Bill Maher "Nails It"

[betsy]

I'm not drawing a direct equivalence; I'm saying that Westerners by and large don't give a damn about the deaths of foreigners, especially when the West itself shares responsibility for these deaths.

(And of course many people enjoy the idea of "the terrorists"--meaning all Muslims--being offed in large numbers. Do you really doubt that????)

The moral stance, Betsy, is to be less concerned with how Official Enemies behave, and more concerned about how we behave. This is elementary morality, that we teach our three-year-olds, but become hostile to whenever we conduct any military operations.

Well, the weak-minded sycophants among us, anyway.

Well, my response to Jack Weber was just a speculation on my part as to what really was behind those flag-waving celebrations we saw on tv. I don't think there is anything wrong with speculating, is there?

And it's on-topic, too: it's a direct and unequivocal teaching of Christ. Motes and Beams. Or are we to ignore that one as well, and say it's "not meant to be taken literally"?

I do hope yor're not putting words in my mouth nor are you trying to twist my quote-mined remark (which you responded to). As I've said before, rejoicing over the death of an enemy is not right.

As for "loyalty to Canada"...get outta my face with that nonsense.

It was the way you responded.

[Saipan]

Oh, lord, a lot more innocent Muslims have been killed than we could number in a lot of 9/11's...

Compare to 6 million Jews alone.

Or 40 to 80 million under Mao during "peace time"

[TimG]

I'm not drawing a direct equivalence; I'm saying that Westerners by and large don't give a damn about the deaths of foreigners, especially when the West itself shares responsibility for these deaths.

There is a huge difference between the accidental killing of civilians during military operations and the deliberate targeting of civilians. In fact, western military forces bend over backwards trying to avoid civilian causalities and are extremely apologetic when something goes wrong and innoncents die.

Westerners 'don't give a damn' because they know that accidents happen. Just like they 'don't give a damn' about the millions who die in car accidents each year.

[Saipan]

Most of the what Jesus preached was forgiveness, turning the other cheek etc. That's Christianity!

That's his problem. Do you want to end up like him?

"Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you."

- - - Benjamin Franklin

[bloodyminded]

Compare to 6 million Jews alone.

Or 40 to 80 million under Mao during "peace time"

Of course, 100% irrelevant to any points being made. This must take some ideological discipline on your part.

[Sir Bandelot]

In fact, western military forces bend over backwards trying to avoid civilian causalities and are extremely apologetic when something goes wrong and innoncents die.

Westerners 'don't give a damn' because they know that accidents happen. Just like they 'don't give a damn' about the millions who die in car accidents each year.

Yet there is still a prevailing attitude in the military, and amongs people at large that civilian casualties are an unavoidable fact in war. Regretable, perhaps, but not unacceptible. I would like to see our mlitary evolve to the point where it is totally unaccaptable, like it is with our police forces. We would not tolerate if the police killed large numbers of innocent bystanders simply because they were too close to where the heat is. If even one bystander is killed there is much outcry and an investigation.

[bloodyminded]

There is a huge difference between the accidental killing of civilians during military operations and the deliberate targeting of civilians. In fact, western military forces bend over backwards trying to avoid civilian causalities and are extremely apologetic when something goes wrong and innoncents die.

Yes, I'm well aware of the conventional pieties.

Leaving aside the fact that if you know there's a high probability of civilian deaths, then you are intentionally killing them--as we all understand until military action takes place and patriotic cowardice sets in--how do you square your theory of Western benevolence with the fact of our intentional, knowing, material support for mass murder and state terrorism that eclipses anything Hamas could ever dream of? (See: East Timor, 1975-1999).

Westerners 'don't give a damn' because they know that accidents happen. Just like they 'don't give a damn' about the millions who die in car accidents each year.

We Can Do No Wrong. Everything bad is an accident.

This doesn't even rise to the level of informed vacuity.

[Saipan]

Of course, 100% irrelevant to any points being made.

Well, don't post irrelevant stuff.

Tens of millions of lives IS relevant.

[TimG]

Leaving aside the fact that if you know there's a high probability of civilian deaths, then you are intentionally killing them

Only in your deluded view of the world.

Western benevolence with the fact of our intentional, knowing, material support for mass murder and state terrorism that eclipses anything Hamas could ever dream of? (See: East Timor, 1975-1999).

Sovereign powers have three choices when faced with thugs bent on killing their own people. They can 1) denouce it and apply political pressure 2) ignore it or 3) invade.

You obviously reject 3) and 1) is really all about political posturing - it does not actually change anything. That leaves 2) so you really have no business complaining.

[bloodyminded]

...

Edited May 27, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Only in your deluded view of the world.

If I know my actions are likely to kill someone, and then I perform those actions, obviously I've intentionally killed them. They're not the target; they're not the reason for my actions; but they're still intentional.

If I blow up my neighbour's house, my plan to kill him, but I know his family are inside (or even probably inside)...I have intentionally killed them. Plainly.

Sovereign powers have three choices when faced with thugs bent on killing their own people. They can 1) denouce it and apply political pressure 2) ignore it or 3) invade.

You obviously reject 3) and 1) is really all about political posturing - it does not actually change anything. That leaves 2) so you really have no business complaining.

You could only think I was talking about "ignoring it" if you pretended I didn't write the words I actually wrote:

"Intentional, knowing, material support."

That's not "ignoring it"; that's not "looking away." It's direct complicity.

Which begs a couple of questions:

What is it about certain words that render them invisible?

and

Why is terrorism and mass murder not taken more seriously when we are complicit in it? I should think it would elicit outrage at the events, rather than at the reporting of them.

Edited May 27, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Saipan]

Why is terrorism and mass murder not taken more seriously when we are complicit in it?

It is taken very seriously. And you'll be thrown in jail.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Why is terrorism and mass murder not taken more seriously when we are complicit in it? I should think it would elicit outrage at the events, rather than at the reporting of them.

Because it is not legally defined that way. Driving a motor vehicle can and does result in the deaths of other motorists, passengers, bicyclists, and pedestrians, but you are not complicit in vehicular homicide simply by the act of driving. Are the "terrorists" insured and bonded?

[bloodyminded]

Because it is not legally defined that way.

Sure, but we see many of us, maybe most of us, evincing insights all the time, of getting flashes of the world hidden in plain sight all around us. As David Foster Wallace says, the fish saying "This is water, this is water," almost like a revelation.

We can see horrors as manifestly bad. Without effort. So it ultimately shouldn't be too difficult to avoid hypocrisy, occasionally, at least within temporary perceptions...by witnessing the truth that we share common characteristics with our official enemies, and I don't mean in a good way.

Driving a motor vehicle can and does result in the deaths of other motorists, passengers, bicyclists, and pedestrians, but you are not complicit in vehicular homicide simply by the act of driving.

No. But those who do commit to vehicular homicide are complicit. I'm only saying it's not a clear-cut case of "us and them," with us always as the hapless spectators to evil.

Are the "terrorists" insured and bonded?

No doubt there are a few brokers about who specialize in this sort of policy.

[bush_cheney2004]

...We can see horrors as manifestly bad. Without effort. So it ultimately shouldn't be too difficult to avoid hypocrisy, occasionally, at least within temporary perceptions...by witnessing the truth that we share common characteristics with our official enemies, and I don't mean in a good way.

I don't see any inconsistency at that root level...competition for minds and resources is a very old story. There is no ultimate truth since perception and motive always get in the way.

No. But those who do commit to vehicular homicide are complicit. I'm only saying it's not a clear-cut case of "us and them," with us always as the hapless spectators to evil.

Agreed...so I extended this to something most of us do on a daily basis, knowing full well that somebody is gonna die today.

[bloodyminded]

Agreed...so I extended this to something most of us do on a daily basis, knowing full well that somebody is gonna die today.

Yeah, I getcha. My point was that we complain about those who commit vehicular homicide....until someone says, "But it's us too." To which the reply, usually hostile, is "No, no...it's them! And why do you hate yourself?"

(Now, I don't hate myself one bit, but it's pointless to convince someone of such a thing.)

Edited May 27, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah, I getcha. My point was that we complain about those who commit vehicular homicide....until someone says, "But it's us too." To which the reply, usually hostile, is "No, no...it's them! And why do you hate yourself?"

I suppose some people do, but I don't equate vehicular homicide with premeditated murder or even voluntary manslaughter unless other factors are in play (e.g. DWI). The law doesn't either. We had a young woman killed while tending flowers in her yard a few years back...she was killed by a nurse who fell asleep while driving home. She was fined for inattentive driving because she also took out a roadside sign before killing the victim...but no other charges were laid.

Modern life can be deadly...but less so than in the past.....even for terrorists.