bleeding heart

Yours? PIK's? No one here is saying any such thing. Not a single person.

No...I just don't poop my pants in terror every time the words are uttered. I just don't think there is this entity called "the Muslim world" which a grandiose threat to Western civilization. That's silly, and I prefer not to be part of that particular wagon train. Of all political stripes and opinions. Yeah...that's not a promiscuously false analogy at all....

On all counts: of course.

As a bit of an aside, I would suggest that the US wouldn't allow this to happen. For a brief understanding of the relationship, see my sig.

There's nothing cowardly about cybercoma's views on this, not that I can see. On the other hand: those who continually fret about the looming Crescent shadow of the Islamic Caliphate wiping out Western civilization...well, that sounds a little like cowardice to me, frankly. It sits somewhere just below the rationality of the 9/11 Truthers.

OK...despite what I've just said, this is a fair point. that is, the quality of literacy between a kid who doesn't read and write at all versus one who only reads and writes the messiness of texts...well, that the former still doesn't read or write remains, and texting hasn't negatively affected that.

Yes, and interestingly, never in history have so many people--notably young people--been continually reading and writing. So plainly, what we read and write is of serious significance.

Yep. And Margaret Wente, too, has exposed herself as a closeted leftist Ford-hater. But no...the real problem, as PIK has said, is that "the media has gotten too big." Apparently they're interfering with our glorious politicians' ability to practice their craft in secret, as it is meant to be.

Thank you!

But Black Dog's question stands: what exactly is the demarcation here? Lots of opinions--most opinions--are, in one way or another, judgements of some sort...there are differences of degree, but that's it. In my opinion, a poster who in another thread with me condoned rape and mass murder (actively; explicitly) as a means of Statecraft--is saying vile things. That's my opinion...and it's also a judgement. Heck, your "opinion" on what posters have been saying in this thread is explicitly a judgement" upon them.

Personally, and I don't think I'm exaggerating here, I think that this sort of thing touches upon one of the great frailties of human beings: an adoration, even worship, of great power, perhaps because there's a residual (if perverse) feeling of personal power by proxy. Well, it sounds maybe like cheap psychologizing, and is no doubt an oversimplification. Still, I think there is a broad truth to it. (This is an insight of libertarianism, although libertarians have remained bloodymindedly and unreflectively focused on elected government, without viewing the problems of power and authority in a larger human context.) When speaking of policing matters, I think the truth is fairly obvious: we grant (and I support this) the police a certain amount of authority in given situations. But it is not to be any sort of extrapolated and automatic support for Authority, itself; that is, we temporarily should grant them power and authority, on a case-by-case basis. And as always--from government to police to employers to parents--the onus is on the powerful, on the person wielding authority, to justify their use of it. The onus is not on us to explain why it is wrong; the onus is on them to explain why it is (temporarily) right.

I'm afraid I don't quite share this view. I don't think it's totally, 100% without merit...but I think Boges answers it well.

Yes...especially when the sweeter and higher parts of "human nature" are left out of the equation, as if some sort of leftwing aberration from our "true" nature as violent and greedy gangsters.

Well, lots of people have long been concerned that anti-terrorism laws and programs would be used for other purposes. The detained journalist and the situation with the Guardian are two examples of exactly this.

I think it's a less colourful, less pithy version of the famous phrase, "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." On the other hand, the latter was meant to be a sentence which is nonsensical...but grammatically correct. So.....no.

These remarks are too repellent to warrant a detailed response. Among the most disgusting I've read in a while...so congratulations.

Well, a nice attempt at intimidation...so much for "terrorism security"...they used "terrorism" to question him about something else entirely. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsa

That's a really good point. Domesticated animals are different....they've been part of human lives for so long that it's actually part of their natures. But wild animals shouldn't be taken as pets.

? That people are social animals--by their very nature--is certainly a truism. It's a central component of what we are. Otherwise, it is impossible that you and I would even be having a discussion about it...or about anything. That compassion, empathy, fellow-feeling are innate human characteristics, is also not an arguable point. We could no more develop them out of nothing than we could choose to sprout wings. That's because they're part of what we are. And yes, of course self-interest, the lack of compassion and empathy in certain situations is also part of us. That's clear enough. But why you think the former must negate the latter, I don't know. They are part of human nature. I'm frankly amazed that we're debating the point at all. Of course. I'm not arguing against human nature; you are. Sure. To my knowledge, we have never disagreed on it. what interests were served--I mean exactly--and how are they justifiable? You do know you are actually explicitly advocating rape and mass murder...and of non-combatants to boot? I just want to be clear on this. It's rare to come up against this type of extreme obedience to State power. And surely you concede there are at least times when this is inappropriate. A few. It was in Indonesia's interest, because they wanted the territory (and the potential wealth of the resources). A few hundred thousand peasants dead and suffering seemed to them an irrelevancy, apparently. The US (and, I believe, the other Western colluders in state terror and mass murder) was interested in currying some favour with the regime, because Suharto was violently anti-communist. (They were arguably pretty close to fascist, in fact.) And there was also the matter of the potential resources boom. So when the Good general declared his intentions, privately to Ford and Kissinger, they (heading up the Boss of the Earth) gave him the explicit go-ahead. And then supplied him with the weapons and the diplomatic support to kill at will. The other allies followed suit, presumably for similar reasons. but the thing is, Derek, they weren't fighting communists. They were supporting anti-communists, which is not the same thing. East Timor, its population and its nascent independence movement were not communist. In fact, they considered themselves the West's natural allies...boy, were they in for a surprise! So, with your "moral theory" of the Rightness of the Strong overcoming the weak...you support the fascists over their murder victims? Really? And I'm sure you're aware of how miserable and depraved this "theory" has been in any number of situations. I don't know why you are stubbornly defending that which you know is indefensible...in this case, one of the worst mass murders by percentage of population in the postwar era. And what did you and your family gain by this, that makes you think it justifiable? Inquiring minds want to know.

Why do you blame the West for everything?

The uprising was in full swing, Mubarak's ouster was a given...which is why Obama offered his politically-convenient response. For someone who thinks the "blame the West" mentality is some sort of perversion, you sure indulge in it a lot, Shady...so long as those you misperceive as "the left" are in power.

You fellows are evidently unaware of the history of my discussions with August about movies. It goes like this: 1. Bleeding Heart offers some thoughts on this or that movie; 2. August comes along, informs me that I am clueless about movies, and opines that the internet is the wrong place for movie reviews at any rate; 3. He then later offers a movie review. So that's the history behind my remark...which, by the way, was an afterthought designed in the way of a friendly and amused jab at a person I like. Glad to educate you two on yet another subject.

I must say, I also find it interesting that so many people evidently believe Soviet Communism to have been a bastion of Freedom and Equality. I disagree, but I'm fascinated by the sudden turnaround in opinion.

Oh....Dre's notion, that there are geopolitical consequences to geopolitical behavior, is simplistic. But the notion of the Shining City on the Hill, beset by Evil on every side who attack us because of our Goodness, and because of their Evil--sort of a God vs. Satan thing...why, that's sober historical realism.

And this doesn't begin to answer what I was saying...it is a separate subject altogether. I said we are by definition social animals...and that co-operation (as well as qualities such as empathy) are innate. They're not engineered constructs by Leninists. Further, I am suggesting that no one succeeds, individually, as a capitalist, without indulging in the co-operative behavior that is wired into our nature. You can beg to differ with the uncontroversial truisms, ones with which no one but you disputes, all you wish. It doesn't change the facts. First of all, it's not skewed...it just is. It's as if you're railing at the failed philosophy of the sun's existence. Second, it's not "bottom-up," but by nature horizontal. Third, it's not an "approach." You're mistaking my remarks for an endorsement of communism. I don't endorse communism. I am talking about the fact that we are--biologically--social animals, and so that culturally, we are in fact interdependent. Automatically. Inherently. You keep bringing the non sequiter up, and I keep telling you that no one is saying any such thing. Ah, yes: a cherished cornerstone of Western intellectual thought: every time one of the powerful Western nations does something wrong--or when they commit to an atrocity in concert--it's "someone else's fault." You sure wouldn't want them to accept any responsibility--gods no! Well, you can name any of them: material and diplomatic collusion in mass murder in East Timor; the funding of terrorist rapists in Nicaragua; the torture and slaughter of Catholic activists throughout Latin America; the jaw-dropping terror regime of the Duvalier Dynasty in Haiti. But it's maybe moot, because you have already said that you support all these things, by replying that Western foreign policy is always "broadly justifiable"--my term, but one to which you offered a near-unqualified salute...and reiterated again, in your last post. A promiscuous analogy. Such a situation is not the one in which we find ourselves. Offering weapons and diplomatic support for Suharto's 25-year paroxysm of mass murder was not done on behalf of your family's "self-interest," Derek. I'm not muddying the waters...you are. The part you left out was the entire point of the passage to which you're responding. That's just silly. And non-responsive.