World Politics

[The Hitch]

Yet the the religons which continue to play a role in the wars of today, of which I have spoken, are very much a current issue..

As i havent been reading this whole discussion (it is very very very long) could you post the bit about religion and its role in current wars. Just religion and current wars. I am interested to see what conflicts and religions you name. Just out of interest. Thanks.

 

[rhubroma]

As i havent been reading this whole discussion (it is very very very long) could you post the bit about religion and its role in current wars. Just religion and current wars. I am interested to see what conflicts and religions you name. Just out of interest. Thanks.

This is an issue to which Hitch I honestly don't feel up to giving you an adequate response now, partly because of the complexity of the matter, partly because it is so very difficult, in the present moment, to distinguish between the formally religious and the political.

But I have stated previously that Christianity and Islam have always been "political" faiths. And this is where the problem lies. In other words how can we say that when Israelis kill Palestinians and vice versa whether we are talking about religion or the State? Just as it is quite arduous to identify where religion stops and politics begins in the conflict between the West and the Islamic fundamentalists.

All I can say now is that religion can not be dismissed, as it is so rhetorically done by our politicians, as having no bearing on what is taking place. As if Osama bin Laden or George W. would have us believe that Faith has got nothing to do with it. I just don't buy that.

 

[buckwheat]

My point is, he was trying to be Jack...He likely had nothing to do with it except to have it taped for his sexual enjoyment.

The absolute bottom line of this which very few understand.

The object of torture is torture.

hhahaha, no

I don't think you understand the dynamics of human rights abuses

You were talking about my not understanding human rights violations.

I'll beat you to the punch.

Aggressive Narcissisim, lack of empathy.

Now you school me.....If you'd like. As I said, I'll consider anything..I'm all ears.

so, I thought it were about 20 Nazi officials, were all able to hide their insanity? Able to hide it in such a way that 20 different psychologists all came up with the same assessment?

And also first you are laughing at me for not following the assessment of Hannah Arendt and after that you are saying that Hannah Arendt was incorrect? Also Eichmann was no sociopath, he was not out to kill as many people as he could, he was out to kill as many Jews as he could. He was never before, nor since involved in any kind of illegal and harmful behaviour.

Your sentence was a little awkward and that's where I brought up the fact he's no longer with us. And I'm not criticising you on your writing, I recognize that my writing here is awful at times.

I thought it was funny you characterized Arendt as naive. Whether you agree with her conclusions or not is a different matter.

I agree with her partly concerning the great masses of people who went along with the insanity of the leaders and I don't doubt in the least they were insane.

I also agree with her that who the victims were, Jewish people for the most part in this case, didn't really matter to Eichmann. Eichmann was just presented with a situation where the killing of Jewish people was justified and he wholeheartedly followed through. If the same situation arouse where there was some other group that could be victimized, he would have killed members of that group just as easily.

Just as the Green River Killer passed two polygraph examinations before 1987 and was interrogated by police after killing more than 50 women. The guy wasn't apprehended for the murders until 2001 and the police didn't think he was a psychopath before that time when they let him roam free for more than 14 years.

His insanity was inferred and then diagnosed after the extent of his depredations became clear.

With Ted Bundy it was exactly the same thing. The reasons lunatics like these and the Nazi's are able to operated is that they appear to be normal because they are hiding behind a "mask of sanity."

Of course these screwballs have their preferred victims because psychopaths justify their crimes in their own minds.

That doesn't mean that we have to buy into their explanations of why they do what they do.

The fact is that under their preferred circumstances, these people like to kill. That's why they do it.

Back to my original point though. The object of torture is torture.

 

[The Hitch]

First of all

As if Osama bin Laden or George W. would have us believe that Faith has got nothing to do with it

Bin Laden admits in every word he says that religion has absolutely EVERYTHING to do with it.

Secondly

As if Osama bin Laden or George W. would have us believe that Faith has got nothing to do with it. I just don't buy that.

I had a feeling you wouldnt be able to resist. You had to have Bush and Bin Laden in the same sentence.

First of all its ridiculous to say Bush is waging religious war.

Second of all, Bushes own church - The united methodist church strongly opposed every one of Bushes wars.

Thirdly, once again, its ridiculous.

Ok i know what your thinking. Bush made a really stupid comment about God talking to him. He claimed Jesus was his favourite philosopher. And yes Bush sided with the religious right on things like stem cell research. and he recieved donations from some very unpleasant Us pastors. And there are records of a few rogue US soldiers trying (and obviously being very unsuccesful) to convert locals.

But still. Whatever Bush may have done. To compare the religious beliefs of Bush to Bin Laden ? A man who demands total 100% submission to his own beliefs, and wages war on civilization. A man who (According to his own son) has even tortured animals who he believed were Jewish. who has women stoned for not wearing veils. a man who spends every waking hour thinking about how to murder as many innocents as possible in as .Not just Americans, not just Christians, not just Jews, but Shia muslims too. A man behind attacks driving truck bombs into schools because the majority of children in those schools were Shia (not his type of muslim). Who believes he is taking himself to heaven by doing this and believes that God chose him specifically for this task.

Since tff has been gently mocking your" intellectual superiority" (calling you Mr superknowledge etc), and taking into account that its mainly intellectuals who compare Bin Laden to Bush (just like it was mainly intellectuals in the 50's who saw Stalin as the saviuor of humanity) i think its appropraite to paraphrase George Orwell.

"There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them".

 

[Anonymous]

Are you really such a blockhead???? I'm begining to think you are just stupid. You will probably make a fine lawyer however.

Ritual sacrifices have nothing to do with wars of religion. I have always been talking about wars of religion. These were unknown among the polytheists. They only came about with the monotheistic faiths. Got it? And I've never once brought up issues over killing for this reason or that as you have. I do find it as a Westerner the worst type of hypocrisy, however, any killing in the name of the Christ. This, yes, and it took place for centuries. Just as I find it intolerable killing for any reason in the name of God. The world can certainly do without it. Aside from that killing, is killing, is killing.

PS: And as far as being in touch with reality, being involved with the contemporary world, it seems rather ironic to me that you bring up past practices which no longer have any relevance because they have been extinguished from society. Yet the the religions which continue to play a role in the wars of today, of which I have spoken, are very much a current issue. Now whose the one making poor use of knowledge? And I'm just trying to help you with come out of the darkenss, TFF, and into the light.

Its cool, keep throwing out the ad hominem after decrying its usage. I would suggest someone throwing out the term "stupid" who cannot see the irony of that is quite an amusing person indeed.

Hey, just because you have been talking about "wars of religion" doesn't mean that subject has anything to do with my original premise. See that is the problem here.

Let me illustrate: Lets say we were talking about motivations for a murder in which the victim was killed with a purple hammer. You keep going on and on about the historical significance of purple hammers in murder, when clearly that was never the subject of my inquiry. See, here is the rub, you created an argument on something that was no a basis to the premise I originally presented. You keep throwing around your knowledge on a subject that isn't a part of the argument I presented. You originally responded to a comment I made about genocide. However, my point in using that subject was to illustrate that it has occurred in the 20th century under atheist leaders, which was in turn is in relation to my assertion that humans use various excuses to kill others, which in turn relates to my main point, which is and always has been that even in the absence of religion, the history of mankind suggests that slaughter of other humans would have occurred even in the absence of a belief in God. That final thing there, that has always been my point.

You then come in and want to concentrate on a particular aspect, but not my overall proposition. That is because you have a bone to pick, and are going to pick it at the slightest provication because you like to hear yourself talk (or read yourself) because profusion of words obviously gets you off.

For you to come in and throw around "stupid" when you cannot even discern and easily discernible topic, and stick to it is evidence that your education has far surpassed your actual intelligence. You are a cause looking for an outlet. Hey, fine, there are plenty of blowhards out there doing that. You aren't particularly interesting in that regard, and there are plenty of others who are better at it than are you. You have a mutual admiration society of one. Have fun at your party.

 

[Barrus]

I thought it was funny you characterized Arendt as naive. Whether you agree with her conclusions or not is a different matter.

I agree with her partly concerning the great masses of people who went along with the insanity of the leaders and I don't doubt in the least they were insane.

Just as the Green River Killer passed two polygraph examinations before 1987 and was interrogated by police after killing more than 50 women. The guy wasn't apprehended for the murders until 2001 and the police didn't think he was a psychopath before that time when the let him roam free for more than 14 years.

His insanity was inferred and then diagnosed after the extent of his depredations became clear.

With Ted Bundy it was exactly the same thing. The reasons lunatics like these and the Nazi's are able to operated is that they appear to be normal because they are hiding behind a "mask of sanity."

Of course these screwballs have their preferred victims because psychopaths justify their crimes in their own minds.

That doesn't mean that we have to buy into their explanations of why they do what they do.

The quote that you found it funny was before I called her naive. Also with your statement there should be so many psychopaths in these regimes, which is an absolute statistic inpossibility.
The funny thing is, that these psychological profiles were made after the end of the Nazi regime when these persons were already in custody and the extend of the Holocaust was already quite known. The psychologists who reviewed the tests taken by these Nazi leaders were even so convinced that these leaders should be monsters and could not be seen as regular man, that they refused to make the results public for several decades.

There is also a large problem in assessing the dynamics of gross human rights violations with the dynamics of serial killers. Mainly because the dynamics are completely different and the fact that the psychological processes are completely different. Off course there are sadists and sociopaths and psychopaths in many of these instances, however the majority of these people are not. Especially if you consider torture, the original subject of this debate, in many cases it becomes a natural consequence. For examples see one of the altests books on the Stanford prison experiment, and how far they went, or look at the case of the Abu Graibh prison. Off course there are systems of torture in place in certain cases, such as in Greece in the 60s, in Indonesia there was systemic torture for a long while, as was there in certain of the militaristic junta's in South America, but even in most of those cases it was not torture for torture. Hell, even most civilized wester democracies still engage in torture and school their soldiers on torture

 

[buckwheat]

The quote that you found it funny was before I called her naive. Also with your statement there should be so many psychopaths in these regimes, which is an absolute statistic inpossibility.
The funny thing is, that these psychological profiles were made after the end of the Nazi regime when these persons were already in custody and the extend of the Holocaust was already quite known. The psychologists who reviewed the tests taken by these Nazi leaders were even so convinced that these leaders should be monsters and could not be seen as regular man, that they refused to make the results public for several decades.

There is also a large problem in assessing the dynamics of gross human rights violations with the dynamics of serial killers. Mainly because the dynamics are completely different and the fact that the psychological processes are completely different. Off course there are sadists and sociopaths and psychopaths in many of these instances, however the majority of these people are not. Especially if you consider torture, the original subject of this debate, in many cases it becomes a natural consequence. For examples see one of the altests books on the Stanford prison experiment, and how far they went, or look at the case of the Abu Graibh prison. Off course there are systems of torture in place in certain cases, such as in Greece in the 60s, in Indonesia there was systemic torture for a long while, as was there in certain of the militaristic junta's in South America, but even in most of those cases it was not torture for torture. Hell, even most civilized wester democracies still engage in torture and school their soldiers on torture

In the book "The Sociopath Next Door" the author claims 4 percent of the population are sociopaths.

I just disagree with you in an absolutely fundamental way.

The psychiatrists analysis show that apart from the millions of victims, the perps were normal?

Well ok..

As for the distinction between serial killers, and genocidal maniacs, it's just a different "flavor" of insanity. The bottom line is, when the situation meets their criteria, each group likes killing people.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mask_of_Sanity



Cleckley describes the psychopathic person as outwardly a perfect mimic of a normally functioning person, able to mask or disguise the fundamental lack of internal personality structure, an internal chaos that results in repeatedly purposeful destructive behavior, often more self-destructive than destructive to others. Despite the seemingly sincere, intelligent, even charming external presentation, internally the psychopathic person does not have the ability to experience genuine emotions. Cleckley questions whether this mask of sanity is voluntarily assumed intentionally to hide the lack of internal structure, or if the mask hides a serious, but yet unidentified, psychiatric defect.[3]

 

[buckwheat]

Its cool, keep throwing out the ad hominem after decrying its usage. I would suggest someone throwing out the term "stupid" who cannot see the irony of that is quite an amusing person indeed.

Hey, just because you have been talking about "wars of religion" doesn't mean that subject has anything to do with my original premise. See that is the problem here.

Let me illustrate: Lets say we were talking about motivations for a murder in which the victim was killed with a purple hammer. You keep going on and on about the historical significance of purple hammers in murder, when clearly that was never the subject of my inquiry. See, here is the rub, you created an argument on something that was no a basis to the premise I originally presented. You keep throwing around your knowledge on a subject that isn't a part of the argument I presented. You originally responded to a comment I made about genocide. However, my point in using that subject was to illustrate that it has occurred in the 20th century under atheist leaders, which was in turn is in relation to my assertion that humans use various excuses to kill others, which in turn relates to my main point, which is and always has been that even in the absence of religion, the history of mankind suggests that slaughter of other humans would have occurred even in the absence of a belief in God. That final thing there, that has always been my point.

You then come in and want to concentrate on a particular aspect, but not my overall proposition. That is because you have a bone to pick, and are going to pick it at the slightest provication because you like to hear yourself talk (or read yourself) because profusion of words obviously gets you off.

For you to come in and throw around "stupid" when you cannot even discern and easily discernible topic, and stick to it is evidence that your education has far surpassed your actual intelligence. You are a cause looking for an outlet. Hey, fine, there are plenty of blowhards out there doing that. You aren't particularly interesting in that regard, and there are plenty of others who are better at it than are you. You have a mutual admiration society of one. Have fun at your party.

True.......

 

[buckwheat]

First of all





Bin Laden admits in every word he says that religion has absolutely EVERYTHING to do with it.

Secondly

I had a feeling you wouldnt be able to resist. You had to have Bush and Bin Laden in the same sentence.

First of all its ridiculous to say Bush is waging religious war.

Second of all, Bushes own church - The united methodist church strongly opposed every one of Bushes wars.

Thirdly, once again, its ridiculous.

Ok i know what your thinking. Bush made a really stupid comment about God talking to him. He claimed Jesus was his favourite philosopher. And yes Bush sided with the religious right on things like stem cell research. and he recieved donations from some very unpleasant Us pastors. And there are records of a few rogue US soldiers trying (and obviously being very unsuccesful) to convert locals.

But still. Whatever Bush may have done. To compare the religious beliefs of Bush to Bin Laden ? A man who demands total 100% submission to his own beliefs, and wages war on civilization. A man who (According to his own son) has even tortured animals who he believed were Jewish. who has women stoned for not wearing veils. a man who spends every waking hour thinking about how to murder as many innocents as possible in as .Not just Americans, not just Christians, not just Jews, but Shia muslims too. A man behind attacks driving truck bombs into schools because the majority of children in those schools were Shia (not his type of muslim). Who believes he is taking himself to heaven by doing this and believes that God chose him specifically for this task.

Since tff has been gently mocking your" intellectual superiority" (calling you Mr superknowledge etc), and taking into account that its mainly intellectuals who compare Bin Laden to Bush (just like it was mainly intellectuals in the 50's who saw Stalin as the saviuor of humanity) i think its appropraite to paraphrase George Orwell.

"There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them".

Please! GWB has done a wonderful job creating a perverted brand of Christianity, completely at odds with well, Christianity, to justify murder.

The Manning Memo clearly indicates GWB lied to start a war and the planning of that war was on the table from the late '90's.

The higher Father told him to start a war?

Having fire dropped on you, or a cluster bomb, for absolutely no good reason whatsoever is just as terrible a way to die as from a car bomb.

The torture was justified all the way from the top, as GWB just admitted himself.

 

[buckwheat]

This is an issue to which Hitch I honestly don't feel up to giving you an adequate response now, partly because of the complexity of the matter, partly because it is so very difficult, in the present moment, to distinguish between the formally religious and the political.

But I have stated previously that Christianity and Islam have always been "political" faiths. And this is where the problem lies. In other words how can we say that when Israelis kill Palestinians and vice versa whether we are talking about religion or the State? Just as it is quite arduous to identify where religion stops and politics begins in the conflict between the West and the Islamic fundamentalists.

All I can say now is that religion can not be dismissed, as it is so rhetorically done by our politicians, as having no bearing on what is taking place. As if Osama bin Laden or George W. would have us believe that Faith has got nothing to do with it. I just don't buy that.

I'll define it for you.

Any warring by a Christian is a deviation from Christian values or precepts.

 

[Barrus]

In the book "The Sociopath Next Door" the author claims 4 percent of the population are sociopaths.

I just disagree with you in an absolutely fundamental way.

The psychiatrists analysis show that apart from the millions of victims, the perps were normal?

Well ok..

As for the distinction between serial killers, and genocidal maniacs, it's just a different "flavor" of insanity. The bottom line is, when the situation meets their criteria, each group likes killing people.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mask_of_Sanity



Cleckley describes the psychopathic person as outwardly a perfect mimic of a normally functioning person, able to mask or disguise the fundamental lack of internal personality structure, an internal chaos that results in repeatedly purposeful destructive behavior, often more self-destructive than destructive to others. Despite the seemingly sincere, intelligent, even charming external presentation, internally the psychopathic person does not have the ability to experience genuine emotions. Cleckley questions whether this mask of sanity is voluntarily assumed intentionally to hide the lack of internal structure, or if the mask hides a serious, but yet unidentified, psychiatric defect.[3]

Still there is little to no evidence that genocidal maniacs are insane. With the exception perhaps of certain of the leaders of the genocide the majority are completely sane most studies show. There is also the fact that many genocidal leaders, or high level, mid-level or low level perpetrators in a genocide or in most human rights abuses do not enjoy the killig. This is something that inherently flaws your statement.

Also the fact is that most do not engage in purposeful destructive behaviour, most have no criminal records, or any history of any violence or anything against fellow human beings. Nor any indication of any such thing, most of those do not commit further crimes after the end of such a genocide. So by following your reasoning they only display the elements of being a psychopath during a genocide and never before, nor after.

 

[buckwheat]

Still there is little to no evidence that genocidal maniacs are insane. With the exception perhaps of certain of the leaders of the genocide the majority are completely sane most studies show. There is also the fact that many genocidal leaders, or high level, mid-level or low level perpetrators in a genocide or in most human rights abuses do not enjoy the killig. This is something that inherently flaws your statement.

Also the fact is that most do not engage in purposeful destructive behaviour, most have no criminal records, or any history of any violence or anything against fellow human beings. Nor any indication of any such thing, most of those do not commit further crimes after the end of such a genocide. So by following your reasoning they only display the elements of being a psychopath during a genocide and never before, nor after.

Genocide being an indicator of insanity is a reliable tautology.

Apparently you and others disagree.

We're also speaking in very gross, subjective terms about the creation of behaviors that have specific causes.

I disagree with most of your assertions above btw.

For example:

"Most have no criminal records."

Do you really believe the above statement means much of anything? It only means they haven't been detected, until they were uhh, detected....

Evidently the selection process of the Nazi's picked the right guy in regards to Eichmann. Maybe nuts know how to seek each other out?

I'd also say that as a rule; all leaders of genocidal regimes enjoy killing and torturing. As you go down the organizational chart, the enjoyment decreases percentage wise.

 

[Barrus]

Genocide being an indicator of insanity is a reliable tautology.

Apparently you and others disagree.

We're also speaking in very gross, subjective terms about the creation of behaviors that have specific causes.

I disagree with most of your assertions above btw.

For example:

"Most have no criminal records."

Do you really believe the above statement means much of anything? It only means they haven't been detected, until they were uhh, detected....

Did you also read, or no other history? Let me put it differently, there is no indication of any other behaviour that would warrant their assesment as a psychopath. No such behaviour before, nor after. Also if you take genocide into account, the most genocides and especially the leaders operate in such a manner which is opposite of the behaviour of a psychopath

Also in what way would genocide be an indicator of insanity. In that way you asses the action to asses that it is an action of an insane person. In such a way just the existence of a gnocide means that those who instigated it are insane. However there is no literature which support your argument. Also the original argument was not solely about genocide but about most gross human rights violations

@ the last thing you edited, actually most genocidal leaders are abhorrent to killing and especially torture. They would never do this by their own hand and ensure most of the time it is done somewhere where they do not need to witness it at all.

 

[rhubroma]

First of all





Bin Laden admits in every word he says that religion has absolutely EVERYTHING to do with it.

Secondly

I had a feeling you wouldnt be able to resist. You had to have Bush and Bin Laden in the same sentence.

First of all its ridiculous to say Bush is waging religious war.

Second of all, Bushes own church - The united methodist church strongly opposed every one of Bushes wars.

Thirdly, once again, its ridiculous.

Ok i know what your thinking. Bush made a really stupid comment about God talking to him. He claimed Jesus was his favourite philosopher. And yes Bush sided with the religious right on things like stem cell research. and he recieved donations from some very unpleasant Us pastors. And there are records of a few rogue US soldiers trying (and obviously being very unsuccesful) to convert locals.

But still. Whatever Bush may have done. To compare the religious beliefs of Bush to Bin Laden ? A man who demands total 100% submission to his own beliefs, and wages war on civilization. A man who (According to his own son) has even tortured animals who he believed were Jewish. who has women stoned for not wearing veils. a man who spends every waking hour thinking about how to murder as many innocents as possible in as .Not just Americans, not just Christians, not just Jews, but Shia muslims too. A man behind attacks driving truck bombs into schools because the majority of children in those schools were Shia (not his type of muslim). Who believes he is taking himself to heaven by doing this and believes that God chose him specifically for this task.

Since tff has been gently mocking your" intellectual superiority" (calling you Mr superknowledge etc), and taking into account that its mainly intellectuals who compare Bin Laden to Bush (just like it was mainly intellectuals in the 50's who saw Stalin as the saviuor of humanity) i think its appropraite to paraphrase George Orwell.

"There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them".

Come to think of it my quote was silly and came across not as I had intended it probably because I hadn't thought it through well enough first.

What I meant was that the Western political and intellectual pundits would have us believe that there is not a clash of civilizations between the Judeo-Christian and Islamic worlds in course of action.

While this may be the politically correct message to pass on, it has no basis in reality. True, for Osama and the Islamisists, this has indeed always overtly been about religion. The lines blur, however, in an insidious fashion when we talk about the neocon agenda. Though to say religion's got absolutely nothing to do with it, in light of all those things Bush had said that you mention, or in view of an inreased Christian funadamentalist sentiment guiding some of the US military leadership who actually believe they're on a Divine mission, is I think frankly naive at best. At worse it refuses to cast light upon and open a serious critical debate regarding the role that religious belief plays in US politics and the military.

To confound matters further their are also ideological and of course economic forces at work, which are probably, even among the Muslims, decisive determinants in the Clash of Cultures.

Like I said this is a complex issue that needs serious consideration before forming an adequate analysis. I seriously doubt here will be the place to get it done.

 

[rhubroma]

Its cool, keep throwing out the ad hominem after decrying its usage...

Not to be petty but I seem to recall having my arguments been called all manner of things buy you, without you actually offering any arguments to the contrary. This is by nature an ad hominem attack. At no time did I not back my things with evidence and data, thus I was not addressing you in ad homenim fashion.

Lastly I also seem to recall having been refered to as an "academic douchebag," so forgive me if afterward the term "stupid" was mentioned.

TFF I see a rather childish intellect who simply needs to grow up. When you do come back and we can have a civil debate. As for the rest I'll leave it up for others to judge on the merits of what was said be me and by you. Clearly you find yourself quite clever, though your points amount to factual nonsense and logic bizzare.

 

[buckwheat]

Did you also read, or no other history? Let me put it differently, there is no indication of any other behaviour that would warrant their assesment as a psychopath. No such behaviour before, nor after. Also if you take genocide into account, the most genocides and especially the leaders operate in such a manner which is opposite of the behaviour of a psychopath

Also in what way would genocide be an indicator of insanity. In that way you asses the action to asses that it is an action of an insane person. In such a way just the existence of a gnocide means that those who instigated it are insane. However there is no literature which support your argument. Also the original argument was not solely about genocide but about most gross human rights violations

@ the last thing you edited, actually most genocidal leaders are abhorrent to killing and especially torture. They would never do this by their own hand and ensure most of the time it is done somewhere where they do not need to witness it at all.

The proof is in the pudding.

"Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac."

Did K literally have any blood on his hands? Does it matter? Did his power contribute to his ability to have sexual enjoyment?

Regarding the bolded portion at the end. To put it mildly, there is a disconnect somewhere......

You do realize that psychopaths are master manipulators? Whether they're directly killing someone or having someone else carry out the act is largely irrelevant to them, because everything and everyone else is an inanimate object to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia

 

[Anonymous]

Not to be petty but I seem to recall having my arguments been called all manner of things buy you, without you actually offering any arguments to the contrary. This is by nature an ad hominem attack. At no time did I not back my things with evidence and data, thus I was not addressing you in ad homenim fashion.

Lastly I also seem to recall having been refered to as an "academic douchebag," so forgive me if afterward the term "stupid" was mentioned.

TFF I see a rather childish intellect who simply needs to grow up. When you do come back and we can have a civil debate. As for the rest I'll leave it up for others to judge on the merits of what was said be me and by you. Clearly you find yourself quite clever, though your points amount to factual nonsense and logic bizzare.

Oh, its clear that your narrative precludes the possibility you aren't right about something. I see a rather childish ego who simply needs his own voice to confirm that which he believes about himself. Clearly you find yourself quite intelligent, though you never seem to need to actually address the issue presented, and prefer to tangentally pursue that which fits your overall narative instead of entertaining that your little theories don't explain everything in relation to larger concepts. I get it, you don't need to keep proving anything.

It is all there for everyone to judge, and most people don't make it through your verbal diarrhea because they recognize the bloviations of someone who has spent a bit too long in a classroom. Those who can't do, teach.

Oh, as for ad hominem, clearly you can never be wrong about anything, but I would suggest that definition 2 is easily discernable from your writings. Maybe if you write a thesis on it, you will see the possibility...then again, you will probably go off on a tangent about the prefix for pages and pages and never really address the actual point.

 

[auscyclefan94]

just from reading the past few pages of posts, american politics is seriously screwed up.

 

[Anonymous]

True.......

I like you again today, wanna date?

 

[Anonymous]

just from reading the past few pages of posts, american politics is seriously screwed up.

Every countries' politics is screwed up. It is kind of inherent to the topic.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Every countries' politics is screwed up. It is kind of inherent to the topic.

maybe so, but it seems america is more screwed up (some of that would be to do with them being the most powerful country)

 

[Anonymous]

maybe so, but it seems america is more screwed up (some of that would be to do with them being the most powerful country)

And some of it is due to no separation of corporations and state.

 

[rhubroma]

Oh, its clear that your narrative precludes the possibility you aren't right about something. I see a rather childish ego who simply needs his own voice to confirm that which he believes about himself. Clearly you find yourself quite intelligent, though you never seem to need to actually address the issue presented, and prefer to tangentally pursue that which fits your overall narative instead of entertaining that your little theories don't explain everything in relation to larger concepts. I get it, you don't need to keep proving anything.

It is all there for everyone to judge, and most people don't make it through your verbal diarrhea because they recognize the bloviations of someone who has spent a bit too long in a classroom. Those who can't do, teach.

Oh, as for ad hominem, clearly you can never be wrong about anything, but I would suggest that definition 2 is easily discernable from your writings. Maybe if you write a thesis on it, you will see the possibility...then again, you will probably go off on a tangent about the prefix for pages and pages and never really address the actual point.

Oh come on TFF, is that all you can come back with? Like I said it's one thing to be clever, entirely something else to have something actually to say.

In any event keep going with your rather adolescent attacks on my persona, the merits of my intellect, my failure in life to do anything but teach, etc., etc. I don't mind. While I do see someone in you, and this is a bit disconcerting, who is desperately seaking approval, confirmation and recognition and who is terribly insecure about whether or not he will be looked toward by others with respect. I can only hope that when you become a professional that you remember (in the Christian spirit of course) that you will be at the service of trying to see justice done. That's no small thing, TFF. And since this question of justice in today's world is a very grave thing indeed, your vitriol against me is particularly unbecoming in the light of the civility of your future career. The graver and humanly arduous something is, the more that the tone of one's discussion should also be grave ("gravitas" is a virtue, and at once a rhetorical tone, which can't be reconciled with shouts and superficiality). Words, when hurled in noisy attacks, are left in the end weakened and their cause dishonered.

Ciao.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh come on TFF, is that all you can come back with? Like I said it's one thing to be clever, entirely something else to have something actually to say.

In any event keep going with your rather adolescent attacks on my persona, the merits of my intellect, my failure in life to do anything but teach, etc., etc. I don't mind. While I do see someone in you, and this is a bit disconcerting, who is desperately seaking approval, confirmation and recognition and who is terribly insecure about whether or not he will be looked toward by others with respect. I can only hope that when you become a professional that you remember (in the Christian spirit of course) that you will be at the service of trying to see justice done. That's no small thing, TFF. And since this question of justice in today's world is a very grave thing indeed, your vitriol against me is particularly unbecoming in the light of the civility of your future career. The graver and humanly arduous something is, the more that the tone of one's discussion should also be grave ("gravitas" is a virtue, and at once a rhetorical tone, which can't be reconciled with shouts and superficiality). Words, when hurled in noisy attacks, are left in the end weakened and their cause dishonered.

Ciao.

I'll leave a quarter on the coffee table for the psychoanalysis.

Anyway, if I need a lecture on justice, I will consult someone else. Thanks though.

You chose to ignore my point at every opportunity, and instead engage in a diatribe devoid of content relating to my original premise, that being that blaming religion for slaughter is to ignore that slaughter would have happened in the absence of religion, thereby leading anyone actually looking at the subject to determine that the current atheist bent on continually placing the blame for atrocity at the feet of religion as being misplaced in the larger context of human motivation for action. Sorry, but you chose to continue to hammer a point that had nothing to do with what I was talking about. (and on several instances severely overstated your point) You also engage in those things you obviously fault me for, and I can only hope that you read your own words with an eye to those things about yourself you might not want to acknowledge.

Past that, I generally have no problem with you. I agree with much of what you say. On the subject of religion, I very much believe that your bias has caused you to pursue theories that validate that underlying narrative to the exclusion that quite possibly, your focus is too narrowly construed.

And the comment about teachers was just me being a d!ck. I was a teacher.

Toodles!

 

[The Hitch]

just from reading the past few pages of posts, american politics is seriously screwed up.

Funny. These last few pages are some of the few pages in this thread which ARENT about American politics

Every countries' politics is screwed up. It is kind of inherent to the topic.

Yes and no. American politics is very very different to everywhere else. Not neccesarily mesed up. Depends on your interpretation. On some things it is superior, such as having the constitution promise free speech and religion.

Firstly the hype.

The political coverage is so lucrative, its like a sport. Millions of dollars in it.

Things like polls. the power it has. Other countries are now trying to copy this. Namely britain. the idea of using polls so much in politics. Only in America could you ruin a candidates career by publishing a poll. Look at the iowa caucuses. 5 days before the new hampshire primary Romney is up. Hes going to win New Hampshire, and bizzarely, because of that, hes going to win the candidacy. Then he loses the Iowa caucus. Essentially, a few thousand people borrowing an electoral system from ancient indian customs, narrowly give Mike Huckabee more electoral votes than Romney. Then the media comes out and says "Romney has lost the big mo", and people 2000 miles away in New Hampshire change their votes based on this

And as a result of that, the whole of America changes its votes. Everyone looks at Iowa and New Hampshire. Not just the Gop. Hillary had the nomination all sowed up until Iowa gave Obama the big mo. All of a sudden millions of people across america are now changing their votes. Why? In these days the candidates changed in absolutely no way. they were the same candidates.
because the media says one candidate has momentum.

And even more bizzarely, 3 months earlier Giullini was leading but a few polls put him down and he went from being presidential favourite to total no hoper.

Then theres the elction coverage. Its all here and now, looking for any scandal. I always thing theres something wrong with American elections where the networks " call " a state for a candidate, after 2% of the votes have been counted.
The networks actually pay millions and millions and millions to send pollsters into key precincts, conduct interviews, then send this info to experts and historians, who use it, together with looking at historical electoral patterns, all so that the network will be able to say "ABC projects that Pennsylvania will go to the republicans". Is it really so important to know which way a state voted 5 hours before the official results?

On the + side the huge media hype, does possibly increase voter participation. 60% may seem low but its higher than many countries. Unfortunately many of these people

Caucuses is another thing messed up with american politics. I know its rare but its SOO undemocratic.

Secondly the depth of ideology in americas

This is the biggest problem. That America, a country of 300 million people, so diverse and important, a country with every race, every religion, every political ideolofy, has a total 2 party system. Total. And hence you have the gop being forced to play for the far right and the centre. the Democrats playing for the far left and the centre. In essence you have about 100 different parties merged into 2. And as a result candidates have to lie. Theres no other option. You have to tell 1 wing that you oppose abortion, and another that your open about it. You have

its not just the electoral system which makes it such, its just the way it has played over history. Now you have a country of 300 million very very different people, far right and far left, being essentially played for by 2 organisations.

As a result you have so so so so so much hate. and as a result of that people blind themseles COMPLETELY to opposite views. I have seen it time and time again. Why is it that the worst demagogues possible are so populat in America. The People like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Micahel Moore, Olbermann, Rush Limbaugh, Janeane Garofalo, Anne Coulter etc etc. I was not remotely surprised that michael moore and sean hannity are very close friends. I bet they meet up often and laugh out loud for hours at how they can get away with it.


Because people are grouped into Liberals (not really liberals, just what they are called) and Conservatives. The liberals look at the conservatives, see them as a opposite ideology, see them very often as more stupid (when i used to watch Bill Maher, he justified half his arguments by simply saying, oh look, the republicans in mississipi are evangelicals. Therefore we must be right on everything). As a result, they refuse to take into account

The conservatives the same. The conservatives see being "liberal" ie open minded as a dirty word. Everything and any argument against their position will be met with

Of course there are millions of people in between the 2 versions of liberal and conservative that i have depicted and im sure many of you fit in there. But the more extreme conservatives are the ones who have the radio shows, fox news, and who get coverage for attending protests, work behind the scenes in elections, have interest groups, vote in higher numbers. Similarly the more extreme liberals are the ones who have hollywood and all the other cable news channels work behind the scenes in elections, have interest groups, vote in higher numbers.