c: Needless to say I totally disagree. Only the most pessimistic person can say what we're doing in Iraq (and Afghanistan) is making the world worse off.
M: The say a pessimist is often an optimist with extra information. This man has way way more information than you or me, I think
Jerome: I guess me -and millions of others- can't disagree with him, sorry.
M: Sure you can disagree but your opinion ain't worth spit cause you don't know much and you don't argue for your case. You just pronounce it as if that meant something.
--------------
c: I just don't understand how anyone can think that trying to help establish democratic nations with increased freedom and tolerance is a bad thing.
M: Here you leave off the method by which it's done. You make two unproven and unargued assumptions, 1 that democracy is good, and 2. that it doesn't matter how it is instituted.
Jerome: This is an informal forum right? I didn't think it necessary to add a full argument for every premise, this isn't a dissertation, and neither are any other posts at this website. If you want to debate whether democracy is better than dictatorship or religious authoritarianism then we can... make a new topic.
M: Hehe, right. You get all pissed off when people shine on your absurd pronouncements as if they were some holy truth but you just babble in platitudes. "I don't understand how anybody could think trying to help establishing democracy with blah blah blah is a bad thing." Well I do and it's because I don't make the absurd mind clouding assumptions that you do. I ask basic questions at the core of issues and try to understand things deep. Your arguments are preposterous to me because they are shallow. You rest your case on millions of unexamined assumptions I do not share. You have all the answers where I have questions.
c: How it's instituted... hmm. What do you mean? You may think was wrong to go into Iraq, so explain what would be a proper way to institute democracy- that would actually work. I think we had every justification and we are doing a relatively good job considering the enormous challenges we face. Nothing's pretty or easy about it, and to try and pretend it can be done peacefully and they are going to be just like America is asking the impossible. They are just starting out, and they're on the right track. Given the context, we have been remarkably successful.
M: Not much point in bringing democracy to people you kill doing it or who don't want it.
===============
c: Of course it's hard, and of course there's various low-lifes who don't want to see that happen. It will be a long, difficult process but it's a start.
M: Why is it hard, whose fault if anybody's is that? How do you justify the bigoted use of the term low-lifes to tar a group of people? How do you know it's not gonna be easy like the Neocons originally thought? It only recently because (edit: become) hard; maybe it will be easy again tomorrow no?
Jerome: Why is it hard? Because they have been under a dictatorship for 30 years.
M:hey they should be ripe for democracy, no?
Jerome: Because their society is struggling and there are a bunch of low-lifes making things even worse. Who's fault is that? Saddam, the low-lifes, the international community including the US... who do you think is at fault?
M: I'm not thinking anybody's at fault. I'm analyzing your assumptions. You make them one after the other, these pronouncements of golden truth that are nothing but opinion.
Jerome: And why are we dwelling on blame when we should be looking for solutions. I also have a hard time remembering many people saying this was going to be a cakewalk.
M: Oh I remember it was gonna be a cake walk and we would be welcomed with open arms. And we are not blaming we are analyzing assumptions.
========
c: The world is too small and too connected, and what happens there affects us.
M: Just rhetoric, you offer no proof. Small and connected could mean actually the opposite.
Jerome: I would argue that the world is getting "smaller" in many ways and has been for literally 100s of years. We are more connected with the world, interdependent, and the good old days of isolationism is way past. When one region's economy stumbles, we feel it. When one region breeds a culture of intolerance and hate we see -and feel- the results. I'm sorry moonbeam, but this is common sense... it seems to me you're just being argumentative. Trying to disect every line is pretty disengenuous considering yesterday you equated me to the Taliban.
M: You make the absurd assumption that if the world is smaller and more interconnected that that some how allows you to stick your nose in things that have an effect on you. That would be like India Bombing Hollywood because our films are giving Indian youth the wrong message. You make the assumption that you are emperor of the world and can make moral decisions for other people. Taliban sounds about right.
============
c: There's a lot of people over there who are against democracy, free markets, civil rights, pluralism, etc... and their hateful, primitive ideology is creating major security problems for the US and the rest of the world. We can bomb them all into the stone age, or we can try and help them into the Enlightenment. We can go forward or backward.
M: But our primitive culture is bombing them back to the stone age now. You make the unproven assumption that your culture is better than theirs. No culture on earth is any different. Theirs is infinitely superior to yours in their opinion. Show me how we determine who has the best culture. Remember what Gandhi said when asked about western civilization.
Jerome: I do not believe our culture is primitive, and saying we are bombing them into the stone age is simply ridiculous.
M: More absurd opinion. I do believe that, so there.
Jerome: I believe all cultures are not created equal, that some ideas, beliefs and principles are better than others, and on the scale of things ours is advanced, not primitive.
M: That's just f*cking wonderful you feel that way. But you offer no proof and don't explain how and where. You kill people because you think your opinion is better? What kind of morality is that?
Jerome: We are targeting insurgents and terrorists while trying to REBUILD the infrastructure and society as best we and them can. If our plan was to bomb them into the stone age we would have no troops and contractors and we'd be carpet bombing every square mile. What you say is baseless.
M: Really? Who do we target and who do we hit?
Jerome: I can see why you'd make the comments you have, considering you are a cultural relativist who thinks slavery is no worse than freedom.
M: Hehe, and you really thought you wanted or were capable of a logical and intelligent conversation. All I have done is challenge your assumptions to show you they are built on sand because you simply state and assume. Anybody, ANYBODY, can do that. You have no idea if I am a cultural relativist. I am not.
Jerome: It is had to argue with someone who cannot make value judgements, because how am I to show any actions or words are good or bad when "good" and "bad" aren't in your vocabulary?
M: Yes exactly. How are you going to show me what is bad and good when you haven't the faintest idea. With you everything is unexamined assumptions you never question because you are filled with certainty. Along comes the question man and you fall apart complaining how hard I am to argue with.
What you call common knowledge I call garbage. Real knowledge and wisdom are as rare as anything I've ever seen. Sorry! The reason I'm difficult to argue with is because I know vastly less than you.
M: The say a pessimist is often an optimist with extra information. This man has way way more information than you or me, I think
Jerome: I guess me -and millions of others- can't disagree with him, sorry.
M: Sure you can disagree but your opinion ain't worth spit cause you don't know much and you don't argue for your case. You just pronounce it as if that meant something.
--------------
c: I just don't understand how anyone can think that trying to help establish democratic nations with increased freedom and tolerance is a bad thing.
M: Here you leave off the method by which it's done. You make two unproven and unargued assumptions, 1 that democracy is good, and 2. that it doesn't matter how it is instituted.
Jerome: This is an informal forum right? I didn't think it necessary to add a full argument for every premise, this isn't a dissertation, and neither are any other posts at this website. If you want to debate whether democracy is better than dictatorship or religious authoritarianism then we can... make a new topic.
M: Hehe, right. You get all pissed off when people shine on your absurd pronouncements as if they were some holy truth but you just babble in platitudes. "I don't understand how anybody could think trying to help establishing democracy with blah blah blah is a bad thing." Well I do and it's because I don't make the absurd mind clouding assumptions that you do. I ask basic questions at the core of issues and try to understand things deep. Your arguments are preposterous to me because they are shallow. You rest your case on millions of unexamined assumptions I do not share. You have all the answers where I have questions.
c: How it's instituted... hmm. What do you mean? You may think was wrong to go into Iraq, so explain what would be a proper way to institute democracy- that would actually work. I think we had every justification and we are doing a relatively good job considering the enormous challenges we face. Nothing's pretty or easy about it, and to try and pretend it can be done peacefully and they are going to be just like America is asking the impossible. They are just starting out, and they're on the right track. Given the context, we have been remarkably successful.
M: Not much point in bringing democracy to people you kill doing it or who don't want it.
===============
c: Of course it's hard, and of course there's various low-lifes who don't want to see that happen. It will be a long, difficult process but it's a start.
M: Why is it hard, whose fault if anybody's is that? How do you justify the bigoted use of the term low-lifes to tar a group of people? How do you know it's not gonna be easy like the Neocons originally thought? It only recently because (edit: become) hard; maybe it will be easy again tomorrow no?
Jerome: Why is it hard? Because they have been under a dictatorship for 30 years.
M:hey they should be ripe for democracy, no?
Jerome: Because their society is struggling and there are a bunch of low-lifes making things even worse. Who's fault is that? Saddam, the low-lifes, the international community including the US... who do you think is at fault?
M: I'm not thinking anybody's at fault. I'm analyzing your assumptions. You make them one after the other, these pronouncements of golden truth that are nothing but opinion.
Jerome: And why are we dwelling on blame when we should be looking for solutions. I also have a hard time remembering many people saying this was going to be a cakewalk.
M: Oh I remember it was gonna be a cake walk and we would be welcomed with open arms. And we are not blaming we are analyzing assumptions.
========
c: The world is too small and too connected, and what happens there affects us.
M: Just rhetoric, you offer no proof. Small and connected could mean actually the opposite.
Jerome: I would argue that the world is getting "smaller" in many ways and has been for literally 100s of years. We are more connected with the world, interdependent, and the good old days of isolationism is way past. When one region's economy stumbles, we feel it. When one region breeds a culture of intolerance and hate we see -and feel- the results. I'm sorry moonbeam, but this is common sense... it seems to me you're just being argumentative. Trying to disect every line is pretty disengenuous considering yesterday you equated me to the Taliban.
M: You make the absurd assumption that if the world is smaller and more interconnected that that some how allows you to stick your nose in things that have an effect on you. That would be like India Bombing Hollywood because our films are giving Indian youth the wrong message. You make the assumption that you are emperor of the world and can make moral decisions for other people. Taliban sounds about right.
============
c: There's a lot of people over there who are against democracy, free markets, civil rights, pluralism, etc... and their hateful, primitive ideology is creating major security problems for the US and the rest of the world. We can bomb them all into the stone age, or we can try and help them into the Enlightenment. We can go forward or backward.
M: But our primitive culture is bombing them back to the stone age now. You make the unproven assumption that your culture is better than theirs. No culture on earth is any different. Theirs is infinitely superior to yours in their opinion. Show me how we determine who has the best culture. Remember what Gandhi said when asked about western civilization.
Jerome: I do not believe our culture is primitive, and saying we are bombing them into the stone age is simply ridiculous.
M: More absurd opinion. I do believe that, so there.
Jerome: I believe all cultures are not created equal, that some ideas, beliefs and principles are better than others, and on the scale of things ours is advanced, not primitive.
M: That's just f*cking wonderful you feel that way. But you offer no proof and don't explain how and where. You kill people because you think your opinion is better? What kind of morality is that?
Jerome: We are targeting insurgents and terrorists while trying to REBUILD the infrastructure and society as best we and them can. If our plan was to bomb them into the stone age we would have no troops and contractors and we'd be carpet bombing every square mile. What you say is baseless.
M: Really? Who do we target and who do we hit?
Jerome: I can see why you'd make the comments you have, considering you are a cultural relativist who thinks slavery is no worse than freedom.
M: Hehe, and you really thought you wanted or were capable of a logical and intelligent conversation. All I have done is challenge your assumptions to show you they are built on sand because you simply state and assume. Anybody, ANYBODY, can do that. You have no idea if I am a cultural relativist. I am not.
Jerome: It is had to argue with someone who cannot make value judgements, because how am I to show any actions or words are good or bad when "good" and "bad" aren't in your vocabulary?
M: Yes exactly. How are you going to show me what is bad and good when you haven't the faintest idea. With you everything is unexamined assumptions you never question because you are filled with certainty. Along comes the question man and you fall apart complaining how hard I am to argue with.
What you call common knowledge I call garbage. Real knowledge and wisdom are as rare as anything I've ever seen. Sorry! The reason I'm difficult to argue with is because I know vastly less than you.