A New Low

[myata]

No, I'm not blinded by anything, are you? The whole concept of ("just", "liberation", "democracy building", etc) war is built on two premises: 1) we're better; 2) because of #1, whatever we do, must be, and is, good. Remove the premise - that is of course, purely subjective: I'm right, because.. I am, I know; I'm not firing that rocket "deliberately" because I'm not, I know (while I know that "they" are), and so on, that kind of logic - and there's nothing left but plain old ugly, deadly and nasty, war. We go into other lands; we make wars on (self declared) presumption that we're right and we're doing good. What exactly is new there? How is it different from conquests, colonizations, conversions, and so on, of the not so glorious past?

[bush_cheney2004]

....What exactly is new there? How is it different from conquests, colonizations, conversions, and so on, of the not so glorious past?

Why would you expect it to be any different? This is the biggest delusion of all.

[Oleg Bach]

These Taliban animals have to be killed at all cost's.........no discussion,no debate just absolute wiped out!..............these animals must be proud to do this to little girls! Maybe its time to use bio and nerve agents against them inside their caves.... :angry:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/World/1121654.html

What a harsh conservative with a bleeding liberal heart you are. For a conservative tough one - you seem to parrot the mindless liberal reasoning for the Afghan mission - "So a little girl can go to school" and "woman's rights must be brought to Afhanistan" Even if we have to facilitate the demasculization and or the killing of each and every last MALE Afghani.

A couple of months ago I ranted about the tacit policy our military have in regards to the destroying of young Afghani boys through sodomy . The phrase I heard was our soldiers were instructed to "turn a blind eye' to the abuse....recently I heard....That there was an investigation...and are military was cleared of any non-responsiveness to sheer evil... BUT I also read a report by a high ranking female officer....who decribed how a young male child was brought into a compound under our control - The little boy was dressed by some jerks in drag - wearing a wig and lipstick - Later the officer reported she could hear the screams of this poor child as he was being sodomized - and worse - she reported that the POOR CHILDS BOWELS WERE HANGING OUR OF HIS ASS......What the hell is that?!

Are we practicing some sort of auto eugenics on the Afghan people? Some sort of brutal social engineering? ARE WE EXPORTING CANADIAN STYLE SOCIAL ENGINEERING THAT CONSISTS OF STATE HUSBANDRY OF THE FEMALE POPULATION AND THE GAYIFICATION AND DEMASCULIZATION OF THE MALES???

The sad part is that when these incidents were finally investigated - we covered then up- in the same manner our court system assists domestically in the cover up of abuses by our child protection agents.....

GREAT SHAME AND A CURSE ON YOU CANADA.

[myata]

Why would you expect it to be any different? This is the biggest delusion of all.

Not on my part. Somebody's inventing these fancy words - "liberation", "humanity", "nation building", as opposed to conquest, conversion, colonization, inferior race and ethnics, etc, of the past. Why do we want to use new, different words for, basically, the same old thing? Beats me. Perhaps, I can volonteer to propose a universal, eternal and absolute concept, that wouldn't ever need to change: "because I'm stronger and because I'm right" (no, I didn't invent it, no kudos please). Really, it has all that's necessary to unleash another (liberation, etc) war: 1) superiority in power (perceived, or real doesn't really matter); 2) never faultering conviction in one's given right to do so (ie. war).

Yet, "power" + "right" does not necessarily equals to "war". That requires a severe deficit of the third element, don't really know or care to use any of the tired words, something that keeps individual, group, society, country, species, balanced in their abilities, and standing with respect to others and the world, without imposing themselves on everybody (and everything) around them.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Yet, "power" + "right" does not necessarily equals to "war". That requires a severe deficit of the third element, don't really know or care to use any of the tired words, something that keeps individual, group, society, country, species, balanced in their abilities, and standing with respect to others and the world, without imposing themselves on everybody (and everything) around them.

You might want to rethink that..."power" + "right" also equals abortions.....with its own set of "tired words".

In the end, all that is really necessary is "power".

[myata]

You might want to rethink that..."power" + "right" also equals abortions.....

No, not gonna rethink "power plus right" because it's got nothing to do with abortions. Whatsoever. There's only one indivudual in that latter case, and most certainly they are entitled to make decisions about their own body in the way they find appropriate, without any moral or otherwise, interventions from others. Certainly in full agreement with the point I was making (comment is only for the sake of completeness and clarity, there's really not even a remote logical connection of the two issues).

See, a world where independent individuals recognize the right of others to exist and have their own way of life, can, theoretically at least, exist in a stable condition of peace (as long as individuals uphold the agreement and do not impose themselves on others). A world of moral ones, each with a deep sense of righteousness, entitlement, and desire to improve the others, on the other hand, is bound to be in a perpetual squabble. Just what we see. Really easy. There must be a math theorem to to that fact.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, not gonna rethink "power plus right" because it's got nothing to do with abortions. Whatsoever. There's only one indivudual in that latter case, and most certainly they are entitled to make decisions about their own body in the way they find appropriate, without any moral or otherwise, interventions from others. Certainly in full agreement with the point I was making (comment is only for the sake of completeness and clarity, there's really not even a remote logical connection of the two issues).

Nevertheless...it is still the power and right to exercise control over another class of human existence. I am glad you agree that morality has nothing to do with it.

See, a world where independent individuals recognize the right of others to exist and have their own way of life, can, theoretically at least, exist in a stable condition of peace (as long as individuals uphold the agreement and do not impose themselves on others). A world of moral ones, each with a deep sense of righteousness, entitlement, and desire to improve the others, on the other hand, is bound to be in a perpetual squabble. Just what we see. Really easy. There must be a math theorem to to that fact.

There is no such theorem....or relationship. There is only power....those who have it...and those who want it. As an individual, we make choices....and I note on which side of the fence you choose to live.

[myata]

Nevertheless...it is still the power and right to exercise control over another class of human existence.

And I'm glad that we agree that whatever kind of existence, it's not about relations between humans and therefore has no application to this topic; or even, as you rightfully noticed, human morality. No more that is, than amputation or removal of, i.e. ultimately, exercising control over some other part of a body that without doubt, also represents a class of "human existence" (well, it's related to humans, and it exists, if I understood the point correctly).

As an individual, we make choices....and I note on which side of the fence you choose to live.

We can also point out logical consequences of our act. No matter which side of the fence we find ourselves on. It's not like we can turn off the brain, or make it line up in the right, proper, correct direction. Even if somebody dearly liked us to.

[bush_cheney2004]

And I'm glad that we agree that whatever kind of existence, it's not about relations between humans and therefore has no application to this topic...

Oh but it is....power has been used to deny a human class their "rights" in favor of another's. That's fine, but should be recognized for what it is.

We can also point out logical consequences of our act. No matter which side of the fence we find ourselves on. It's not like we can turn off the brain, or make it line up in the right, proper, correct direction. Even if somebody dearly liked us to.

Good news here...it really doesn't matter except to the tortured soul who cannot reconcile their obvious and self imposed "moral" dilemma. What one says or thinks is trivial compared to what they actually do.

[myata]

Oh but it is....power has been used to deny a human class their "rights" in favor of another's. That's fine, but should be recognized for what it is.

Of course it's recognized (already!), as a "human existence", see above. In the same class as appendicitus, etc. That itself in no way implies that it should have the same logical attributes, i.e rights, morals, etc, as other "classes", such as e.g human beings proper to which / whom this discussion mostly pertains.

A classic example of (forgot what its called) logical fallacy, I wear glasses, you too, so you must have red hair, just like me. Anyways. Not even remotely related, no not even a nice try.

Good news here...it really doesn't matter except to the tortured soul who cannot reconcile their obvious and self imposed "moral" dilemma.

That position implies the kind of omniscience I'm not entirely comfortable with. I prefer to keep an open mind, even if just in case, why not?

What one says or thinks is trivial compared to what they actually do.

No arguments from me there. Of course, our high moral preachings and cermons to others, may appear somewhat diluted (not to say, trivial ?!) by practical results of our act.

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course it's recognized (already!), as a "human existence", see above. In the same class as appendicitus, etc. That itself in no way implies that it should have the same logical attributes, i.e rights, morals, etc, as other "classes", such as e.g human beings proper to which / whom this discussion mostly pertains.

Such "classes" have been developed over time, far from a silly notion of equivalence to "appendicitis". Courts and legislators seeking remedies for affected groups have done this repeatedly. Indeed, minors are a protected "class".

A classic example of (forgot what its called) logical fallacy, I wear glasses, you too, so you must have red hair, just like me. Anyways. Not even remotely related, no not even a nice try.

Intellectual denial is your choice, but others can and will take a different view.

That position implies the kind of omniscience I'm not entirely comfortable with. I prefer to keep an open mind, even if just in case, why not?

Ironic statement considering the above.

No arguments from me there. Of course, our high moral preachings and cermons to others, may appear somewhat diluted (not to say, trivial ?!) by practical results of our act.

They are not diluted at all from a sales and marketing perspective. One only needs to outsell the competition.

[myata]

Such "classes" have been developed over time, far from a silly notion of equivalence to "appendicitis". Courts and legislators seeking remedies for affected groups have done this repeatedly.

Now we are back into the murky waters of determining the universal morality. E.g. over time, till quite recent, in historical terms, times, "classes" have been developed to observe the play of unholy forces behind anything that negatively affects 'me". And prosecuting the alleged perpetrators of evil, the conducts of unholy forces, accordingly. Countless numbers of such examples, overt time, of course. But right now, at this very glorious point in our history, we happen to be found on the very top, pinnacle of the moral pyramid, unlike (or should it be, just like?) those less fortunate times.

Then, again, which courts and legislators? To the best of my knowledge, abortion is recognized a key right almost everywhere in the developed world. So their classes must be different from yours, where "human existence" would impose limits on woman's right to control her body? Which "class" is right, then? Their or mine? Should I make them comply with my definition of classes, because I know it to be the right one? Should we go to war for that cause?

Indeed, minors are a protected "class".

Indeed they are. Should your fingernails be a protected class too, for that reason? They are also a "class" of "human existence" after all.

Ironic statement considering the above.

No comment on that as I'm not following. Noticing obvious logical flaws in an argument isn't a symptom of omniscience (I wish it were, at least in this case).

They are not diluted at all from a sales and marketing perspective. One only needs to outsell the competition.

Indeed, but only in the "moral" world, where parties struggle to force their views (morals, ways of life, etc) on each other. It certainly has the right to exist, and its existence is bound to unfold in the permanent struggle of parties trying make their view of the world dominant. Buyers beware.