Is that your
idea of objective judgment? To make an assertion/accusation without a
shred of evidence?
Mark N
No. But I'm still not sure what myth Chazwin is talking about.
Mark
acar
> On Dec 15, 7:37�pm, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> Suppose that I said your mother is a whore.
La tuya, hijo de la gran puta.
.
.
.
Charles Bell
> On Dec 15, 6:43�pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > And three dead rats behind the radiator skip the apologies over the
> > rainbow above the cassock. Yep.
>
> Charles' debating skills are improving.
Part of the skill is to best the opponent's rhetoric and grasp of the
facts.